CREW SYSTEM ERGONOMICS INFORMATION ANALYSIS CENTER Worksho~P roceedinss Expanded Air Force Physical Fitness Battery: Muscle Strength, Muscle Endurance, and Flexibility Considered Prepared for: OFFICE FOR PREVENTION AND HEALTH SERVICES ASSESSMENT (OPHSA) ARMSTRONG LABORATORY BROOKS AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS BARBARA PALMER HUMAN FACTORS ANALYST, AUCFHICSERIAC STEFAN CONSTABLE, Ph.D. SENIOR CONSULTANT IF ITNESS SCIENCE & RESEARCH, OPHSA MAJ NEAL BAUMCARTNER, Ph.D. CONSULTANT / FITNESS SCIENCE & RESEARCH, OPHSA 30 October 1997 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. ARMY NAVY AIR FORCE NASA FAA NATO - - - - - -- A- THE RIGHT HUMAN FACTORS INFORMATION AT THE RIGHT TIME Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB NO. 074-0188 'ublic reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining he data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for educing this burden to Washington Headquarters Services. Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington. VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of danagement and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188).W ashington. DC 20503 1 1 I. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED 1 October 1997 1 Workshop Prom dings I.T ITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Zxpanded Air Force Physical Fitness Battery: Muscle jtrength, Muscle Endurance, and Flexibility Considered SP0900-94-D-0001 5. AUTHOR(S) 3arbara Palmer Stefan Constable !4aj Neal Baumgartner 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER Human Systems IAC 2261 Monahan Way, Bldg. 196 WPAFB OH> 45433-7022 3. SPONSORING 1 MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING I MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER Defense Technical Information Cntr DTIC/AI Zameron Station qlexandria, VA 22304-6145 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 12a. DISTRIBUTION I AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE Rpproved for public release; distribution is unlimited. I 13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words) This Proceedings document summarizes the discussion that took place during the Expanded Physical Fitness Workshop, sponsored by the US Air Force Office for Prevention and Health Services Assessment and supported by the Crew System Ergonomics Infomration Analysis Center (CSERIAC), held t the Dayton Airport Inn, Dayton, Ohio, on July 31, 1997. The purpose of this meeting was to attain consensus among a group of subject-matter experts on the advatages and disadvantages to the Air Force of adding strenth and flexibility components to its fitness program. 1 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES Proceedings Air Force Strengh Flexibility Fitness Program 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT UNLIMITED UNCLASSIFIED I UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18 298-102 Expanded Air Force Physical Fitness Battery: Muscle Strength, Muscle Endurance, and Flexibility Considered Prepared for: OFFICE FOR PREVENTION AND HEALTH SERVICES ASSESSMENT (OPHSA) ARMSTRONG LABORATORY BROOKS AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS BARBARA PALMER HUMAN FACTORS ANALYST, AUCFH/CSERIAC STEFAN CONSTABLE, Ph.D. SENIOR CONSULTANT / FITNESS SCIENCE & RESEARCH, OPHSA MAJ NEAL BAUMCARTNER, Ph.D. CONSULTANT / FITNESS SCIENCE & RESEARCH, OPHSA 30 October 1997 CSERIAC is a US Department of Defense lnformation Analysis Center, managed by the Defense Technical lnformation Center, Alexandria, VA, hosted by the Armstrong Laboratory, Human Engineering Division, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, and operated by the University of m-~ ~MW Dayton Research Institute. PROCEEDINGS EXPANDED PHYSICAL FITNESS WORKSHOP US AIR FORCE OFFICE FOR PREVENTION AND HEALTH SERVICES ASSESSMENT JULY 31, 1997 DAYTON, OHIO This Proceedings document summarizes the discussion that took place during the Expanded Physical Fitness Workshop, sponsored by the US Air Force Office for Prevention and Health Services Assessment and supported by the Crew System Ergonomics Information Analysis Center (CSERIAC), held at the Dayton Airport Inn, Dayton, Ohio, on July 31, 1997. The purpose of this meeting was to attain consensus among a group of subject-matter experts on the advantages and disadvantages to the Air Force of adding strength and flexibility components to its fitness program. Dr. Stefan Constable of the Air Force Fitness Science & Research office conducted the workshop and gave opening remarks. Barbara Palmer, of the CSERIAC Program Office, presented a briefing based on her Review & Analysis of these topics, entitled, Expanded Air Force Physical Fitness Battery: Strength and Flexibility Considered. Discussion followed, and the main points of this discussion are documented here. PARTICIPANTS Baumgartner, Maj Neal Armstrong Laboratory/PSP 2602 Doolittle Road Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5249 Constable, Dr. Stefan Armstrong Laboratory/PSP 2602 Doolittle Road Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5249 Harman, Dr. Everett USA Research Institute of Environmental Medicine Military Performance Division Natick, MA 01760-5007 Hernandez, LCDR Rene BUPERS, PERSBOlE 2 Navy Annex Washington DC 20370-6010 Hodgdon, Dr. James Naval Health Research Center PO Box 85122 San Diego, CA 92186-5122 McDaniel, Dr. Joe Armstrong Laboratory/CFHD Building 248 2255 H Street Wright Patterson AFB, OH4 5433-7022 Nieman, Dr. David C. Department of Health and Exercise Science Appalachian State University Boone, NC 28608 Peterson, Dr. James A. 11899 Saddle Road Monterey, CA 93940 Pollock, Dr. Michael Center for Exercise Science Room 27 Florida Gymnasium University of Florida, FL 3261 1 Schlub, Dr. James 74 AMDS/SGPZ 5400 Buckner Road Bldg 209 Area C Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7022 Scully, Maj Sean P. Armstrong Laboratory/CFTS 2504 Gillingham Drive Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5249 Skinner, Dr. May Jacobina Armstrong Laboratory/HRPP 7909 Lindbergh Drive Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5249 Snedecor, Maj Michael Armstrong Laboratory/PSP 2602 Doolittle Road Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5249 OTHER INVITED REVIEWERS Butcher, Dr. Janus D. 990 Windmill Lane Evans, GA 30809 -7050 Dale, Col James HQ AFMOA/SGOP 110 Luke Ave Room 400 Bolling AFB, Washington DC 20332 Stetto, Maj Jayne HQ AFMOA/SGOP 110 Luke Ave Room 400 Bolling AFB, Washington DC 20332 Westcott, Dr. Wayne L. 18 Pine St. Abington, MA 02351 STATEMENT OF GOALS The goal of the workshop was to seek consensus, opinions, and approaches on topics relevant to the Air Force's consideration of an Expanded Physical Fitness Battery. Specifically, these topics were: Muscle Strength and Muscle Endurance Training Muscle Strength and Muscle Endurance Testing Flexibility Training / Testing Standards Program Implementation Suggestions /Issues MUSCLE STRENGTH AND MUSCLE ENDURANCE TRAINING Consensus Consensus was reached that muscle strength and muscle endurance training should be implemented by the USAF for health benefits as a minimum, and that the American College of Sports Medicine recommendations should serve as the basis for an Air Force strength- training program. The proposed statement, which is designed to promote adult fitness, is now in draft form to the ACSM comrninee, and recommends: 2 or 3 days of strength training per week 1 set of exercises 8-10 exercises per set Weight set to achieve volitional fatigue at repetitions below 8-12 repetitions for personnel under 50 years of age 10-15 repetitions for personnel 50 and older (lighter weights used) Other considerations, such as training schedule, speed of repetitions, range of motion, and various training methods could be covered in a technical manual and/or handled by Installation Fitness Program Managers (IFPMs). Other Points Covered Dr. Peterson emphasized that, whatever the training program, exercises should be done through a full range of motion, under control, and should develop antagonistic muscle groups. Maj Snedecor and LCDR Hernandez indicated that emphasis should be on training and not testing. Dr. Schlub indicated that the existence of a testing program encourages gym use. re scribed Dr. Pollock suggested that compliance would be greater for a fitness program that takes less time. Dr. Constable stated that program adherence will be less likely if the program requires equipment (e.g., strength training with resistance machines) than if it does not (e.g., aerobics), since equipmendfacility availability may conflict with one's work schedule. MUSCLE STRENGTH AND MUSCLE ENDURANCE TEST BATTERY Consensus The group for the most part agreed that a test battery should consist of three components, i.e., upper body, lower body, and abdominal evaluations. The following measures would constitute an appropriate muscle strength/muscle endurance test (1 RM refers to one repetition at the maximum weight ~ossible): 1 RM bench press 1 RM leg press Bent-knee sit-ups or curl-ups (crunches) Other Points Covered Discussion prior to the above agreement included descriptions of several other test batteries and related considerations. An important point made by Dr. Pollock was that measures of muscle fitness are so highly correlated with one another that only a very small number of tests might be necessary. It was then stated that, for USAF purposes, muscle strength and muscle endurance are related to the degree that a measure of one should be a reasonable index of the other. Sit-ups as opposed to curl-ups (or crunches) were considered to be easier to accurately measure, since they have a definite start position and a definite end position. Dr. Nieman described the Cooper Institute's FitCheck standards, the YMCA battery, and the Canadian Standard Test of Fitness. Maj Scully described the Fighter Aircrew Fitness Program, a recently devised program followed by Air Force fighter pilots. Dr. McDaniel described the USAF Strength Aptitude Test, which is used as part of the USAF7s entrance requirements. Dr. Nieman recommended that, whatever battery was decided upon, the order of tests be considered. He suggested that the submaximal aerobic test be administered first, with sit-ups at the end. Dr. Pollock stated that factors to consider in test battery development are accessibility to equipment and adherence relative to a time commitment. Also to be considered are cost and ease of administration, predicted injury rate, and the ability to set a meaningful standard for a given test. Dr. Nieman indicated that considerations in selecting tests are validity, reliability, ease of use, need for equipment, and existence of normative data. FLEXIBILITY TRAINING/TESTING Consensus The workshop participants agreed that the Air Force should fully support flexibility training as pan of the Expanded Physical Fitness Program, but the group concluded that testing would not currently provide significant benefits. The American College of Sports Medicine recommendation is an appropriate training model, and consists of: At least 3 days a week offlexibility training 10 to 30 seconds duration for each stretch Intensity should be to a position of mild discomfort 3-5 repetitions of each stretch Slow and controlled stretches with emphasis on major joints and lower back and thigh area