Evaluation of a standardized physical training program for

Incidence
rate
(injuries!
1,000
trainee-days)
5.223.41
p value*
Incidence
rate
(injuries!
1,000
trainee-days) p value.
CO
9.24 0.04
EO
7.22
.Compares CO and EG using a chi-square test. for incidence
rates (I),
TABLE 9. Comparison of relative injury risk in the control
;;"mp (CG) and the evaluation group (~~) (from Cox regression).
Multivariatet
1.29-2.091.21-1.82
Men
Women
Men
Women
~. From Wald statistic.
"'" t.'Iultivariatc modcl includes age, body mass index, and lniti..IJ
Fitncfifi Assessment variables.
TARLK 10. Comparison of attrition (dischargcs and newstarts)
in the control ""roup (CG) find the cvaluntion group (EG).
Attrition Altrition
(~,) p vmue* (~,) p vmu(!*
retakes, but this was statisticalLy significant only after all
-retakes had been completed.. Likewise, the EG women
had a higher APFT pass rate throughout, but this was
statistically significant only at weeks 5 and 7. When men
and women were combined, the proportion of recruits
passing the APFT was higher for the EG than for the CG
at all test periods.
Injury Outcomes
Table 8 shows the person-time injury incidence rates for
the 2 groups. For both men and women, injury incidence
rates were significantly higher in the CG than in the EG.
Table 9 shows the univariate and multivariate Cox regression
results. Injury risk was higher in the CG than
in the EG for both univariate and muLtivaz;ate analyses.
Attrition Outcomes
1.21-1.98
1.l.~1..82
Table 10 shows the proportion of recruits who did not
complete BOT with their peers during the 9-\veek BOT
cycle. There were no significant differences between the
CG and EG.
DISCUSSION
PROGRAM FOR BASIC COMBAT TRAINlKG 251
The EG recruits who trained according to the new standardized
physical training program had more favorable
training outcomes than the CG recruits who used a traditional
physical training program. The EG had lo,ver injury
risk, a higher APFT pass rate at week 7, and a higher
APFl' pass rate after all APFl' retakes had been completed.
There were no significant group differences in attrition.
The EG demonstrated higher push-up perfolmance
than the CG at weeks 5 and 7, even after correction for
the higher initial scores of the EG. A previous BCT physical
training investigation evaluated a program similar to
the one tested here (13) but \vith less emphasis on pushup
training. In that previous evaluation, the push-up performance
of the group using a special training program
was lower than that of a group using a traditional physical
training program. In the present evaluation. more
emphasis was placed on push-up training, and this may
have accounted for the higher push-up performance of the
EG. There were some group differences on sit-ups and the
2-mile run on week 5, but by week 7 the performances of
the 2 groups were similar.
In consonance with our previous investigation (13),
the similar 2-mile run performances of the EG and CG at
week 7 appears to have been achieved with fewer total
running miles on the part of the EG. In the present pro.
gram evaluation, total running mileage in the CG was
estimated from the training schedules that were kept by
the individual companies. The EG had mandated running
distances that required strict adhcrence. Total running
distances during BCT for the fastest and slowest of the 4
ability groups in the EG were 39 and 26 miles, respectively.
Total running mileages of the CG were 44 and 34
miles, for the fastest and s1owest abi1ity I,7fOUPS, respectively.
Thus, the slowest EG ability group ran an estimated
8 fewer miles (31i>f, less) than the slowest CG; the
fastest EG ability group ran an estimated 5 fewer miles
(13% less) than the fastest CG. Speed running performed
by EG trainees probably assisted in improving APFT 2mile
run speed in light of this reduced total running mileage.
Speed running is referred to as interval training in
general exercise physiology literature (4, 30). Inter\'al
training has been shown to result in greater improvements
in running speed than long-distance running
alone, especially in initially sedentary and recreationally
active individuals (17).
Person-time injury incidence rates and the univariate
analysis of injury risk by Cox regression all showed lower
injury rates and risks in the EG compared to the CG.
Even when age, BMI, and initial fitness were included in
a multivariate analysis, the EG still had lower injulJ' risk.
This is in general agreement with our previous investigation
(13). The lower injury rates in the EG may be associated
with certain characteristics of the physical training
program that include (a) a lower total amount of running;
(b) the gradual, progressive introduction of exercise
stress; and (c) the greater variety of exercise in the program.
As noted previously, the EG ran fewer miles than
the ca. Numerous studies have demonstrated an association
between higher injUl'Y rates and longer running
distances (5, 15, 16, 18, 24, 27, 29). Studies in Army,
Navy, and Marine basic training have demonstrated that
groups with lower running mileage have lower injury