Christopher K Haddock1, Walker S C Poston1, Katie M Heinrich2, Sara A Jahnke1, Nattinee Jitnarin1. 1. National Development and Research Institutes, Inc., Institute for Biobehavioral Health Research, 1920 West 143rd Street, Suite 120, Leawood, KS 66224. 2. Department of Kinesiology, College of Human Ecology, 920 Denison Avenue, 1A Natatorium, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: High intensity functional training (HIFT) programs are designed to address multiple fitness domains, potentially providing improved physical and mental readiness in a changing operational environment. Programs consistent with HIFT principals such as CrossFit, SEALFIT and the US Marine Corps' High Intensity Tactical Training (HITT) are increasingly popular among military personnel. The goal of HIFT programs is to produce high levels of cardiorespiratory fitness, endurance and strength that exceed those achieved by following current physical activity recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Given the investment in and popularity of HIFT in the military, it is important to consider the potential impact of this approach to fitness training for the health of military personnel and their risk of training injury. In a previous report in this journal, we addressed the question of whether HIFT was associated with higher injury rates compared to other exercise programs. We argued that concerns about the injury potential of HIFT exercise programs were not supported by the scientific literature to date, although additional research was needed to directly compare injury rates in approaches such as CrossFit to traditional military fitness programs. In this article we will review the scientific data on the practical, health and fitness benefits of HIFT exercise programs for military populations. RESULTS: Practical benefits to HIFT exercise programs include shorter training times and volumes, exercises which simulate combat tasks, lower equipment costs, reduced potential for boredom and adaptation as a result of constant variation, less injury potential compared to high volume endurance training, and scalability to all fitness levels and rehabilitation needs. For instance, HIFT training volumes are typically between 25% to nearly 80% less than traditional military fitness programs without reductions in fitness outcomes. HIFT program also provide an impressive range of health benefits such as the promotion of metabolic conditioning and muscular strength, less systemic inflammation or oxidative damage compared to sustained aerobic activity, and promoting general physical preparedness (GPP) for the unpredictable physical demands of combat. CONCLUSION: Given the unique benefits of HIFT, we recommend that these programs become the standard for military physical training. Despite the promise of HIFT fitness programs, questions remain about implementing these programs in the military context. For instance, no large scale randomized trials comparing traditional military physical training with HIFT programs on both health and injury outcomes have been conducted. Such a trial could identify key elements from both types of programs which should be incorporated in future approaches to military fitness training. Also, research regarding the optimal ways of implementing HIFT to maximize both GPP and combat oriented physical skills is lacking. It is likely that an approach to HIFT training which promotes GPP for all personnel along with specialized elements selected on the basis of individual occupation demands would be maximally disseminable in the military. Reprint &
INTRODUCTION: High intensity functional training (HIFT) programs are designed to address multiple fitness domains, potentially providing improved physical and mental readiness in a changing operational environment. Programs consistent with HIFT principals such as CrossFit, SEALFIT and the US Marine Corps' High Intensity Tactical Training (HITT) are increasingly popular among military personnel. The goal of HIFT programs is to produce high levels of cardiorespiratory fitness, endurance and strength that exceed those achieved by following current physical activity recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Given the investment in and popularity of HIFT in the military, it is important to consider the potential impact of this approach to fitness training for the health of military personnel and their risk of training injury. In a previous report in this journal, we addressed the question of whether HIFT was associated with higher injury rates compared to other exercise programs. We argued that concerns about the injury potential of HIFT exercise programs were not supported by the scientific literature to date, although additional research was needed to directly compare injury rates in approaches such as CrossFit to traditional military fitness programs. In this article we will review the scientific data on the practical, health and fitness benefits of HIFT exercise programs for military populations. RESULTS: Practical benefits to HIFT exercise programs include shorter training times and volumes, exercises which simulate combat tasks, lower equipment costs, reduced potential for boredom and adaptation as a result of constant variation, less injury potential compared to high volume endurance training, and scalability to all fitness levels and rehabilitation needs. For instance, HIFT training volumes are typically between 25% to nearly 80% less than traditional military fitness programs without reductions in fitness outcomes. HIFT program also provide an impressive range of health benefits such as the promotion of metabolic conditioning and muscular strength, less systemic inflammation or oxidative damage compared to sustained aerobic activity, and promoting general physical preparedness (GPP) for the unpredictable physical demands of combat. CONCLUSION: Given the unique benefits of HIFT, we recommend that these programs become the standard for military physical training. Despite the promise of HIFT fitness programs, questions remain about implementing these programs in the military context. For instance, no large scale randomized trials comparing traditional military physical training with HIFT programs on both health and injury outcomes have been conducted. Such a trial could identify key elements from both types of programs which should be incorporated in future approaches to military fitness training. Also, research regarding the optimal ways of implementing HIFT to maximize both GPP and combat oriented physical skills is lacking. It is likely that an approach to HIFT training which promotes GPP for all personnel along with specialized elements selected on the basis of individual occupation demands would be maximally disseminable in the military. Reprint &
Authors: Verena Menz; Natalie Marterer; Sachin B Amin; Martin Faulhaber; Alexander B Hansen; Justin S Lawley Journal: J Sports Sci Med Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 2.988
Authors: Annmarie Chizewski; Allyson Box; Richard M Kesler; Steven J Petruzzello Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-20 Impact factor: 3.390