Retrospective comparative study reveals lower body fat and superior strength in military lead climbers, highlighting substantial load burdens during tactical ascents.
Wood, DE and Swain, DP. The physical parameters of tactical climbing and performance characteristics of naval special warfare operators. J Strength Cond Res 35(4): 949-954, 2021-Vertical elevation may be critical for advantage to Special Operation Forces and require strength, power, endurance, and technique. This study sought to (a) study differences in physical capacities of Naval Special Warfare lead climbers from nonlead climbers, (b) compare anthropometrics of lead climbers from nonlead climbers, and (c) catalogue the types and weights of the various climbing systems to assess total system weight to the lead climber's body mass. Climbing surveys were collected and retrospective physical capacity data from 15 SEa, Air and Land lead climbers (age: 31.2 ± 5.1 years; height: 181.4 ± 6.4 cm; mass: 89.4 ± 10.0 kg; body fat: 14.1 ± 3.7%) were compared against previously reported data of 305 nonlead climbers (age: 28.8 ± 5.2 years; height: 177.6 ± 12.0 cm; mass: 85.8 ± 9.7 kg; body fat: 17.3 ± 4.7%). Lead climbers had significantly less body fat percentage (p = 0.017). Lead climbers also performed significantly better on the pro-agility test (p = 0.017) and deadlift (p = 0.002). The total mass reported for the climbing equipment for each tactical scenario was up to 4.9 kg for urban climbing, up to 13.7 kg for alpine climbing, and up to 8.0 kg for maritime climbing. With a typical combat load of 21.4 kg, adding an alpine climbing load exceeds one-third of the lead climbers' own body mass. Strength and conditioning programming for this population should take into consideration the total system weight for testing and training purposes and should also consider climbing-specific strength testing and training to optimize climbing capability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wood et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: