Effects of Periodized vs. Nonperiodized Resistance Training on Army-Specific Fitness and Skills Performance

Abstract

Heilbronn, BE, Doma, K, Gormann, D, Schumann, M, and Sinclair, WH. Effects of periodized vs. nonperiodized resistance training on army-specific fitness and skills performance. J Strength Cond Res 34(3): 738–753, 2020—This study investigated the effects of periodized resistance training (PRD) and nonperiodized resistance training (NPRD) on army-specific fitness and skills performance measures. Forty-nine serving members of the Australian Army were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 training groups: PRD, NPRD, or no-resistance training (NRT). Resistance training (RT) was performed during PRD and NPRD twice a week for 9 weeks, over a 15-week period, as part of a structured strength and conditioning program. Baseline, mid- and post-testing measures included anthropometric, strength, and army-specific outcome measures. Results indicated that participants who undertook RT significantly improved in 3 repetition maximum (3RM) squat, deadlift, and floor press for both RT groups, at mid- and post-testing (p < 0.05), when compared with NRT. Significant improvements were also observed in 5-km weight load marching postintervention similarly for PRD (p < 0.05) and NPRD (p < 0.01) and simulated fire and movement for both RT groups at both time points (p < 0.01), compared with the NRT group (p > 0.05). Although little difference was observed between periodization models, the current findings suggest greater advantage in developing army-specific performances if a structured RT protocol is included in a generic physical training program compared with a NRT protocol. Therefore, a structured RT program should be considered for military personnel aiming to optimize army-specific fitness and skills performance.

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.…”

“…Recently, a systematic review identified that non-traditional military physical training (i.e., advanced or structured resistance training programs) had a greater effect on performance across a range of fitness domains including occupationally specific tasks compared to traditional military physical training [ 14 ]. Furthermore, two recent studies in Australian Army recruits and soldiers have challenged the traditional bias in military physical training towards field expediency and shown it is possible to incorporate progressive resistance training into group training delivery models [ 25 , 31 ]. Such departures away from traditional, ‘one size fits all’ training regimes have also been noted in elite sport with individualised injury prevention training programs recommended [ 22 , 23 , 25 ].…”

“…Furthermore, two recent studies in Australian Army recruits and soldiers have challenged the traditional bias in military physical training towards field expediency and shown it is possible to incorporate progressive resistance training into group training delivery models [ 25 , 31 ]. Such departures away from traditional, ‘one size fits all’ training regimes have also been noted in elite sport with individualised injury prevention training programs recommended [ 22 , 23 , 25 ]. Whilst such training regimes may be novel for the military, it remains vital that these programs, at the very least, maintain the physical standards required to prepare soldiers for operational demands [ 14 , 25 ].…”

“…Following a low-intensity warm-up, participants completed a 5 km march in uniform and boots, carrying a combined weight of 24 kg including training rifle (4 kg) and field backpack (20 kg). Participants completed the weight-loaded march as fast as possible by walking and shuffling [ 25 ].…”

Which periodization is better (traditional vs undulating) to induce changes in body composition and strength of healthy young adults?

“…Which periodization is better (traditional vs undulating) to induce changes in body composition and strength of healthy young adults? research protocol Heilbronn et al (2020). All subjects were familiarized with the testing procedures one week before.…”