{"id":6288,"date":"2019-01-31T14:05:25","date_gmt":"2019-01-31T20:05:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/?p=6288"},"modified":"2019-02-04T08:46:29","modified_gmt":"2019-02-04T14:46:29","slug":"evaluation-of-possible-anthropometric-advantage-in-sit-up-test","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/evaluation-of-possible-anthropometric-advantage-in-sit-up-test\/","title":{"rendered":"Evaluation of Possible Anthropometric Advantage in Sit-Up Test"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Authors:<\/strong> David Peterson, Meighan Middleton, and Sharon Christman<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Corresponding Author:<\/strong>
David D. Peterson, EdD, CSCS*D
Cedarville University
251 N. Main St.
Cedarville, OH 45314
ddpeterson@cedarville.edu
(937) 766-7761<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dr. Peterson is an associate professor of kinesiology at\nCedarville University (CU) and currently serves as the Director of the\nMulti-Age Physical Education (MAPE) program at CU.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Evaluation\nof Possible Anthropometric Advantage in Sit-Up Test<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

ABSTRACT<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The U.S. Navy currently employs sit-ups as part of its semi-annual physical fitness in order to assess the abdominal muscular endurance of service-members.\u00a0 However, there is speculation that sit-up performance may be associated with anthropometric proportions thereby affording certain service-members with a biomechanical advantage.\u00a0 To test this theory, anthropometric measurements were taken at various sites (i.e., humerus, torso, femur, and tibia) across a convenience sample of 69 participants (37 male \/ 32 female), to include student, active duty, and retired military personnel from the United States Naval Academy.\u00a0 Humerus length (r = .297), tibia length (r = .385) and sex (r = .314) were all found to be moderately correlated with sit-up performance.\u00a0 These findings, coupled with well-documented concerns of the sit-ups in terms of safety and relevance in the literature, make a compelling argument for the identification and implementation of other potential field tests to assess abdominal muscular endurance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Keywords:<\/strong> military physical fitness test, sit up test, anthropometric measurements<\/p>\n\n\n\n

INTRODUCTION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a result of a\npresidential mandate, the U.S. Navy developed and implemented its first\nphysical fitness test in 1980 (6).  The\ntest included sit-ups, flexed-arm hang (females only), push-ups, pull-ups\n(optional push-up alternative for males), 1.5-mile run\/walk, and a 3-min\nrun-in-place (optional run\/walk alternative). \nAlthough the Navy Physical Readiness Test (PRT) has undergone several\nchanges since its initiation, the U.S. Navy continues to employ sit-ups (curl-ups)\nas part of its semi-annual physical fitness test. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sit-ups were added to\nthe PRT to assess muscular endurance and specifically chosen due to a potential\nlink between regular sit-up training and low-back pain prevention as documented\nin some of the available literature at the time (6).  Since its implementation, however, the safety\nand operational relevance of the sit-up has been called into question.  For example, rarely do service-members\nperform repetitive spinal flexion as part of any specific job task (14).  In fact, service-members more often use their\ntrunk musculature for stabilization in order to lift, push, pull, and\ncarry.  Additionally, current research\nnow shows that performing high volume sit-up training may actually lead to\nlow-back pain and injury instead of preventing them (1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12,\n14).  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another possible concern\nwith the sit-up is the possibility for an unfair biomechanical advantage.  For example, some service-members seem to be\nable to complete the required range of motion of the sit-up (i.e., lift the\nupper torso until the elbows contact the thighs) with modest effort, while for\nothers it is far more difficult. \nSpecifically, some service-members are able to touch their elbows to their\nthighs while keeping their low backs in contact with the ground.  Conversely, other service-members must lift\ntheir entire torso several inches off the ground in order for their elbows to\nmake contact with their thighs.  This\ndisparity in execution led the authors to suspect that certain anthropometric\ndimensions of an individual may offer a biomechanical advantage or disadvantage\nthereby influencing the level of ease or difficulty in performing maximum\nsit-ups.  It is possible that this\nbiomechanical advantage may be a result of differences in limb length (i.e.,\nhumerus, femur, and tibia) and torso length.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although concerns\nassociated with the sit-up in terms of safety and operational relevance are\nwell documented in the literature (14), the impact of certain anthropometric\nvariables (e.g., weight, height, and limb length) on performance appear to be\nless well known.  Vanderburgh (16)\nreported that current physical fitness tests employed by the U.S. military tend\nto be biased against larger service-members (regardless of body composition)\nand instead favor lighter service-members. \nKranick (8) reported limb circumference, height and weight as\ndetermining factors on maximal muscle strength in college-aged (i.e., 20-28\nyears old) males (n = 7); although similar findings were not reported in college-aged\nfemales.  As a result, Kranick (8)\nconcluded that maximal strength is not influenced by an individual\u2019s height or\nlimb length, but rather their build.  Radu\net al. (15) reported a correlation between anthropometric dimensions and\nphysical fitness characteristics in college students (n = 67; 44 male \/ 23\nfemale).  Specifically, Radu et al. (15)\nfound a moderately positive correlation between abdominal strength and sitting\nheight-to-height ratio (SHR) in males (r = 0.352); although similar findings\nwere not reported in females.  Luz et al.\n(9) reported a relationship between body size and motor fitness especially in 8\nyear old girls (n = 74) when performing a variety of physical tasks (i.e., 2-kg\nmedicine ball throw, hand grip strength, sit-ups, standing long jump,\nsit-and-reach, 25-m dash, 10 x 5-m shuttle run, 20-m endurance shuttle\nrun).  Specifically, Luz et al. (9) found\nmoderately negative correlations between sitting height-to-stature ratio and\nfitness (r  = -0.77) and stature and\nfitness (r = -0.56).  Esco et al.\n(5)  reported that there are a number of\nanthropometric variables (e.g., skinfolds, weight, height, body mass index\n(BMI), waist and hip circumferences, and waist\/hip ratio (WHR)) that are\npredictive of sit-up performance in adults (n = 100; 40 male \/ 60 female).  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unfortunately, as\ndepicted above, current research has yet to show a clear connection between\ncertain anthropometric measurements and performance on various physical fitness\ntests. This lack of consensus provided additional rationale and justification\nfor the current study.  If a clear\nconnection between an individual\u2019s anthropometrics and performance could be\nfound, it could influence which physical fitness tests should be used as well\nas how they are to be administered and graded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of\nlimb and torso length on sit-up performance in active duty personnel, recently\nretired from active duty personnel and students from the United States Naval\nAcademy (USNA).  The authors hypothesized\nthat individuals with longer limbs have a certain biomechanical advantage and\nthus will have higher maximum sit-up scores than individuals with shorter\nlimbs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

METHODS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Participants were\nrecruited from students, active duty, and recently retired military personnel\nfrom the United States Naval Academy.  Of\nthe 69 participants, 32 were female and 37 were male.  The mean age of females tested was 24 and the\nmean age of males tested was 27.   Height\nand weight were measured on each participant. \nStatistical analysis was conducted via IBM SPSS Statistics 23.  Descriptive data for each participant is\nprovided in Table 1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Table<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Prior to participation\nin maximum sit-ups in two minutes, participants were measured at four sites:\nhumerus, torso, femur, and tibia. \nHumerus measurements were collected from the acromion to lateral\nepicondyle (Figure 1).  Torso\nmeasurements were collected on the posterior side of the body, alongside the\nback by palpation of the spinous process of the C7 vertebra to midline between\niliac crests (Figure 1).  Femur\nmeasurements were collected from the greater trochanter to the lateral\nepicondyle (Figure 2).  Tibia\nmeasurements were collected from the medial condyle to the medial malleolus\n(Figure 2).  Participants were then asked\nto perform the sit-up portion of the Navy PRT, completing maximum sit-ups in\ntwo minutes.  Formal testing procedures\nwere taken and read verbatim from the Navy\u2019s Physical Readiness Test (PRT)\nprocedures guide (13).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Figure<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"Figure<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Testing ended at the\ncompletion of two minutes, or sooner if the participant stopped, lowered legs,\nlifted feet off the floor, lifted buttocks off the floor, or failed to keep\narms folded across the chest and or lowered arms.  Measurements and sit-up scores were recorded\nand compared using various statistical analyses to evaluate relationship\nbetween the certain anthropometric measurements and sit-up performance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

RESULTS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authors hypothesized a relationship between torso and limb lengths with sit-up performance.  As shown in Table 2, there was a moderate positive correlation between humerus (r = .297; p = .013) and tibia (r = .385; p = .001) length and sit-up performance; however the small positive correlations between torso (r = .191; p = .115) and femur lengths (r = .088; p = .470) and sit-up performance were not statistically significant.  Correlational analysis also showed a moderate positive relationship between height and sit-up performance (r = .306; p = .011).  However, because the positive correlation between torso and femur length and sit-up performance was small and statistically insignificant, the correlation between height and sit-up performance is likely attributed to the inclusion and influence of the tibia length. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Table<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Because the results\nsupported the authors\u2019 hypothesis that humerus and tibia length could improve\nsit-up performance, the authors wanted to determine the practical degree to\nwhich performance was improved.  In other\nwords, how many more sit-ups could a long-limbed person complete in 2 minutes.  The results of this analysis can be found in\nTable 3.  By dividing limb length at its\nmean (humerus at 38 cm and tibia at 41 cm), the authors found that a\nlonger-limbed person could perform between 15 and 20 more sit-ups in 2 minutes.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Table<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

As was to\nbe expected, the authors also found a significant difference in humerus and\ntibia lengths between males and females. \nAs shown in Table 4, there was a statistically significant difference in\nboth humerus (p = .000) and tibia (p = .000) lengths between males and females,\nwhich was consistent with the significant difference (p = .009) in their sit-up\nperformance of about 15 sit-ups.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Table<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

DISCUSSION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Based on personal\nexperience of observing hundreds of naval officers complete their physical\nfitness test, the authors hypothesized that an individual\u2019s anthropometric\nmeasurements would have a positive correlation with sit-up performance, and the\nresults of this study supported that hypothesis.  One explanation for how limb length\ninfluences sit-up performance is illustrated in Figure 3.  Two male subjects who participated\nin the study were identified as having very different sit-up performance (i.e.,\nsubject A = 65 sit-ups; subject B = 113 sit-ups).  These subjects\u2019 humerus, torso, femur and\ntibia lengths were then entered into Adobe Illustrator for visual comparison.  This illustration makes it clear how limb\nlength changes the distance the elbows have to travel in order to make contact\nwith the thighs.  It is very possible\nthat a shorter distance allows for less fatigue and thus better sit-up\nperformance.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Figure<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The authors believe there is good internal and\nexternal validity to this study.  Because\nall participants were either active duty, recently retired from active duty, or\nstudents in a military service academy, they were familiar with the testing\ncriteria and had experience performing sit-ups. \nFurthermore, all subjects were given the same instructions before\nperforming their sit-ups, thus providing strong inter-rater reliability.  Finally, there was equal distribution of male\n(n = 37) and female participates (n = 32), providing a representative sample of\nthose serving in military service academies and the armed forces.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, there was one limitation to this study the authors identified\nregarding the lack of standardization in the distance between the participant\u2019s\nheels and buttocks.  Per the Navy\u2019s PRT\ninstruction, participants are to position their heels about 10 inches from the\nbuttocks (13).  Although the official PRT\ntesting criteria was read aloud prior to the test, subjects were allowed to\nadjust their body position thereby changing the distance (increasing or\ndecreasing) between their heels and buttocks. \nThis was done to afford participants the ability to employ the same body\nposition they use during official semi-annual PRT testing.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 By allowing\nparticipants to adjust their body position, some participants opted to employ a\ndistance greater than 10 inches from heels and buttocks while others employed a\nshorter distance.  It is unknown whether\nthe disparity in distance from the heels and buttocks would have altered the\nangle of the knee and hip enough to change the distance their elbow had to\ntravel to make contact with the thigh. \nAs mentioned previously, the authors speculate that a shorter elbow to\nthigh distance decreases the level of difficulty in performing maximum sit-ups\nwhereas a greater distance increases the level of difficulty.  To address this limitation, the authors\nrecommend that additional testing be conducted where the distance between the\nheels and buttocks either be controlled between participants, or measured for\neach participant so that it can be statistically taken into account.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CONCLUSIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although the authors\nhypothesized that all anthropometric measurements (i.e., torso, femur, tibia,\nand humerus) would be significantly correlated to sit-up performance, the\nresults showed that only the humerus and tibia lengths were significantly\ncorrelated.  This is likely due to the\nhumerus\u2019 effect on the elbow to thigh distance and the tibia\u2019s effect on changing\nthe height and angle of the knee.  In\nboth cases, these measurements help to determine the distance the elbow has to\ntravel in order to make contact with the thigh. \nAdditionally, the results also showed that sex was also correlated to\nsit-up performance, which makes sense since the females in the study measured\nshorter tibia lengths on average than the males (Table 3).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Collectively, the\nresults show a potential for a slight biomechanical advantage in maximum sit-up\nperformance for certain individuals. \nThis, coupled with well-documented concerns regarding the safety and\nlack of operational relevance of sit-ups in the literature, make a compelling\nargument for identifying and implementing alternative field tests for assessing\nabdominal muscular endurance.  Tests like\nthe standard front plank, side bridge and\/or the flexor endurance test show\npromise in effectively evaluating abdominal muscular endurance without\npossessing many of the concerns and limitations currently associated with\nsit-ups (7, 11, 14).  Even so, additional\nresearch would be needed in order to determine appropriate age- and\ngender-specific performance standards for these tests if the intent is to\noutright replace sit-ups in many of the current physical fitness tests used by\nthe military, public education and\/or health and fitness industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

APPLICATIONS IN SPORT<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even though the sit-up\ntest is a common field test used in the military, public education, and health\nand fitness industry, the implications for performance among these various\nentities are vastly different.  For example,\nfailing the sit-up portion of the PRT in the U.S. Navy can have severe\nramifications in terms of promotion and retention.  Failing the sit-up test repeatedly at\nmilitary service academies such as USNA, can also result in expulsion as well\nas profound financial consequences in terms of recoupment.  Additionally, a USNA Midshipman\u2019s overall PRT\nscore is factored into the physical education grade, aptitude grade and overall\norder of merit.  For all Midshipmen,\norder of merit is their primary factor in service assignment, which ultimately\nplaces them into their respective military career track following graduation\nand commissioning as officers in either the U.S. Navy or Marine Corps.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Additionally, the\nresults of this study suggest that using age-adjusted standards alone for the\nsit-up may not be enough to ensure fairness and impartiality.  For example, height and sex, in addition to\nage, also appear to be significant factors that influence maximum sit-up\nperformance.  With that in mind, the\nauthors recommend that the U.S. military and service academies consider\nrevising current sit-up standards to take into account these other\nphysiological differences.  For example,\nthrough the development and implementation of gender-specific performance\nstandards for the sit-ups, just as there are for the push-ups and 1.5-mile\nrun.  These recommendations are both\nwarranted and necessary when considering the aforementioned ramifications\nassociated with service-member performance on semi-annual physical fitness\ntests in terms of career promotion and retention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions from the following individuals from the United States Naval Academy:  Mr. Dan Riner for his assistance with the initial statistical analysis as well as MIDNs Alexandra Heller, Angelique Starks, and Amar Viswanathan for their role and assistance in data collection.  Additionally, the authors would like to express appreciation to the following individuals from Cedarville University:  Mrs. Kristi Coe for her role in the literature review process and manuscript formatting as well as Mr. Jared Pyles, Miki Veness, and Jinho Jung for their assistance in creating figures 1-3.  Finally, the authors would like to thank Dr. Brian Schilling from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas for his review and recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

REFERENCES<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Akuthota, V., Ferreiro, A., Moore, T., & Fredericson, M. (2008). Core stability exercise principles. Current Sports Medicine Reports, 7<\/em>(1), 39-44.<\/li>
  2. Bogin, B., & Varela-Silva, M. I. (2010). Leg length, body proportion, and health: A review with a note on beauty. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 7<\/em>(3), 1047-1075.<\/li>
  3. Childs, J. D., Teyhen, D. S., Casey, P. R., McCoy-Singh, K. A., Feldtmann, A. W., Wright, A. C., Dugan, J. L., Wu, S. S., & George, S. Z. (2010). Effects of traditional sit-up training versus core stabilization exercises on short-term musculoskeletal injuries in US army soldiers: A Cluster Randomized Trial. Physical Therapy, 90<\/em>(10), 1404-1412.<\/li>
  4. Contreras, B., & Schoenfeld, B. (2003). To crunch or not to crunch: An evidence-based examination of spinal flexion exercises, their potential risks, and their applicability to program design. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 33<\/em>, 8-18.<\/li>
  5. Esco, M. R., Olson, M. S., Williford, H. (2008). Relationship of push-ups and sit-ups tests to selected anthropometric variables and performance results: A multiple regression study. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22<\/em>(6), 1862-1868.<\/li>
  6. Hodgdon, J. A. (2011).  A history of the US navy physical readiness program from 1976 to 1999 (Technical Document No. 99-6F<\/em>). San Diego, CA: Naval Health Research Center.<\/li>
  7. Juker, D., McGill, S., Krope, P., & Steffen, T. (1998) Quantitative intramuscular myoelectric activity of lumbar portions of psoas and the abdominal wall during a wide variety of tasks. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise<\/em>, 30(2), 301-310. <\/li>
  8. Kranick, M. (2016). The effect of limb length or total body height on maximal muscle strength. A Journal of Undergraduate Research, 9<\/em>, 44-54.<\/li>
  9. Luz, L., Coelho-Sliva, M. J., Duarte, J. P., Valente-dos-Santos, J., Machado-Rodrigues, A., Seabra, A., Carmo, B., Vaeyens, R., Philippaerts, R. M., Cumming, S. P., & Malina, R. M. (2018). Multivariate relationships among morphology, fitness and motor coordination in prepubertal girls. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 17<\/em>, 197-204.<\/li>
  10. McGill, S. (2010). Core training: Evidence translating to better performance and injury prevention. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 32<\/em>, 33-46.<\/li>
  11. McGill, S. (2007). Low back disorders (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.<\/li>
  12. McGill, S., Belore, M., Crosby, I., & Russell, C. (2010). Clinical tools to quantify torso flexion endurance: Normative data from student and firefighter populations. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 9<\/em>,55-61.<\/li>
  13. Navy Physical Readiness Program. (2016). Guide 5: Physical Readiness Test.<\/em> Retrieved from https:\/\/www.public.navy.mil\/bupers-npc\/support\/21st_Century_Sailor\/physical\/Documents\/Guide%205-%20Physical%20Readiness%20Test%20%202016.pdf.<\/li>
  14. Peterson, D. D. (2013). Proposed performance standards for the plank for inclusion consideration into the navy\u2019s physical readiness test. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 35<\/em>(5), 22-26.<\/li>
  15. Radu, L. E., Hazar, F., & Puni, A. R. (2014). Anthropometric and physical fitness characteristics of university students. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 149<\/em>, 798-802.<\/li>
  16. Vanderburgh, P. M. (2008). Occupational relevance and body mass bias in military physical fitness tests. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 40<\/em>(8), 1538-1545.<\/li><\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Authors: David Peterson, Meighan Middleton, and Sharon Christman Corresponding Author:David […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_options":[]},"categories":[994,898],"tags":[1460,1459],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4btio-1Dq","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":53,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/descriptive-comparisons-of-united-states-military-physical-fitness-programs\/","url_meta":{"origin":6288,"position":0},"title":"Descriptive Comparisons of United States Military Physical Fitness Programs","date":"February 11, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Gordon R. Strong, Ed.D. Although technology has changed the nature of conflict over the years, physical fitness remains an important component of the effectiveness of every military service member. Many of the changes (night vision goggles, anti-chemical gear, etc.) allow fighting to continue around the clock, further establishing\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Exercise Science"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":7065,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/relative-age-effect-enhanced-physical-fitness-reference-standards-for-turkish-youths-who-live-in-istanbul\/","url_meta":{"origin":6288,"position":1},"title":"Relative age effect-enhanced physical fitness reference standards for Turkish youths who live in Istanbul","date":"May 29, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors:\u00a0Nuri Topsakal Corresponding Author:Nuri Topsakal, PhDDuzce University Faculty of Sport Sciences,Department of Coaching Education, Istanbul, TurkeyMailing address: Duzce Universitesi Spor Bilimleri Fak\u00fcltesi Konuralp Yerle\u015fkesi\u00a0Merkez\/D\u00dcZCE81620Telephone: +90 544 308 25 03Fax: + 90 (380) 542 1365Email: topsakal.nuri@gmail.com Nuri Topsakal is an assistant professor for the University of D\u00fczce Faculty of Sport Science.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Research"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":54,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/analysis-of-selected-physical-and-performance-attributes-of-the-united-states-olympic-team-handball-players-preliminary-study\/","url_meta":{"origin":6288,"position":2},"title":"Analysis of Selected Physical and Performance Attributes of the United States Olympic Team Handball Players: Preliminary Study","date":"February 11, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Brian Bergemann, Ph.D. During the Spring of 1995, prior to the Olympic Games in Atlanta, the United States Team Handball team and coaches came to the United States Sports Academy in Daphne, AL for testing. Dr. Thomas P. Rosandich, president of the U.S. Team Handball Federation, and the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Coaching"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":2878,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/modernizing-the-navys-physical-readiness-test-introducing-the-navy-general-fitness-test-and-navy-operational-fitness-test\/","url_meta":{"origin":6288,"position":3},"title":"Modernizing the Navy\u2019s Physical Readiness Test: Introducing the Navy General Fitness Test and Navy Operational Fitness Test","date":"July 23, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by CDR D. D. Peterson1* MSC USN, E.d.D, CSCS*D Abstract The lessons learned from recent combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown operational commanders that the military fitness tests currently used by the different services are inadequate in terms of assessing the physical fitness required for combat.\u00a0 Currently,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"figure 1","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/07\/figure-1-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":48,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/international-physical-fitness-test\/","url_meta":{"origin":6288,"position":4},"title":"International Physical Fitness Test","date":"February 11, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Dr. Thomas P. Rosandich, President, USSA FOREWARD The United States Sports Academy, in cooperation with the Supreme Council for Youth and Sport, presents the Arab world with its own International Physical Fitness Test Manual based on norms collected and processed on Arab youth, ages 9 to 19. This\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Coaching"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":40,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/international-physical-fitness-test-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":6288,"position":5},"title":"International Physical Fitness Test","date":"February 11, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: United States Sports Academy in cooperation with the General Organization of Youth and Sport (State of Bahrain) FOREWARD The United States Sports Academy, in cooperation with the Supreme Council for Youth and Sport, presents the Arab world with its own International Physical Fitness Test Manual based on norms\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Exercise Science"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6288"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6288"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6288\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6313,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6288\/revisions\/6313"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6288"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6288"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6288"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}