AF Fitness Test and Standards
Science and Rationale
Neal Baumgartner, Ph.D.
Exercise Physiology Consultant HQ AF
Program Director Force Fitness HQ AETC
The views expressed in this brief are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect official US Government, DoD, or USAF positions or policies.
Poor Staffer
General
Major
Purpose / Overview
• Purpose – informational brief on the current AF
Physical Fitness Test and Standards
1. Physical Fitness (PF) Standards Development - Tiered
2. Scientific Rationale - Tier 1
– Aerobic
– Body Composition
– Muscle Fitness
3. Way Ahead - Tier 1 + Tier 2
Health-Fitness Hierarchy
Goal: Improve Health & Fitness
Current and Future!
Aerobic > Body Comp > Muscle Fitness
Fit & Lean > Fit & Fat > Unfit & Lean > Unfit & Fat
Components of Fitness
• Health components of physical fitness
1 Cardiorespiratory Endurance (aerobic)
2 Body Composition
Tier 1
3 Muscular Strength
4 Muscular Endurance
5 Flexibility / (Mobility - Stability)
• Skill components
Agility
Balance
Coordination
Power
Reaction time
Speed
• Total Physical Fitness = Health + Skill
Magnitude
Tier 2
PF Standards Development
• Military traditional-historical model - use normative data
•
•
•
•
•
•
Military sample - subjective range from “very poor” to “excellent”
Limited - only provides rating versus peers
Not anchored in meaningful criteria - “Shifting sand”
Not necessarily related to health or mission requirements
Most Sister Service PF standards are normative
Previous AF PF standards were arbitrary, not based on
recognized science, health, or performance criteria
• We moved beyond traditional-historical model to
criterion, science-based standards
• Current AF Fitness Assessment (FA) - health-related PF
standards; Tier 1 for all airmen
• Next generation AF FA - Tier 1 for all + Tier 2
performance-related PF by career field for some
Health vs. Performance Standards
Health-based fitness for total force (Tier 1)
•
•
•
•
Evidence-based
Occupationally (AFSC) independent
Gender dependent
Health standard across fitness components
• Performance-based fitness by career field (Tier 2)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Evidence-based
Occupationally (AFSC) dependent
Gender independent
Performance standard across fitness components
Allowance for this development in DoD Physical Fitness Instruction
Next generation effort for AF Fitness
Notional Depiction:
Health-Based PF Standard
Fitness Parameters
Health Standard - Physical Fitness
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Males
Females
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
AF Specialty Code Groupings
Notional Depiction:
Performance-Based PF Standard
Performance Standard - Physical Fitness
Fitness Parameters
100
90
80
70
60
50
Males
Females
40
30
20
10
0
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
AF Specialty Code Groupings
PF Standard Inherent to the
Military Profession
100
Fitness Parameters
90
80
70
Males
60
50
Females
40
Military
Professional
30
20
10
0
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
AF Specialty Code Groupings
Standards Development - Tier 1
• Well established - physical activity related to health risk
• Strongest relationship - aerobic fitness and health risk
• Abdominal adipose tissue also related to health risk
• Continuous nature; linear early, then curvilinear
• Challenge - develop dichotomous thresholds from
continuous line; health risk stratification
• Published science provides basis (49 citations)
• Used equations that connect fitness parameter to health outcome
• Aerobic and body composition criterion values
• Critical to set health risk thresholds, then address test
methodology and programmatic requirements
• Ordered process forms a defensible foundation, avoiding possible
arbitrary selections
American College of Sports Medicine. ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription. 6th ed.
Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 2000
Tier 1 - GAR Approach
• Basis = fitness parameter - health outcome relationship
• Green-Amber-Red zones – indicate health risk
•
•
•
•
Designed to motivate change towards healthy lifestyle behavior
Green = low health risk
Amber = moderate health risk
Red = high health risk
• Amber zone – very important addition
• ID “creeping” health problems earlier in service member life cycle
• Window for successful intervention / prevention
• Movement from Red to Amber or Amber to Green signifies
an improvement in fitness and a reduction in health risk
Blair SN, et al. Changes in physical fitness and all-cause mortality. JAMA. 1995; 273:1093-1098.
Despres JP. Visceral obesity, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia; contribution of endurance exercise training to
the treatment of the plurimetabolic syndrome. In: Holloszy, JO, ed. Exercise and Sport Science Reviews.
Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1997; 25:271-300.
Expert Panel. Executive summary of the clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation, and treatment of
overweight and obesity in adults. Arch Intern Med 1998; 158:1855-1867.
Aerobic Standards Rationale
• Researched the aerobic fitness - health risk relationship
• VO2 max - criterion measure of aerobic fitness
• Used published data from The Cooper Institute’s
landmark Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study as criteria
• Long term (1970 – present) study connects actual PF aerobic test
data (vice physical activity surveys) to health outcomes
• American College of Sports Medicine recognized - gold standard
• The Cooper Institute and AF-specific publications specified aerobic
fitness - health risk thresholds
• Further supported by collective body of literature
• Bottom line: Run time → VO2 max → Health Risk
• All cause mortality, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, some cancers
Wilkinson, et al. Physical fitness & health: a comparative review of the USAF fitness program. USAF School of
Aerospace Medicine Technical Paper 2000-0001
Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study
Relative Risk - All-cause Mortality
Male PF Group
Quintile 5 (most fit)
Quintile 4
Quintile 3
Quintile 2
Quintile 1 (least fit)
Mortality Rate (/10k)
Relative Risk
18.6
21.7
27.1
25.5
64.0
1.00 (referent)
1.17
1.46
1.37
3.44
Female PF Group
Quintile 5 (most fit)
Quintile 4
Quintile 3
Quintile 2
Quintile 1 (least fit)
Mortality Rate (/10k)
Relative Risk
8.5
6.5
12.2
20.5
39.5
1.00 (referent)
0.76
1.44
2.41
4.65
Blair S.N., et al. Physical fitness and all-cause mortality. JAMA. 1989; 262:2395-2401
Fitness Test –
Muscle Fitness
Aerobic Scoring System
- Old
vs New
M 50-59
20‐60‐10‐10
Male 30‐39
Modified Weighting / Scoring
Run Time
Previous Pts New Pts (50%)
New Pts (60%)
≤ 10:37
10:38 ‐ 11:06
11:07 ‐ 11:22
11:23 ‐ 11:38
11:39 ‐ 11:56
11:57 ‐ 12:14
12:15 ‐ 12:33
12:34 ‐ 12:53
12:54 ‐ 13:14
13:15 ‐ 13:36
13:37 ‐ 14:00
14:01 ‐ 14:25
14:26 ‐ 14:52
14:53 ‐ 15:20
15:21 ‐ 15:50
15:51 ‐ 16:22
16:23 ‐ 16:57
16:58 ‐ 17:34
17:35 ‐ 18:14
18:15 ‐ 18:56
18:57 ‐ 19:43
19:44 ‐ 20:33
≥ 20:34
20:34 ‐ 21:28
21:29 ‐ 22:30
22:31 ‐ 23:36
23:37 ‐ 24:48
24:49 ‐ 26:06
50
50
47.5
45
43.5
43.5
42
42
40.5
40.5
39
39
37.5
37.5
36
34
34
32
30
27
24
21
18
18
15
12
9
6
50.0
49.8
49.5
49.2
48.8
48.3
47.8
47.1
46.4
45.5
44.4
43.1
41.6
39.9
37.8
35.4
32.5
29.0
25.0
20.2
14.6
7.9
0.0
60.0
59.7
59.4
59.0
58.5
58.0
57.3
56.5
55.6
54.5
53.3
51.8
50.0
47.9
45.4
42.4
39.0
34.9
30.0
24.3
17.5
9.5
0.0
Return
Run Time
(mins:secs)
≤ 9:12
9:13 - 9:34
9:35 - 9:45
(Male < 30 yrs)
11:57 - 12:14
12:15 - 12:33
12:34 - 12:53
12:54 - 13:14
13:15 - 13:36 *
13:37 - 14:00
14:01 - 14:25
14:26 - 14:52
14:53 - 15:20
15:21 - 15:50
15:51 - 16:22
16:23 - 16:57
≥ 16:58
est. VO2 max
(ml/kg/min)
≥ 56
54-55
53
ϟ
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
≤ 31
Health Risk Ratio Health Risk Category
0.2
0.3
0.3
ϟ
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
2.4
2.7
3.1
3.6
4.2
4.8
5.6
6.5
7.4
Low-Risk
Low-Risk
Low-Risk
ϟ
Low-Risk
Low-Risk
Moderate Risk
Moderate Risk
Moderate Risk
High Risk
High Risk
High Risk
High Risk
High Risk
High Risk
High Risk
High Risk
Points
60.0
59.7
59.3
ϟ
50.9
49.2
47.2
44.9
42.3
0 (39.3)
0 (35.8)
0 (31.7)
0 (27.1)
0 (21.7)
0 (15.5)
0 (8.3)
0.0
Run Time
(mins:secs)
≤ 10:23
10:24 - 10:51
10:52 - 11:06
(Female < 30 yrs)
13:37 - 14:00
14:01 - 14:25
14:26 - 14:52
14:53 - 15:20
15:21 - 15:50
15:51 - 16:22 *
16:23 - 16:57
16:58 - 17:34
17:35 - 18:14
18:15 - 18:56
18:57 - 19:43
19:44 - 20:33
≥ 20:34
est. VO2 max
(ml/kg/min)
≥ 50
48-49
47
ϟ
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
≤ 26
Health Risk Ratio Health Risk Category
0.1
0.1
0.2
ϟ
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.7
2.1
2.5
3.0
3.7
4.4
5.3
6.4
7.7
Low-Risk
Low-Risk
Low-Risk
ϟ
Low-Risk
Low-Risk
Low-Risk
Moderate Risk
Moderate Risk
Moderate Risk
High Risk
High Risk
High Risk
High Risk
High Risk
High Risk
High Risk
Points
60.0
59.9
59.5
ϟ
54.2
52.8
51.2
49.3
46.9
44.1
0 (40.8)
0 (36.7)
0 (31.8)
0 (25.9)
0 (18.8)
0 (10.3)
0.0
Fitness Test - Aerobic Component
1.5 Mile
Run
Low
Health Risk
(time)
VO2 max
1.0 Mile
Walk
(sex, age,
body mass,
walk time,
end test
heart rate)
Aerobic Fitness
Moderate
Health Risk
High
Health Risk
High
Points
Lower
(Warning)
Points
Low
Points
Boondock AFB
Fitness
Fred
Center
Fred
FPM
Aging
0-6
Body Composition
• Body composition (BC) a major PF component
• BC measurement necessary for both health and performance
• Overweight and obesity pose health, performance, and
cost problems, even in the near term
• Body Weight (Mass) vs Body Fat
• Misconception that body weight is more important than body
fatness, i.e., people focus on thinness and lower weight rather than
on leanness, the composition of the body weight
• Thin - may be and below ideal body weight but unfit and overfat
• Lean, fit and low in body fat - may be over ideal weight due to
higher levels of fat-free mass (primarily muscle and bone mass)
• Therefore, AF no longer uses measures of stature and mass
• Height for weight, and body mass index (BMI) are not BC measures
• May lead to erroneous conclusions regarding levels of fitness,
fatness and health risk
Body Mass
• Stature and Mass (Height & Weight)
• Measures only stature and body mass, not fat
• Does not provide the type of mass gained or lost, nor
corresponding health status
• Obsolete, of little health value
• Unfortunately, routine scale readings - ingrained behavior
• Body Mass Index
• Correlates to mortality at population level
• Measures only stature and body mass (kg/m2), not fat
• Does not provide the type of mass gained or lost, nor
corresponding health status
• Misclassifies individuals with high fat-free mass and low fat
mass as overweight or obese
• Fails to identify individuals with low fat-free mass, but high fat
mass as at risk
• AF data (n = 5263) show that BMI misclassifies 29.1% of sample
Body Composition Hierarchy
• Relative Body Fat (% Body Fat) - Total Adiposity
• Better measure for health than MAW or BMI as excess levels of total
adiposity (fat) place individual at risk
• DoD methodology (2 / 3 point anthropometric taping)
• Does not provide body fat distribution or fat pattern
• Individuals may have the same stature, mass, BMI, and %BF, but
different health risk levels due to different fat deposition patterns!
• Regional Fat Pattern / Fat Distribution - Central Adiposity
• Distribution of adipose tissue more important than total fat
• Intra-abdominal fat - visceral adipose tissue (VAT)
• Very labile, metabolically active – blood fat
• Significant health risk for myriad cardiometabolic diseases
• Greater health risk than fat in the gluteal-femoral region
• Android “apple” versus gynoid “pear” pattern
• Gender pros and cons
Body Mass and BC Measures
1. Stature and Mass - stadiometer and scale (old MAWs)
2. Stature and Mass Index - BMI (kg/m2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Relative Body Fat (% Body Fat) - Total Adiposity
•
•
•
•
•
•
Densitometry (hydrostatic weighing)
Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry
Plethysmography
Bioelectrical impedance analysis
Near-infrared interactance
Anthropometric methods - skinfolds, circumferences
2. Regional Fat Pattern / Fat Distribution - Central Adiposity
•
•
•
•
Computed tomography - intra-abdominal diameters, areas
Waist-to-hip ratio
Waist /Abdominal circumference
Waist-to-height ratio
Abdominal Fat Measurements
Computer axial tomography
(CAT) scans and magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) can
assess intra-abdominal adipose
tissue area, but impractical and
cost prohibitive for broad
application. Related, a recent
study (Nutrition Feb 2013)
concluded that ultrasonographic
measurements of VAT were
correlated with cardiovascular
risk factors, but this association
was also demonstrable with AC
measurements
28
Abdominal Circumference
• Abdominal circumference (AC) - best simple VAT measure
• Strongly correlated to VAT, independent of BMI
• Superior to BMI and waist-to-hip ratio; stronger predictor of multiple
health risks in individuals than BMI
• A single measurement (vice DoD 2/3 taping)
• Highly reproducible - easier to administer than other measures;
measurement error reduced with consistent technique and setting
• Unrelated to stature
• Generally age independent – for a given AC, older individuals
typically have higher VAT
• Good for assessing fat content before and during fat loss treatment
• Members can easily track their progress
• Practical – most people readily identify with AC, where computation
and conceptualization of BMI can be problematic
• Adverse impact of overfat on military bearing largely captured by
abdominal circumference measure
AC - Methodology
Adverse Health Outcomes with
Abdominal Obesity
Condition
Linkage with Abdominal Obesity
Type II Diabetes
Strong association in both genders
and in diverse populations
Impaired Glucose Tolerance
Strong association
Hypertension
Strong association
Hyperlipidemia
Strong association
Myocardial Infarction
Strong association
Stroke
Probable association
Obstructive Sleep Apnea
Strong association
Prostate Cancer or Hyperplasia
Significant association
Breast Cancer
Probable association
Colon Cancer
Probable association
Depression
Probable association
BM/BC Health Hierarchy
1 Ht and Wt
• Not body composition
• No health status
2 BMI
• Population only trends for
health
• Not body composition
• Misclassifies > 30% of AFAD
3 Percent Body Fat
TSgt Smith
TSgt Jones
68 in 178 lbs
70 in 187 lbs
27.1 kg/m2
26.8 kg/m2
22 %
24 %
39.5 in
37.0 in
Lower
Health Risk
• General adiposity only
• Limited health risk status
4 Abdominal Circumference
• Best simple marker of central fat
• Key determinant of health risk
BC Standards Rationale
• Rationale paper (2003, 49 citations) provides basis for BC
measurement hierarchy, AC measurement and standards
• Introduced AC as a preferred BC measure for fitness and health
following hierarchy - abdominal adiposity > total adiposity
• Went beyond 1998 National Institutes of Health BMI-based
AC thresholds
• Male - AC ≥ 102 cm (≥ 40.2 in) / Female - AC ≥ 88 cm (≥ 34.6 in)
• Rather focused on direct relationship between AC and
health outcomes, independent of BMI
• Used published (Am J Clin Nutr) equation on AC - health
risk relationship and the strong body of literature
Expert Panel. Executive summary of the clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation, and treatment of
overweight and obesity in adults. Arch Intern Med 1998; 158:1855-1867.
Janssen I, et al. Body mass index, waist circumference, and health risk. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162:2074-2079.
Zhu S, et al. Waist circumference and obesity-associated risk factors among whites in the third National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey: clinical action thresholds. Am J Clin Nutr 2002; 76:743-749.
Literature Support
• Since 2003 research data reinforce that BMI alone, BMI
coupled with AC, or % BF does not predict health risk as
well as AC alone
• For every centimeter increase in AC, one’s health risk
increases
• Gradual linear fashion at lower AC values, then curvilinear fashion
at higher AC levels
• Challenging, but possible to determine dichotomous AC
thresholds for low, moderate, and high health risk
•
•
•
•
We established thresholds via strong body of literature
Linear portion of AC - health risk curve = low risk
Curvilinear portion of AC - health risk curve = moderate to high risk
Correct to use the collective literature since no singular study
pinpoints optimal thresholds
Literature Support
• Per literature (34 citations) AC thresholds are (inches):
Health Risk
Male AC (inches)
Female AC (inches)
Moderate
> 35.0
> 31.5
High
> 39.0
> 35.5
• Despite a minority view that these thresholds may be too
stringent, greater concern that they may be too lenient
• Research data show increased levels of disease risk at levels
equal to or lower (AC values) than AF thresholds
• Prospective studies, 16 yrs of follow-up, > 43k women - disease risk
(CV disease, cancer, diabetes) increased progressively w increasing
AC values from 28 inches to 35 inches even after covariate
adjustments, including BMI, i.e., elevated AC is associated w
significantly increased disease risk even among normal wt females
• Similarly for males - disease risk (diabetes) increased significantly at
AC values above 34 inches, even after adjusting for BMI
BC Scoring System
Males ‐ age independent Body Comp
Previous Pts New Pts (30%)
New Pts (20%)
< 32.5
30.00
30.0
20.0
≤ 32.5
28.75
30.0
20.0
33.0
27.50
30.0
20.0
33.5
26.25
30.0
20.0
34.0
25.00
30.0
20.0
34.5
23.75
30.0
20.0
35.0
22.50
30.0
20.0
35.5
22.35
26.4
17.6
36.0
22.20
25.6
17.0
36.5
22.05
24.7
16.4
37.0
21.90
23.7
15.8
37.5
21.75
22.7
15.1
38.0
21.60
21.5
14.4
38.5
21.15
20.3
13.5
39.0
21.30
19.0
12.6
39.5
21.25
17.5
11.7
40.0
21.00
15.9
10.6
40.5
18.00
14.2
9.4
41.0
15.00
12.3
8.2
41.5
12.00
10.2
6.8
42.0
9.00
8.0
5.3
42.5
6.00
5.5
3.7
43.0
3.0
2.9
1.9
≥ 43.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
BC - GAR
• Green - low health risk
• Amber - moderate health risk
• “Action Level 1,” first warning
• Need to take action to prevent further fat gain
• Red - high health risk
• “Action Level 2” second warning
• Point requiring fat loss and risk reduction
AC (inches)
Health Risk Ratio
Health Risk Category
Points
≤ 32.5
33.0
1.0
1.1
Low-Risk
Low-Risk
20.0
20.0
ϟ
ϟ
ϟ
34.5
35.0
35.5
36.0
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
Low-Risk
Low-Risk
Moderate Risk
Moderate Risk
20.0
20.0
17.6
17.0
ϟ
ϟ
ϟ
ϟ
38.5
39.0 *
39.5
40.0
40.5
41.0
41.5
42.0
42.5
43.0
≥ 43.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.6
3.9
4.2
4.6
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
Moderate Risk
Moderate Risk
High Risk
High Risk
High Risk
High Risk
High Risk
High Risk
High Risk
High Risk
High Risk
13.5
12.6
0 (11.7)
0 (10.6)
0 (9.4)
0 (8.2)
0 (6.8)
0 (5.3)
0 (3.7)
0 (1.9)
0.0
(Male)
AC (inches)
Health Risk Ratio
Health Risk Category
Points
≤ 29.0
29.5
1.0
1.1
Low-Risk
Low-Risk
20.0
20.0
ϟ
ϟ
ϟ
31.0
31.5
32.0
32.5
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
Low-Risk
Low-Risk
Moderate Risk
Moderate Risk
20.0
20.0
17.6
17.1
ϟ
ϟ
ϟ
ϟ
35.0
35.5 *
36.0
36.5
37.0
37.5
38.0
38.5
39.0
39.5
≥ 40.0
2.9
3.1
3.4
3.7
4.1
4.4
4.8
5.3
5.8
6.3
6.9
Moderate Risk
Moderate Risk
High Risk
High Risk
High Risk
High Risk
High Risk
High Risk
High Risk
High Risk
High Risk
13.7
12.8
0 (11.8)
0 (10.7)
0 (9.6)
0 (8.3)
0 (6.9)
0 (5.4)
0 (3.8)
0 (2.0)
0.0
(Female)
Muscle Fitness Standards Rationale
• Very limited research on the muscle fitness - health
outcome relationship, especially with calisthenic tests
• Normative based data remains as basis
• Muscle fitness standards
• Used ACSM recognized normative data – significant
improvement over previous arbitrary standards (2004)
• Refs: ACSM Resource Manual and The Cooper Institute
database
• Cross checked with AF data set and sister service standards
• Component minimums set at:
• 60th percentile sit-ups / 50th percentile push-ups
Sit-ups Scoring System
M 50-59
Situps
Current New Pts
≥ 46
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
≤ 14
13
12
<12
10.00
10.00
9.50
9.50
9.00
9.00
8.75
8.75
8.50
8.50
8.25
8.25
8.25
8.00
8.00
7.75
7.75
7.50
7.50
7.40
7.40
7.30
7.30
7.20
7.10
7.10
7.00
7.00
6.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
0.00
10.0
9.5
9.4
9.2
9.1
9.0
8.8
8.7
8.5
8.0
7.8
7.5
7.3
7.0
6.5
6.3
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.8
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.8
1.5
1.3
1.0
0.0
Push-ups Scoring System
M 50-59
Push‐Ups
Current New Pts
≥ 44
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
≤ 5
4
3
10.00
10.00
9.75
9.75
9.50
9.50
9.25
9.25
9.25
9.00
9.00
8.75
8.75
8.75
8.50
8.50
8.25
8.25
8.25
8.00
8.00
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.50
7.50
7.40
7.40
7.30
7.20
7.20
7.10
7.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
10.0
9.5
9.4
9.4
9.3
9.3
9.2
9.2
9.1
9.1
9.0
8.8
8.5
8.3
8.2
8.0
7.5
7.3
7.2
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.8
5.5
5.3
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.8
3.5
3.0
2.0
1.8
1.5
1.0
0.0
AF PF Test - Vetted, Reviewed
• 2010 aerobic, AC, and MF standards were vetted by:
• Original fitness standards development team of preventive
medicine physicians, exercise physiologists
• Separate group - preventive medicine physician, biostatistician,
epidemiologist with inputs from senior US Navy BC expert
• AF Blue Team of biomedical experts
• The Cooper Institute physicians and exercise physiologists
• Supportive feedback from briefings to: AF Red Team of
commanders and first sergeants, AF NCO Academy,
CMSAF Summit, MAJCOM/CCs, CSAF, SecAF
• Briefed new program to DoD’s Physical Fitness and Body
Fat Programs Working Group; interest in AC measure and
standards for potential use in sister services
• Peer-reviewed publication - Baumgartner, N., McSweeny F., Fonseca
V. AF PF Test Standards Development. In draft
AF Fitness Trainer
HQ Staffer
Way Ahead - Tier 1
• Review applicable science literature, especially military
populations
• Closely monitor new FA results – fit parameter vs
health risk, illness, injury and related costs and lost
duty time
• MF Standards - move from normative to criterion
• New test modalities – close gap in primary movement
patterns
•
•
•
•
Bend and Twist (cross knee crunch)
Squat (two legged squat)
Pull (pull-up)
Reconsider machine-based testing
• “Aerobic Protection” science; integrate into FA scoring
Aerobic Protection
• Cardiorespiratory endurance most important for HealthFitness; compelling research data show aerobic fitness:
• Provides risk protection independent of body mass and total adiposity
• Provides protection not by reducing body mass per se, but by reducing
VAT, SAT, and total AT
• Mitigates elevated health risk associated with increases in total AT
• For long term health benefits we should focus on improving
fitness by increasing physical activity rather than relying solely
on diet for fat (weight) control
• “Aerobic Protection” / “Green - Green” - Tier 1 modification
• Potential mod: earn max BC component points (20) only if aerobic
component is low risk (green); requires data analyses
• May carry some extra central adipose tissue if fast run time
• Required run time most likely faster than just lowest green
Fit & Lean > Fit & Fat > Unfit & Lean > Unfit & Fat
BM/BC Health Hierarchy
1 Ht and Wt
2 BMI
3 Percent Body Fat
TSgt Smith
TSgt Jones
68 in 178 lbs
70 in 187 lbs
27.1 kg/m2
26.8 kg/m2
22 %
24 %
2nd example: what if………..
4 Abdominal Circumference
35 in
5 Aerobic Protection
12:56
35 in
11:30
Lower Health Risk
Tier 1 Status
Goal: Improve Health & Fitness
Current and Future!
• Culture Change
• AF can embrace new AF PF Program with confidence and seize
the opportunity to change AF fitness culture
• Must continue to train, educate, and market
• Advance fitness assessment and program across both:
• Tier 1 - health-based tests and standards
• Tier 2 - AFSC-specific, performance-based tests and standards
Way Ahead - Tier 2
• Conventional PT techniques often contribute to:
• Chronic injury when coupled with high demand work environments
• Cumulative anatomical imbalances - detrimental career effects
• Counter this with Tier 2 development and PT revision
• Perform demand analysis on occupational movement
patterns
• Review entry and exit training tests and standards
• Monitor, assess, develop, and terminally guide PT with
same due diligence used with operational systems
• Focus on pulling and core fitness versus pushing
• Multiple planes of motion (closed vs open chain movements)
Mercer, G and M Strock. Introduction of Functional Physical Training into Special Operations Units. Journal of
Special Operations Medicine. 2005; 5(1) 54-59.
Way Ahead - Tier 2
• Tier 2 R&D - Bona Fide Operational Requirements work
• Develop performance tests, standards and training
modes for Aerobic, BC, MF, and PF skill components
•
•
•
•
•
Positive HAF support in hi-level briefs (1998 to present)
Review efforts of sister services and allies
SF civilian guards - military guards
Phase 1 - RAND Corp PAF Study (FY12 - prior to WISR)
Phase 2 - Battlefield Airmen proposals (encompass WISP)
• Near term - functional fitness in AF testing and training
• Develop functional tests with normative standards per priority
movement patterns and energy systems (anaerobic metabolism)
• Examples: cross-knee crunch, squat, shuttle run
Developing Tier 2 PF Standards
• Establishing occupationally-specific PF standards:
1. Job analysis or physical demands analysis
2. Employ appropriate types of tests to evaluate work
ability; basic ability tests, and work-sample tests
3. Physical test validation
• Public Law 103-160, Sec. 543 Gender-neutral
occupational performance standards.
“In the case of any military occupational career field that is open to
both male and female members of the Armed Forces, the Sec of
Def shall ensure that qualification….for, and continuance of
members….in, that occupational career field is evaluated on the
basis of common, relevant performance standards, …”
Constable S and Palmer B, eds. The Process of Physical Fitness Standards Development. Human Systems
Information Analysis Center State of the Art Report. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH., 2000
Fitness Components x Tiers
Fitness
Component
Tier 1 - Health
Tier 2 - Performance
Aerobic
Most Important
Most Important
Body Comp
Very Important
Somewhat Important
Muscle
Fitness
Somewhat Important
Very Important
Flexibility
Stability
Mobility
Functional Living
Very Important
na
Very Important
Health: CRF>BC>MF
Performance: Total Fitness
in Six Priority Movement
Patterns = Run, Bend, Twist,
Squat, Pull, Push
Skill
(A-B-C-P-RT-S)
Health vs. Performance Standards
Health-based fitness for total force (Tier 1)
• Occupationally (AFSC) independent
• Gender dependent
• Health standard across fitness components
• Performance-based fitness by career field (Tier 2)
•
•
•
•
•
Occupationally (AFSC) dependent
Gender independent
Performance standard across fitness components
Allowance for this development in DoD PF Instruction
Next generation effort for AF Fitness
AF PF Salient Issues
1. Science-based standards (health criterion)
2. Return BC measures to HAWCs / FACs
3. Eliminate use of BMI
4. Incentives
5. Training, Education and Marketing (communication
and clarification)
6. Altered test frequency
• Semi-annual / Annual > 90 points
• Random
7. Performance-based (Tier 2) standards development
8. Machine based MF testing
Back-ups
DoD Body Fat Program
If
Service
Marine
Corps
Army
Navy
BMI
(weight/height table)
Male > 27.5
Female > 25
Then
Max Body Fat
Male > 18%
Female > 26%
add 1% for each of 4 age groups
Male (25 – 27.5)
Female (25 – 26)
Male > 20%
Female > 30%
Varies by age category
add 2% for each of 4 age groups
Male (26.2 – 27.5)
Female (25 – 27.5)
Male > 22%
Female > 33%
Varies by height category
add 1% if age over 40
Entered into
WMP?
Yes
Yes
Yes