4.4 Article

TRAINING METHODS AND TRAINING INSTRUCTORS' QUALIFICATION ARE RELATED TO RECRUITS' FITNESS DEVELOPMENT DURING BASIC MILITARY TRAINING

期刊

JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH
卷 29, 期 -, 页码 S178-S186

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001106

关键词

balance; strength circuit; intermittent high-intensity interval training; fitness test

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adequate physical fitness is essential for successful military service. Military organizations worldwide therefore make continuous efforts to improve their army's physical training (PT) programs. To investigate the effect of the training methods and the qualification of PT instructors on the development of recruits' physical fitness, the present study compared the outcomes of 2 training groups. Both study groups participated in approximately 145 minutes per week of PT. The control group executed the standard army PT prepared and supervised by army PT instructors. Content of the PT in the intervention group was similar to that of the control group, but their training sessions' methods were different. Their training sessions were organized, prepared, and delivered by more and better-qualified supervisors (tertiary-educated physical education teachers). After 10 weeks of training, the participants of the intervention group experienced a significantly greater physical fitness improvement than those of the control group (positive change in endurance 32 and 17%, balance 30 and 21%, and core strength 74 and 45%, respectively). In both groups, the recruits with the lowest initial fitness levels significantly increased their performance. In the intervention group, but not the control, one-third of the recruits with the highest initial fitness levels were able to further improve their general fitness performance. This study demonstrates that the training methods and quality of instruction during PT sessions are relevant for recruits' fitness development in basic military training.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据