Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
INTRODUCTION: Military personnel are required to undertake rigorous physical training to meet the unique demands of combat, often leading to high levels of physiological stress. Inappropriate recovery periods with these high levels of physical stress may result in sub-optimal training and increased risk of injury in military personnel. However, no reviews have attempted to examine the magnitude of training-induced stress following military training activities. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the magnitude of physiological stress (physical, hormonal, and immunological) following task-specific training activities in military personnel. METHODS: An extensive literature search was conducted within CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, SportDiscus, and Web of Science databases with 7,220 records extracted and a total of 14 studies eligible for inclusion and evaluation. Study appraisal was conducted using the Kmet scale. Meta-analysis was conducted via forest plots, with standard mean difference (SMD, effect size) and inter-trial heterogeneity (I2) calculated between before (preactivity) and after (12-96 hours postactivity) military-specific activities for biomarkers of physiological stress (muscle damage, inflammation, and hormonal) and physical performance (muscular strength and power). RESULTS: Military training activities resulted in significant levels of muscle damage (SMD = -1.28; P = .003) and significant impairments in strength and power (SMD = 0.91; P = .008) and testosterone levels (SMD = 1.48; P = .05) up to 96 hours postactivity. There were no significant differences in inflammation (SMD = -0.70; P = .11), cortisol (SMD = -0.18; P = .81), or insulin-like growth factor 1 (SMD = 0.65; P = .07) when compared to preactivity measures. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that assessments of muscle damage, anabolic hormones like testosterone, strength, and power are effective for determining the level of acute stress following military-specific activities. With regular monitoring of these measures, appropriate recovery periods may be implemented to optimize training adaptations and occupational performance, with minimal adverse training responses in military personnel.
Heilbronn et al. (Fri,) studied this question.