044 - Battle-Ready or Just Fit? The Truth Behind Military Fitness Assessments
When assessing soldiers, traditional fitness tests—push-ups, sit-ups, timed runs—are common. But do these tests actually predict combat readiness? A recent study aimed to uncover exactly how reliable and meaningful modern, weighted military assessments are compared to traditional unweighted tests for infantry soldiers.
Researchers evaluated infantry soldiers using novel assessments designed specifically for combat readiness:
Countermovement Jump (CMJ) for lower-body power.
Plyometric Push-Up (PPU) for upper-body explosive strength.
Incremental Fire and Movement Assessment (IFMA) to simulate combat-specific tasks.
Repeated Sprint Ability (RSA) to assess anaerobic performance.
Tests were performed both weighted (in combat gear, 15 kg) and unweighted. Researchers measured reliability (consistency of results) and divergent validity (ability to distinguish between weighted vs. unweighted performances).
WHAT THEY FOUND:
1. Reliable Results: Weighted conditions provided consistent (moderate to excellent) reliability in CMJ, RSA, and IFMA.
2. Weighted vs. Unweighted: Significant differences emerged between weighted and unweighted conditions, demonstrating that loaded assessments captured unique, combat-specific fitness aspects often missed by traditional tests.
3. Upper-Body Considerations: The weighted Plyometric Push-Up showed mixed reliability—suggesting upper-body explosive assessments might need refining or alternative methods for reliability under combat loading.
WHAT THIS MEANS:
Simply put, traditional fitness tests may underestimate or overlook critical operational fitness components. Tests that mimic real-world conditions, especially with load carriage, offer clearer insights into a soldier’s true combat readiness.
Military units must rethink their assessment strategies to ensure soldiers aren’t just physically fit—but mission-ready.
TACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
1. Prioritize Realism in Testing: Incorporate weighted, occupation-specific assessments regularly to ensure soldiers are genuinely prepared for combat conditions.
2. Differentiate Fitness from Readiness: Use unweighted tests for basic fitness monitoring and injury risk reduction, but rely on weighted tests for mission-specific readiness.
3. Monitor Neuromuscular Fatigue: Regularly use reliable performance markers (CMJ, RSA) to detect subtle signs of fatigue and adjust training accordingly.
4. Individualize Load Management: Recognize that soldiers respond differently under load—tailor training to improve their strength-to-weight ratio and specific task performance.
5. Rethink Upper-Body Testing: Refine or develop alternative upper-body explosive tests that offer better reliability in loaded conditions.
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER
Are your current fitness assessments truly reflecting combat-readiness, or simply general fitness?
Do you regularly assess performance under realistic, loaded conditions to ensure operational readiness?
How are you currently differentiating between general fitness and combat-specific readiness in your soldiers?
Could shifting to weighted performance assessments change your approach to training programs?
What subtle performance deficits could your current assessments be missing?
Heilbronn BE, Doma K, Sinclair WH, Drain J, Connor J, Leicht AS. Reliability and Divergent Validity of Novel Tools to Assess Occupationally Relevant Performance in Infantry Soldiers. J Strength Cond Res. 2025;39(6):e815-e823. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000005076