strength training for the warfighter - Human Performance Resource ...

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. 

BRIEF REVIEW 

STRENGTH TRAINING FOR THE WARFIGHTER 

WILLIAM J. KRAEMER 1,2 AND TUNDE K. SZIVAK 1 

1 Human Performance Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology; and 2 Department of Physiology and Neurobiology, University of 

Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 

ABSTRACT 

Kraemer, WJ and Szivak, TK. Strength training for the 

warfighter. J Strength Cond Res 26(7): S107–S118, 2012— 

Optimizing strength training for the warfighter is challenged 

by past training philosophies that no longer serve the 

modern warfighter facing the “anaerobic battlefield.” Training 

approaches for integration of strength with other needed 

physical capabilities have been shown to require a periodization 

model that has the flexibility for changes and is able to 

adapt to ever-changing circumstances affecting the quality of 

workouts. Additionally, sequencing of workouts to limit overreaching 

and development of overtraining syndromes that end 

in loss of duty time and injury are paramount to long-term 

success. Allowing adequate time for rest and recovery and 

recognizing the negative influences of extreme exercise programs 

and excessive endurance training will be vital in moving 

physical training programs into a more modern perspective as 

used by elite strength-power anaerobic athletes in sports 

today. Because the warfighter is an elite athlete, it is time that 

training approaches that are scientifically based are updated 

within the military to match the functional demands of modern 

warfare and are given greater credence and value at the command 

levels. A needs analysis, development of periodized 

training modules, and individualization of programs are 

needed to optimize the strength of the modern warfighter. 

We now have the knowledge, professional coaches and nonprofit 

organization certifications with continuing education 

units, and modern training technology to allow this to happen. 

Ultimately, it only takes command decisions and implementation 

to make this possible. 

KEY WORDS strength training, military, periodization, resistance 

training, tactical 

Address Correspondence to William J. Kraemer, william.kraemer@uconn. 

edu. 

26(7)/S107–S118 

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 

Ó 2012 National Strength and Conditioning Association 

INTRODUCTION 

Conditioning programs that address maximal 

strength and power are increasingly being recognized 

as potentially important components of 

military fitness (34). Historically, and even today, 

the focus of conditioning in the military has been on aerobictype 

endurance training. Part of this arises out of the ease of 

implementation of such programs and the simplicity of the 

exercise prescription when training large numbers of soldiers 

during a physical training period. Additionally, physical training 

has often been geared toward performance on aerobic 

components of annual physical fitness tests, rather than on 

real-world mission requirements. However, because recognizing 

and adequately addressing the demands on the warfighter 

is an ever-evolving challenge due to the diversity of physical, 

psychological, and environmental factors faced on the battlefront, 

the pivotal role of well-designed total conditioning 

programs is clearly apparent. There is no doubt that a warfighter’s 

maximal strength and power will dictate the magnitude 

of force and power in submaximal high-intensity 

endurance performances, literally translating into better 

performance on the modern-day battlefield. 

Progressive heavy resistance training remains the primary 

modality to improve an athlete’s maximal strength and power. 

With this comes the need for resistance training equipment 

and facilities to implement properly designed programs. 

Although weight rooms and conditioning facilities are found 

on almost every base, the size of the facilities and sophistication 

of the equipment may not meet the requirement to train 

every soldier. Although soldiers in the United States assigned 

to specialized units (i.e., Special Operations Forces) now 

have access to strength and conditioning facilities under 

the Tactical Human Optimization, Rapid Rehabilitation, 

and Reconditioning (THOR3) program, these same resources 

are not available to conventional military units, limiting 

the type of training that can be conducted with large numbers 

(e.g., 100+) of soldiers. Furthermore, the need exists for 

properly educated, trained, and certified professionals within 

each unit to effectively implement specialized programs 

needed for the different military occupational skill sets and 

to identify the differential demands of each individual soldier 

that must be addressed for optimal progression and physical 

development. Herein have evolved the historical conflicts 

surrounding military physical training, as concepts such as 

individualization, sophisticated equipment, and training 

VOLUME 26 | SUPPLEMENT 7 | JULY 2012 | S107


Strength Training 

facilities are not only resource and time intensive but also 

simultaneously philosophically challenging. 

Out of this vacuum of understanding of optimal resistance 

training programs have evolved competing influences such as 

commercial fitness programs that have extensive advertising 

campaigns that play on the warfighter’s tough mentality and 

the ever-present need to cut fat and get “ripped” to meet the 

military’s body composition requirements (2). Furthermore, 

these programs are randomly administered and not individualized 

or put into the context of other physical and psychological 

demands placed on the warfighter. However, 

promises of quick results cannot be ignored as a key factor 

in the success of these programs in attracting the warfighter’s 

attention, including commander and junior leaders at the 

company, platoon, and squad levels. Although these commercial 

programs have value, they do not incorporate workouts 

within a progressive, periodized model; a method that 

has been well established as an effective means of training 

athletes for optimal performance while mitigating the risk of 

injury and nonfunctional overreaching or overtraining. 

At present, although more hires of National Strength and 

Conditioning Association Certified Strength and Conditioning 

Specialists are being made each year in the U.S. military, 

physical training programs in most typical units are designed 

by junior leaders at the company, platoon, and squad levels. 

They rely on their own personal experience with training, 

muscle magazines, or commercial fitness programs without 

input from a properly educated and certified professional. In 

addition, military leaders are often influenced by lay fitness 

publications that may not represent cutting edge research in 

the field of exercise science. Owing to the large numbers of 

soldiers to be trained (e.g., 100+), limited time and facilities, 

the result is that most fitness programs are based on local 

muscular endurance, calisthenics, and running as the primary 

forms of physical training. In addition, many commercial 

entities attract soldiers during off duty hours, and this 

can add additional stress to an already demanding training 

schedule that includes unit physical training (2). The cumulative 

stress of both mission demands and extensive physical 

training can contribute to injury and nonfunctional overreaching 

concerns when a lack of individualization and 

periodized training needed for rest and recovery is missing 

from the training schedule equation. 

CHALLENGES FOR RESISTANCE TRAINING IN 

THE MILITARY 

The primary objective of any resistance training program is 

to improve physical performance and prevent injury by 

strengthening muscles and the associated connective tissues 

(25). Improvement in physical performance requires a careful 

examination of the demands of a sport or particular position 

or in this case the demands of the soldier’s given military 

occupational specialty. Thus, the basic goals for any resistance 

training program are to improve maximal strength 

and power because these are the basic hallmarks of neuromuscular 

fitness. It is upon these two fundamental pillars of 

neuromuscular fitness that one can then extend and expand 

physical capabilities to include local muscular endurance and 

task specific performances. 

To optimally design a resistance training program, 

a trained professional is needed to assess the performance 

requirements of the particular occupational specialty and 

overlay it with the current capabilities of the individual 

warfighter (6). Additionally, once the program is designed, 

implementation does demand proper instruction on exercise 

techniques, spotting, and monitoring of the physiological 

demands placed on the soldier during different workouts 

incorporated in a properly periodized program. Ideally, 

although not currently employed, unit training time must 

be allocated for teaching advanced exercise techniques 

(e.g., exercises used in a program: squat, deadlift, power 

clean). Educational aspects of a program are also needed 

in the areas of nutrition, sleep, alcohol, and smoking, which 

can all impact physical development and recovery. Here 

again, commercial shortcuts for needed equipment, supervision, 

professional background, nutritional supplements and a 

growing increase in excessive tobacco and alcohol use all 

make for dramatic challenges in optimizing a resistance 

training program for the warfighter. 

Once the basic core physical capabilities of strength and 

power development have been addressed, one can then 

develop program variations that build upon these fundamentals 

and further address performance characteristics needed 

for a given military occupational specialty. However, programs 

that start with the specifics and ignore the basic core 

elements of strength and power limit optimal development 

over time and set the stage for injury. The fundamental 

principles of proper progressive overload, specificity, and 

periodization cannot be ignored in any program that seeks 

to optimally prepare the individual warfighter for the 

physical demands of their occupational specialty (25). 

THE PHYSIOLOGICAL BASIS OF STRENGTH AND 

POWER DEVELOPMENT 

To understand exercise at its most fundamental levels and 

how the external demands of any exercise interact with the 

neuromuscular system, it is important to understand the 

concept of “size principle.” This is paramount for understanding 

maximal strength and power development because too 

often exercise is not defined in careful enough terms to be 

effective for the intended outcome. Thus, it is important to 

develop a basic understanding of the underlying physiology at 

work when one exercises or trains the neuromuscular system. 

Size Principle 

The term was coined by Professor Elwood Henneman of 

Harvard University who made a series of his own initial 

observations in the late 1950s and by the late 1970s solidified 

the basic concept that governs motor unit recruitment, “the 

size principle (4,9).” It is the fundamental principle that is 

S108 

the 

TM 

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research



TM 


| www.nsca.com 

paramount in understanding the seminal basis of exercise 

and even more important in understanding resistance exercise 

and training. 

To produce more and more force in a muscle, there is 

a demand for the orderly recruitment of more and more 

motor units (i.e., the alpha motor neuron and its associated 

muscle fibers). Thus, the size principle dictates that lower 

amounts of force require fewer motor units than higher 

amounts of force. With resistance training, it is the amount 

of resistance used in an exercise that dictates how many 

motor units in that muscle are needed to move the weight in 

the desired pattern of a lift. In practical terms, the importance 

of this principle is stunning and often times not 

appreciated! The amount of muscle that is trained by an 

exercise is directly related to the amount of the external 

resistance that is used. Strikingly, many workouts do not 

train all of the available motor units. Thus, the basic core 

concept of specificity of training is based in motor unit 

recruitment and thus the size principle! If proper loading of 

the musculature is not addressed in a total conditioning 

program, unused (nonactivated) muscle tissue remains 

essentially untrained. Thus, although every motor unit does 

not need to be and should not be trained in every workout, 

using only part of one’s motor unit array in an exercise 

training program limits the optimization of training. Therefore, 

the need exists for a resistance training program that 

consists of different loading and metabolic training workouts 

sequenced in a periodized approach to be a part of every 

total conditioning program in the military. 

Going back to the basics, each motor unit can be 

composed of different numbers of muscle fibers and also 

different sizes of muscle fibers leading to the principle of 

recruitment by a type of “sizing effect.” In addition, each 

muscle can be of a different fiber type profile. The average 

person presents an array of 40–60 to 60–40% type 1 or type 2 

muscle fibers in their muscles (31). However, some muscle 

such as postural muscles (e.g., abdominal) are dominated by 

type 1 muscle fibers due to functional needs. Additionally, 

a different array of motor units that is beyond typical ranges 

can be seen in elite athletes, such as the high percentage of 

type 1 fibers in elite marathon runners or the higher percentages 

of type 2 muscle fibers in elite sprinters’ locomotor 

muscles, giving them the obvious genetic advantage for oxidative 

capacity and speed, respectively. Some individuals 

have a low number of muscle fibers that can dictate the 

amount of lean tissue mass they can develop (e.g., a marathon 

runner or some women’s upper body musculature). 

Muscle size is dictated by the number and type of motor 

units present in a given muscle, which has implications for 

the magnitude of strength and power development (i.e., 

some women and men have fewer muscle fibers in their 

upper body musculature, thus limiting the magnitude of 

upper body strength). Thus, the inherent body structure 

and capabilities are determined by muscle fiber number 

and type and impact physical performance. However, 

regardless of individual genetic differences, everyone can 

benefit from a progressive heavy resistance training program 

to optimize strength and power capabilities. 

Dramatically important for commanders and not clear 

enough to many responsible for the physical training of 

soldiers is that, if one only trains with light weights, then 

only a small amount of the motor unit pool is recruited to 

meet the demands of the workout protocol. Again this 

means that many motor units (and their muscle fibers) are 

not trained despite the perception of intense exercise with 

rigorous high repetition resistance training or long duration 

endurance training. The only other way such motor units 

can be activated is by the depletion of metabolic substrate 

(i.e., glycogen) but in this type of recruitment, high force or 

power is not part of the external force demand and even 

with high numbers of repetitions (e.g., .125 repetitions) 

strength is only minimally developed (1). This is especially 

a concern in exercises that are for large muscle groups that 

contain large numbers of motor units (e.g., squat or deadlift). 

Even more alarming are the other systems that are left untrained 

because it is a fact that adaptations in ligaments, 

tendons, and bone are only realized by the translation of 

forces placed on muscle. Light resistances (e.g., high repetition 

maximums [RMs] or training percentages of 20% of 

1RM or lower) are less effective in training the total mass 

of muscle and connective tissue. Thus, this has a direct influence 

on the role that resistance training can play in injury 

prevention if such tissues are not fully trained in an exercise 

program. Additionally, light resistances (e.g., 25–30RM) will 

not result in the hypertrophy of even the type 1 motor units 

that are used (3,29). This is because the high electrical 

impulses (hertz) needed for hypertrophy and which are 

seen with the neural activation and electrical discharge of 

the motor neurons recruited when using heavier loads (e.g., 

8–11RM, 3–5RM, or 90% of 1RM or greater) do not exist 

when using light resistances (e.g., .20RM)! 

Another staggering omission by many in their understanding 

of exercise is that motor unit activation dictates the 

physiological demands placed on the body. Basic to exercise 

physiology, it must be clear that the number of motor units 

recruited in a specific manner will dictate the amount of 

involvement of various physiological systems (e.g., metabolic, 

endocrine, autocrine, immunological) needed to support 

this specific recruitment pattern. This fact is often times 

missed when exercise demands are discussed. Thus, the 

contribution of a given system will be related to the motor 

unit recruitment pattern from the long-term repetitive use of 

type 1 motor units in long duration endurance exercise to 

the brief high-intensity heavy resistance training loads used 

when performing 5 sets of 2 repetitions at 95% of 1RM. The 

physiological stress of each workout will be dictated by the 

specific demands imposed and training adaptations will 

follow the coined term of the specific adaptations to imposed 

demands (SAID) principle. Metabolic homeostasis and damage 

and repair requirements are all dictated by the demands 




placed on the body for specific patterns of motor unit 

recruitment and in this process both the motor units and 

associated physiological systems are trained with repetitive 

exposure to the stimuli. 

Figure 1 overviews this important concept of motor unit 

recruitment in the translation of “size principle” to resistance 

exercise. Although resistance exercises should not be performed 

to failure because of joint stress and potential for injury 

resulting from technique failure, the figure shows that the 

amount of load used impacts the level of motor unit recruitment 

seen (i.e., a greater percentage of 1RM used in an exercise 

recruits a greater number of motor units), going up the 

recruitment order in an orderly fashion from low to high 

threshold motor units (4). The same process occurs even 

when the available motor units are small or composed of 

primarily type 1 endurance type fibers as seen in the abdominals 

or hand musculature. Differences between large and small 

muscles are related to the amount of rate coding needed to 

achieve maximal voluntary contraction levels. Interestingly, 

even with eccentric actions such orderly recruitments continue 

to exist. When both high-intensity aerobic endurance 

and strength-power programs are used simultaneously one 

can see a problem with exercise compatibility in which type 

1 motor units and their muscle fibers make no changes in 

cross-sectional area with heavy resistance training and 

improvement in anaerobic power is also nullified (18). Thus, 

integration of training so as not to create ineffective programs 

is also a part of optimal program design and implementation. 

ACUTE PROGRAM VARIABLE DOMAINS 

Since 1983, the acute program variables have been overviewed 

many times, and each variable really represents 

a cluster of many different variables that were derived from 

Figure 1. A diagrammatic view of the motor units in a muscle. Each filled in circle represents a different type and size 

of motor unit with larger circles depicting more muscle fibers in a given motor unit and the different color depicting the 

motor unit containing different fibers (type 1 or type 2). The dashed circle represents a potential group of motor units 

that are affected if trained with both high-intensity aerobic and strength and power exercise workouts (compatibility). 

a multivariate cluster analysis of features that were reported 

to be part of workouts in different weight training programs 

over the past millennium. Nevertheless, they still provide 

a quantifiable profile of a given resistance training workout. 

Owing to the fact that modern training technology using 

periodized programs uses a wide variety of different workout 

combinations to address the different physiological needs 

of the individual, such a domain paradigm is helpful in 

analyzing the effectiveness of a given workout (6). 

Before any exercise prescription process, a “needs analysis” 

has to be undertaken to determine the biomechanical specificity 

for the movement patterns to be trained, the metabolic 

demands, and the potential sites of injury that need to be 

addressed to limit injury or “prehabilitate” movement patterns 

that will be under the most stress (6). The functional needs of 

the soldier, given their particular military occupational specialty, 

must be matched as well to create a conditioning program 

focused on what has been termed the “anaerobic 

battlefield.” This approach is likely the most important perspective 

to have to reduce the heavy reliance upon long distance 

endurance training, which is ineffective in training strength and 

power, as the core component of military fitness programs. 

Choice of Exercise 

To meet the specific demands of the soldier’s occupational 

specialty, a need exists for what might be called standard 

“closed chain” structural exercises such as squats, box lifts, 

pulls, etc. Normative lifts that address the symmetry around 

each joint (e.g., push and pull) and use both upper and lower 

body musculature are paramount for muscle balance (25). 

Including both unilateral and bilateral exercises in a program 

also allows for equity of development of musculature on 

both sides of the body. Employing both concentric and 

eccentric muscle actions is also 

vital for optimal training and 

results in longer maintenance 

of adaptations with detraining 

or minimal training stimuli (5). 

The use of free weights as the 

dominant modality in a program 

better influences multidirectional 

control of external 

resistances likely to be experienced 

in the natural environment 

and helps develop 

balance under load and stability 

with movement. Important 

to the exercise choice is that 

equipment “fit” is appropriate 

so that full range of motion 

and optimal performance of 

the exercise can be achieved. 

The choice of exercise will dictate 

what angles are trained 

and in what manner, because 

S110 


TM 




TM 



these mediate the resistances used and the motor unit recruitment 

that results. The exercise choice dictates the primary 

mechanical (i.e., movement) patterns that the body 

will experience, which are then influenced by the other acute 

program variables. Thus, the choices made within the acute 

program variable paradigm are what define the workout. 

Order of Exercise 

The order of exercises in a workout will dictate the resistance 

load that can be used and the quality of the motor unit 

recruitment. Typically, large muscle group exercises are placed 

at the beginning of a workout to allow the greatest amount of 

resistance to be used. One can then progress to smaller and 

smaller muscle group exercises where the order is not as 

impactful on the resistance used (30). A host of different exercise 

order combinations have been used from circuit weight 

training protocols (e.g., arm then leg or arm-arm then legleg) 

to complex training that endeavors to optimize recruitment 

of one set of motor units by stimulating another (e.g., 

heavy 5RM squats before maximal vertical plyometric 

jumps for power). The order of the exercises in a workout 

should not be random but rather should have a planned 

purpose, dictated by the specific goals of the training program 

(i.e., training for maximal strength and power vs. 

training muscular endurance). Remember, fatigued motor 

units are not as effective in force and power production. 

Intensity/Load/Resistance Used 

Classic to the concept of resistance training is the amount of 

the external load to be lifted (6,25). Higher intensities have 

been associated with greater gains in strength (23). Again 

based on size principle, heavier loads are needed to recruit 

more motor units. The force velocity curve also impacts this 

discussion of the particular resistance choice to be made and 

therefore also impacts the training of muscular power 

(10,15). The equation for muscular power is as follows: 

watts = force 3 distance O time. By spreading out this 

equation, one can see that both the force component and 

the velocity component need to be considered when training 

strength and power. There is an interrelationship 

between force and power in that as the force component 

of the equation is increased so is power, but this is specific 

to the velocity the movement is trained at. Thus, periodized 

programs use a variety of workouts that train the entire 

force velocity curve to lift the whole curve up and to the 

right for optimal training adaptations (Figure 2) (20,25). 

Number of Sets 

The number of sets acts as a “volume” dial on a workout. 

Although the repetitions performed will be dictated by the 

resistance load used, the number of sets will determine the 

extent of exposure of activated motor units to a particular 

load (27,28). Although a topic of much debate arising out of 

commercial mythologies of the 1970s, it is now apparent that 

programs can use a variety of set schemes within a periodized 

program. However, single sets are really only used for higher 

Figure 2. The goal of most training is to use a variety of resistance loads 

that train the whole force velocity curve from heavy loads to explosive 

exercises with lighter loads moving the entire force velocity curve up and 

to the right in the concentric force velocity domain curves depicted. 

repetition training or for recovery workouts when a lower 

volume of total work is desired. 

Rest Between Sets and Exercises 

The amount of rest between sets and exercises becomes the 

“metabolic dial” for a workout that must be carefully manipulated. 

Dialing up too much metabolic glycolytic intensity 

too quickly in a training program progression can lead to 

adverse symptomatology (e.g., nausea, dizziness, and vomiting) 

that is not indicative of a “good workout.” 

Although short rest workouts can be an effective component 

in a periodized training program, they must be 

gradually integrated and properly progressed. This is based 

upon the development of the body’s buffering capacities 

which only takes about 1 or 2 workouts a week over an 

8-week period of time, so more frequent use of short rest 

workouts for this aspect of physiological adaptation is overkill 

and can lead to types of nonfunctional overreaching. The 

stress of short rest (#1 minute) is dramatic with epinephrine 

(adrenaline) increases that are 2–3 times higher than that 

seen in maximal treadmill exercise (12,13,17) (Figure 3). In 

addition, anabolic and catabolic hormones increase to support 

the dramatically high metabolic demands of the workout 

protocols (12,13). 

Such short rest workouts really require a rest day after the 

workout or accumulation of physiological and psychological 

stress increases. It has been demonstrated that a 4-day 

workout plan with heavy day on Monday, metabolic day on 

Tuesday, rest Wednesday, strength and power on Thursday 




Figure 3. Responses of catecholamines after a short rest, high-intensity exercise workout performed by trained 

bodybuilders and powerlifters as control subjects could not make it through the workout (18). Increases at 

5 minutes after the workout, catecholamines were significantly higher by magnitudes compared with maximal 

treadmill exercise test results immediately after. With the exponential decay of catecholamines after the exercise, 

the magnitude of immediately postexercise concentrations were apparently dramatically higher. This workout 

protocol produced some of the highest lactate and catecholamine concentrations after exercise that have been 

reported in the literature. Thus, care must be taken when prescribing such exercise protocols and recovery allowed 

in subsequent workouts. 

and another metabolic day on Friday can be completed 

along with sprint intervals on Monday and Thursday and 

40- to 45-minute endurance days on Tuesday and Friday 

using a split workout of running in the morning and lifting in 

the afternoon after about 6 hours of rest and proper nutrition 

(18). However, even here the price to be paid is a loss of 

adaptive increases in type 1 muscle fiber size and no anaerobic 

power increases after 3 months of training. This might 

be mitigated by reducing the oxidative stress by using only 

one sprint interval training day. Furthermore, even when 

short rest workouts can be tolerated, care must be taken to 

check and monitor exercise technique because its disintegration 

is more probable, resulting in excessive microtears and 

injury to tissue. Short rest workouts in the weight room and 

sprint interval training on the track (with high metabolic 

demands, high levels of oxidative stress, free radical formation, 

and cortisol increases) must follow careful prescription so as 

not to create physiological distress conditions from too many 

stress stimuli hitting the body, thus creating an increased 

potential for overreaching conditions (7,32,33). 

The heavier the resistance, the longer the rest that is 

needed to optimally recruit motor units. Although so-called 

strength-endurance is an important fitness characteristic, 

one cannot lift the same absolute resistance with large 

muscle mass exercises with both short (1-minute) and long 

(5-minute) rest period lengths. Thus, one really is training 

with relatively lighter loads when short rest period lengths 

are used; therefore, if strength 

is the primary target for improvement, 

longer rest periods 

are needed in a workout when 

attempting to lift heavy 

weights (e.g., $90% of 1RM). 

Table 1 overviews rest period 

lengths for different load 

requirements. 

EXERCISE COMPATIBILITY/ 

CONCURRENT TRAINING 

Almost inherent in every military 

training program is the 

challenge of training both aerobic 

and anaerobic metabolic 

systems. The motor units that 

are recruited to perform both 

types of exercises (i.e., low and 

moderate threshold motor 

units) are the ones that are 

susceptible to the diverse opposing 

stimuli for physiological 

adaptation. High-intensity endurance 

training stimulates 

recruited motor units to optimize 

the size of their muscle 

fibers to increase oxidative capacity 

(typically type 1 slow twitch fibers) by reducing their 

size (i.e., cross-sectional area), what might be called exerciseinduced 

atrophy. Conversely, heavy resistance training 

results in cellular signaling of recruited motor units (typically 

type 1 slow twitch and type 2 fast twitch fibers) to increase in 

size to produce more force. As noted previously, even if 

high-intensity training is optimized with rest, when both 

programs are performed concurrently what has been shown 

TABLE 1. Rest period lengths with different 

resistance loads. 

Very very light: 1 min between exercises, increase 

to reduce stress if more than 1 set, or a higher 

number of 

exercises are used in a circuit protocol. 

Very light: 1–2 min between sets and exercises 

Moderate: 2–3 min between sets and exercises; 

high metabolic intensity progression to 1–2 min 

can be used with the understanding that this 

produces some of the highest metabolic stress 

responses in the weight room. 

Heavy: 4–5 min for handling the heaviest 

resistance loads. 

Very heavy: use of $5–7 min when maximal lifts are 

being performed. 

S112 


TM 




TM 



to happen is that type 1 fibers make no changes in their size, 

type 2 muscle fibers get bigger, power is compromised, 

aerobic capacity is not affected, and strength might be 

reduced in magnitude (18). Thus, real care must be taken 

when adding high levels of aerobic training duration to 

a training program (e.g., 4- to 10-mile runs) because it will 

not help the soldier athlete and compromises anaerobic 

capabilities, which are vitally important for the anaerobic 

battlefield of the present. Examining the impact of different 

aerobic training programs, it was shown that when soldiers 

only ran and even with the use of interval training, no 

improvements in loaded rucksack carriage over 2 miles were 

observed (19). Thus, the addition of a periodized heavy resistance 

training program is vital to overall physical performance. 

Various low volume sprint interval type workouts 

are a better choice to enhance maximal oxygen consumption 

or aerobic capacity while limiting the effects on anaerobic 

performance capabilities. However, concerns exist if 

more than two such workouts are done in a week, and long 

distance running has to be reduced dramatically as well. 

Table 2 overviews some of the training effects of different 

program combinations. 

Ordering of Workouts 

Although a topic of much research, the order of workouts 

may turn out to be a vital consideration in the subsequent 

adaptations to exercise training. The basis of a workout 

sequence appears to be related to the time course of genetic 

and cell signaling. Preliminary research points to the concept 

that those motor units that are stimulated by resistance 

exercise have their anabolic signaling blunted in some 

manner when immediately or shortly thereafter followed 

by aerobic exercise. Thus, if a combined workout is used, 

performing an aerobic exercise first followed by resistance 

exercise may well help to establish a more anabolic environment 

during the repair process. Alternatively, as noted before, 

one might separate the workouts by 6 hours, with, for 

example, a running workout being done in the morning and 

the lifting done in the afternoon. The underlying mediating 

mechanisms and definitive proof for the benefit of such 

ordering of workout modes remain experimental but 

TABLE 2. The effects of different training programs on muscle fiber cross-sectional area 

in the thigh’s vastus lateralis and other performance variables (18,19).* 

Type 1 Type 2 WG V_ O2 max 2 Mile run 2 Mile RS VJ 

Endurance only D NC NC I I NC NC 

Strength training only I I I NC NC I I 

Both training modes NC I NC I I I I 

*2-mile RS = 2-mile rucksack carry; WG = 30s Wingate test: peak and average power; 

VJ = countermovement vertical jump; D = decrease, NC = no change, I = increase. 

intuitively have some merit in the design of workouts done 

in combination. Workout sequencing within a single day has 

been a topic that from a practical perspective requires 

attention when designing training programs. Ultimately, 

a choice has to be made with the more prudent order of 

performing a workout with less oxidative and free radical 

stress (i.e., other forms of conditioning focusing on continuous 

short rest sequences, rather than long duration endurance 

exercise) before performing a more anabolic workout. 

Periodization of Training 

The concept of linear and nonlinear periodization has been 

discussed at length over the years. More important to the 

military is one corollary of periodization that is needed 

because of the dramatic challenges posed by competing 

mission schedules and differences in individual readiness to 

train (26). A number of features make the concept of “flexible 

nonlinear” periodization attractive not only to sport teams 

but to the military because of its rapid ability to alter a given 

workout on a given day (11). Flexible nonlinear periodization 

allows for a host of sequence orders while at times 

mimicking other periodization formats if the conditions 

allow (22,24). Thus, blocks or traditional linear sequences 

can be used in different mesocycles if the warfighter is ready 

to train and the situation is appropriate. The basis for the 

adaptability and therefore success of flexible nonlinear programming 

lies in the concept that quality of training is more 

important than going through the motions. Planned nonlinear 

periodization, although effective, may take longer to 

stimulate change because of the potentially longer cycling 

required to get enough heavy resistance training days. Thus, 

the use of the flexible nonlinear approach allows more freedom 

to sequence workout days as needed in a mesocycle 

and defines the mesocycle dependent upon conditional 

needs, allowing for adaptability if the warfighter is not capable 

of the workout intensity, volume, or metabolic demands 

planned. 

The fundamental basis for nonlinear periodization is that 

one can have a different workout each day that provides 

a different physiological stimulus and recruitment of motor 

units. Additionally, one can use certain types of workouts to 

provide rest and recovery 

for motor units that are 

only passively going 

through the range of motion. 

Furthermore, the different 

types of workouts 

allow for variety without 

the noncalculated mix of 

exercises seen in extreme 

commercial programs. Finally, 

if one misses a workout 

because of mission 

requirements or illness, 

one can pick up the next 




workout sequence easily, modify it and continue on. One is 

not anchored to a set pattern outside of the desired goal for 

that mesocycle of 6–12 weeks. If the necessary workouts cannot 

be accomplished to meet the goals of a specific mesocycle, 

a new one is created to allow for continuation of 

training. 

The Flexible Nonlinear Program Approach 

For consistency, the terminology of the flexible nonlinear 

approach is similar to that of classic periodization. The 

biggest period of time being dealt with is a “macrocycle,” 

typically 12 months, the next phase is the “mesocycle,” which 

can range between 6 and 12 weeks and is mutable based on 

schedule. The smallest period of time is the “microcycle,” 

which is the unique aspect of nonlinear programs and this is 

1 day! Over a given mesocycle, a combination of workouts 

are planned to reflect the primary goal of the mesocycle, but 

workouts can differ more dramatically when compared with 

a typical week using more classic periodization models. 

Finally, workout decisions for a given day are made dependent 

upon the individual’s readiness to train and this is 

determined with simple tests before the workout or by 

comparing workout logs and prior workout performances 

(11). Again, the goal is to promote quality and also allow 

for recovery to reduce the potential for overreaching (leading 

to overtraining syndromes), which compromises the 

soldier’s readiness and can result in a loss of duty time 

because of sickness or injury (21,33). 

The Workout Sequences 

Many different workout sequences are possible within the 

construct of the flexible nonlinear approach, but this will 

depend upon the goal of a particular workout design with its 

combination of workout variables, how that particular 

TABLE 3. An example of a planned nonlinear periodization training program for 

a 10-day cycle within a mesocycle that can be changed as needed to allow 

optimal training.*† 

Changes can be made based on the readiness for training for a particular workout. 

This protocol uses a 5-day rotation (a 7-day rotation, etc. can also be used). 

Monday 

Wednesday 

Light 1 set 12–15RM 

Very heavy for major exercises: 6 sets 

of 1–2RM 

Friday 

Monday 

Heavy 3 sets of 3–6RM Power day: 10 sets of 1–2 reps at 45% 

of 1RM 

Wednesday 

4 Sets of 8–10RM (metabolic 

training, with short rest) 

Endurance training is mixed in with care 

taken when using high glycogen 

depletion runs 

*RM = repetition maximum. 

†Endurance training must be integrated into the program in proper sequence order and 

with adequate rest. 

workout fits into the goal for the mesocycle and how it 

then fits into the yearly or macrocycle training profile. In this 

process, not all soldiers will progress at the same rate, but 

general workout styles may be similar, unless a decrement 

is noticed in the workout performance on a given day, 

requiring a default move to a less stressful workout or rest. 

Table 3 shows a 10-day mesocycle with different combinations 

of workouts that can be chosen which create a continuum 

of intensity, volume and rest period length interactions 

within the range of chosen exercises. Within the mesocycle, 

the guiding principle is to address the overall goal for that 

mesocycle. One can alter it based on the capability of the 

warfighter to perform the workout schedule. In some cases, 

the array of workouts will include less variance, for example, 

Monday—heavy, Tuesday—heavy, Wednesday—rest from 

lifting, Thursday—power, and Friday—metabolic training. If 

a workout cannot be accomplished at the level needed, it can 

be switched out to a low volume recovery light workout or 

complete rest to avoid nonfunctional overreaching. Remember 

this is a training program approach to conditioning and 

the implementation is related to the situations that exist and 

the needed individualization for the warfighter, the military 

occupational specialty, and the unit demands. 

Mesocycle Plans 

Using the unit’s yearly training plan or modular scenarios for 

Special Operations Forces (based around deployment 

cycles), one can create a basic plan based on the best available 

knowledge. Next the goal of the mesocycle for a given 

period of time is developed based on the types of individuals 

who will use the program. Thus, for a given unit, one may 

see 2 or 3 different mesocycle plans based on current fitness 

levels, injury history, experience with resistance training and 

mission operational tempo. This approach allows one to 

address what each soldier and 

unit needs while not overshooting 

them with program 

workouts that cannot be performed 

because of low fitness 

levels, lack of knowledge 

of exercise techniques, or more 

often, time constraints and 

competing unit training 

demands. By modifying workouts 

within a given mesocycle 

to adapt to these training limitations, 

injuries typically seen 

even with functional exercises 

(when performed inappropriately) 

can be avoided. 

Once a planned cycle is 

created, it is then challenged 

by the situational demands as 

to whether it can be accomplished. 

If it can be done, the 

S114 


TM 




TM 



plan moves forward within a week or mesocycle. If a workout 

planned for a Monday cannot be done, it is replaced, and 

that workout is attempted for another day within that same 

week. The key is to accomplish the planned workouts for 

the week, but for a given day, an evaluation is made if the 

particular workout can be done with the needed quality 

required for it to stimulate the needed adaptation in the 

body (e.g., maximal power). If not, one does not want to 

just waste time with ineffective training stimuli so a 

different workout is performed or rest is taken. For 

example, you have planned a plyometric training workout 

for power development and stability training on a Monday, 

but because of operational demands, the soldier 

cannotevenjumpto90%ofhisorherbestjump.One 

cannot just go through the motions as power training 

must be done in a rested condition to see improvements in 

maximal performance development (e.g., you do not get 

faster running slow). At this point, you would default to 

another workout while evaluating potential overreaching 

as velocity of movement and power are the first to go 

before strength in an overreaching condition. One might 

do a light resistance training day with low volume to allow 

for recovery yet still accomplish a workout for the given 

day. Although competitive athletes and warfighters will 

not admit to being tired, the performance will dictate 

the actual condition, and it is up to the strength and 

conditioning professional to make the call and alter the 

workout and its progression. One can make up the power 

workout somewhere else when optimal in that week’s 

cycle. Here is where the planned but flexible nature of this 

program approach shines. To coin an old U.S. Marine 

saying, “Improvise, adapt, and overcome.” 

The Microcycle 

In a nonlinear program design, the microcycle is a single 

training day. The workout is part of a mesocycle plan and then 

with flexible nonlinear programming one attempts to adhere 

to the plan dependent upon the individual’s physical condition 

and whether the circumstances surrounding the day make the 

plan untenable (e.g., power workout planned but a 10-mile 

roadmarchwasthesurpriseofthemorning).Thereareahost 

of different workouts that can be configured based on what 

the goals of the mesocycle are and what the weekly cycle will 

allow. Sometimes, this can mean a very short mesocycle of 6 

weeks because of influx and efflux of soldiers, which requires 

adaptability on the part of the strength and conditioning professional. 

One must work within the given timeframes, even 

when not ideal, to optimize the warfighter’s physical development 

from a neuromuscular perspective. Thus, workouts can 

vary in intensity, volume, and frequency and are then further 

defined by the other acute program variables. 

Training Optimization 

The importance of optimal training cannot be overstated. 

Elite athletes do not enter a competition and do well if they 

are “overtrained” or have not tapered into an optimal phase 

of training. Although mission tempo is unpredictable, the 

importance of not overshooting one’s ability to recover 

becomes even more important to optimize the mission. If 

one uses a program that has within a week hard runs and 6 

short rest metabolic resistance training workouts, there is no 

way that recovery has been allowed and if a mission calls, 

physical fatigue and tissue damage will be less than optimal. 

Most likely soldiers will still be able to get the job done, but 

this is typically because of youth or the incredible toleration 

of pain and suffering the warfighter possesses, yet as the old 

commercial on TV about your car states, “pay me now or 

pay me later.” The body has an extraordinary capability to 

absorb physical training mistakes, but the concern is that the 

additive nature of stress (i.e., dramatic increases in cortisol 

concentrations, increases in free radicals, immune suppression, 

and with excessive endurance training in men, reductions in 

normal testosterone concentrations) results in a reduction in 

the individual’s anabolic state, slows down tissue adaptations, 

and ultimately impacts neuromuscular function. Thus, from 

a resistance training program design perspective, it is important 

to understand how to get the most out of each training session 

while allowing for recovery of tissue (e.g., supercompensation), 

and recognizing that this is different from the athlete who can 

plan the logistics of a program with more certainty. It is vital for 

a warfighter’s program to have recovery and restoration as 

hallmarks of each training week. 

WORKOUT STYLES 

A number of workout styles exist dependent upon different 

combinations of the intensity and volume interactions. As 

estimated by Fleck and Kraemer, an almost infinite number 

of workout styles can be created as every time you change an 

angle of an exercise you change the recruitment pattern; rest 

periods are variable from low rest, which places a greater 

metabolic challenge to long rest periods which are needed 

for optimal power and force production. Order effects (i.e., 

complex training strategies) combined with the number of 

sets performed determine the total amount of work being 

done in a workout or cycle. Therefore, it is important to 

understand that the created workouts and their sequencing 

into a training program dictate the specific stimuli that will 

affect acute physiological demands, maladaptation or positive 

adaptation leading to the performance status. 

With the flexible nonlinear periodized approach, one has 

many workouts that can be incorporated into a plan for a 6- 

to 12-week mesocycle and then used as appropriate over that 

cycle of training. Thus, choices are many, and this allows 

variety, yet the need for a clear goal for each mesocycle 

remains so that workouts can be optimized accordingly each 

day. There are several types of workouts that are frequently 

used and studied in the literature. The multiple numbers of 

exercises that can be used in these workouts will dictate 

the musculature that is activated; therefore, these typical 

workouts are anchored by the intensity that is to be used. 

Resistance loads exist over a continuum and finite cutoffs are 




really related to the broad spectrum of effects documented in 

various zones. It is also important to understand that RM 

zones and percentage of 1RM will lose their equity as the size 

of the muscle group changes, with larger muscle groups 

capable of more repetitions at a given percentage load and 

smaller muscle groups performing fewer repetitions with a 

given intensity. In addition, machines with fixed paths allow 

more repetitions to be performed compared with free weights 

(e.g., 80% of 1RM in leg press ;22 reps, vs. squat ;10 reps). 

Thus RM zones of typically 3 repetitions are used for 

many exercises and then percentage of 1RM in many others 

(e.g., power cleans, pulls), derived either from testing or from 

prediction equations. 

Very Very Light Workouts 

This type of workout uses higher repetitions of .20RM up 

to 150RM and typically uses only 1 set in a few muscle group 

exercises. The goal of this type of workout as verified by 

research is to increase local muscular endurance. It primarily 

trains the type 1 slow twitch motor units and if more than 

one set is used places demands on these motor units for 

metabolic substrate as with any high volume workout. If 

done as a single set of 20–30RM with .1 minute rest between 

exercises, it can also be used a recovery workout 

allowing high threshold motor units to recover and repair. 

The key to this is that the workout does not produce high 

amounts of oxygen reactive species and free radicals in the 

circulation as can happen if the metabolic intensity is 

ramped up with short rest periods and high volumes of 

work. So essentially there are a host of workouts within this 

very, very light intensity domain, and the effect will be based 

on the rest periods used that dictate the metabolic demand 

and the number of sets that will impact the volume of work. 

Exercise technique can be seen to fail when such high repetition 

numbers are used in a set, and this can lead to increased 

microtears in tissue and injury. Therefore, 

monitoring of technique and proper exercise choices are 

vital in these workout styles. Thus, a recovery very, very light 

workout differs from high volume short rest workouts by 

rest period length and number of sets. 

Very-Light Workouts 

This is next in the line of intensities ranging from 12 to 

20RM. The intensity is increased, which indicates more 

motor units will be used to perform the set. Again, this 

type of workout is directed toward again enhancing local 

muscular endurance but with heavier weights used at the 

lower end of the continuum, strength development can also 

be observed albeit much less than with heavier resistances. 

Similar to the very very light workouts, these workouts are 

physiologically put in the context of the number of exercises 

and sets that determine total work and rest period lengths 

that determine the metabolic demands. Also, we see here 

that because of fatigue that occurs with higher repetition 

number, choice of exercise and technique monitoring are 

vital concerns to limit the potential for injury. Here again, 

a wide continuum of workouts are possible, but one has to 

determine whether the goal is to use it for a recovery 

workout vs. as an intense local muscular endurance 

workout with elevated metabolic and recovery demands, 

as seen with the very very light workouts. 

Moderate Workouts 

These workouts dominate the field of resistance training as 

they range in intensity from 8 to 12RM and have been 

widely used because of their ability to promote both strength 

and muscle size improvements in untrained individuals. 

These workouts are again differentiated by the number of 

sets and exercises and the rest period lengths that dictate the 

metabolic demands. This resistance intensity range has 

been shown to produce the highest level of stress of any of 

the workouts when rest period length is shortened to 

1–2 minutes between sets and exercises. This methodology 

grew out of the “cut phase” training approach typically seen 

in bodybuilders. When combined with longer rest and 8–10 

exercises, it has typically been the standard workout for most 

individuals starting a resistance training program. However, 

when used within the context of short rest training, it creates 

a dramatic combination of muscle tissue damage, free radical 

production, and the highest elevations in both anabolic and 

catabolic hormones and cytokines. Thus, sequencing of this 

workout with a rest day to allow for recovery is a vital aspect 

in avoiding overreaching implications. This is especially 

important for the warfighter so as not to compromise 

immediate mission readiness or cause loss of duty time 

because of excessive soreness or injury. 

Heavy Workouts 

These workouts use typically 3–6RM loads and are directed 

toward increasing muscular strength or maximal force production 

capabilities in a given exercise movement. Outside of 

individuals or muscles with predominately type 1 slow 

twitch muscle fibers, these loads will recruit a predominant 

majority of the motor units available. Typically, large muscle 

group exercises (e.g., squats, leg presses, rows, pulls, cleans, 

bench press) are used for these types of loading. Because 

fatigue will reduce the number of repetitions that can be 

performed in a set with a heavy load, longer rest periods 

of .3 minutes are used. Because of the higher eccentric 

loading, a greater potential for muscle tissue damage exists; 

however, this type of training also provides a protective 

mechanism reducing muscle damage from eccentric 

mechanical stress exposure when the musculature is trained. 

This is an important protective feature for the warfighter 

because this enhances repair and recovery. 

Very Heavy Workouts 

These loads are skilled based in that they range in the 1–2RM 

range and are used for direct determination of maximal 

strength and recruit all available motor units in muscle groups 

used to perform the given exercise. Exercise technique is vital 

within any workout and is important here as well. In the 

S116 


TM 




TM 



competitive lifting world, one often hears the term “singles and 

doubles,” which is indicative of the maximal nature of such 

sets. Obviously, if more than one attempt is being made, the 

rest period length used is long. This type of loading has 

been used with many types of pyramid loading schemes 

and also in strongman and strongwoman event training. 

Power Workouts 

Power workouts are designed to increase maximal power and 

functional capabilities. Essentially, power is part of every 

movement whether it is zero for isometric actions or very 

small for a 1RM or higher as the force decreases with its peak 

dependent upon the repetition range. The key has been to 

train the entire force velocity curve and that means performing 

workouts where maximal power can be produced at 

different intensities. It is important to understand that only 

gravity creates any deceleration on the movement; thus, 

exercise choices are vital. Hanging on to the bar in a bench 

press and moving a light weight up and down will not help 

power development because only deceleration is accentuated 

including neural inhibition to the prime movers. This is why 

Olympic type lifts, plyometrics, and medicine ball exercises 

have dominated these types of workouts. As noted in 

plyometric recommendations for years, an athlete must be 

rested and there is a need for maximal effort in each set with 

adequate recovery between sets to optimize one’s maximal 

power training. In addition, strength must be maintained. If 

power endurance is the goal, technique must be carefully 

monitored, and it must be realized that few if any changes 

will take place in maximal power development. 

Sex-Specific Implications 

Although a great deal of interest is now focused on sexneutral 

testing, it is apparent that women can achieve gains 

in physical development and physical performance as do 

men. The specific group of men and women who are being 

compared will dictate the comparative results (e.g., women 

who are highly weight trained athletes vs. average men). 

Research has established that resistance training and endurance 

training programs can be applied successfully for both 

men and women (8,14,16). Thus, from the untrained to the 

trained, identical training adaptations can be observed 

among our female warfighters in terms of neuromuscular 

adaptations and performance. 

WORKOUT INTERACTIONS 

Obviously, each workout, regardless of type, exists within 

the context of daily physical training. In addition, high 

mileage running is still a staple in the military despite much 

research on compatibility and potential overtraining syndromes 

related to excessive long distance endurance training. 

Long runs of 7–10 miles are still considered the norm, 

even though this type of training contradicts the actual physical 

demands placed on the warfighter. In recent years, the 

increasingly anaerobic demands of the military profession 

have led to the ideal body type for male soldiers to favor 

that of a rugby player or American football linebacker, and 

for female soldiers, that of a volleyball or basketball player. 

This is a reflection of training adaptations which emphasize 

muscle size, strength, and power, with only needed cardiovascular 

support profiled. In the modern era of the “anaerobic 

battlefield,” one does not run into battle; rather, strength, 

power, and functional capabilities play vital roles in the warfighter’s 

success. Until this paradigm switch from the aerobic 

athlete to the anaerobic athlete is made, resolving conflicts in 

optimizing the training programs, mission readiness and recovery 

capabilities for the strength of the warfighter will 

continue to be a struggle. 

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS 

The challenges for development of an optimal strength 

training program for the warfighter have continued to evolve 

over the past 25 years. Although valiant attempts are being 

made within the military to move to a more modern 

approach to physical training, much of what is ingrained 

arises from a long history that is grounded in the old boxing 

concepts of training for “roadwork,” later solidified during 

the “aerobics” craze of the 1960s. A fast 10-mile run or 

completing a marathon is still viewed as a benchmark of 

military fitness as opposed to a 40-inch. vertical jump or 

a squat at 2.5 times body mass. The ultimate paradox is that 

these performances are not compatible within the same 

training program and so one must choose what the modern 

warfighter will look like physically. The influence of the lay 

press and various commercial entities have also further 

exacerbated fundamentals of workout design and training. 

Finally, the need for individualization of training and developing 

facilities and programs reflective of the elite athlete in 

strength and power sports befitting of the modern warfighter 

is both a financial and logistical challenge—but worthy of the 

effort. Wading though the myths of the past and present 

with the goal of creating an ideal training program that 

enhances strength, power, and functional capabilities using 

training technologies and methods that allow for the flexibility 

needed in a high operational tempo environment is 

a harrowing process. We have the technology and now the 

certified professional strength and conditioning specialists to 

accomplish this mission, and with time, the physical training 

program of the modern warfighter will accurately reflect the 

mission requirements of each military occupational specialty, 

while maintaining resilience and long-term health and wellness 

for the individual. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The authors thank our U.S. warfighters around the world and 

their families for their service and sacrifices. The views, 

opinions, and findings contained in this report are those of 

the authors and should not be construed as an official U.S. 

Department of the Defense position, policy, or decision unless 

so designated by other official documentation. 




REFERENCES 

1. Anderson, T and Kearney, JT. Effects of three resistance training 

programs on muscular strength and absolute and relative endurance. 

Res Q Exerc Sport 53: 1–7, 1982. 

2. Bergeron, MF, Nindl, BC, Deuster, PA, Baumgartner, N, Kane, SF, 

Kraemer, WJ, Sexauer, LR, Thompson, WR, and O’Connor, FG. 

Consortium for Health and Military Performance and American 

College of Sports Medicine consensus paper on extreme 

conditioning programs in military personnel. Curr Sports Med Rep 

10: 383–389, 2011. 

3. Campos, GE, Luecke, TJ, Wendeln, HK, Toma, K, Hagerman, FC, 

Murray, TF, Ragg, KE, Ratamess, NA, Kraemer, WJ, and Staron, RS. 

Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training 

regimens: Specificity of repetition maximum training zones. Eur J 

Appl Physiol 88: 50–60, 2002. 

4. Duchateau, J and Enoka, RM. Human motor unit recordings: 

Origins and insight into the integrated motor system. Brain Res 

1409: 42–61, 2011. 

5. Dudley, GA, Tesch, PA, Miller, BJ, and Buchanan, P. Importance of 

eccentric actions in performance adaptations to resistance training. 

Aviat Space Environ Med 62: 543–550, 1991. 

6. Fleck, SJ and Kraemer, WJ. Designing Resistance Training Programs 

(3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers, 2004. 

7. Fry, AC and Kraemer, WJ. Resistance exercise overtraining and 

overreaching. Neuroendocrine responses. Sports Med 23: 106–129, 

1997. 

8. Hendrickson, NR, Sharp, MA, Alemany, JA, Walker, LA, Harman, EA, 

Spiering, BA, Hatfield, DL, Yamamoto, LM, Maresh, CM, 

Kraemer, WJ, and Nindl, BC. Combined resistance and endurance 

training improves physical capacity and performance on tactical 

occupational tasks. Eur J Appl Physiol 109: 1197–1208, 2010. 

9. Henneman, E. Functional organization of motoneuron pools: The 

size-principle. In: Integration in the Nervous System. Asanuma, H and 

Wilson, VJ, eds. Tokyo, Japan: Igaku-Shoin, 1977. pp 13–25. 

10. Knuttgen, HG and Kraemer, WJ. Terminology and measurement in 

exercise performance. J Appl Sport Sci Res 1: 1–10, 1987. 

11. Kraemer, WJ and Fleck, SJ. Optimizing Strength Training: Designing 

Nonlinear Periodization Workouts. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics 

Publishers, 2007. 

12. Kraemer, WJ, Fleck, SJ, Dziados, JE, Harman, EA, Marchitelli, LJ, 

Gordon, SE, Mello, R, Frykman, PN, Koziris, LP, and Triplett, NT. 

Changes in hormonal concentrations after different heavy-resistance 

exercise protocols in women. J Appl Physiol 75: 594–604, 1993. 

13. Kraemer, WJ, Marchitelli, L, Gordon, SE, Harman, E, Dziados, JE, 

Mello, R, Frykman, P, McCurry, D, and Fleck, SJ. Hormonal 

and growth factor responses to heavy resistance exercise protocols. 

J Appl Physiol 69: 1442–1450, 1990. 

14. 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. 

15. Kraemer, WJ and Newton, RU. Training for muscular power. Phys 

Med Rehabil Clin N Am 11: 341–368, 2000. 

16. Kraemer, WJ, Nindl, BC, Ratamess, NA, Gotshalk, LA, Volek, JS, 

Fleck, SJ, Newton, RU, and Hakkinen, K. Changes in muscle 

hypertrophy in women with periodized resistance training. Med Sci 

Sports Exerc 36: 697–708, 2004. 

17. Kraemer, WJ, Noble, BJ, Clark, MJ, and Culver, BW. Physiologic 

responses to heavy-resistance exercise with very short rest periods. 

Int J Sports Med 8: 247–252, 1987. 

18. Kraemer, WJ, Patton, JF, Gordon, SE, Harman, EA, Deschenes, MR, 

Reynolds, K, Newton, RU, Triplett, NT, and Dziados, JE. 

Compatibility of high-intensity strength and endurance training 

on hormonal and skeletal muscle adaptations. J Appl Physiol 78: 

976–989, 1995. 

19. Kraemer, WJ, Vescovi, JD, Volek, JS, Nindl, BC, Newton, RU, 

Patton, JF, Dziados, JE, French, DN, and Hakkinen, K. Effects of 

concurrent resistance and aerobic training on load-bearing 

performance and the Army physical fitness test. Mil Med 169: 

994–999, 2004. 

20. McBride, JM, Haines, TL, and Kirby, TJ. Effect of loading on peak 

power of the bar, body, and system during power cleans, squats, and 

jump squats. J Sports Sci 29: 1215–1221, 2011. 

21. Moore, CA and Fry, AC. Nonfunctional overreaching during 

off-season training for skill position players in collegiate American 

football. J Strength Cond Res 21: 793–800, 2007. 

22. Painter, KB, Haff, GG, Ramsey, MW, McBride, J, Triplett, T, 

Sands, WA, Lamont, HS, Stone, ME, and Stone, MH. Strength 

gains: Block vs dup weight-training among track and field athletes. 

Int J Sports Physiol Perform [Epub ahead of print], 2011. 

23. Peterson, MD, Rhea, MR, and Alvar, BA. Maximizing strength 

development in athletes: A meta-analysis to determine the 

dose-response relationship. J Strength Cond Res 18: 377–382, 2004. 

24. Plisk, SS, Stone, MH, and Journal, SC. Periodization strategies. 

Strength Cond J 25: 19–37, 2003. 

25. Ratamess, NA. ACSM’s Foundations of Strength Training and 

Conditioning. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2011. 

26. Rhea, MR and Alderman, BL. A meta-analysis of periodized versus 

nonperiodized strength and power training programs. Res Q Exerc 

Sport 75: 413–422, 2004. 

27. Rhea, MR, Alvar, BA, Ball, SD, and Burkett, LN. Three sets of 

weight training superior to 1 set with equal intensity for eliciting 

strength. J Strength Cond Res 16: 525–529, 2002. 

28. Rhea, MR, Alvar, BA, and Burkett, LN. Single versus multiple sets 

for strength: A meta-analysis to address the controversy. Res Q Exerc 

Sport 73: 485–488, 2002. 

29. Schuenke, MD, Herman, JR, Gliders, RM, Hagerman, FC, 

Hikida, RS, Rana, SR, Ragg, KE, and Staron, RS. Early-phase 

muscular adaptations in response to slow-speed versus traditional 

resistance-training regimens. Eur J Appl Physiol, 2012 Feb 12. [epub 

ahead of print]. 

30. Spreuwenberg, LP, Kraemer, WJ, Spiering, BA, Volek, JS, 

Hatfield, DL, Silvestre, R, Vingren, JL, Fragala, MS, Hakkinen, K, 

Newton, RU, Maresh, CM, and Fleck, SJ. Influence of exercise 

order in a resistance-training exercise session. J Strength Cond Res 20: 

141–144, 2006. 

31. Staron, RS, Hagerman, FC, Hikida, RS, Murray, TF, Hostler, DP, 

Crill, MT, Ragg, KE, and Toma, K. Fiber type composition of the 

vastus lateralis muscle of young men and women. J Histochem 

Cytochem 48: 623–629, 2000. 

32. Tanskanen, MM, Kyrolainen, H, Uusitalo, AL, Huovinen, J, Nissila, J, 

Kinnunen, H, Atalay, M, and Hakkinen, K. Serum sex hormonebinding 

globulin and cortisol concentrations are associated with 

overreaching during strenuous military training. J Strength Cond Res 

25: 787–797, 2011. 

33. Tanskanen, MM, Uusitalo, AL, Kinnunen, H, Hakkinen, K, 

Kyrolainen, H, and Atalay, M. Association of military training 

with oxidative stress and overreaching. Med Sci Sports Exerc 43: 

1552–1560, 2011. 

34. U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command: Army Physical Readiness 

Training Circular (TC 3–22.20). Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, Washington, DC, 2010. 

S118 


TM

strength training for the warfighter - Human Performance Resource ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?