Effect of Exercise Training Programs on Physical Fitness Domains in Military Personnel: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Introduction Physical training is important to prepare soldiers for the intense occupational demands in the military. However, current physical training may not address all fitness domains crucial for optimizing physical readiness and reducing musculoskeletal injury. The effects of nontraditional military physical training on fitness domains have been inconsistently reported, which limits the design of the ideal training program for performance optimization and injury prevention in the military. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the effects of exercise training on various fitness domains (i.e., aerobic fitness, flexibility, muscular endurance, muscular power, muscular strength, and occupationally specific physical performance) that contribute to occupational performance and musculoskeletal injury risk in military personnel. Methods An extensive literature search was conducted in January 2021 and was subsequently updated in July 2021 and December 2021. Included studies consisted of comparative groups of healthy military personnel performing traditional and nontraditional military physical training with at least one assessment representative of a fitness domain. Study appraisal was conducted using the PEDro scale. Meta-analysis was conducted via forest plots, standard mean difference (SMD, effect size), and intertrial heterogeneity (I2). Results From a total of 7,350 records, 15 studies were identified as eligible for inclusion in this review, with a total of 1,613 participants. The average study quality via the PEDro score was good (5.3/10; range 4/10 to 6/10). Nontraditional military physical training resulted in greater posttraining values for muscular endurance (SMD = 0.46; P = .004; I2 = 68%), power (SMD = 1.57; P < .0001; I2 = 90%), strength via repetition maximum testing (SMD = 1.95; P < .00001; I2 = 91%), and occupationally specific physical performance (SMD = 0.54; P = .007; I2 = 66%) compared to the traditional group. There was no significant difference for aerobic fitness (SMD = −0.31; P = .23; I2 = 86%), flexibility (SMD = 0.58; P = .16; I2 = 76%), and muscular strength via maximal voluntary contraction (SMD = 0.18; P = .28; I2 = 66%) between training groups. Conclusions The current systematic review identified that nontraditional military physical training had a greater posttraining effect on muscular endurance, power, strength measured via repetition maximum, and occupationally specific physical performance compared to traditional military physical training. Overall, these findings suggest that nontraditional military physical training may be beneficial in optimizing occupational performance while potentially reducing musculoskeletal injury risk.

Impact of a 5-Week Individualised Training Program on Physical Performance and Measures Associated with Musculoskeletal Injury Risk in Army Personnel: A Pilot Study

“…The arduous nature of the military service is well-known with soldiers expected to complete a range of occupational tasks [ 14 , 25 ]. Subsequently, physical training for the military must be extensive and robust to prepare the war fighter for both acute and chronic occupational physical demands.…”

“…Whilst this is a positive step in assessing the ability of personnel to perform essential occupational tasks, these assessments often provide limited insight into individual movement characteristics (e.g., symmetry) and opportunities to address injury risk factors [ 12 ]. Further, military personnel undertake a wide array of physical training including generic aerobic and strength activities, bodyweight training, functional fitness training, and strength training with free weights to enhance performance and minimise injury [ 13 , 14 ]. Whilst studies have confirmed that generic training improves the initial fitness of army personnel and may reduce MSKI risk [ 8 , 12 ], these practices do not target other MSKI risk factors such as balance and strength asymmetry [ 14 ].…”

“…Further, military personnel undertake a wide array of physical training including generic aerobic and strength activities, bodyweight training, functional fitness training, and strength training with free weights to enhance performance and minimise injury [ 13 , 14 ]. Whilst studies have confirmed that generic training improves the initial fitness of army personnel and may reduce MSKI risk [ 8 , 12 ], these practices do not target other MSKI risk factors such as balance and strength asymmetry [ 14 ]. Therefore, generic training may fail to adequately capitalise on opportunities to mitigate MSKI risk and preserve occupational performance.…”

“…Pre-screening assessments, which aim to identify MSKI risk factors, are essential to inform the development and implementation of appropriate injury prevention programs [ 5 , 7 , 14 ]. The use of force plates [ 15 , 16 , 17 ] and computerised systems in the prevention of MSKI have been of interest recently in both sporting and military settings [ 1 , 15 , 18 ] with these technologies reported to be more reliable than traditional testing methods (e.g., Vertec jump test) in clarifying performance and identifying injury risk within a military setting [ 19 , 20 ].…”

Energy supply and influencing factors of mountain marathon runners from Baiyin marathon accident in China

“…Marathon runs for a long time and consumes much energy. The performance of athletes is closely related to physical fitness 2 . Physical performance is also affected by the surrounding environment, including temperature, humidity, road slope, road friction, and so on 3 , 4 .…”