AI Article Synopsis

  • This study analyzed the effects of two different physical training programs on the fitness outcomes of Army Officer Candidate School soldiers over 12 weeks. One group followed an expert-designed program (TAP-C), while the other followed a traditional training approach by OCS soldiers.
  • The performance was measured across multiple physical assessments, including the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) events, grip strength, standing broad jump, and other mobility tests, using statistical analysis to compare results while controlling for initial differences and gender.
  • Results indicated significant differences between the two groups: the traditional training group excelled in endurance-focused ACFT events, while the expert-led TAP-C

Article Abstract

This study compared an expert supervised, fully resourced physical training (PT) program compared to a traditional physical training PT plan on Army Officer Candidate School (OSC) soldier fitness outcomes. This retrospective cohort study compared 228 OCS soldiers (179 male [26.74±3.78 years] and 49 female [26.55±4.18 years]) in two companies for 12 weeks. One company participated in a fully resourced PT program designed by fitness experts to improve overall fitness and mobility (TAP-C). One company participated in traditional physical training designed to excel on the Army combat fitness test (ACFT, includes deadlift, power throw, push up, sprint-drag-carry, core strength, run) developed and led by OCS soldiers with standard resources. We assessed performance on the ACFT events, and grip strength, standing broad jump, overhead squat, and 90/90 switch assessment. Analysis of covariance was used to compare main effects of company on ACFT measures, controlling for covariates of pretest score differences and sex. Results included a significant effect of group on ACFT performance (N=228), F(1, 223) = 12.8, p<0.001 and on performance of five of the six ACFT events: MDL, F(1, 223) = 5.44, p = 0.021; HRP, F(1, 223) = 11.67, p < 0.001; SDC, F(1, 223) = 20.06, p < 0.001; LTK, F(1, 223) = 16.95, p < 0.001; and 2MR, F(1, 223) = 23.76, p < 0.001. The traditional company performed significantly better on ACFT muscular, anerobic and aerobic endurance focused events; the TAP-C company performed significantly better on muscular strength/explosive power events and mobility assessments.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9762245PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.70252/YBTF2692DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

physical training
12
study compared
8
fully resourced
8
traditional physical
8
ocs soldiers
8
company participated
8
fitness
6
impact types
4
types fitness
4
fitness programs
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!