1993
DOI: 10.21236/ada266297
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Physical Fitness, Physical Training and Occupational Performance of Men and Women in the U.S. Army: A Review of Literature

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2000
2000
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To improve aerobic fitness (VO 2 max), long-term physical activity should be conducted at intensities between 50% and 90% of VO 2 max [93,94]. Vigorous physical activity that promotes fitness would be most advantageous for FBI new agents because higher levels of fitness are associated with higher levels of occupational performance [95-97]. Data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Study indicated that in 2009, 29% of Americans reported that they performed the ACSM-recommended amount of vigorous activity [98].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To improve aerobic fitness (VO 2 max), long-term physical activity should be conducted at intensities between 50% and 90% of VO 2 max [93,94]. Vigorous physical activity that promotes fitness would be most advantageous for FBI new agents because higher levels of fitness are associated with higher levels of occupational performance [95-97]. Data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Study indicated that in 2009, 29% of Americans reported that they performed the ACSM-recommended amount of vigorous activity [98].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, in physically demanding occupations such as the military, emergency medical services, shipping and handling industries, automotive industries and postal services, the absolute load to be encountered on the job is similar for both men and women (Knapik 1997;Lin et al 1996;Rice et al 1996). It has been recommended that occupational performance testing be used to verify whether women can meet the expected physical demands of the job in question (Sharp 1994;Shephard 1991). Currently, there is a general consensus that standardized physiological parameters such as maximal aerobic power, anaerobic power and muscular strength and endurance are signi®cantly lower in women compared with men (Astrand and Rodahl 1986).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies comparing size and strength have reported female biceps CSA's at 55% of males and quadriceps CSA's at 75% of males, whereas upper body strength was 50–60% of males and lower body strength was 66–68% of males (Miller et al. ; Sharp ) although not all data are in agreement (Maughan et al. ; Kanehisa et al.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…). Owing to gender differences in size, the upper body isometric mean lifting strength (MLS) of women is about 60% of men (Sharp ), suggesting that women who work in occupations requiring prolonged repetitive lifting may be at a greater risk of musculoskeletal injury, when working alongside men, under daily time constraints when a job needs to be done (Latash and Anson ; Ge et al. ; Madeleine et al.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%