Executive Summary From the National Strength and Conditioning Association's Second Blue Ribbon Panel on Military Physical Readiness: Military Physical Performance Testing

Abstract

Nindl, BC, Alvar, BA, Dudley, JR, Favre, MW, Martin, GJ, Sharp, MA, Warr, BJ, Stephenson, MD, and Kraemer, WJ. Executive summary from the National Strength and Conditioning Association's second Blue Ribbon Panel on military physical readiness: Military physical performance testing. J Strength Cond Res 29(11S): S216-S220, 2015-The National Strength and Conditioning Association's tactical strength and conditioning program sponsored the second Blue Ribbon Panel on military physical readiness: military physical performance testing, April 18-19, 2013, Norfolk, VA. This meeting brought together a total of 20 subject matter experts (SMEs) from the U.S. Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and academia representing practitioners, operators, researchers, and policy advisors to discuss the current state of physical performance testing across the Armed Services. The SME panel initially rated 9 common military tasks (jumping over obstacles, moving with agility, carrying heavy loads, dragging heavy loads, running long distances, moving quickly over short distances, climbing over obstacles, lifting heavy objects, loading equipment) by the degree to which health-related fitness components (e.g., aerobic fitness, muscular strength, muscular endurance, flexibility, and body composition) and skill-related fitness components (e.g., muscular power, agility, balance, coordination, speed, and reaction time) were required to accomplish these tasks. A scale from 1 to 10 (10 being highest) was used. Muscular strength, power, and endurance received the highest rating scores. Panel consensus concluded that (a) selected fitness components (particularly for skill-related fitness components) are currently not being assessed by the military; (b) field-expedient options to measure both health-based and skill-based fitness components are currently available; and

Full text

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FROM THE NATIONAL STRENGTH
AND CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION’SSECOND BLUE
RIBBON PANEL ON MILITARY PHYSICAL READINESS:
MILITARY PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE TESTING
BRADLEY C. NINDL,
1,2
BRENT A. ALVAR,
3
JASON R. DUDLEY,
4
MIKE W. FAVRE,
5
GERARD J. MARTIN,
6
MARILYN A. SHARP,
7
BRAD J. WARR,
7
MARK D. STEPHENSON,
8
AND
WILLIAM J. KRAEMER
9
1
Neuromuscular Research Laboratory/Warrior Human Performance Research Center, Department of Sports Medicine and
Nutrition, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
2
U.S. Army Public
Health Center (Provisional), Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland;
3
Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions, Provo,
Utah;
4
Department of Athletics, Central Washington University, Ellensburg, Washington;
5
Department of Athletics, University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan;
6
Department of Athletics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut;
7
Military
Performance Division, U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Natick, Massachusetts;
8
Naval Special
Warfare Human Performance Program, Virginia Beach, Virginia; and
9
Department of Human Sciences, College of Education
and Human Ecology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
ABSTRACT
Nindl,BC,Alvar,BA,Dudley,JR,Favre,MW,Martin,GJ,Sharp,
MA,Warr,BJ,Stephenson,MD,andKraemer,WJ.Executive
summary from the National Strength and Conditioning Associa-
tion’s second Blue Ribbon Panel on military physical readiness:
Military physical performance testing. J Strength Cond Res
29(11S): S216–S220, 2015—The National Strength and Condi-
tioning Association’s tactical strength and conditioning program
sponsored the second Blue Ribbon Panel on military physical
readiness: military physical performance testing, April 18–19,
2013, Norfolk, VA. This meeting brought together a total of 20
subject matter experts (SMEs) from the U.S. Air Force, Army,
Marine Corps, Navy, and academia representing practitioners, op-
erators, researchers, and policy advisors to discuss the current
state of physical performance testing across the Armed Services.
The SME panel initially rated 9 common military tasks (jumping
over obstacles, moving with agility, carrying heavy loads, dragging
heavy loads, running long distances, moving quickly over short
distances, climbing over obstacles, lifting heavy objects, loading
equipment) by the degree to which health-related fitness compo-
nents (e.g., aerobic fitness, muscular strength, muscular endur-
ance, flexibility, and body composition) and skill-related fitness
components (e.g., muscular power, agility, balance, coordination,
speed, and reaction time) were required to accomplish these
tasks. A scale from 1 to 10 (10 being highest) was used. Muscular
strength, power, and endurance received the highest rating
scores. Panel consensus concluded that (a) selected fitness com-
ponents (particularly for skill-related fitness components) are cur-
rently not being assessed by the military; (b) field-expedient
options to measure both health-based and skill-based fitness com-
ponents are currently available; and (c) 95% of the panel con-
curred that all services should consider a tier II test focused on
both health-related and skill-related fitness components based on
occupational, functional, and tactical military performance require-
ments.
KEY WORDS tactical training, military fitness, field-expedient
testing
High levels of physical fitness are essential for
tactical athletes who engage in physically
demanding occupations. Such occupations
require high levels across a wide spectrum of
health-related (muscular strength, muscular endurance, aer-
obic fitness, body composition, and flexibility) and skill-
related (agility, balance, coordination, power, reaction time,
and speed) components of physical fitness (Table 1) (6,10,11).
A physically ready and resilient military is essential for
national security, and the military places a premium on
Disclaimer: The views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this
publication are those of the authors and should not be construed as
an official Department of the Army position, policy, or decision
unless so designated by official documentation.
Address correspondence to Dr. Bradley C. Nindl, Bradley.c.nindl.civ@
mail.mil.
29(11S)/S216–S220
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó2015 National Strength and Conditioning Association
S216
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

physical fitness training and testing (11,13,14). All combat-
oriented branches of the military (i.e., Army, Navy, Marines,
and Air Force) require regular fitness testing for their service
members (Table 2) (2–5,12). Mandated physical fitness test-
ing provides military leaders and commanders with useful
information on assessing physical fitness levels, determining
effectiveness of training regimens, identifying individual sol-
dier strengths and weaknesses, and providing motivation to
maintain individual physical readiness and preparedness (8,9).
In general, although these military physical tests are condu-
cive to testing a large number of soldiers, require no or mini-
mal equipment, and are reliable and valid, they are limited
regarding assessment across the spectrum of physical fitness
components (8,9). These field-expedient physical fitness tests
emphasize muscular endurance and aerobic fitness. These
tests have been critiqued as having limitations in assessing
“combat-fitness” (i.e., operationally defined in this article as
the ability to successfully accomplish one’s military job, tasks,
or duties) (1,6).
As an example, the Marine Corps Combat Fitness Test,
which consists of an obstacle course-like test, would appear to
have advantages over traditional, military physical fitness tests,
in that it requires abilities across a spectrum of both health-
and skill-related physical fitness components (12). Currently,
the Army, Air Force, and Navy have study projects in which
they are also considering additional tests (i.e., tier II specialized
tests based on occupational and functional requirements that
go beyond the scope of standard physical fitness tests such as
push-ups, sit-ups, and running) which may provide greater
insight into soldier physical and combat fitness abilities.
Recognizing a need to foster dialogue on the state-of-the-
science for military physical performance testing, the National
Strength and Conditioning Association’s (NSCA) tactical
strength and conditioning (TSAC) program sponsored and
hosted the second Blue Ribbon Panel on military physical
readiness: military physical performance testing immediately
after the NSCA’s fourth annual TSAC conference on April
18–19, 2013 in Norfolk, VA. The second Blue Ribbon Panel
was convened to continue the TSAC program’s commitment
to its mission of providing state-of the-art physical training
and education and to expand and deliver this information to
those who serve and protect our country and communities.
This meeting brought together a total of 20 subject matter
experts (SMEs) from the U.S. Army, U.S. Marines, U.S. Navy,
U.S. Air Force, and academia representing practitioners, oper-
ators, researchers, and policy advisors to discuss the current
state of physical performance testing across the Armed
Services.
The SME panel initially rated 9 common military tasks
(Table 3) by the degree to which health-related fitness com-
ponents (e.g., aerobic fitness, muscular strength, muscular
endurance, flexibility, and body composition) and skill-
related fitness components (e.g., muscular power, agility, bal-
ance, coordination, speed, and reaction time) were required
to accomplish these tasks. A scale from 1 to 10 (10 being
highest) was used. These results are shown in Table 3.
TABLE 1. Components and definition of physical fitness.
Component Definition
Health-related components of
physical fitness
Muscular strength The ability of a muscle to exert a maximal force through a given range of motion or at
a single given point
Muscular endurance The capacity of a muscle to repeatedly exert a submaximal force through a given
range of motion or at a single point over a given time
Aerobic fitness The ability of the cardiovascular system to continue training (working) for extended
periods of time (periods longer than 20 min on average)
Flexibility The ability of a joint to move through a full range of motion
Body composition The ratio of lean body mass to fat mass, or body mass to height
Skill-related components of
physical fitness
Agility The ability to rapidly and accurately change the direction of the whole body in space
Balance/dynamic balance The ability to maintain equilibrium while stationary or moving
Coordination The ability to use one’s senses and body parts to perform motor tasks smoothly and
accurately
Power The amount of force a muscle can exert as quickly as possible (force or strength per
unit of time)
Reaction time The ability to respond quickly to stimuli
Speed The amount of time it takes the body to perform specific tasks (distance per unit of
time)
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 29 | NUMBER 11 | SUPPLEMENT TO NOVEMBER 2015 | S217
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Muscular strength, power, and endurance received the high-
est rating scores.
The Blue Ribbon Panel then broke into SME groups to
establish a list of field-expedient tests that could be consid-
ered for military physical performance testing for later voting
by the entire panel. The 20 SMEs were divided into 4 groups
to identify a list of field-expedient testing options for the
fitness components: group A (muscular endurance, cardio-
vascular endurance, and body composition), group B (mus-
cular strength and power), group C (speed, agility, and
reaction time), and group D (flexibility, balance, and coordi-
nation) (1,7). From the lists of field-expedient tests that each
group generated, the entire panel then voted to prioritize
these tests. Table 4 lists the field-expedient tests that received
the most votes by the panel. Panel discussion centered on
whether the services should have a common-criteria health-
based fitness test (82% of panel members concurred) and
whether services should consider a tier II test focused on
both health-related and skill-related fitness components
based on occupational, functional, and tactical military per-
formance requirements (95% of panel members concurred). It
was noted that the Marine Corps currently has a combat-
oriented functional fitness test; however, none of the services
currently have an occupationally-specific physical fitness
assessment. The Army, Air Force, and Navy have study ini-
tiatives considering tier II fitness tests. Subsequently, the
panel discussed the need to consider whether Department
of Defense (DoD) Instruction 1308.3, “DoD Physical Fitness
and Body Fat Programs Procedures” (2), should be revised to
consider inclusion of tier II tests to assess functional and skill-
related fitness components related to occupational tasks.
The most valued resource in the U.S. military is the
individual service member. The human dimension strategy
of the U.S. military places a premium on optimizing the
physical, cognitive, and social aspects of soldiering. In an era
of fiscal austerity and military downsizing, innovative and
transformative efforts are required to optimally develop and
train the military’s physical readiness. Over the past decade
of conflict, the physical readiness has been universally rec-
ognized as a force multiplier for combat effectiveness, resil-
ience, and survivability on the battlefield. The military
spends billions of dollars each year developing and produc-
ing tactical weapons and funding the associated training
necessary to deploy them. The financial commitment to
training and testing physical readiness is pale in comparison.
As the military moves forward to a smaller, lighter, more
mobile force in the fight against the global war on terrorism,
a long-term comprehensive commitment to the highest
TABLE 2. Physical fitness tests of the U.S. military services.
Service Guidance/doctrine manual Test
Fitness components
tested
Army Army physical readiness training
(TC 3-22.20, 2010) (4)
Army physical fitness test: a 3-test event:
maximum number of push-ups in 2 min;
maximum number of sit-ups in 2 min; the
fastest time to complete 2 miles
Muscular endurance,
aerobic fitness
Navy Navy physical readiness
program (OPNAVINST
6110.1H, 2005) (5)
Navy physical readiness test: a 3-test event:
maximum number of sit-ups in 2 min;
maximum number of curl-ups in 2 min; the
fastest time to complete 1.5 miles
Muscular endurance,
aerobic fitness
Marines Marine Corps physical fitness
program (MCO 6100.13,
2008) (12)
Marine Corps physical fitness test: maximum
number of pull-ups (men); maximum time for
flexed arm hang (women); maximum number
of crunches in 2 min; the fastest time to
complete 3 miles
Muscular strength,*
muscular endurance,
aerobic fitness
Marine Corps combat fitness test: an obstacle
course test consisting of a sprint timed for
880 yards, lift a 30-pound ammunition can
overhead from shoulder height repeatedly for
2 min, and perform a maneuver-under-fire
event, which is a timed 300-yard shuttle run
Agility, balance speed,
coordination
Air Force Air Force guidance
memorandum on fitness
program (AFI 36–2905,
2010) (3)
Air Force physical fitness test: a 4-event test:
maximum number of push-ups in 1 min;
maximum number of sit-ups in 1 min; the
fastest time to complete 1.5 miles; abdominal
circumference
Muscular endurance,
aerobic fitness, body
composition†
*Many subject matter experts consider the pull-up test to be a test of muscular endurance.
†All services assess body composition as a component of physical fitness.
Military Fitness Testing
S218
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

quality physical readiness training is mandatory to ensure
our future success.
The following conclusions were drawn from the NSCA’s
second Blue Ribbon Panel of military physical readiness: (a)
selected fitness components (particularly for skill-related fit-
ness components) are currently not being assessed by the
military; (b) field-expedient options to measure both health-
based and skill-based fitness components are currently avail-
able; (c) military branches may want to consider having
common health-related fitness-based tests. Concern for his-
torical perspective and appropriate health-based criterion
reference standards should be given to alter military physical
performance testing if needed; and (e) it seems prudent for
each branch of the military to design an occupational, func-
tional, and tactical military performance test for inclusion as
part of a fitness testing battery.
REFERENCES
1. Caspersen, CJ, Powell, KE, and Christenson, GM. Physical activity,
exercise, and physical fitness: Definitions and distinctions for
health-related research. Public Health Rep 100: 126–131, 1985.
TABLE 3. SME ratings for the degree to which health- and skill-related fitness components were required to accomplish common military tasks.*†z
Military tasks Strength Power Endurance
Body
composition Coordination Balance Agility Flexibility
Aerobic
fitness Speed
Reaction
time
Jump or leap over obstacles 7.5 9.0 4.0 6.4 6.9 5.7 6.5 5.9 2.6 5.7 4.0
Move with agility-coordination 4.7 5.4 5.5 5.8 9.5 8.4 9.8 6.1 4.1 6.5 6.6
Carry heavy loads 8.8 6.2 7.5 5.2 3.7 5.0 2.9 3.3 5.5 2.2 1.6
Drag heavy loads 9.2 7.4 7.4 5.2 4.5 4.8 3.3 3.8 5.2 2.7 1.6
Run long distances 3.8 3.1 6.9 6.9 3.2 3.2 3.0 3.2 9.9 4.0 1.4
Move quickly for short
distances
6.0 7.8 5.0 6.2 7.0 6.4 7.8 4.4 4.0 9.3 6.0
Climb over obstacles 8.3 6.5 5.7 6.7 7.0 6.1 6.0 5.9 3.9 4.1 2.2
Lift heavy objects off ground 9.7 7.7 5.4 5.5 4.8 5.1 2.7 5.0 3.0 2.3 1.6
Load/stow/mount hardware 7.7 6.0 6.3 5.0 5.7 5.3 3.4 4.9 3.6 2.6 2.2
Overall mean 7.3 6.6 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.5 5.0 4.7 4.6 4.4 3.0
*SME = subject matter expert.
†A scale from 1 to 10 was used to rate how each health- or skill-related fitness component contributed to completing military tasks.
zBold values are those rated by SMEs as .7.0 for essential capacity needed to accomplish the task.
TABLE 4. Field-expedient options for assessing
fitness components as identified by the SMEs.*
Fitness
component Field-expedient options
Aerobic fitness Running test (1–3 miles)
Beep test
Muscular
strength
Isometric dynamometer
Pull-up†
Incremental dynamic lift
Push-up
Muscular
endurance
Push-ups
Burpee (squat thrust)
Squat
Flexibility Functional movement screen
Sit and reach
Y-balance
Body
composition
Circumference measurements
Speed A 40-yard sprint
Agility A 300-yard shuttle run
T-test agility drill
Power Standing broad jump
Vertical jump
Medicine ball throw
Coordination Sit-up and stand without using
hands
Burpees
Balance Beam walk
Y-balance
Reaction time NA
*SME = subject matter expert; NA = not applicable.
†Many SMEs consider the pull-up test to be a test of
muscular endurance.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 29 | NUMBER 11 | SUPPLEMENT TO NOVEMBER 2015 | S219
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

2. Department of Defense. DoD Physical Fitness and Body Fat Programs
Procedures. Washington, DC: DoD Instruction 1308.3, 2002.
3. Department of the Air Force. Air Force Guidance Memorandum on
Fitness Program. AFI 36-2905, 2010.
4. Department of the Army. Army Physical Readiness Training.TC3-22.20,
2010.
5. Department of the Navy. Navy Physical Readiness Program.
OPNAVINST 6110.1H, 2005.
6. Epstein, Y, Yanovich, R, Moran, DS, and Heled, Y. Physiological
employment standards IV: Integration of women in combat units
physiological and medical considerations. Eur J Appl Physiol 113:
2673–2690, 2013.
7. Hogan, J. Structure of physical performance in occupational tasks.
J Appl Psychol 76: 495–507, 1991.
8. Knapik, JJ and Sharp, MA. Task-specific and generalized physical
training for improving manual-material handling capability. Int J Ind
Ergon 22: 149–160, 1998.
9. Kraemer, WJ, Mazzetti, SA, Nindl, BC, Gotshalk, LA, Volek, JS,
Bush, JA, Marx, JO, Dohi, K, Gomez, AL, Miles, M, Fleck, SJ,
Newton, RU, and Hakkinen, K. Effect of resistance training on
women’s strength/power and occupational performances. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 33: 1011–1025, 2001.
10. Nindl, BC, Castellani, JW, Warr, BJ, Sharp, MA, Henning, PC,
Spiering, BA, and Scofield, DE. Physiological employment
standards III: Physiological challenges and consequences
encountered during international military deployments. Eur J Appl
Physiol 113: 2655–2672, 2013.
11. Nindl, BC, Williams, TJ, Deuster, PA, Butler, NL, and Jones, BH.
Strategies for optimizing military physical readiness and preventing
musculoskeletal injuries in the 21st century. US Army Med Dep J
Oct-Dec: 5–23, 2013.
12. United States Marine Corps. Marine Corps Physical Fitness Program.
MCO 6100.13, 2008.
13. Warr, BJ, Alvar, BA, Dodd, DJ, Heumann, KJ, Mitros, MR,
Keating, CJ, and Swan, PD. How do they compare?: An assessment
of predeployment fitness in the Arizona National Guard. J Strength
Cond Res 25: 2955–2962, 2011.
14. Warr,BJ,Scofield,DE,Spiering,BA,andAlvar,BA.Influenceoftraining
frequency on fitness levels and perceived health status in deployed
National Guard soldiers. JStrengthCondRes27: 315–322, 2013.
Military Fitness Testing
S220
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.