5_gettrdoc.pdf

7/28/2019 5_GetTRDoc.pdf

1/64

TOO FAT TO FIGHT -TOO WEAK TO WIN,SOLDIER FITNESSIN THE FUTURE?

A MONOGRAPH BY MajorMark R.Forman Infantry

SchoolofAdvancedMilitaryStudiesUnitedStatesArmyCommandandGeneralStaff

CollegeFortLeavenworth,Kansas

FirstTerm AY 96-97Approvedfo rPublicReleaseDistributionisUnlimited

1 9 9 7 0 5 0 5 1 6 2 mGQj3Mmr OSD


2/64

I , ' o .704-0133;?:t;onmtcrrr->ti't;----'i nt ao.en^e ourcerrescortse,incluainqthe i.nr?torrrtviewim:rmnj-..cnv^^r.:rnM^tirtitatsour, ,iiCn i3v:rrc'':t:".":.''0rvivvirotr.ecrjeaicnotnformation.en dccmrnent5r?a.^r.t:;r.GC'ta jrt?^'.tip--* ? . : . --n v-,--'-'".oeaotsuattLrstH.:-',:.:rr^aucir-r"*ouraen.~ o/.ishinqtonHerjaauartersServices,Oireaorate-ortor-r-jtien ;.: .'.---uior.t.nc"^crTt, .I]zjtt?r;n . "- ^C~ :0?.- . r , Q :-?Ottk;?otMfimc^menfon a3uaqeT. t>Derwcr:


3/64

SCHOOLOFADVANCEDMILITARYSTUDIESM O N O G R A P HAP P ROVAL

MajorMarkR.FormanTitleofMonograph: TooFat ToFight-TooWeakToWin,SoldierFitnessIn The Future?

Approvedby :

Ul-yv~, a\jWilliam J.Gregor,PrfcD. MonographDirector

COLannyMr^ayis,M A ^ M M A S Director,SchoolOfAdvanced Military Studies

pO-fO < / /^rUHAjL^-PhilipJ .Brookes,Ph.D. Director,Graduate DegreeProgram

Acceptedthis22ndDayofJanuary1997


4/64

ABSTRACT TOO FATTO FIGHT-TOO WEAK TOWIN,SOLDIER FITNESSIN THEFUTURE? by MAJ MarkR.Forman,USA,47pages.

ThismonographexaminestherelationshipbetweentheUnitedStatesArmy'sphysicalfitnessprogramand thephysicalcombatreadinessof thecombatarmssoldier.inkingtogether physicalfitnessstandards,physicaltraining,and combatreadinessisaccomplishedusing entrancean dretentionstandards,initialentrytraining(IET),an dunitphysicaltrainingan dtesting.he actualphysicalcombattaskperformancedependson thequalityof thesoldierproducedbythephysicalfitnessprogram. Pastan dpresentphysicalfitnessdoctrineandthephysicalnatureofthecombatenvironmentareexaminedtoprovideatouchstonefo r thereadersinformation.hemonograph thenarguesthattoday'sphysicalfitnessprogramisnotcapableofproducingthecombatarmssoldierstheU.S.Armyrequires.Misconceptionsaboutthepositiveaffectsofmechanization,the

overimportanceofaerobicfitness,femalephysiologicallimitationsand thenegativeaspectsofbodyfa tcomposition,allcontributetoaflawedprogram.Recommendationsfo r theU.S.Armytoovercomethecurrentprogramdeficienciesareto increasetheaccessionstandards,improveorganizationaltrainingan destablishphysicalstandardsbasedon combatrequirements,notgeneralWellness.he conclusionof thismonographisthatonlya threadof linkageexistsbetweentheU.S.Army'sphysicalfitness program an dthecombatarmssoldier'scombatreadiness.trengtheningthelinkageof theprogram totheproductistheke ytofillingthenation'scombatarmswiththemostsurvivable,lethalan dcombatready soldierin thefuture.


5/64

TABLE OFCONTENTS ChapterI- The EvolutionofMilitary PhysicalFitnessChapterII- Military PhysicalFitnessDefinedChapterIII- PhysicalFitnessVersusCombatPerformance6ChapterIV - Analysisan dResults 8ChapterV- Conclusionand RecommendationsEndnotes 8Bibliography 4


6/64

ChapterI.TheEvolution ofMilitaryPhysicalFitnessStripped forthe hardestwork,everymuscle firman d elastic,everyounceofbrainready foruse,an dnotatraceofsuperfluous fleshon hisnervousan d supplebody,the American stood in theworldanew orderofman. ' Henry Adams,1801

Americanmales100yearsago weresubjecttoaharsh,demandingenvironmentthatweededouttheweakan dpromotedphysicaltoughness.he agriculturallybasedeconomyusedphysicallaborsinsteadofmechanicalefforttoproducegoodsan dservices.Today'sAmericanmaleisnotas physically toughas hispredecessor.hesedentarynatureofthepostindustrialag eha screatedasocietylessphysicallyfit.nfortunately,groundcombatha snotbecomelessphysicallydemanding.hi sposesasignificantproblem fo rraisingmodern militaryforces. Developingan effectivephysicalfitnessprogram tocompensatefo rarecruitslackofphysicalpreparationisan importantelementinbuildingasuccessfulfightingforce.

Acomprehensivemilitaryphysicalfitnessprogram wouldhavetoaddressfourdistinctprogram elements:recruitment,retention,evaluationan dtraining.he program wouldbeguidedbystandardsthatensurebothphysicalfitnessan dminimum physicalperformance. Armyregulationand publicla wfo rmilitaryselectiondefinethefirstelement,entrancestandards.he secondelementistheenforcementof individualphysicalretentionstandards.he third,unitphysicaltrainingand testing,isconductedto developan dassessindividualphysicalfitnessfo rretention,promotionand arguably combatreadiness.he finalelementisaminimum standardfo ractualphysicalcombattaskperformance. program thatsuccessfully joinsthefourelementswillenablethe


7/64

Armytodevelopasoldier thatisabletoperform his dutiesandphysically enduretherigorsofcombat.

Despiteover80 yearsofexperience,theU.S.Armyhasneverha daphysicalfitnessprogramthatintegratedphysicalfitnessfo rinductionand physicalperformance requirements.Thephysicalfitnessstandardsfo rinduction,an dretentionhaveevolvedthrough time.hefirstinduction standardsweredesignedtoavoidbringingsickm enintothemilitary.sinductionstandardsevolved,medicalevaluations becamemorestringentand atableofminimum physicalbodydimensionswereenforced.etentionstandardsgrew toincludemaximum standardsfo robesityandtheabilitytoachieveconsistentlya passingscoreon theArmy PhysicalFitnessTest(APFT).Nevertheless,theArmy didnotdevelopasingleprogramdesigned toproducethemostcombatready soldier.

The U.S.Army'sfirstseriousattempttose tinductionstandards camein1916 whentheSelectiveServiceSystem wascreated.lthoughindividualphysicalperformancewouldbe importanton thebattlefield,theinitialattentionwasnecessarily focusedon gettingthequantityofsuitablem en neededtofilltheexpandingArmy.he definitionofsuitableprovedtovaryinaccordance withthequantityofm en needed.

Forexample,entrancestandardshavealwaysincludeda minimum standardfo rheight.nitially,eightwas partofageneralhealthscreeningprocess.hortstaturewasbelievedtoshowalackofwellbeing.arlyinthe19thCentury theminimumheightfo rU.S.soldierswas 66inches.tha sbeenprogressively loweredsince.he minimum heightdippedto60inchesin1864,1918an d1940.he reduction wascausedbythe

2


8/64

needtoexpandthepopulation offightingmanpowerbasedon thedemandsofwar.2 Today,heightstandardsservethepracticalneed(Men:below60inchesor over80 inches;Women:Heightbelow 58inchesor over80 inches3)tolimittherangeofsizesfo runiforms,protectiveensembles,an dworkspacedimensions.

The historyofhow theArmydevelopeditscurrentphysicalstandardsishelpfulto understandtheproblem.rm yphysicalstandardsfo rinductionwereoriginallyse ttoscreenou tsicklysoldierswho wereunabletomeetthephysicaldemandsofmilitary service.hissimplymeant,selectingsoldierswho atleastlookedas thoughtheycouldcarryaloadan dfightwell.espitetheoriginalintent,theresultswerefa rdifferent.GeneralOmarBradleycommentedonhephysicalstateofmany recruitsinWWII:

Therudestshockweexperiencedwiththedrafteeswa sthediscoverythatthey,theprimeyouthof America,weregenerallyinappallingly poorphysicalcondition(...)omeof ourdrafteescouldnotwalkamilewithapackwithoutkeelingover.Mostwereoverweightandsoftasmarshmallows.nly a veryfewwerecapableof thehardsustainedphysicalexertionthatweknewtheywouldexperienceincombat.4 The needtoprocureliterallymillionsofmen tofightWorldW ar II(WWII)inevitably

loweredthestandardsfo rinduction.he Armycouldno taffordtheluxuryof instituting standardsfo robesitynorcoulditseriouslyconsiderusinga physicalfitnesstestfo rscreeningoutsub-standardsoldiers.

Thecomplaintsaboutthephysicalconditionofdrafteescausedthegovernmenttocommissionastudy.r.Gwendolyn Drew,aphysiologistattheUniversity ofPittsburgh,undertookastudyofdrafteefitness.oncludedin1945,Dr.Drew'sstudy showedthatthereha dbeendramaticshortcomings in America'spreparationofyoung


9/64

m enfo rwar.orty-fivepercentofal lselectiveserviceregistrantsattheoutbreak ofWWIIwereunabletomeetinduction standards.Dr.Drew'sstudyshoweddramaticshortcomingsin America'sabilitytopreparepre-draftag eyouthfo rwar.r.Drew alsoobservedhatfollowingeverymajorwar,datingbacktotheRevolutionaryWar,Congresshaddisapprovedbillsseekingappropriationsfo rpre-draftag eyouthphysicaland military training.neachcase,post-warlegislationhad beeninitiatedtoremedy thepoorconditionofdraftees.5

TheArmy'sprincipalconcernremainedinduction standardsuntiltheen dofthedraftin1973.he use ofdrafteeshadforcedtheArmy notonlytocontinuouslyselectnew drafteesfo rinductionbutalsohadensuredthatalargeportionof theArmy wouldbeseparatedaftertw oyearsofservice.Withtheendofthedraft,retention offi tsoldiersbecamemoreimportant.One of thefirstretentionissueswas obesity.ollowingWWI Imostoftheattentiontoheight-weightrelationships was directedatunderweightsoldiers.M en lessthan10 5poundswereexcludedfrom militaryservice.verweightwasnotafixedcriterion.TheArmy askedthattheexaminingphysician todetermine whethertheinducteesconditionwasoverweight.fan inductee'sbodyfa tan dappearancewas greatlyou tofproportiontotheirheightor interferedwithnormalphysicalactivityhe was notaccepted.he examiningphysiciancouldacceptanapparently overweightrecruit,if inhis opinion,thevariationwascorrectablewithpropernutritionand physicalconditioning.6ntheearly1960s,theArmy adoptedaccessionstandards establishing minimum and maximumweightsfo rheight.


10/64

In1976 theArmyplacedgreateremphasison overweightan dfatnesswhenthey publishednew retentionstandards.ntil1976,bodyweightwas ascreeningtoolthatexcludedonlytheextremesofunderweightan dobesity.oday,bodyweightan dbody fa tstandardsaretheonlyphysicalstandardsusedthatexcludeor eliminatesoldiers baseduponsomerelationshiptocombatreadinessan dmilitaryappearance.7 Althoughbodyfa tcorrelatespoorly withphysicalperformance,itis ,nevertheless,usedasasurrogatemeasureofphysicalfitness.ea nsoldierslookmorephysicallyfi tthanlarge,fa tsoldiers.he1976versionofArmyRegulation(AR)600-9combinedthephysicalfitnessan dweightcontrolprogram regulations,an dcreatedstringentheight-weightretentionstandardsfo ractivedutysoldiers.8he statedemphasisoftheregulationwasphysicalfitness.Weightcontrolan dmilitaryappearancewereseentobe relatedto physicalperformance.

In1980,PresidentCarterinitiatedanassessmentofmilitaryphysicalfitnessprograms. panelofgovernmentscientistsconductedareviewand in1981,theDepartmentofDefense(DOD)issueddirective1308.1carryingou tthepanel'srecommendations.9heDODdirectivespecifiedthatretentionstandardsarebasedon screeningweighttables.hefinalretentiondeterminationswerebasedon anew objectivebodyfa tassessment,insteadofaphysician'sopinion.he DO Ddirectiverecommended 20 percentbodyfa tfo rmalesand 26 percentfo rfemales,withservices"authorizedtose tmorestringentstandards."10he Armyadoptedthe20 percentbaselinefigurerecommended inthedirectivefo rmales.he femalestandardof26 percentwas subjectivelyraisedbasedon theassumeddifficulty tomeetthe26 percentfigure.

5


11/64

The Army published itsinitialbodyfa tstandardsin1982.he standardswerebasedon subjectiveestimatesofthebodyfa t percentageassociated withadesiredlevelofaerobicfitness.he standardsweresupportedbytheobserved relationship betweenpercentbodyfa tan dmaximaloxygenuptake(VCtemax),themarkerfo raerobicfitness."Ingeneral,lowerbodyfa tcompositionesultsina higherVCtemaxduringaerobicactivity.he standardsareconsideredto beafairassessment of individualaerobicfitnessan dgeneralappearance,however,they lackcorrelationtomuscularfitness.

The thirdelementofacomprehensivephysicalfitnessprogramisphysicaltrainingan dtesting.he Army'sphysicalfitnesstrainingprogrambeginsatIET,intendedtopreparerecruits,bothmentallyan dphysically,to joinorganizational units.The physicalcapacityofasoldierisse tprior toenlistmentyet can bedevelopedbasedon theindividuals physicaltrainingregime.hecurrentemphasis inmanyunitson theAPFTasthefocalpointfo rthephysicaltrainingprogramisapracticethatleadstounder-developedindividualcombatpotential.he evolutionoftheAPFT fromthefiveeventversion of thelate70s,tothecurrentthreeeventtestisareflectionof th esameproblem.he APFTisageneralfitnesstest,notacombatfitnesstest.he APFT measuresphysicalactivitiesthathavenotbeenscientificallyrelatedtocombattask performance.heover-arching structurethatacomprehensivephysicalfitnessprogram shouldprovideisnotthere.heresultisa physicalfitnesstestthatm aynotmeasure whatitshouldcombatphysicalfitness.

Today'sallvolunteerArmy,established in the70s,isonthetailen d ofadrastic peacetimereduction.hereductionin theArmy'send-strength hasno treducedthe

6


12/64

portionofavailablemanpowerneededtofillthecombatarms.hecombatarmsaccountedfo r20.5percentofthetotalenlisted end-strength in1985and 23.8percentin1996.nhe increasein percentageof theenlisted strengthrequiredtofillthecombatarmssuggestsa needtodevelopalargepoolofphysicallyreadycombatarmssoldiers.Unfortunately,theU.S.Army'spresentprogram fo r producingphysicallyreadycombatarmssoldiersismarginalatbest.heArmydoesno tbaseits physicalstandardson physicalcombattask performance.he standardsarefocusedmoreon generalhealth an dphysicalwellbeing,ratherthan physicalfitnessfo rcombatreadiness.

The fourthelementofacomprehensivephysicalfitnessprogram isaminimum standardfo ractualphysicalcombattask performance.Mostwouldagreethatreadinessfo rcombatbeginswiththephysicalfitnessoftheindividualsoldier,NCOand officer.Combatarmssoldiersmustpossessthestaminaan dstrengthtosuccessfullyperform potentialcombatmissions.lthough therearehistoricalexamplesofm en performing greatactsofmilitarycouragewhilephysicallydisabled(wounded,ill,disoriented),they aretheexception,no ttherule.istory capturestheseactspreciselybecausetheyareso exceptional.hecommondenominatorintheequationofindividualcombatreadinessis thelevelofphysicalfitnesseachcombatarm soldierpossesseswhenfighting.

Thedetermination ofthephysicalcombattasksassociatedwithamilitary occupationalspecialty(MOS)an dfo rcommonsoldierskillsisverydifficult.he studyofhistorycan revealsometruthstowhatphysicalcombatskillsmaybe required.History alongwithscientificstudym ay contributetothisbodyofknowledge,disclosingtheactualphysicalcombattasks.nc ethetasksaredetermined,standardsfo rthefirst


13/64

threeelements(recruitment,retention,evaluation and training)ca nbeappropriately se ttoattainthem.

UnitedStatesArmy physicalfitnesspoliciesan dprogramsaresubjecttoconstantreform an drevision.cientificdiscovery and physiologicaleducation arecausesfo rcontinuous physicalfitnessprogramreforman dtraining.ow isthetimefo rtheU.S.Army toestablishacomprehensivephysicalfitnessprogram.volutionfrom meagerinductionrequirements through elaboratebodyfa tcompositionstandardshaveoccurredovertimewithoutfocus.ffectivelygatheringthefourelementsoftheprogramunderon eover-arching policy willrefocusiton combatreadiness. program thatsuccessfully joinsthefourelementsenablestheArmy toplacethemostcombatready soldierin its ranksand intothenextconflict.


14/64

ChapterII-MilitaryPhysicalFitnessDefinedTheU.S.Army'sgoalistohaveaphysically fi tfighting force. ilitaryphysical

fitnessdenotesthecapacitytodophysicallydemandingtasks. moreappealing descriptionofphysicalfitnessm ayincludean effectivestateofcombatphysicalconditioning.hysicalfitnessisgenerallyconsideredtoconsistofthreecomponents:aerobicfitness,muscularfitness,an dbodycomposition.hysicaltrainerscan furthersubdividemuscularfitnessintotw oelements:muscularstrength an dmuscularendurance.13

Flexibilityisafourthdimensionofphysicalfitness. Flexibilityistheability to movethejointsthrougharangeofmotion.lexibility willnot beaddressedindetailbecausescientificstudyintothisaspectofphysicalfitnessfo rmilitarypurposesarelimited.onclusionsreachedon thevalueofflexibility tocombattaskperformancewouldbe onlyconjecturean dnot basedon empiricalevidence.he flexibility ofthesoldier'sbodyisimportantfo rgeneralfitness,yetflexibility seemslessimportantthantheothercomponentswhenphysicalcombattasksareconsidered.

The componentsofphysicalfitnessareinterrelated,yetnottotally transferable.Ifthiswerenotso ,testingfo ronlyon edimensionoffitnesswouldrevealtheactualcapacityinal lthecomponents.esting juston ecomponent,suchasmuscularstrength,doesnot totallymeasureoverallfitness.od ycomposition,whichistheratiooffa ttoleantissueofthebody,affectstheindividual'smuscularan daerobiccapacities.ody compositioneffectsthedynamicperformanceofanindividualon acasebycasebasis.Forexample,an obesepersonm ay haveahighlevelofmuscularstrength,yethave

9


15/64

minimalaerobiccapacity.hisdecreased aerobiccapacity willquickly leadtoexhaustionan dfatigue,ahugedetrimenttophysicalcombatreadiness. universalruleofphysiology isthatexerting muscularforce,fo rextended periods,leadstoexhaustion an dfatigue.hi sruleappliestoal lindividualstovaryingdegrees.nindividual'saerobiccapacityrelatesdirectly tothelengthof timethata personisabletoexerttheirmuscularforce.etteraerobiccapacity enablesgreatermuscularstrengthandendurancelevels.he person'saerobiccapacityisasignificantindicatorofwhenanindividualwillbecomefatigued. loweraerobicthresholdequatestoearlierfatigue.

The battlefieldisno placefo rthosewhoquickly fatigue.he abilitytocontinue toperform physicallyislimitedby avarietyofphysiologicalan dpsychologicalfactors.Adecreaseincapacitytoperform physicallyiscalledfatigue.ndividuals'can counterfatiguebymaintaininga highstateofphysicalfitnessbeforeengagingin physically demanding tasks.he famousGreenB ay Packer'sfootballcoach,VinceLombardi,coinedthephrase,"fatiguemakescowardsofusall"tostresstheimportanceofconditioning an dtoexpresshisdesiretohaveeverym anon hi sfootballteam in topphysicalshape.14he componentofphysicalfitnessmostcloselyassociated withfatigueisaerobicfitness,or cardiorespiratory endurance.

Aerobicfitnessistheability toparticipateinsustainedarduousphysicalactivity fo rextendedperiods.15he U.S.Army'sFM 21-20definesitas ,"theefficiencywithwhichthebodydeliversoxygenandnutrientsneededfo rmuscularactivity andto transportwasteproductsfromthecells."16 The internationalcriterionfo rmeasuring aerobicfitnessismaximaloxygenuptakeper unitoftime(VCtemax).VChmaxmeansthe

10


16/64

maximalamountofoxygenapersonca nprocessinaunitoftimespecifiedfo rtesting.The volumeisexpressedinlitersper minute(L/min),or relativetoaperson'sbody weight,inmillilitersper kilogram bodyweightperminute(m lxkg-1xmin-1).17he nextcomponentofphysicalfitnessismuscularfitness.Muscularfitnessisacomplexterm thatasinglenotiondoesnotadequatelydescribe.

Likephysicalfitness,muscularfitnessconsistsofmorethanon ecomponent:muscularstrength,and muscularendurance.Muscularstrengthisthegreatestamountofforcea muscleor musclegroupscan exertin asingleeffort.Muscularstrengthissometimescalledexplosivestrengthor power.Muscularenduranceistheability ofamuscleor musclegroupstoperform repeatedmovementswithasub-maximalforcefo rextendedperiods.18xamplesofmuscularenduranceincludeexercisessuchas thepush-up orsit-upand liftingweightsmultipletimes.hesetw oterms(muscularstrengthan dmuscularendurance)areimportanttothedesignersofmilitaryphysicalfitnessprogramsbecausecombattaskperformancerequireshighlevelsofboth.eveloping a program toimprovecombatarmsphysicalfitnessca nincreasebothaspectsofmuscularstrength.

Bodycompositionisthefinalaspectofphysicalfitness.tistheamountofbodyfa tasoldierha sincomparisontohistotalbodymass. '9Amorethoroughdefinitionis theratiooffa ttissuetototalbodyweight,includingfa tandlean(fat-free)tissue.The Armyparesdownthenumberofpotentialrecruitsby enforcingbodycompositionstandards.UnitedStatesAR 40-501tandardsofMedicalFitnessspecifiesacceptableweights(inpounds).he weightsarerelatedtoag ean dheightfo rbothmalesand females,fo rinitialArmyrecruitment.od ycompositionisthefinaldeterminantfo r

1 1


17/64

evaluatingarecruitsacceptability.ecruit'swithexcessbody fa tcompositionlevelsareconsideredobesean drejected from service.

Duringtheircareer,soldiersarecontinuously screenedfo rbodyfa tcompositionlevels.Individuals mustnotexceedbodyfa tcompositionstandardsduringmandatory bi- annualtesting.etentionstandardsfo rbodyfa tcompositionarespecifiedin AR 600-9,The Army WeightControlProgram .odyfa tcompositionisonlyconsidered whentheweightexceedsthescreeningtableweight.fthepersonexceedstheweighttableallowance,percentbodyfa tismeasured per themethoddescribedinAR 600-9.he sameguidanceappliesfo ractivedutyan dreservepersonnelwho exceedtheweightfo rheighttables(screeningtableweight)foundin AR 600-9.

The Army'sbodyfa tcompositionstandardsarethemostequitablein thearmedforcestoday.he Army'sstandardsarebothage an dgendernormed.ndividual'sallowablebodyfa tincreasesasthey age.hysiologicaldifferences,betweengenders,areaddressed by theincreasingallowablebodyfa tcompositionfo rfemales.rm ypersonnelexceedingthefollowingmaximum percentbodyfa tstandardsareconsideredobese:(Chartshownon nextpage)

Age group:7-20 Male(% bodyfat):0 Female(% bodyfat:0 Age group:21-27Male(% body fat): 22 Female(% body fat): 32Age group:28-39:Male(% body fat): 24 Female(% body fat): 34 Age group:4 0+ Male(% bodyfat):6Female(% bodyfat): 3 620

12


18/64

Individualsidentifiedasobesearesubjecttoadministrativeactionan dareplacedon theoverweightprogram.ftercontinuedfailuretoachievethestandards,obesepersonnelaretheneligiblefo rseparation.

Analysisoftheallowablebodyfa tcompositiontableshighlightadisturbingtruth.The bodyfa tcompositionstandardsfo reachrespectivegendervarygreatly.hedifferencebetweenmaleand femalebodyfa tcompositionstandardsshowsadifferenceinthemeanfo rapopulationofbothgenders.emalesare,fo rthemostpart,smalleryet carrymorebodyfa t thantheirmalecounterparts.fonestandardwas se tfo rallpersonnel,femaleswouldhaveadifficulttimeattainingthesamestandardsas mostmales.he additionaltenpercentagepointsofbodyfat,allowedfemalesacrosstheentireage-basedsystem,arean extremely largedifference.hissuggestsatendency ofArmy policymakerstoavoidtruthfulanalysisoftheissue.heArmy'spolicyon bodyfa tcompositionallowsphysicallylessqualifiedindividualstoremainintheforcebecauseofpoliticallymotivatedgendersensitivity.

The genderissueilluminatestheproblem of implementinggeneralhealthstandardsinsteadofperformancebasedstandards.he foundation fo rdeveloping Army physicalstandards,likethebodyfa tcompositionstandard,istheU.S.Army'strainingdoctrine.urrentphysicalfitnessdoctrinedoesno tse tthefoundation tobuildasoundphysicalfitnessprogram.heobjectiveof theArmy'sphysicalfitnessprogram,specifiedin AR 350-41TraininginUnits,istoenhancecombatreadinessbydeveloping an dsustainingsoldierswith highlevelsofphysicalfitness.Thisisan excellentobjective,

13


19/64

however,theregulatory guidancestopsshortbypublishingthefollowinglistofinadequatequalifiers:

cardiorespiratoryendurance;muscularstrengthandendurance;flexibility;anaerobicconditioning;competitivespirit,thewilltowin,andunitcohesion;self-discipline;body-fatcompositionasprescribedby AR600-9;ahealthylifestylethatincludesgoodnutrition,avoidanceof smokingandavoidanceofdruguse;abilitytocopewithstress.21The regulation'semphasisison generalhealthand individualwellbeing,noton combatphysicalreadiness.tgivesastartingpointthatrequiresa muchmorerobustan ddetailedtrainingprogram focusingon combatreadiness.he guidanceonlyoffersasoundrecipefo rtheaverageAmericantoenjoyahealthy lifestylean dprobablylivelonger.he U.S.Armysoldierrequiresmuchmorethan justahealthy lifestyletoclosewithan ddestroyenemy soldiersincombat.erformancebasedstandardsca nbridgethegapcreatedinthecurrentprogramby specifying dutyrelated,physicalcombattaskperformanceobjectives.

The problem beginswiththeapplicabilityoftheguidance.heguidanceappliesArmy-wide,an dincludesallsoldiers,functionalbranches,unitsan doperatingagencies.Iftheguidancespecifiedhigherexpectationsfo rcombatarmssoldiers,thenabetterrepresentationoftheextremephysicaldemandsofcombatwouldbeestablished. The currentArmy guidanceonlyspecifiestheimportance of individualphysicalfitness.The guidanceprovidesaweakfoundationfo rphysicalcombatreadiness.he Army mustimplementstandardsand regulatory guidancethatdemandmorefromindividuals and

14


20/64

trainingprograms.olicy-makersshoulddevelopacomprehensiveprogram thatrespondstotheforeseeableneedsofcombat.

The Armyha spublishedsomecombatan ddutyrelatedsoldierphysicalfitness standards. Thesestandardsarenotcommonlyenforcedan darepoorlyintegrated intotheoverallphysicalfitnessprogram.he Armyha sdefinedthephysicalfitnesslevelrequired byeachoccupationalspecialty.or example,U.S.AR 611-201EnlistedCareerManagementFieldsCCMF)andMilitaryOccupationalSpecialtiesCMOS')pecifiesthatinfantrymen(CMF11)areequiredoccasionally raisean dcarrya160-pound personon theirback.he regulationfurtherstatesthattheinfantry m anfrequentlywalks,runs,crawls,and climbsovervaryingterrainfo radistanceupto25miles. Theyalsorequirethatinfantrymendovariousotherliftingtaskswhilecarryingaminimumof65 poundsevenlydistributedovertheentirebody.22hi sisagoodrepresentationofthephysicalrigorscombatarm soldiersareexpectedtoendure.hisnominalstandardappliestoallinfantrymenand denotesarequirementtoselectsoldierscapableofaccomplishingthetasks.he soldiersmustconductphysicaltrainingon aregularbasistomaintainthatcapability.heArmyshoulddevelopprogramsfo raveragesoldierstomeetthephysicaldemandsofcombatbasedon informedviewsand trainingrequirements.

ChapterII I-PhysicalFitnessVersusCombatPerformanceEstablishingindividualphysicalfitnessstandardswithobjectivetestmeasuresisa

difficultproposition.otrainingprogramca nensurethateverysoldierwillhavethephysicalprowessneededfo rthemostdemandingcombattask.owever,itstandsto

15


21/64

reasonthatthehigherdegreeofphysicalfitnessattainedbeforecombat,thebetterpreparedtheindividualsoldierwillbetofacebattlefieldchallenges.ut,whatarethephysicaldemandsofcombat?hisisdifficulttodeterminewithscientificaccuracy.

The Army'strainingcommunity ha stw owaystodeterminebattlefieldphysicaldemands:thereviewofhistoryand controlledscientificresearch. anyexamplesfrom modernwarfaredisplaytheintense,strenuousan dphysicallyexhausting natureofcombat.om eobservershaveconcluded,wrongly,thatmechanizationan dtremendousadvancesintechnology havedecreasedthedemandsfo rindividualphysicalfitness.nsomecasesphysicalrequirementshaveactuallyincreased.esearchscientistshavestudiedthephysiology ofsoldieringfo ryears.ecentstudieshaveconcentratedmoreon thephysicaldemandsofcombat.esultsfrom thesestudieshaveproducedalitany ofcombatrelatedphysicaltasksan dassociateddata todescribethephysicalrequirements to dothem.

Th efalsenotionthatadvancementsinmechanizationand automationwillsignificantlyreduceindividualmuscularstrengthrequirements persists today.ypicalmilitary tasksassociatedwithalargestrengthfitnesscomponentarelifting,pushing, pulling,throwing an dcarryingheavyloadsfo rshortdistances. usclestrengthisaprimaryfactorin thephysicaldemandsofone-thirdofallenlistedoccupations.23 Additionally,76ou tof3 50 occupations intheU.S.Army possessa"veryheavy"lifting requirement.24 The M 1 A2armorcrewisagreatexample.he MlA2MainBattleTank isavirtualhigh technologydemonstrationofmodernweaponry.ravelingat high speedsitfindsan ddestroysenemyelementswitheasean dprecision.ne assumesthat

16


22/64

thearmorcrewmansurely ha slittle,ifany,physicallabortoperform.hisassumptionis wrong.orinstance,thetankcommanderisrequiredtoraiseand lowerthe80-pound hatchon thecommander'scupola.naddition,theloaderisburdenedwithaheaviermorelethalroundthanhispredecessor.he120mmHEATan dSabotroundsusedtoday weighmorethan50poundseach(M120,M 8 3 0HEAT-T,length38inches,weight53pounds).heMlA2ank'sbasicloadismorethanon eto nofrounds.he crew mustuploadeachroundtothetankan dthentransfertheroundindividually intotheammunitionstoragecompartment.hisisnot aone man job.he crew setsup anassemblylinetopasstheroundsfrom thegroundtothetopofthetank;from thetopofthetanktoinsidethetank;an dfrom theinsideof thetanktothereadyracksintheturretand hullwherethey storetheammunition.heMlA2holds4 0roundsofmaingu nammunition.anksincombatareexpectedtofireasoftenaseveryfourtosixseconds,requiringtheroundstobeloadedrepeatedlyinashorttime.25hisisasubstantialrequirementfo rmuscularstrengthan dendurance.

Armorcrewstrengthisacriticalfactorinemergenciesrequiringtheevacuation ofinjuredtankers.facrewmaniskilled,woundedor knockedunconsciousinsideadisabledtank,anothercrewman,or theentirecrewmustlifthim out.hetankcrewman'scoverallsaretailoredwithaspecialse tofreinforcedstrapsfo rliftingadisabledcrewman.he tremendousstrengthrequiredtoperform thislifesavingtaskishighlydependenton thestrengthofeachsoldier.he armorcrewman'soccupationalstrengthrequirementis juston eofhundredsavailabletoillustratethephysicalrequirementsof themodernarmy.notheristhelightinfantryman.

17


23/64

Lightinfantrysoldierstodaycarryheavierloadsthaneverbefore.ata collectedfrom soldiersattheJointReadinessTrainingCenter(JRTC)show thatindividualloadsareaveraging88pounds.nfact,itisnotuncommonfo rsomeofthesesoldierstocarry morethan140pounds.26heInfantrySchool'splanningguidancesuggests amaximum of72 poundsfo rapproachmarchesand 4 8poundsfo rcombatactions.fexpressedasapercentage oftheaverageinfantryman'sbodyweight(165pounds),thetypicalsoldierat theJRTCmaycarrybetween53and 85 percentofhi sbody weight.ccasionally,unitscarryan averageof99poundsper individualloador 60percentofbody weight.AssistantDragonGunnerscarrythemostextremeloadof167pounds.hi sloadexceedstheaverageinfantryman'sbodyweight.eavyindividualloadsareareality of themodernda ycombatenvironment.espitetheoccasionalavailability oftransport,fo reithertheload,thesoldieror both,theability tocarryaheavy loadon somesoldiersback remainstoday.

Abriefreview ofselectedhistoricalaccounts offersaglimpseofthephysicaldemandsofcombat.owever,individualincidentsor circumstancescannoteasilytranslateintogeneralpropositions. historicalaccountfrom thewesternfront,1918duringWWI,reflects theintensephysicaldemandsofcombat.heU.S.2nd Division,withtw oU.S.MarineCorps(USMC)regimentsttached,wereamongtwenty-nineU.S.divisionsinFrance.ustainedcombatoperationsbecamethenorm fo rmostunitsfightingon thewesternfront.hefollowing examplesaredrawnfrom theexperienceofthe1stBattalion,FifthRegiment,U SM CmovinguptoSoissons,Franceinmid-July,1918.

18


24/64

...howthosemen,tw odayswithoutfood,threenightswithoutsleep,afterada y an danightof forcedmarching,flungofftheirwearinesslikeadiscardedpieceofequipment,an dat theshouting of theshellssprangfreshan deageragainsttheGermanline.27

Thesebattlefieldconditionsmayneverberepeated,yetthedescriptionilluminatestheintensephysicalhardshipthateachindividualsoldierfaced.nthedaysthatfollowedthisengagement,thefightingcontinuedwithnorespitefor thewearymarineregiment.Yearslater,inanotherfaroffland,theU.S.MarineCorpswasagainpittedagainstaformidableopponent,theJapaneseinWWII.OnSeptember15th,94 4 thestMarineDivisionattackedtheislandofPeleliu.heunithadbeenhighlytrainedfortherigorsofcombat,andreflectedthehardphysicalconditioningwhenbattlecame.hecombatenvironmenttheunitfacedwasrichinphysicallydemandingtasks.unning,jumpingandliftingwasthenormas thestMarinedivisionprogressedacrosstheisland.unninginacrouchedposition,whilewearingbattlefatigues,loadcarryingequipment(LCE),andothercombatequipment(helmet,individualorcrewservedweapons,ammunition,etc.)is verydifficulteveninasterileenvironment.Theextremestressassociatedwithbattlecontributesto thephysicalexhaustioninfantrymenfacedwhiledoingthesephysicallydemandingtasks.ManyofthesedemandsaredescribedinthefollowingexcerptfromE.B.Sledge's,WithTheOldBreed:

W emovedrapidlyintheopen,amidcratersan dcoralrubble,througheverincreasing enemyfire.sa wm en tom yrightan dleftrunningbentaslowas possible.he shellsscreechedan dwhistled,explodingal laroundus .nmany respectsitwas moreterrifying thanthelanding,becausetherewereno vehiclestocarryus along,no teventhethinsteelsidesofanamtracfo rprotection.W ewereexposed,runningonou row npowerthroughaveritableshowerofdeadlymetalan dtheconstantcrashofexplosions.28

19


25/64

Thisaccountaccuratelydepictsthestressandsomephysicaltasksassociatedwithcombatoperations.AlthoughthefirsttwodescriptionsarefromtheUSMC.therequirementsoftheinfantrymanaresimilartothoseofaU.S.Armyinfantryman.

FromthecoralandcratersofPeleliutothejunglesofVietnamthephysicaldemandsofthecombatarmssoldierremainedconsistent.hestCavalryDivision(Airmobile)foughtinthela DrangValleyinthefallof1965 .hefollowingaccountsarefromthebattleon14 November,965atLANDINGZONE(LZ)X-RAY.

...wewereadvancing towardtheenemy whentw oofm ym enan don efrom anothersquadwerehi tbymachine-gunfire...crawledtoaidthewounded.Iwas abletodragtw oofth ewoundedbacktoou rdefensiveline....AsIattemptedtodragathirdbackIwas wounded." 29 AllthistimeIha dbeen jumping,dodging,hittingthedirt,an dmovingforwardwithAdams[assistantgunner]....Iwas feedingbeltafterbeltof7.62mm ammunitionintothegun.W ewerepronean dhe wasfiringat theenemyinfrontan dto th eright.3 0

Theexcerptsdescribetheenduringnatureofcombat.ombatrelatedphysicaltasksexecutedinthejunglesofVietnamaresimilartothoseexecutedinthepastandpresent.Therequirementtoevacuatefallencomradescontinuestothisday.Handlingammunitionandheavyweaponswhilelyinginapronepositionis physicallyverydifficult.heabilitytoliftadisabledcomradeandcarryhimtosafetyisadynamiclift.Thetaskismoreeasilyaccomplishedbyastrongerindividual.hysicaltrainingthatusesabuddyliftorfreeweightstodevelopbalancewhilehoistingadeadweightis thepreferredwaytobuildthattypeofstrength.Aerobicconditioningenablesindividualstocarrytheweightforalongerdistance.nhancingaerobiccapacitybytrainingtoanarduousstandardwillfacilitateexecutionofthecarryforalongertimeanddistance.A

20


26/64

physicaltraining programthatseeksabalancebetweenstrengthdevelopmentan dincreasedaerobiccapacityproducesamorecapablecombatsoldier.

ThecurrentworldsituationrequirestheU.S.militarytoexecutesupportan dstability operationsonaglobalbasis.ecenteace-keeping,peace-enforcementor humanitarianassistanceoperationsincludeoperationsinSomalia,Rwanda,Haitian dBosnia.he missionsarenonethelesshazardousan dcharacterizedbyphysicalhardships.nJuly1993,whensoldiersofthe2d Battalion,14thInfantry TaskForce,10thMountain DivisiondeployedtoMogadishu,Somaliatheyexperiencedtheharsh conditions.heunitbecamethegroundelementfor the10thDivision brigadeservingas theQuickReactionForce(QRF)fo rtheUntiedNationscommandinSomalia.

WhiledeployedinSomalia,fatiguewas aconstantfactor.ontributingtosoldierfatigueweredailytemperaturesthathoveredinthe90s ,an dhumidity readingsof80-100 percent.he uniform fo rthesoldiersinvolvedintheSomaliamissionconsistedofeithertheheavyor medium weightdesertcamouflageuniform (DCUs),LCE,M17A 1protectivemask,helmet,bodyarmor,an dassignedindividualor crew-servedweapons.Thecombinationofextremeheatan dtherequireduniformdrainedeventhefittestsoldiers.oldierscarryingexcessbodyfa twouldprobably strugglemoreintheseconditionsthanwellconditioned,aerobicallyfi tones.ea tan dhumidityhavebeenshowntohaveadegradingeffecton soldierperformance.31

Highlighting thephysicaldemandsofcombat,TaskForce2-14IN (- )attackednobjectiveconsistingoftw olargecompoundsinMogadishuon1 3September1993.novercrowdedhospitalneartheobjectivewas amajorSomaliNationalAlliance(SNA)

21


27/64

militiabase.ollowingtheattacktoclearthecompounds,theunitbegantowithdraw.Rocketpropelledgrenades(RPGs)and automaticweapons'fireeruptedfromtheareaofthehospital,sparkingamajorfirefightbetweenTF2-14 IN and theSNAmilitia,lasting almostfivehours32 .oldiersmaneuveredfo rovertwo-kilometersofurbanterrainwhileundercontinuousenemyfire.The infantrymenusedphysically exhaustingindividual movementtechniquesduringtheentiremove.hreecasualtiesweresustained,buttheunitdidnotslow an dmaintainedits formation.he soldierswho evacuatedthecasualtieswerephysicallyfit.vacuationofcasualtiesisaveryphysically demandingactivitythatthesoldiershadtrainedtoaccomplish.he soldiersinTF2-14 IN wereno lessphysicallychallenged thantheirpredecessors inWWI Iand theRepublicof Vietnam.

Futurebattlefieldswillvary inintensityfrom low tohighandpitU.S.forcesagainstavastarrayofpotentialadversaries.he chancesof lesserconflictsoccurring appeartobeon therise,occasionedbyincreasedurbanization,populationgrowth,regionalmigrationan dcompetitionoverscarcenaturalresources.redictionsarethatfuturewarfarewillrequirean increasedpresencebyconventionalcombatarmssoldiers.Soldierswillexecuteawidearray ofnationalsecurity relatedtasks.hephysicaldemandsrequiredtoexecutefuturemissionswillprobablybelikepreviousmodern da y combatand nearcombatsituations.wenty-fourhouroperationsoverextended periods,increasedweapons'capability(lethality,range,survivability,etc.),an dworldwidedeployments,requireahighdegreeof individualphysicalcombatreadiness.

Th epurestrengthand enduranceneededtodo combatrelatedtasksareimmense.Well-restedsoldiers,ingoodphysicalcondition,ttemptingcombatrelatedtasksare

22


28/64

hardpressedtoaccomplishthem.he taskismadedoublydifficultby adverseweather,difficultterrainan denemyfire.he physicalcapacityofthesoldierisalsodegradedby alackofsleep,food,waterand energy.he ability tofightaclose,violentfightwithawell-restedenemyiscriticalevenagainsttheseodds.espitephysicalpainand discomfort,soldiershavetobeabletoclimb,crawl,ru nand jumpaftertheadrenalineis gone.hephysicalconditionof individualsoldiersat theonsetofan operationwillinfluencetheirabilitytowithstand theserigorsan dmaintainreservestoultimately fighttheclosefight.

Historicalaccountsprovideastartfo rexplorationintothephysicaldemandsofcombat.esearchersattheU.S.ArmyResearchInstituteofEnvironmentalMedicine,Natick,Massachusettshaveusedmorescientific methodstodetermineindividualphysicalperformancecombatrequirements.he researchersconductedstudiesthroughoutthe80 stodeterminetherelationshipbetweenpeacetimephysicaltrainingan dthephysicalrequirementsofcombat.

Aresearchstudy,"PhysicalFitnessan dInfantry Operations," examinedthephysicalfitnessof34infantry soldiersoverafiveda ysimulatedcombatexercise.estsmeasuringvariouscomponentsofphysicalfitnesswereadministered tosoldiersbeforean daftera realisticsimulatedcombatexercise.he componentsoffitnessexaminedincludedaerobiccapacity,bodycomposition,anaerobiccapacity,andmusclestrength.3 3 Seniornoncommissioned officersadministered theAPFTtothestudyparticipantsbeforeand afterthefiveda ysimulatedcombatexercise.he researchersobtaineddataon maximaloxygenuptake( V C ) 2 m a x ) ,bodycomposition,muscularstrengthan danaerobic

23


29/64

capacity.he resultsshowedno significantdecrementinfieldperformanceduringtheexercise.hesefindingsm ay reflectthatthesoldier'sphysicaltrainingwas sufficienttomeetthedemandsof theexercise.The resultsm ayalsoshow thattherigorassociated withthestudywas notenoughtota xthesoldiers'physicalcapacity. thirdpossibleconclusion isthatsoldiersovercamepotentialadversity throughcooperativeeffortan dteamwork.he researchersalsonotedthesoldier'sreducedupperbodystrengthan danaerobiccapacityfollowingthefive-day fieldexercise.hi sstudysuggeststhatupperbodyexercisecapacityisimportantfo rinfantryoperations and issubjecttodecrementsduringfieldoperations.

Researchersfromothercountrieshavestudiedcombatrelatedphysicaltask performance. Canadianresearcherreportedthatfo rthepastthreedecades,theideaofphysicalfitnessfo rtheCanadianArmy wasbasedon predictionofphysicalperformance.Factorssuchaslo w bodyfat,abilitytoru nfastfo rextended periodsan dtheability todo alargenumberofpush-ups,sit-upsand chin-upswereconsidered combatrelated.he CanadianArmypresumed thattheabilitytoru nwellindicatedahighrelativeVO2maxan dtheability todo highnumbersofpush-ups,sit-upsor chin-upsindicatedahighlevelofmuscularstrengthand endurance.3 4 UnitedStatesresearchershaveproventhatthetwo-mileru nassociatedwiththeAPFTisavalidmeasureofaerobicfitness.he two- mileru ntesthasahighcorrelationwithV C t e m a x . 3 5 MuscularstrengthandendurancearetestedbytheAPFTsit-upandpush-upevents.he correlationtoindividualstrengthcapacityisnotas welldefinedasthedetermination ofV C t e m a xiswithaerobicfitness.he questionofwhetheror notpush-upsand sit-upsmeasureacombatrelatedstrength

24


30/64

capacityisevenlesswelldefined.ducatingtheArmy'sjuniorleadershipon thisissueiscritical.uniorleadersareprimarily responsiblefo rphysicalfitnesstrainingprogram designan dexecution.

Whataretherealrequirementsofcombatfo ron eof theprimarycombatarms,infantry?he CanadianMilitary reviewedtheindividual,combatassociated,physicaltasksofan infantryman.nfantrybranchwas selectedfrom agroupconsistingofarmor,artillery,infantry and combatsupport.he on ethingal lgroupshadincommonwasthefactthattheycouldal lbecalledupontoperform thedutiesof theinfantrymaninacombatenvironment.heCanadianCommandCouncilagreedthattheinfantrysoldier'sphysicaltaskswerethemostdemandinginthecombatarmsgroupdescribedabove.

Overfivehundreddifferentcombattaskswereidentifiedas aresult oftheprocess.Fiveofthemostphysicallydemandingtasksexpectedwereidentifiedasarepresentativegrouptobe evaluated.ommontasksselected:casualtyevacuation,ammunition box carry,jerry can transportan duse,digaslittrench(Canadianequivalenttoafox-hole),an dweighted roadmarch.3 6he developmentof thislist,alongwithsimilarstudiesby UnitedStatesresearchers,indicatethatthemajority of thephysicallydemandingtasksinvolvethephysicalhandling ofmaterials,equipmentor personnel.lthoughlowerbodystrengthisimportantfo rtheinfantryman,theprimarymusclestrengthan dendurancechallengeisfo rtheupper-body(trunk,shoulders,chest,armsan dhands).nobviousconclusion on ecan draw from thisanalysisisthatindividuals,withsuperiorupperbodystrengtharethepreferredcandidatesfo rfillingtheinfantry'sranks.

25


31/64

Itisgenerallyacceptedthatsoldierswho arethemostsuccessfulon theAPFTarethemostphysically capable.oldierspossessingthehighestfitnesslevelsgenerally perform theirdutiesbetter.nformationgatheredfollowing theFalklandsWar,somewhatcontradictsthislogic.here,soldierswhohad afitnesslevelsimilartotypicalmarathon runners(height5'9";weight139;5% bodyfa t3 7)wereleastsuccessfulin carryingouttheirdutiesalthoughtheyha dhighVO 2maximumvalues.38ommandersintheFalklandsnotedthatsoldierswho weremostsuccessfulwerethosewhoha dlargemusclemasstypeofbodiesan dsuperiorupperand lowerbodystrength.3 9

The importanceofgettingtherightsoldierintothecombatarmsmustbelinkedto combateffectiveness. Deciding whoiscombateffectiveisadifficultproposition.The U.S.Army'sattempttoqualify theterm "combateffective"isfoundin regulatory guidance.ndividuals'withhighphysicalfitnesslevelsaregenerallyconsidered themostcombateffective.obe combateffective,allsoldiersmustbe physically capableofperformingthefullrangeoftasksassociatedwiththeirMOS.40he term "combateffective"denotesadefinablelevelofphysicalcapability,or fitness,specifiedfo reach combatarmssoldierinAR 611-201,EnlistedCareerManagementFieldsan dMilitary OccupationalSpecialities.

Asstatedearlier,establishingindividualphysicalfitnessstandardswithobjectivetestmeasuresisadifficultproposition.ddressing thistoughissueisessentialtothedevelopmentofacomprehensivephysicalfitnessprogram.neffectiveprogram increasestheoddsthateverycombatarmssoldierwillhavetheappropriatecombatphysicalfitnesslevel.he higherdegreeofphysicalfitnessattainedbeforecombat,the

26


32/64

betterpreparedtheindividualsoldierwillbe tofaceevolvingbattlefieldconditions.Historyan dmodernresearchlendvaluableinsights intotheindividualphysicaltaskscombatconditionsmayrequiresoldiers toperform.nalysisof therequirementsmustprovidethedeparturepointfo rtheArmy'sphysicalfitnessprogram.

27


33/64

ChapterIV -Analysis andResultsThe reviewsofhistoryand scientificstudiesofcombatphysicalfitnessreveal

somedisturbingtrends.ombatphysicalfitnessand military physicalfitness,ingeneral,aretermsthatgenerateconfusion.Militarytrainers'havespeculated on therequirementstoimproveanddevelopsoldierfitness.Theirspeculationshaveoccasionallybeenbasedon falseassumptions.xposingsomeoftheunderlyingmythsassociated withmilitary physicalfitnesswillenabletheArmytodevelopaviablephysicalfitnessprogram.

Beforelookingatthemisconceptions,a briefreviewofthepreliminary conclusionsisinorder. summaryofinsightsgainedbyreviewinghistory and modern researchenablesustocompileatentativelistofcombatrelatedphysicaltasksor activities.he historicalevidencepresentsseveralenduring factors.Mechanization an dtechnologicaladvancementsdo notdiminishtheindividualphysicaldemandsofcombat.Muscularstrength isavitalfactorincombattaskcompletion.ndividualactivitiessuchaslifting,pushing,pulling,throwingan dcarryingheavyloadsrecuronallbattlefields.The capacitytoperform theseactivitiesappearstobedirectly relatedtothelevelofindividualaerobicconditioning attheonsetofcombat.igherlevelsofphysicalconditioning leadtolongersustainedability towithstandthedemandsofcombat.he demandsofmostbattlefieldsincludefatigue,stress,continuousoperationsan daphysicallydeterminedenemy.

Modernresearchprovides additionalinsightsintothegeneralobservations gainedbyreviewinghistory.ustainedcombatoperationsrequireampleupperbody strength.Longdistancerunnerbuildsarenotidealan dmoremusclemassisbetterfo rcombat

28


34/64


35/64

Muscularstrengthand endurancearemoreimportantthanaerobicfitnessfo rthesuccessfulcompletionofthesetasks.Muscularstrengthisdownplayed fo rseveralreasons.ac kofappreciation ofstrengthrequirements,availability and costofstrengthtrainingequipment,and thetimethatmustbe dedicatedtoastrengthtrainingprogramaresomeoftheknownreasonswhy thisistrue.hegenerallack ofunderstandingofthebasicprinciplesofstrengthtrainingcan alsobe attributedtothelimitedappreciation ofmuscularfitness.

The aerobiccomponentoffitnessisthemostoftenstudiedbecauseitiseasily isolatedfrom theothercomponents.erobicemphasisin theArmyisbasedon its relationshiptomanymilitary tasksan dtheaerobichealthbenefitsof bodyweightcontrol.Inaddition,aerobictrainingissimpletoconduct,requiresno equipmentan dbuildsunitesprit.he benefitsofaerobicfitnessand theassociatedincreasesinstaminaarenottobe disregarded.hekey benefitistheabilitytoexecutemusclemovementsmoreeffectivelyoveralongersustainedperiodoftime.he Armyacknowledgesthedisparityin prioritybetweenmuscularand aerobicfitnessinFM 21-20,PhysicalFitnessTraining .FM 21-20 lists,asacommonerror,failingtostrikeabalanceinphysicaltrainingprogramsbetweencardio-respiratory endurancetrainingan dmuscularendurancean dstrengthtraining.42

Anotherfalsenotion abouttherequirements ofmilitary or combatfitnessisthatfemalesarephysicallycapableofservinginthecombatarms. growingnumberofArmy personneland policy makersareconsidering theuse offemale"manpower"in thecombatarms.he factsin thisareaareclear. 1985U.S.Armyinvestigationshowed

3 0


36/64

femalesexhibited60to65 percentoftheupperan dlowerisometricforceofmen.4 3U.S.Navy studyfoundthedynamicupper torsostrengthofNavyfemalesrangedfrom 4 6 percenttoas highas58percentofmen.4 4hiscanbe attributedtothefemalesgreaterpercentageoffa tmassan dlowermusclemass.WhencomparedtotheaveragemaleArmy recruit,theaveragefemaleArmyrecruitis4 .8inchesshorter,weighs31.7poundsless,and ha s37.4 poundslessmusclemassan dmorefa tmass(Figure2).4 5dditionally,fa tmassisinverselyrelatedtoaerobiccapacityand heattolerance,thustheaveragefemaleisalsoatadisadvantage whenperformingaerobicactivitiessuchas heavy roadmarchingand workinginhotenvironments.

Figure2- Comparison ofBodyCompositionMeasuresforMaleandFemaleArmv Recruits Male Female Change

MeasureHeight(Inches)

Mean 68.9

Mean 64.1 -4.8

Weight(Pounds) 1*0.4 128.7 -31.7T-eanMass(Pounds' 133.5 96.1 -37.4FatMass(Pounds) 26.9 32.6 S.7%RortyFflt 16.8 25.3 8.5

Myers1984

Generally,femalesareatadistinctdisadvantagewhenperformingmilitarytasksrequiringmuscularstrengthdu etotheirlow musclemass.he mostimportantfactorrelatedtostrength isprobably thetotalmassofmuscleinvolvedinamusclecontraction.The musclemassca nberelatedtothecrosssectionalareaof themuscle.he qualityof

31


37/64

muscletissueand quantity ofmusclefibersinmalesand femalesarethesame. Muscleproducesapproximatelysixtotenkilogramsofforcepersquarecentimeterofmuscle crosssectionalarea.4 6he differencebetweenmalesand femalesisthecross-sectional areaofmusclefiber. alescross-sectionalmusclefiberis30 percentgreaterthanfemales.47hi sphysiologicaldifferencein thetw opopulationsaccountsfo rthedisparity betweenthetw ogenders.

Anotherfactoraffectingstrengthisandrogenlevels.ndrogensarepotentmuscle buildinghormonesthatareresponsible fo rmuchofthemalemusclegrowthassociated withtheadolescentgrowthincrease.ndrogensarealsoresponsiblefo rmusclegrowthasa resultofstrengthtraining.igherandrogenlevelsarefoundin m en andaccountfo rthedifferencesin strengthcapacity betweenmalesan dfemales.he lo w androgenlevelsfoundinfemalesaccountfo rthelackofmuscleenlargementfromstrengthtraining.

Femalesca nimprovetheirstrength,however,they generallydo notdeveloplargemuscles.esultsofan investigationintospecialty-relatedlifting,carrying,pushingand pullingperformanceofmalean dfemalerecruitsillustratethedifferences.he resultsreflectedtheperformanceoffemalesduringmuscularlydemanding tasksrangedfrom 59.4 percentto69.6percentthatofmales.4 8he relationbetweenmaximum lifting capacityand leanbodymassispresentedinFigure3,depictedon thenextpage.

32


38/64

Maximum :1.312X-24.698SafeLIFT__., A mat, : IJJ

Itun Body Malt (I19)

LeanBodyMassFigure3-ScatterPlotOf The RelationBetweenMaximumLifting CapacityAnLeanBodyMass Vogel,1985

Itisclearfrom thedatain thisdiagram thatthestrongestfemalesfallinthesamestrengthcategoryas themiddletolowerendmales.hemajorityofthefemaleshavesignificantlylowerleanbodymassan dliftmuchlessthantheirmalecounterparts.his presentsa possibledilemma.owca ntheArmyselectfo rcombat,from thetopperformersofthefemalesavailabletofillacombatarmspositionswhenthemajorityoftheavailablemalemanpoweris justas ,ormorecapable? The answerissimple.nlessthereisasignificantshortageinmilitarymanpower,thepositionshouldbefilledbyamalerecruit.akingtheexampleon estepfurther,thecombatarmsselectioncriteria

33


39/64

shouldscreenoutmostfemalesstrictlybasedon musclestrengthcapacity.he otherlimitingfactor,whenconsideringfemalephysicalcapacity,istheiraerobicfitness.

Th ecardio-respiratory capacityisdirectly relatedtothedeliveryofoxygenby theheart,lungsan dbloodvesselstotheworkingmuscles.enerally,femaleshaveasmallerheartmass,cardiacoutputan dheartvolumethanmales.he amountofbloodtransferredduringeachcontractionand bloodhemoglobincontentoffemalesislowerthanthatofmen.hus,thebloodtransferslessoxygen,whichcoupledwithlowercardiacoutput,resultsinlowerfemaleaerobiccapacity.videnceof thisfactisfoundinreportsmadeonArmy recruitswithaverageentranceVO 2m axscoresof51ml/kg/minfo rmalesan d37ml/kg/minfo rfemales.hefemalesscoreis73 percent ofthemales.4 9 Maximalru ntimeshavebeenusedbythemilitary toassessaerobicfitness. Researchfindingsindicatethaton ean dtw omileru ntimesofArmy femaleswere74 and 79percentofmen,respectively.50hesefindingsareconclusiveevidencefemalesoldiers,as apopulation,arenotthebestcandidates fo rthephysicallydemandingcombatarms.

Athirdmisconception,generallyheldbymany,isthatexcessbodyfa tisalways undesirable.ver fatnesscannotbedirectly associatedwithlessfitness. 51Whatmaybeconsideredan acceptableor optimum leveloffatnessinone M OSm ay beunacceptablein another.hus,itisimportanttonote,whenconsidering therelation offatnesstophysicalfitness,theoccupationalrequirementsorthefitnesscomponentinvolvedmustbeexamined.attissueisdesignedfo rstoringenergyand hasno forceproducing capacity.Therefore,itdoesnotaidinforceproduction,servingonlythepassiveenergy storagefunction.tdoeshavemass,therebyincreasingtheforceproducingrequirementsofthe

34


40/64

musculaturefo rbothsupportingthebodyagainstgravityandtoovercomeinertiaduringacceleration.hus,asfa tisadded,thebody'sability toacceleratedecreases.orexample,as bodyfatnessincreases,themuscularpowerrequiredinrunningtoadvancetherunnersbodywitheachstepincreases.unningperformancedecreasesasoverallbodyweightisadded,independentofaerobiccapacity.

The relativenegativeeffectofaddedfatnesson bodymovementdecreasesas externalweightiscarried,asin roadmarching,becausefa tweightmakesupasmallerportionof thetotalweightbeingaccelerated.he negativeeffectofexcessfatnesson bodymobility isprimarily duringnon-loadedexerciseslikerunningor walking.he relativeimportancein carryingloadsduringroadmarches,amorecommonArmy activity,ismuchless.he inverseoftheeffectsoffa taretheeffectsofaddedmuscle.

Developing addedmusclemasscreatesadditionalmassthatmustbepropelled,however,themassthatisbuiltgeneratesmuscular power.he cost-benefitratioofdevelopingmoremusclemasswilldependon theactivity theindividualisexpectedtoperform in theiroccupation.ddedmusclemassisahandicaptothelong-distance runner,yet,itisan advantageduringshort,maximalsprints.ntasksinvolvingthemovementofexternalweights,suchaslifting,pushing,pulling,an dcarrying,performanceisenhancedbyaddedmusclemassan dlargelyunrelatedtofa tmass.

For thecombatarmssoldier,theadvantageofaddedpowerproducingcapacity morethancompensatesfo rtheaddedweighttobesupported.he preponderanceofmuscularstrengthrequirements in thecombatarmscomparedtobodymobility requirements bringsintoquestiontheemphasisplacedon maximalbodyfa tstandards.

35


41/64

The provisionfo raminimalmusclemassstandardwouldbe ofmuchgreaterbenefittothecombatarmsand theArmy in general.

Scatter Plotof theRelationship BetweenV02maxan dPercentBodyFatinMaleSoldiers.V02max = 58 .254- .544%BF.R=-0.60,SEE=5.02

MaximalOxygen Uptake(V02max)

E |DXI*1 *3 M

IDPtrtwilboat PERCENTBODYFAT

Figure4-ScatterPlotOfTheRelationshipBetweenV02maxAndPercent% BodyFatInMaleSoldiers.ogel,1992Relatingcombatphysicalfitnesstobodyfa tcompositionisimportant.he relationshipofcombatphysicalfitnesstobody fa tcompositionstandardsisnotclearly establishedintheArmy'scurrentphysicalfitnessprogram.r.JamesA.Vogel,inon eofhismany studies,describesthedevelopmentand disparityof theArmy'sbody fa tcompositionstandards.hedescriptionpresented earlierinthispaperof therelationship

3 6


42/64

betweenpercentbodyfatandVCtemaxis thekeytothisanomaly.hisrelationshipis depictedin Figure4 .52

Asca nbeseenfromthisfigure,adesirablelevelofaerobicfitnessof50mloxygenuptakeper kg body weightper minutefo ryoungmalesoldiersisequivalentto abodyfa tpercentageof20 .hus,avalueof20 percentwasusedas th ebasefo rstandard,addinganupwardadjustmentof2percentbody fa tunitspe rag egroupaswellasagenderadjustmentof10percent.53ubsequentresearch has offeredsupportingevidencefo rthesefigures,bu tonlyfo raerobic fitness.54

ThelinkageillustratedinFigure4 ,andthedescriptionprovidedin thequote,areexplanatoryinformationthatlendscredencetotheArmy'smethodologyfordevelopingthebodyfatcompositionstandards.KeepinmindthatpercentbodyfatstandardsestablishedinthiswayreflectanassociationwithalargelyarbitraryAPFTstandard,notaphysicalcombatperformancestandard.

PersonalphysicalfitnesshasbeenassessedbyhealthorWellnessorientedtestingandnotbycombattaskrelatedtestsbasedonthephysiologicalworkingcapabilitiesofthesoldiers.heAPFTrequirementsarebasedonaperceivedleveloffitnessrequiredformilitarydutiesandprovidemotivationalchallengetothesoldier.heArmyhasabodyfatnessstandardbasedon perceivedfitnessrequirementsratherthanonobjectivecombattaskrequirements.naddition,itisbasedprimarilyononeaspectoffitness,aerobic,andignorestheothercomponentsofmuscularstrengthandendurance.heAPFTmeasuresforstrengthorstrengthendurancearethesit-upandpush-up.NeitheroftheseitemsarecorrelatedwithanyactualArmytasks,suchaslifting.55odyfatpercentageisbelievedtoberelatedtoaerobicphysicalperformance,andsomeevidencesuggestslowerbodyfatcompositionisrelatedtostrengthandendurance.

37


43/64

AnexampleofthetypeofsoldierbestqualifiedtocompletecombatrelatedtasksisfoundinaCanadianForcesstudy.he soldiersbestabletocompletetheCanadianForces,19event,IndoorStandardized ObstacleCourse(ISOC)had lowerpercentage bodyfa tthanothers.56he courseassessessoldiersfitnessbyexecutingtaskssimilartothoseexpectedtobeencounteredduringcombat(sprinting,crawling,pulling,lifting,carryingand pushing).ventselectionwas basedon theirabilitytoassessthemajorcomponentsoffitnessrelatedtotheperformanceofmilitary tasks.orty-threehealthy males,21to31yearsofage,underwentintenselaboratorytesting.he topand bottom tenperformersscoreswerecomparedinrelationtothebody fa tpercentage.omputingthemeanscoresfo reachgroupoften,theresultsindicatedthatthehighperformergroupha dameanof10.7% bodyfat,whereasthelowgroup'smeanwas19.5%.easonscitedfo rtheperformancedifferenceswerepoorphysicalfitnesslevelof thelow achievers comparedtohighachievers,an dthelowerachieverswerecarryingexcessfa tweight,requiringgreaterphysicaleffort,thusslowingthemdown.5 7

The firstpartofthefindingsareinconflictwiththedataassessmentprovidedby Vogel.he generalfitnesslevelm ayonlybelowerthanthephysicalfitnessleveloftheirpeers,yettheym aypossessadequateoverallfitnesslevelstoperform theminimum requirements ofcombat.he observationsindicatethatthehighachievers,fo ractivitieswithhighmuscularstrengthan dendurancedemands,tendtohaveleanand mesomorphicbodybuilds.58electingthemostqualifiedindividualstoservein thecombatarmsbasedsolelyon bodyfa tcompositionisno tadequate.enerally,highbodyfa tcompositionis

38


44/64

undesirable,however,individualstrengthan daerobiccapacitymustbeconsideredfo reachperson.

Intheory,everyindividualisassumedtopossessacertainrangeofmuscularstrengthan dendurancethatisgenotypically determined.he actualphenotypicalvaluem aybedividedintotw ocategories:basicor minimalstrength,an dstrengthsuperimposedbytraining.asicstrength isconsideredtobecharacteristicofeachindividual.he training componentoftheindividualsstrengthmayvaryaccordingtothedemandsplaced uponhim.he ability toperformcombatrelatedphysicaltaskswillbeenhancedby aqualityphysicaltrainingprogram thatprogressively increasesphysicaldemandsand developsindividualstrengthcapacity.

TheArmy'sunitphysicaltrainingprogram isthefoundry ofhardenedcombatarmssoldiers.he U.S.ArmyPhysicalFitnessSchool,FortBenning,Georgia,developedthebattlefocusedphysicaltraining(BFPT)program.mphasizingan delaboratingon thesoundphysicaltrainingdoctrineFM 21-20describes,BFPTcautionscommandersthattrainonlytosucceedon theAPFTasthesoleobjectiveofphysicalfitness(Figure5):

Figure5--USAPFS-

UnitPTProgramAimed tHighAverageO nAPFT:BattleFocusedUnitPTProgram

BATTLEFOCUSEDPHYSICALTRAININGMnmhy Fr i f 1 ay3 ileRun IntervalRun Calisthenics CompanyRun 4MileRunPush-upmp. Sit-upimp. Stretching Push-upmp. Sit-upmp.

M n(1 ay 3-MileAbility i-Mileoot ObstacleCrs. GuerillaDrills Squaduno CroupRunt VlarchLCE 2 otations 20 inutes Poollastm an80-90% MHR S Ob.Ruck

JO nutes Push-up,Chin-up,Sit-upCircuit20 inutes

up0min.Swim/H20Drills

Legend: 1.m p m prove 2.MHR ax eartRate 3.LCE oadCarryingEquip.39


45/64

The programisdesigned fo rimplementation attheunitlevelthroughouttheArmy.FPTisatoolfo rcommanderstouse in thedevelopmentofphysicaltrainingprogramsgearedtowardtheunitscombatrequirements.heB F P Tprogramdirectly linkstheindividualsoldier'sphysicalfitnesstotheunitscombatmission by crosswalkingtheunitmission essentialtasklist(METL)tophysicaltrainingeventsexecuteddaily.5 9 Thisemergingdoctrineisacommonsenselink of individualtraining tounitcombatreadiness.hysicaltrainingfivedaysaweekissufficienttophysically traincombatarmssoldiers fo rcombat.fthephysicaltrainingprogramisproperly plannedand executed,individualfitnesslevelsacrosstheunitareraised.

Decidingon themostdesirablequalitiesofapotentialcombatarmssoldiersshouldbeinfluenced bythefindingsof thesestudies.he majorobservationsare:muscularfitnessisasimportantasaerobicfitness,malesonaveragepossessmorephysicalcapacity thanthephysicallybestfemales,an dbodyfa tcompositionisnot themostreliabledeterminate ofphysicalperformance.he abilityoftheArmy'sphysicalfitnessprogram toidentify,developan dmaintaincombatarmssoldierswiththerightphysicalattributes isvitaltonationaldefense.

40


46/64

Chapter V-ConclusionsandRecommendat ions Aman w ho takesalo tofexercise rarelyexerciseshismind adequately.6" CaptainSir BasilLiddellHart,Thoughtson War,1944 LiddellHart'snotionofthenecessityofphysicaltrainingisdebatableatbest,an d

morelikely,flatwrong.he mindisatworkevery timethebodyisexercised.he mentalaspectofphysicaltrainingis ,on manyoccasions,moredifficultthantheactuallabor.he tradeoffofphysicalconditioningtime,againsttimedevotedtotrainingmilitarymindsis justasimportant.he view of thismilitarythinkerwasuninformedan dassumedthatthedevelopmentofthemindan dthebodyareindependentofeachother.Thisisexactlythekindofmisinformedthinkingthatthispaperattemptstoenlighten.Manyotionswerepresentedas unfoundedor debatable.eviewinghefactsallowsthereader todraw theirownconclusions.

Traininggearedtowardimprovedindividualcombatfitnesscan developcombatarmssoldierswho arecapableofperformingtherequiredphysicaltasks.tisimportanttokeepinmind,thatwhendevelopingperformancestandardsfo rcontinuous efforttasks(lastingover30minutes),an yminimum fitnessrequirementabove50percentofagroups meanscoreshouldbeconsideredunacceptableas adesirablefitnesslevel.61he cautionin thiscaseiscreating ademandfo rafitnesslevelthatm ay beunattainablebysomeindividuals,regardlessofhow hardtheytraintoimprovetheirphysicalcapabilities.AccordingtosourcesattheUnitedStatesArmyInfantry TrainingCenteratFortBenning,Georgia,thefailureofasinglesoldiertocompletebasictrainingrepresentsacosttothegovernmentof$16,000.00 .6 2

41


47/64

Recruiting and trainingofArmy personnelmustrespondtoachangingenvironment.he sizeof theArmy andtrainingresourcesarebothdecreasingatsubstantialrates.imultaneously,themilitary isviewedasamoredesirableoptionfo rAmerica'sjobseekingyouth.he resultisthattheArmy ca nand mustbe moreselectiveinrecruitingan dretentionofqualitypersonnel.he wasteofresourcescausedbyasoldierwhobeginsbutfailstocompletebasictraining isconsiderable.he factsdemandinstitutionofsimplemethodstoscreenpotentialrecruitsfo rthequalitiesrequiredto successfully completeIET.

Recruitscreeningisdirectly relatedtotheArmy'sphysicalfitnessprogram.facomprehensivephysicalfitnessprogramisdeveloped,thenacompleteunderstandingofthedesiredoutcomeisnecessary.ndividuals withtherequisitemusclestrength,aerobiccapacityan dbodyfa tcompositionshouldbeidentifiedfo rselectionand training.Determiningwhichindividualshavethe"right stuffisadifficultproposition.he physicalattributes areimportant,butnotexclusive.therfactorscontributetoselectingthemostqualifiedindividual.he potentialrecruitsmotivationlevel,mentalaptitude,lifestylebeforeenlistmentandculturalbackgroundareimportantfactorsindetermining recruitsuitabilitybeforetheU.S.Army enterstheirlife.

Recentstudiesshow thatanumberoffactorscorrelatewithmeasuresoftrainingsuccess.Oneexampleisthatthetrainee'sself-reportedfitnessactivity priortoenteringtheArmycorrelateswithtrainingsuccess.63ssumingthattherecruitsaretruthfulin reporting,thisisnotsurprisingbecauseathleticallyinclinedindividuals areexpectedto be morephysicallyfit.he drawbacktothispredictoristhatthereportsareasubjective

42


48/64

measurement,an dthedifferencesinscoresarenotlargeenoughtouse as selectioncriteria.imilarly,correlationswithweight,height,an dbodymassindexarenot useful.64 The correlationbetweenintakevariablesan dtraining completionof64 9trainees undergoing a13-weekcycleofbasican dadvancedinfantrytrainingaredisplayedinFigure6:

Figure6- orrelation BetweenIntakeVariablesandTrainingCom )letionVariable Separated No APFT FailAPFT Complete

Ag e(years) 20.2 20.2 19.5 20.0 Height(inches) 69.6 69.4 70.5 69.3 Weight(pounds) 16 2 15 5 17 8 16 0Body MassIndex(Kg/m2) 23.5 22.7 25.2 23.6Pulse 71.4 73.2 72.5 72.2SystolicBloodPressure 121 11 9 122 120 Diastolic BloodPressure 73.5 72.0 70.7 72.2InitialAPFTResults:Push-Ups/2Min. 25.9 32.2 24.7 37.1Sit-Ups/2Min. 37.8 44.1 38.3 44 .82-MiieR un 18:11 16:50 17:14 16:04 Self-Reported FitnessScores:

Running 0.78 0.81 0.91 1.06Aerobic 1.65 1.62 1.86 1.79WeightTraining 1.30 1.05 1.21 1.60TotalScore 3.73 3.48 3.99 4.46 Non-NumericVariables:InjuryYes(n=107) 161 5% ) 8(7%) 3( 3 % ) 80 (75%)Non=531) 5811% ) 35 (7%) 62(11%) 376(71%)SmokingYes(n=185) 32 (17%) 13 (7%) 21(12%) 119(64%)Non= 453) 429% ) 3 0(7%) 44 (10%) 337(74%)

Siloddy Jr.,& Henderson,1994

Figure6showsthatthebestpredictorsofIE Tsuccessarethetrainee'sperformanceon theAPFTand thetrainee'shistoryofcigarettesmoking.he APFTscoresreflectthetrainee'sstateofphysicalfitnessand revealintangiblefactorslikemotivation.igarettesmoking,likeself reportedfitnessactivity,issubjective.mokingrepresentsahabit

43


49/64

clearlyshowntonegatively influencehealthan dperformancein thelongterm,andservesasa predictorofshortterm IE Tsuccess.

Nationalhealthstatisticsindicatethatofhighschoolgraduates,37percentexerciseregularly,29.6 percentsmokecigarettes,and 28.6 percentareoverweight.65he recruiteligiblepopulationisderivedfrom thesehighschoolgraduatesand non-graduateswho statisticsareno tavailabletoreview.hehealthstatisticsarealarming,withwellunderhalfofhighschoolgraduatesexercisingregularly,whilealmostathirdsmokean dareoverweight.on-graduatehealthstandardsareassumedtobeevenworsethanstudentswhoaresubjecttophysicaleducation an dathleticcompetition.

Thisstudypresents tw oinsightfulfindings.he firstisthattheArmy shouldconsiderahistoryofcigarettesmokingasanegativescreeningcriteriafo rpotentialrecruits.ttempting toscreenoutundesirable recruitsisrequiredtoestablishapopulation withintheArmyofpotentialcombatarmssoldiers.econdly,administeringtheAPFT tonew recruitsshouldbe consideredattheMEPS,priortoIET.heAPFTisavalidpredictorofsuccessfulIE Tcompletionan dshouldbeusedtoscreenoutphysically un-fitrecruits.mplementing thesetw orecruitscreeningmeasuressavesvaluableresources.otentially,thescreeningofrecruitsinthismanner,provides theArmyamorephysicallyqualifiedsoldier.

Army recruitingstandardsdono tadequately selectthebestrecruitsfo rthecombatarms.otedearlier,strength fitnessha salimitedrelationshiptobody fa tcompositionbutisrelatedtooverallmusclemass. usclemassisdifficulttomeasureseparatelyan discommonlyestimated fromthemorereadilydeterminedfat-freemass.at-freemass

4 4


50/64

alsocontainsbone,connective,an dotherstructuraltissue,yet onlymuscleisreadilyalteredan dthereforefat-freemassisrepresentativeof themusclemasspresent.66 Screeningmeasuresthatdeterminetherecruitsfat-freemassaremoredesirablethanbody fa tcompositionstandards.he recruitspotentialtocompletecombatrelatedphysicaltasksdependson histotalfat-freemass.heability toperform incombatistherefore directly relatedtohistotalfat-freemass.

Therelationshipbetweenmaximum liftcapacityan dfat-freemasswasillustrated inFigure3,page33ofthismonograph.hedatain Figure3indicatethatinmen,afat-freemassofapproximately50kilogramsistheminimumrequiredtoachievealiftperformanceof100pounds.hysiologically,itha sbeendetermined thatseparatefa tan dmusclemassstandardsarebesttoreflecttheindividualcapacitiesofaerobicfitnessan dmusclestrengthfitness.odatetheArmy ha snotattemptedtoimplementsuchastandardbecauseithasbeen judgedtoocomplex.he timetoactisnow.mplementingne wstandardsincreasestheindividualcombatreadinessoftheentireU.S.Army.

The entrancescreeningisan idealtimetoestablishan ddetermineaminimum leveloffat-freemasscommensuratewithaminimalacceptablelevelofmuscularstrengthrequiredfo rfutureservice.hownon thenextpage,Figure7,depictsallowablebody weightsas afunctionofthepercentbodyfa tstandard,basedon thedesiredlevelof50kilogram fat-freemass.67

45


51/64

Figure-7Nomogram forallowableBodyweightsas aFunctionofth e% Body FatStandard,Basedon th eDesiredLevelof50KgFat-FreeMass

5 5 15-MinimalUpperLimitfo r% Body Fat

_ 2 f )5 J S L s S S Unacceptable

Vogel,19920

. T-i-r.i\...cK^^tei

DoctorVogel 'sdatainFigure7show theminimalacceptablebodyweight,atvariouspercentbodyfa tstandards,requiredtoyieldafat-freemassofatleast50kilograms.Implementingfat-freemassstandardsfo rpotentialrecruitsprovidestheArmy astrengthcapacityscreenattheMEPS. Thistypeofscreeningwouldbefasterandsaferthanactuallyliftingor executingotherstrengthtests.his willassisttheArmy'spursuitofqualifiedcombatarmssoldiersattheonset,butwhatca nbe donetoenhancethesoldiersphysicaldevelopmentfollowingAIT?

UnitBFTPsarean essentialstepin thedevelopmentofcombatreadyindividualsoldiers.heimplementationmustbeacommandpriorityatdivision levelan dbelow,withemphasisplacedonunitcombatreadinessphysicaltraining,nottheunitAPFT averagescore.hysicaltrainingprogramsshouldincorporatemusclestrength an denduranceregimesfo rsmallunitan dindividualtraining.hi sm ayrequirecentralized

4 6


52/64

controlofphysicalfitnesscenters,similartotherangeschedulingproceduresinplaceat mostinstallationstoday.

The bottomlinetothisdiscussion isthatthereexistsintheArmy today,onlyathreadof linkagebetweentheArmy'sphysicalfitnessprogramand thecombatarmssoldier'scombatreadiness.Mostdataillustratesagrowingconcernfo rtheproperselectionan dtrainingof thenation'smilitarymanpower.trengtheningthelinkageoftheprogram totheproductistheke ytosuccessfullyfillingthenation'scombatarmswiththemostsurvivable,lethalan dcombatreadysoldierin thefuture.

47


53/64

ENDNOTES 1 .tephenE.Ambrose,UndauntedCourage,MeriwetherLewis.ThomasJeffersonand theopeningoftheAmericanWest(New York:Simon&Schuster,996),58.enry AdamsdescriptionoftheAmerican of1801.damswasgeneralizing,buthe couldhavebeendescribingMeriwetherLewis.riginalsource:HenryAdams,History, oftheUnitedStatesofAmericaduringthead ministrationsofThomasJefferson(New York:LibraryofAmericaEdition,1986),109.2.ar lE.Friedl,"BodyCompositionan dMilitary Performance:OriginsoftheArmy Standards"(Washington DC:NationalAcademy Press,1992),36. Originalsources:Foster,W.B.,I.L.Hellman,D.Hesford,and D.G.McPherson,"PhysicalStandardsin WorldW arII"(Washington DC:OfficeoftheSurgeonGeneral,Department of theArmy,1967). Davenport,C.B.,and A.G.Love,"TheMedicalDepartmentoftheUnited StatesArmyin theWorldWar"WashingtonDC:U.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice,1921),vol.5,Statistics,part1 .avenport,C.B.,and A.G.Love,"ArmyAnthropologyBasedon ObservationsMadeon DraftRecruits,1917-1918,and onVeteransatDemobilization,1919"(WashingtonDC:U.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice,919& 1921).3..S .Army Regulation4 0 - 501 ,StandardsofMedicalFitness(Washington DC:HQ DepartmentoftheArmy,3 0August,995),7.3.m arN.Bradley,AGeneral'sLife(New York,N ew York:Simon&Schuster,Inc.,1983),106.5.bid,203.6.arlE.Friedl,"BodyCompositionand Military Performance:OriginsoftheArmy Standards"(WashingtonDC:NationalAcademyPress,1992),4 4 . Originalsource:Foster,W.B.,I.L.Hellman,D.Hesford,an dD.G.McPherson,"PhysicalStandardsin WorldW arII"(WashingtonDC:OfficeoftheSurgeonGeneral,Department oftheArmy,1967).7.arlE.Friedl,"BodyComposition an dMilitary Performance:OriginsoftheArmy Standards"(WashingtonDC:NationalAcademyPress,1992),44 .8.bid,4 5 .riedlstates,"a significantrevision of AR 600-9(1976)combined theU.S.ArmyPhysicalFitnessand WeightControlProgramregulations.hiswasaresponse to concernthatArmypersonnelwerebecomingtoosedentaryand notmaintainingdesiredfitnesslevels.uitesimply,theArmyleadershipfeltthatthereweretoomanyobesesoldiers.(...)he maleupperlimitwas27.5kg/m2or125 percentof theWWIImale"standard"weights.hisupperlimitwas,inturn,basedon thedesirableweightsfo r

48


54/64

men,ag e20 ,in the1912Medico-Actuarialtables(Davenport,1923)[notedbelow],whichrepresentedaverageweight-for-heightof theinsuredU.S.populationattheturnofthecentury(...)Bothofthesenew maleand femalestandardsfo rretentionin theArmy wereconsiderably morestringentthantheaccessionweightstandards(A R 4 0 - 501 ,1960)atthattime."Davenport,C.B.,"Body-build and itsInheritance"(WashingtonDC: CarnegieInstituteofWashington,1923),No.329.9.bid,4 7.10 ..S .DepartmentofDefense,Directive1308.1.PhysicalFitnessan dWeightControlPrograms(WashingtonDC:DepartmentofDefense,29 June1981),Enclosure2,page2.The desirablebodyfa tfigurewasoriginally15percent.hevaluewas basedon aconsensusbypanelmemberswho feltthatthefigureswouldrequirerevisionas abetterunderstanding wasgainedoftherelationshipbetweenhealthan dbodyfat.11 .amesA.Vogel,"Obesityand ItsRelationtoPhysicalFitnessin theU.S.Military,"ArmedForces&Society,18 ,no.4(Summer1992):504 .12..S .Departmentof theArmy,Departmentof theArmyStrength(Washington DC:GovernmentPrintingOffice,1985an d1996).13 ..S .NavalMilitary PersonnelCommand,Healthan dPhysicalReadiness(WashingtonDC:HQDepartmentof theNavy,1987),1-2.14 .erryKramer& DickSchaap,InstantReply.The Gree nBay Diary ofJerryKramer(NewYork:The N ew AmericanLibrary,Inc.,1968),31. 15 .U.S.NavalMilitaryPersonnelCommand,Healthan dPhysical, ReMinejs(WashingtonDC:HQ DepartmentoftheNavy,1987),1-3.16 ..S .ArmyFieldManual21-20,PhysicalFitnessTraining(WashingtonDC:HQ DepartmentoftheArmy,1992),1-3.17 ..S .NavalMilitaryPersonnelCommand,Healthan dPhysicalReadiness(WashingtonDC:HQDepartmentoftheNavy,1987),1-4.epartmentoftheArmy,FM 21-20did notcontainaconcisedefinitionoftheterm.18.bid.19 .bid.20 ..S .ArmyRegulation40-501 ,StandardsofMedicalFitness(WashingtonDC:HQ DepartmentoftheArmy,1995),7-8..S .ArmyRegulation600-9,TheArmyWeightControlProgram-Interim Change1(WashingtonDC:HQ Departmentof theArmy,4 March1994),2.

4 9


55/64

21 ..S .Army Regulation 350 - 41 ,Training inUnits(WashingtonDC:DepartmentoftheArmy,1993) ,15 .22..S .ArmyRegulation611-201,EnlistedCareerManagementFieldsan dMilitary OccupationalSpecialties(Washington DC:HQDepartmentof theArmy,1995) ,72-75.23 .amesA.Vogel,"A Review ofPhysicalFitnessas itPertainstotheMilitary Services"(Natick,Massachusetts:.S .ArmyResearchInstituteofEnvironmentalMedicine,1985),Report No.T14/85,AD-A166-696 ,3.24 .bid,6.25 .regor,WilliamJ .,"TheIndividualTankerin ArmorOperations"(Documentprepared fo rthePresidentialCommissionon theassignmentofwomenin theArmedForces,October7,1992),3.26 .MichaelS.Bahrke& JohnS.O'Connor,LTC,"LoadCarryingAbility ThroughPhysicalFitnessTraining"Infantry,March-April1990,33 .27 .bid,323 .28 ..B .Sledge,WithThe Old Breed(Novato,California:PresidioPress,1981),79.29 .t.Gen.HaroldG.Moore& JosephL.Galloway,W eWereSoldiersOncerr^andYounglaDrang:The BattleThat ChangedTheW ar InVietnam (NewYork:Random House,1992),67.3 0.bid,82 .31.amesA.Vogel,"Obesity an dPhysicalFitnessin theMilitary,"ArmedForces& Society,18 ,no.4 (Summer,992):499 .riginalsource:O.Bar-Or,H.M.Lundegrenand E.R.Buskirk,"HeatToleranceofExercisingObeseand LeanWomen,"JournalofAppliedPhysiology,26 (April969):403-09.32.William,C.David,LieutenantColonel,U.S.Army,"Preparing abattalionfo rcombat:physicalfitnessand mentaltoughness,"Infantry,January-February 1995,27 & 30.he accountissummarized bytheauthortohighlightthesalientpoints.he followinginformationisextractedfrom thearticleand providesadditionalfactsandcircumstancessurrounding theaction:

a.3September,1993.F2-14 IN (- )attackstocleartw olargecompoundsinthevicinityofBenadirHospital.ntelligencesourcesha dindicatedthatthesecompoundscontained largeweaponscachesand quarteredpersonnelinvolvedinattacksagainsttheUnited NationsOperationinSomalia(U NOSOM )forces.heoperation escalatedintoafourhourfirefightwiththeSN AMilitia.F2-25Aviationprovidedattackhelicoptersupport.F2-14 IN sufferedthreewoundedinaction(WIA),an denemycasualtiesare50


56/64

estimatedat60killedor wounded.b.heSN Awas thepoliticalapparatusinsupportof"warlord"MohammedFarahAideedfollowingthe1991overthrowofPresidentSiaddBarrean dthesubsequentcivilwar.heSNAMilitiawastheactivemilitaryarm ofthisorganization.ts leadershipwascomposedprimarily offormerSomaliArmyofficersand many ofits

soldiershad militaryexperience.33 .oesephKnapik,William Daniels,MichelleMurphy,PatriciaFitzgerald,FrederickDrews,& JamesVogel,"PhysicalFitnessan dInfantryOperations"(Natick,Massachusetts:U.S.ArmyResearchInstituteofEnvironmentalMedicine,1983),#AD-A206-320 .34 .WayneS.Lee,M AJ ,CanadianArmedForces,"TaskRelatedAerobican dAnaerobicPhysicalFitnessStandardsfo rtheCanadianArmy"(Edmonton,Alberta:DepartmentofPhysicalEducationand SportsStudies,1992),4 .35 .osephKnapik,CPT,USA,"TheArmyPhysicalFitnessTest(APFT):AReview oftheLiterature,"MilitaryMedicine,154,no.6(June1989),326.36.bid,44 .37.verettA.Harman&PeterN.Frykman,"TheRelationship ofBodySizean dComposistiontothePerformanceofPhysicallyDemandingMilitaryTasks"(WashingtonDC:NationalAcademyPress,1992),109.riginalSource:McArdle,W.D.,F.I.KatchandV.L.Katch,ExercisePhysiology:Energy,Nutrition,an dHumanPe rformance.2n ded.(Philadelphia,PA :Leaan dFebiger,1986),516.3 8.WayneS.Lee,M AJ ,CanadianArmedForces,"TaskRelatedAerobicand AnaerobicPhysicalFitnessStandardsfo rtheCanadianArmy"(Edmonton,Alberta:DepartmentofPhysicalEducationan dSportsStudies,1992),5.39.bid.40..S .ArmyRegulation611-201,EnlistedCareerManagementFie ld san dMilitary Occupational..Specialities(WashingtonDC:DepartmentoftheArmy,1995),4 .4 1.The PresidentialCommissionon the AssignmentofW omenintheArmedForces,ReporttothePresident(Washington,DC:GovernmentPrintingOffice,15 November,1992),C-7.riginalsource: JamesA.Vogel,TestimonybeforethePresidentialCommissionon theAssignmentofWomenintheArmedForces,7August1992.ata sourceistheanalysisof1,999criticaltasksacrossal ljobcategories.

51


57/64

4 2..S .ArmyFieldManual21-20,PhysicalFitnessTraining(Washington DC:HQ Departmentof theArmy,1992),10-4.4 9.he PresidentialCommissionontheAssignmentofW omenin theArmedForces,ReporttothePresident(Washington,DC:GovernmentPrintingOffice,5November,1992),C-4.Originalsource:Wright,J.A.,D.S.Sharp,J.A.Vogel,andJ.F.Patton,"AssessmentofMuscleStrengthand Prediction of liftinginU.S.ArmyPersonnel" (Natick,Massachusetts:.S .ArmyResearchInstituteofEnvironmentalMedicine,1985),ReportNo.M9/1985.44 .bid.riginalsource: arcinik,E.J.,J.A.Hodgdon,J.J.O'Brien,an dK.Mittleman,"A Comparison of theEffectsofCircuitTrainingon NavyM en and Women"NavalHealthResearchCenterReport,1985.45 .bid.riginalsource:Myers,D.C.,& D.L.Gephardt,"ValidationoftheMilitary EntrancePhysicalStrengthCapacity Test"(Alexandria,Va.,U.S.ArmyResearch Institutefo rtheBehavioraland SocialSciences,1984),TechnicalReport,No.610.52.amesA.Vogel,"A ReviewofPhysicalFitnessas itPertainstotheMilitaryServices,"(Natick,Massachusetts:.S .ArmyResearch InstituteofEnvironmentalMedicine,1985),ReportNo.T14/85,AD-A166696,p.6.4 7.hePresidentialCommissionon theAssignmentofW omenin theArmedForces,ReporttothePresident(Washington,DC:GovernmentPrintingOffice,15 November,1992),C-4.riginalsource:osier,W.W.&J.R.Morrow,"Arm and LegStrengthComparedbetweenYoungWomenan dM en AfterAllowingfo rDifferencesinBody Sizean dComposition,"Ergonomics,25(4):309-31 ,1982.4 8.bid,C-7.Originalsource: yers,D.C.,& D.L.Gephardt,"ValidationoftheMilitary EntrancePhysicalStrengthCapacity Test"(Alexandria, Va.,U.S.Army ResearchInstitutefo rtheBehavioralandSocialSciences,1984),TechnicalReport,No. 610.4 9.bid.riginalsource:ogel,J.A.,J.F.Patton,R.P.Mello,and W.L.Daniels,"A nAnalysisofAerobicCapacity inaLargeUnitedStatesPopulation"(Natick,Massachusetts:U.S.Army ResearchInstituteofEnvironmentalMedicine,1985),ReportNo.M28/1985.50 .bid.51.amesA.Vogel,"Obesityan dItsRelationtoPhysicalFitnessin theU.S.Military,"Armed Forces&Socjety,8,no .4(Summer1992):502.52.bid,504 .

52


58/64

53 .bid.54 .amesA.Vogel,"Obesity an dItsRelationtoPhysicalFitnessin theU.S.Military,"ArmedForces&Society,18 ,no .4(Summer1992):504 .riginalsources: P.I.Fitzgerald,J.A.Vogel,W.L.Daniels,J.E.Dziados,M.A.Teves,R.P.Mello,an dP J.Reich,"TheBodyCompositionProject:ASummary Reportand DescriptiveData"(Natick,Mass.,U.S.ArmyResearchInstituteofEnvironmentalMedicine,December 1986),TechnicalReportNo.T5-87;J.J.Knapik,R.L.Burseand JA.Vogel,"Height,Weight,PercentBodyFat,an dIndicesofAdiposity fo rYoungM en an dWomenEnteringtheU.S.Army"Aviation,Spacean dEnvironmentalMedicine54(March1983):223-31;JA.Vogel,J.F.Patton,R.P.Mello,an dW.L.Daniels,"A nAnalysisofAerobicCapacity inaLargeUnitedStatesPopulation"JournalofAopliedPhysiology60(February1986):494-500 .55.amesA.Vogel& KarlE.Friedl,"ArmyData:BodyCompositionan dPhysicalCapacity"(WashingtonDC:NationalAcademyPress,1992),100.riginalsource:Meyers,D.C.,D.L.Gebhardt,C.E.Crump,an dEA.Fleishman,"ValidationoftheMilitary EntrancePhysicalStrength CapacityTest"(Alexandria,VA:U.S.Army ResearchInstitutefo r theBehavioralan dSocialSciences,1984),TechnicalReportNo. 610.56.Harsukhpal,SinghChahal,"ArmyPhysicalFitnessPerformanceStandardsBasedon BodyComposition,MuscularStrength an dEndurance"(Edmonton,Alberta Canada,DepartmentofPhysicalEducationandSportsStudies,Spring1993),4 4 . Originalsource:ette,M .&Kimick,A.,"Developmentofan IndoorStandardizedObstacleCourseasan OperationalTestofFitnessfo rCanadianForcesInfantry Personnel"AResearchProjectsubmitted toDPERA/NDHQ,(Ottawa,Canada,1986).57.bid.58.arsukhpal,SinghChahal,"ArmyPhysicalFitnessPerformanceStandardsBasedon BodyComposition,MuscularStrength an dEndurance,"DepartmentofPhysicalEducation an dSportsStudies(Edmonton,AlbertaCanada,Spring1993),21 .59..S .ArmyPhysicalFitnessSchool(USAPFS),"BattleFocusedPhysicalTraining," a30pagebriefingpacket,providedby theUSAPFS,FortBenning,GA31905-5000 . 60.eterG.Tsouras,Warrior'sWords(London:Armsan dArmourPress,1992),445.61.arsukhpal,SinghChahal,"ArmyPhysicalFitnessPerformanceStandardsBasedon BodyComposition,MuscularStrength an dEndurance,"DepartmentofPhysicalEducationan dSportsStudies(Edmonton,AlbertaCanada,Spring1993) ,20 .riginalsource: Sharp,D.S.,Wright,J.E.,Vogel,JA.,Patton,J.F.,Daniels,W.L.,Knapik,J .,an dKowal,D.M.,"Screeningfo rPhysicalCapacity intheU.S.Army:AnAnalysisof

53


59/64

MeasuresPredictiveofStrengthandStamina"(Natick,Massachusetts,U.S.Army ResearchInstituteofEnvironmentalMedicine1980).62.obertO.Snoddy,Jr.,& JohnM .Henderson,"PredictorsofBasicInfantryTraining Success,"Military Medicine159,No.9(September1994),616.63 .bid,621.64 .bid.65..S .Department ofCommerce,StatisticalAbstractoftheUnitedStates1995 (WashingtonDC:Government PrintingOffice,1995),overweightisbasedon being20 percentor moreaboveweight,basedon1983MetropolitanLifeInsuranceCompany standards.riginalsource:U.S.NationalCenterfo rHealthStatistics,HealthPromotion andDisease Prevention:United States, 990,Vitaland Healthstatistics,series10 ,No. 185.66.amesA.Vogel& KarlE.Friedl,"ArmyData:Body Compositionan dPhysicalCapacity"(WashingtonDC:NationalAcademy Press,1992),17 .67.amesA.Vogel,"Obesityand Its RelationtoPhysicalFitnessin theU.S.Military," ArmedForces&Sjgdety,18 ,no.4(Summer1992),511.

54


60/64

BIBLIOGRAPHY Books

Ambrose,StephenE.UndauntedCourage.MeriwetherLewis.ThomasJefferson and theopeningoftheAmericanWest.ew York,NY:Simon&Schuster,1996.Ben-Asher,David,COL.ightingFit.The IsraelDefenseForcesGuidetoPhysicalFitnessan dSelf-Defense .ew York,NY:PerigeeBooks,983.Bradley,Omar N.AGeneral'sLife.ew York,NY:Simon&Schuster,Inc.,1983.Committeeon MilitaryNutritionResearch,Foodand NutritionBoard,InstituteofMedicine.odyCompositionan dPhysicalPerformance.Applicationsfo rtheMilitary Services.Washington,DC:NationalAcademyPress,1992.Eggar,Robin.The RoyalMarinesTotalFitness .ondon,England:Random House,1993.Huntington,SamuelP.heSoldierand theState.ambridge,Mass.:TheBelknapPress,1985.Kramer,Jerry,and DickSchaap.InstantReply.TheGreenBayDiaryofJerryKramer .ew York,NY:The N ew AmericanLibrary,Inc.,1968.Moore,Lt.Gen.HaroldG.,andJosephL.Galloway. WeWereSoldiersOnce...andYounglaDrang:The BattleThatChangedThe W arIn Vietnam .ew York,NY:RandomHouse,1992.Palmer,RobertR.,WileyI.Bell,an dWilliam R.Keast.he ArmvGroundForces.he Procurementan dTrainingofGroundCombatTroops .nitedStatesArmyinWorldW ar II,Washington,DC:U.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice,1948.Patton,JR.,GeorgeS.W arAsIKnew It .ew York,NY:Bantam Books,1947.Sledge,E.B.WithThe Old Breed . Novato,California:PresidioPress,1981.Tsouras,PeterG.Warrior'sWords .ondon:ArmsandArmourPress,1992.Thomason,JohnW.ix Bayonets .eprintedbyarrangement,N ew York,NY:Charles

Scribner'sSons,1925.JOURNALS

Bahrke,Michael,S.,an dJohn,S.O'Conner,LTC,USA.LoadCarryingAbility ThroughPhysicalFitnessTraining."nfantry(March-April1990):33-36 .


61/64

Baldi,KarenA.,CAPT,USAF,M C.AnOverview ofPhysicalFitnessofFemale CadetsattheMilitaryAcademies."MilitaryMedicine(October,1991):537-539 .Collis,Michael,L.MSG,USA."PhysicalFitnessIn theReserveComponents."nfantry (May-June1993):42-44 .David,William,C.LTC,USA."Preparing abattalionfo rCombat:PhysicalFitnessan dMentalToughness."nfantry (May-June1995):25-30.Drew,Gwendolyn.AHistoricalStudyoftheConcernoftheFederalGovernmentfo rthePhysicalFitnessofNon-AgeYouthwithReferencetotheSchools,1790- 1941."ResearchQuarterly(October1945):202.Eikenberry,Karl,W.COL,USA.Thoughtson PhysicalTraining."nfantry (January-February1995):36-41.Jette,Maurice,Kimick,Allanan dSidney,Ken.EvaluatingtheOccupationalPhysicalFitnessofCanadianForcesInfantryPersonnel."Military MedicinefJune1989):18-321.Knapik,Joseph.TheArmy PhysicalFitnessTest(APFT):A Review oftheLiterature."MilitaryMedicinef June1989):326-329.Padgett,Samuel,J.CPT,USA.Commander'sFitnessProgram."nfantry(July-August1990):36-38.Ramsey,Russell,W.Fitnessan dWarfighting."Air ForceMagazine(April1990):06-107.Shake,CaronL. ,Schlichting,Christine,Mooney,LorenW.,etal.PredictingPercentBody Fatfrom CircumferenceMeasurements."Military Medicine(January 1993):26-31.Snoddy,R.O.Jr.,and Henderson,J .M.PredictorsofBasicInfantryTrainingSuccess."Military Medicinef September1994):616-621.Starr,Barbara.EnhancedSoldierfo rtheUSArmy."ane'sDefenceWeekly .3 0 January1993,25 .Stumpf,Harry,D.,LTC,USA.Leadershipan dPT."nfantry(July-August1990):34-36 .Vanderburgh,Paul,M .,CPT,USA.PhysicalFitness."nfantry(September-October1991):23 -27 .Vogel,James,A.ObesityandItsRelationtoPhysicalFitnessintheU.S.Military."ArmedForces&SocietyfSummer1992):497-513 .


62/64

Williford,H.N.,K.,Sport,an dN.,Wang.ThePredictionofFitnessLevelsofUnitedStatesAirForceOfficers:Validation ofCycleErgometry."MilitaryMedicine(March1994):175-178.Woodruff,SusanI.,Conway,Terry,Linenger,JerryM .AnAssessmentofPre-an dPost-

FitnessMeasuresinTwoRemedialConditioning Programs."Military Medicine(January,1992):25-30.Newspaper Articles

Adelsberger,Bernard.H ow fit,how fa t-Army'sfitnessgaugescomeunderscrutiny."ArmyTimes.22 August1994,12-13,16-17.Gillbert,Doug.3 0 percentof takersfailnew aerobicstest."AirForceTimes.1 1 January1993,2.

GovernmentPublications Friedl,KarlE.Body Compositionan dMilitaryPerformance:Originsof theArmy Standards."WashingtonDC:NationalAcademyPress,1992.Gregor,William J.The IndividualTankerinArmorOperations .ocumentpreparedfo rthePresidentialCo

5_gettrdoc.pdf

Documents