Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Physical fitness is a key tenet of military organisations worldwide. Specifically, many consider aerobic fitness (AF) an essential physical attribute for ensuring optimal military performance and readiness. However, the intricate relationship between AF and various facets of military job performance necessitates comprehensive review to ascertain the appropriateness and effectiveness of its assessment.
OBJECTIVE:
This narrative review aims to describe the relationship between AF and factors influencing individual military performance and readiness, and explores the implications of the enforcement of in-service, generic AF test standards in military populations.
METHODS:
Databases (PubMed and Google Scholar) were searched for all relevant published peer-reviewed literature as at August 2023.
RESULTS:
Inconsistent associations were found between AF and outcomes influencing individual military performance (physical capabilities, cognitive capabilities, presenteeism and productivity, resilience, and technical/tactical capabilities) and readiness (mental health and wellbeing and physical health). Consequently, the level of AF needed for acceptable or optimal military performance remains uncertain.
CONCLUSIONS:
AF is a cornerstone of health and performance, yet linking generic AF test standards to job performance is complex, with multiple factors interacting to influence outcomes. From existing literatures, there does not appear to be a specific level of AF at, and/or above, which acceptable military performance is achieved. As such, the enforcement of and emphasis on in-service, pass/fail, generic AF test standards in military populations is questionable and requires thoughtful re-evaluation. Role/task-specific AF should be assessed through evidence-based PES and the use of generic AF tests limited to the monitoring and benchmarking of health-related fitness.
Keywords
Introduction
Significant emphasis is placed on physical fitness in the military, with high levels thought to enhance military performance [1]. The demands of the various military occupational specialities (MOS) are diverse and although many military roles may bear similarities to jobs in the civilian world, the work environment is often significantly different. This reflects the range of unique stressors that military personnel are exposed to during training and in combat, including physical (e.g. sleep deprivation, undernutrition, strenuous exercise), environmental (e.g. noise, climatic extremes, altitude, pollutants) and psychological (e.g. anxiety, demanding cognitive tasks, long work hours) stressors [2]. Such stressors have been associated with negative outcomes, including reductions in physical and cognitive performance, fatigue, illness and injury [2]. High levels of physical fitness may enhance soldiers’ resilience to these stressors and enable them to accomplish required tasks while remaining healthy and uninjured [1].
Historically, generic physical fitness tests (e.g. maximal run, press-ups to failure and sit-ups to failure) have been used to assess the job-related fitness of military personnel [3]. However, more recently, the in-service enforcement of standards based on such tests has been criticised because of insufficient evidence validating their association with military performance [4]. Occupational, or job-related, fitness assessments (Physical Employment Standards, PES) are an alternative type of physical capability test, increasingly used in military organisations, whereby performance on standardised job-task simulations (e.g. carrying an object a specific distance) is assessed [4].
In comparison to generic fitness assessments, PES assessments are generally considered to provide a more valid and accurate indication of a soldier’s ability to perform essential physically demanding job tasks. That said, generic physical fitness tests are often used alongside, and in some cases instead of, PES assessments. Generic physical fitness tests have recently been included as a health-related fitness assessment of serving personnel but in some military organisations, they are used as a specific job requirement [3]. While the type of generic fitness test(s) used varies between military organisations, aerobic fitness (AF) is the most commonly assessed attribute [3]. AF can be defined as the ability to perform dynamic exercise involving large muscle groups at a moderate to high intensity for prolonged periods [1]. It is widely recognised that the most accurate assessment of AF is laboratory determination of maximal oxygen uptake,
As at March 2023, nine of the ten nations who participated in a NATO Task Group (Human Factors and Medicine (HFM) Research Task Group (RTG) 269) on Combat Integration: Implications for Physical Employment Standards, enforced a generic AF requirement for in-service personnel, as shown in Table 1 [3]. Canadian Armed Forces personnel complete an AF test, but for health-related fitness monitoring purposes; a performance standard is not enforced. Given the widespread use of generic AF tests by military organisations worldwide, a review of the evidence for generic AF testing and standards and their association with occupational performance and readiness is warranted. The purpose of this review is twofold; first, to examine the relationship between AF and individual military performance and readiness, and second, to discuss the implications of this for the enforcement of generic, in-service AF test standards in the military.
Aerobic fitness tests and standards administered by international military organisations for incumbent personnel [3], as at March 2023
Aerobic fitness tests and standards administered by international military organisations for incumbent personnel [3], as at March 2023
1In process of being replaced by a role-related PES with an aerobic component.
This narrative review was conducted to provide a general and critical overview of previously published research on AF in the military. A literature search was carried out in PubMed and Google Scholar using a range of search terms, as listed in Table 2. All articles that included a search term from List 1 and List 2 were taken into consideration. However, articles were only included in this review if they met the following inclusion criteria: (i) the research was peer-reviewed; (ii) the research was published in English from 1990 to August 2023; and iii) the research design was observational, experimental, or quasi-experimental, or a literature review. Sixty-three studies assessing the relationship between AF and military performance and/or readiness outcomes were included. An additional sixteen studies were included to provide context on AF testing or performance and readiness outcomes; these studies only included search terms from either List 1 or List 2 in Table 2. Finally, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) report of HFM RTG 269 was included, as this is considered a seminal document in the field of fitness testing in military organisations.
Search list terms for the literature review
Search list terms for the literature review
The job-related demands of the various MOS are diverse, both within and between domains (maritime, land, and air). Individual military performance is considered to be a complex and multifaceted construct arising from several factors, including physical capabilities, cognitive function, work presenteeism and productivity, resilience, and technical/tactical capabilities [6], as summarised in Fig. 1. However, irrespective of the specific demands of military roles, many military organisations adhere to the principle of ‘Universality of Service’, or ‘Soldier First’, which holds that members must be able to perform common defence and security duties, not just the duties of their military occupation speciality. As such, although many military personnel may spend long periods engaged in sedentary desk-based roles, they may be required to move, at relatively short notice, to a field role with very different demands. Regular PES assessments help ensure readiness to perform such roles but where generic AF tests and standards are also used, there is a need to ensure that these are evidence-based and justified. This section of the review will examine the relationship between AF and factors influencing successful individual military performance.

Key factors influencing individual military performance. (Note: It is acknowledged that there are other capabilities, extending beyond those shown in the figure).
Load carriage
Load carriage refers to military personnel carrying equipment and supplies on their body [7]. A relationship between higher AF and reduced cardiovascular strain has been found during fixed duration load carriage in male Royal Marine recruits [8] and healthy volunteers [9]. Additionally, several studies have demonstrated an association between higher AF levels and faster load carriage march time to completion [7, 10]. Collectively, these findings suggest that military personnel with higher AF levels can work at a lower relative intensity, which in turn allows for greater task performance.
As previously mentioned,
The mass of the load itself appears to influence the relationship between
Higher body mass and higher muscle mass also appear to be beneficial for load carriage performance. For example, when carrying the same fixed mass, at an equivalent velocity, the fixed load represents a lower percentage of body mass and a lower metabolic cost for an individual with a higher body mass, compared to an individual with a lower body mass [12]. Heavier individuals have also been shown to perform better in a load carriage task (specifically, longer time to exhaustion when running at 9.5 km.h–1 with an 18 kg load) compared with lighter individuals [12]. Therefore, describing an individual’s
It is difficult to directly compare previous study findings as the methods of assessing the relationship between AF and load carriage vary considerably in terms of the tests used to assess AF, the mass of the load carried, the distance or duration of the march, and as previously mentioned, the method of expressing AF. Further adding to the complexity, load carriage performance is known to be influenced by numerous factors, including personal characteristics (e.g. sex, age, injury profile, load carriage experience), task characteristics (e.g. load mass, equipment design, movement speed, work to rest ratio), and environmental conditions (e.g. terrain, climate) [14].
In summary, it is apparent that a relationship exists between higher AF and enhanced load carriage performance. However, due to the methodological heterogeneity across studies and a multitude of factors known to influence load carriage, definitive conclusions cannot be drawn as to what level of AF is required for acceptable or optimal load carriage performance.
Operationally-relevant mobility
To gain a more global understanding of the impact of AF on soldier physical capabilities, several studies have sought to simulate various physical operational demands using obstacle/mobility courses involving sprinting, casualty recovery, climbing, crawling, lifting and carrying [15–19]. These activities require varying degrees of agility, mobility, speed, and strength; however, when performed back-to-back (as in an obstacle course), the aerobic demand increases and the aerobic system plays a significant role in influencing fatigue, recovery, and reserve capacity for subsequent tasks [1]. Indeed, an association between higher AF and faster obstacle course time to completion has been reported in soldiers [18–20] and healthy volunteers [15, 16]. However, in addition to AF, other factors were also significantly associated with better performance, including anthropometric measures [15, 17], jump height [16, 18], core stability [19] and muscular strength [18, 19]. Furthermore, of the studies reviewed, there appears to be only one study that has attempted to specify a required level of AF based on obstacle course performance. Orantes-Gonzalez et al. [17] found that male Spanish Army soldiers with a predicted
Research suggests that soldiers most commonly perform submaximal intensity work (i.e. 50%
In summary, where speed of completion of consecutive soldiering tasks is important, higher AF is likely beneficial, however, the specific level of AF associated with acceptable operationally relevant mobility (or other) task performance is yet to be determined.
Recovery
In addition to having the competence to perform physically demanding military tasks, the ability to overcome mental and physical fatigue and recover quickly after physical stress is important for soldiers. All recovery is aerobic and as such, higher levels of AF generally enhance recovery from exercise through various physiological mechanisms (e.g. heart rate recovery, lactate removal and phosphocreatine regeneration) [22]. Nevertheless, only a handful of studies have specifically examined AF and recovery in military populations. Hoffman et al. [23] assessed infantry soldiers’ ability to recover from three 140-m sprints (separated by 2 minutes of passive rest), with a fatigue index score calculated by dividing the mean time of the three sprints by the fastest time. A reduction in the rate of fatigue was found in soldiers with AF test scores (2 km run times) equal to or faster than the population mean [23]. However, researchers found no further benefit in the recovery rate from high-intensity exercise with high levels of AF (
Recovery has also been examined in military personnel undergoing a 2-week Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) training course [24]. Fitness test scores (timed run, press-ups and sit-ups) for 20 US Navy sailors and Marines were used to evaluate overall fitness. To assess recovery from arduous activity, adrenergic responses (i.e. the body’s response to stress measured via norepinephrine and neurotransmitter neuropeptide Y) were then evaluated during survival training [24]. At the end of survival training, a quicker return of adrenergic responses to baseline levels was found in those with a higher overall fitness score, suggesting that physical fitness may have a protective effect in recovery following a period of high stress military training [24]. Conversely, in Swiss Armed Forces soldiers, no relationship between AF and recovery was found. Soldiers were divided into three fitness groups (high
Heat tolerance
Military personnel often deploy to environments (heat, cold, altitude) that differ to those in which they typically live and train in. Duties in hot environments present a unique challenge as carrying heavy loads and wearing personal protective equipment exacerbates heat production and further restricts heat loss [25]. Military studies investigating heat stress have tended to use the standardised heat tolerance test developed by the Israeli Defence Force, which requires participants to walk at 5 km.h–1 2% gradient, in 40°C and 40% relative humidity. Participants are deemed ‘heat intolerant’ if they meet the criteria of core body temperature >38.5°C, heart rate >150 bpm, or when either fail to plateau [26, 27]. In studies examining both military personnel and the general population, AF was predictive of - and associated with - heat intolerance, whereby relative
In summary, despite research demonstrating a strong relationship between higher AF and improved thermoregulatory function and exercise tolerance in the heat, the specific
Cognitive capabilities
In addition to physical competence, cognition is critical for successful military performance. As summarised in Table 3, a number of studies have sought to determine the influence of AF on cognitive capabilities, with researchers tending to use a battery of tests to assess a broad range of cognitive functions in various physiological states. Different military populations have been investigated, specifically Royal Norwegian Navy sailors [30], Irish Defence Personnel [31], Spanish young adult healthy volunteers [32], US Air Force personnel [33], US service members [34], and Spanish active-duty military personnel [35]. Inconsistent findings are apparent in these studies, with both positive- and null- associations found between various cognitive functions and AF (Table 3). For example, mixed results were reported by Beckner et al. [34] examining the relationship between AF and cognition in 54 soldiers during a 5-day multi-factorial stress scenario. In this study, soldiers were divided into three fitness groups (high
Summary of studies examining associations between cognitive functions and aerobic fitness
Summary of studies examining associations between cognitive functions and aerobic fitness
In summary, findings in military populations are equivocal, with a relationship between AF and cognitive performance only demonstrated for some domains of cognition. Methodological differences (e.g. test populations, tests used) likely explain these conflicting results. Nevertheless, from the studies reviewed, there is no evidence to suggest that AF has any detrimental effect on cognitive performance. Therefore, improving AF should be promoted as a potential method for enhancing cognition. However, the use of generic AF test standards as an indicator of acceptable cognitive function is not justified, as there is no defined level of AF above which enhanced/optimised cognitive function occurs.
With increasing rank and service, it is common for military personnel to become more desk-bound, with a greater emphasis on cognitive rather than physical tasks [36]. In such situations, presenteeism (i.e. being at work but not fully functioning due to illness, injury, or other conditions [37]) and productivity (i.e. the rate of output per unit of input [38]) become important factors influencing individual military performance. No studies have examined the impact of AF on these factors in military personnel. General population studies have reported associations between higher levels of AF and an increase in the quantity of office-type work performed [39], a reduction in the amount of extra effort required to do the job [39], and reduced absenteeism [40]. Therefore, AF should be encouraged as a potential method for improving presenteeism and productivity; however, given the lack of military studies, more research is needed.
Resilience
Resilience, defined by the Technical Corporation Program (TTCP) as “the capacity of the individual, team and organisation to recover quickly, resist, and possibly thrive in the face of direct/indirect stressors and adverse situations in garrison, training, and operational environments” is a complex construct, reflecting not only an individual’s physiology and psychology, but also the influence of factors such as sex, environment, and training [6]. Many of the physical and cognitive capabilities discussed previously have (or are) components of resilience, but several military studies have focussed specifically on the influence of AF on psychological resilience and the role of mental processes and behaviour in protecting an individual from the potential negative effect of stressors.
Luria at al. reported an association between higher baseline fitness scores (timed 2 km run, sit-ups and push-ups) and lower levels of perceived stress, before and during a physically and cognitively demanding two-day selection activity, in Israeli Defence Force recruits [41]. In this study, AF comprised 70% of the overall fitness score [41]. Similarly, passing of the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT), involving a 2-mile run, push-ups and sit-ups, was associated with higher resilience and confidence in managing reactions to stress in US Army recruits during a 10-week basic combat training course [42]. Furthermore, a relationship between higher predicted absolute
In contrast, Beckner et al. [34] found no association between AF and resilience during a 5-day simulated military operational protocol. This conflicting finding may be explained by the soldier population and context; Active Duty, Reserve, National Guard and Reserve Officer Training Corps soldiers [34], compared to recruits in training [41–43]. Generic AF on entry may predict subsequent resilience and stress management during selection courses and training, however, it remains unclear how altered AF levels subsequently influence long-term resilience of serving personnel.
Technical/tactical capabilities
For effective military performance, technical capabilities, e.g. how to use the weapon or drive the vehicle, must be complemented by tactical capabilities, e.g. when to use the weapon, where to drive the vehicle. Several of the physical and cognitive capabilities discussed previously contribute to technical/tactical performance, but marksmanship (i.e. the application of the fundamental skills of firing a weapon with precision and accuracy) is an essential technical/tactical capability that has received specific attention in the literature. Equivocal evidence has been presented on the relationship between AF and marksmanship in military and law enforcement personnel. A positive association [44] and no association [45] were found for static shooting accuracy, while AF was not associated with dynamic and positive identification shooting scenarios [44]. A limitation of these studies is that they examined a shooting task(s) in isolation [44, 45]; in real-world military operations, other activities and/or tasks are typically performed prior to shooting. Nevertheless, no association between AF and static shooting accuracy following exercise (upper body fatiguing exercise) has been demonstrated in US Army soldiers [46]. Therefore, the relationship between AF and marksmanship is currently unclear, with no defined AF level below or above which marksmanship will decline or be enhanced.
The relationship between generic aerobic fitness and other aspects of military readiness
Although the previous section has highlighted inconsistent relationships between AF and factors affecting individual military performance, generic AF has been shown to provide additional benefits that may in turn enhance military readiness. Individual military readiness is defined as “a soldier’s ability to deploy on a mission or perform their usual military duties” [47] and is influenced by mental and physical health, which in turn affect morbidity, mortality and attrition.
Mental health and wellbeing
Psychological stress and mental ill-health (e.g. depression and anxiety) are prevalent in military organisations and can negatively impact military readiness [48]. In US Army soldiers, higher overall APFT scores have been linked to stronger psychological skills (e.g. stress-reactions, self-confidence, commitment, fear control) [49]. While the relative contribution of AF cannot be determined from this study (APFT score reflects a combination of AF and strength) [49], a relationship between lower levels of AF and higher psychological stress and/or distress has been demonstrated in military personnel in Taiwan [50] and Finland [51]. Higher overall fitness and AF levels have also been associated with lower risk of depression [52] and mood disturbance [53] during basic military combat training. Furthermore, an inverse association between AF levels and trait anxiety has been reported in male US military personnel undergoing advanced instruction to become special warfare officers [54].
It should, however, be recognised that fitness testing in and of itself may negatively impact mental health and wellbeing [55]. In some military organisations, there are a range of negative consequences associated with fitness test failure, including remedial physical training, not attaining a promotion, inability to attend development programs, and ultimately the inability to remain on active duty [55]. As such, fitness testing may lead to mental distress [55] and should therefore only be included where justified. That aside, there is general consensus that higher levels of AF are beneficial for mental health and wellbeing, although the actual level of AF required to realise these benefits has not yet been determined.
Physical health
Acute illness and injury
Illness and injury are a major concern in the military, with both negatively impacting occupational readiness and task performance. A relationship between low AF and increased illness-related absenteeism has been demonstrated in male Finnish soldiers [56]. Upper respiratory tract symptom (URTS) (e.g. sore throat, runny nose, cough) episodes are a common form of acute illness experienced by military personnel, and during basic combat training, higher AF levels on entry have been linked to lower incidence [57] and shorter duration [58] of URTS episodes in male recruits.
Several studies have also examined the role of AF in exertional heat illness (EHI), which presents as a serious occupational hazard and common cause of hospitalisation in military personnel [59]. EHI comprises a broad spectrum of syndromes ranging from exertional heat cramps, heat exhaustion, and heat injury, to life-threatening heat stroke [60]. Lower levels of AF have been associated with increased risk for EHI in military personnel [60, 61].
The relationship between AF and injury, particularly musculoskeletal injury (MSKI), has received considerable attention in the military literature. MSKI causes more morbidity among soldiers than any other health condition [62]. An association between low levels of AF and increased risk for MSKI has been demonstrated in recruit [63–65] and non-recruit [66, 67] military populations. However, conflicting findings have also been reported, for example, no relationship between AF and injury was reported in Swiss military personnel [68], whereas, a positive association between AF and injury was demonstrated in US military personnel [69]. Physical fitness testing itself has also been shown to cause injury, with an injury rate of 7.6% reported in 1,532 US soldiers; however, the majority of injuries were attributed to the sit-up event (51% ) compared with the run (32% ) and press-up (11% ) events [70], with a low proportion resulting in time-loss [70].
Despite conflicting findings, high levels of AF generally appear to protect against injury; indeed, a meta-analysis reported a relative risk of 2.34 (95% CI 2.02–2.70) for run times, whereby slower run times significantly increased risk for injury [71]. Furthermore, a recent systematic review concluded that strong scientific evidence exists for low physical fitness as a modifiable risk factor for MSKI [62].
In summary, higher levels of generic AF generally enhance physical health, although the specific level of AF needed to reduce illness and injury risk is yet to be determined, if indeed such a level exists. It is important to note that illness and injury risk are influenced by numerous factors, including lifestyle, genetics, medical status, physiology, biomechanics, and training load [62], therefore, reliance on a specific, generic AF test score to indicate adequate physical health for successful job performance is likely not appropriate.
Chronic disease and mortality
Chronic, non-communicable diseases represent a significant challenge in the military. Crump et al. [72–74] conducted several large longitudinal cohort studies to assess the relationship between AF and non-communicable disease risk in Swedish male military conscripts. Over the 15–43 year study periods, low relative
Similar findings have been reported in the general population, with high levels of AF being associated with lower risk of CVD, morbidity and mortality. Importantly, in the general population, researchers have sought to determine the level of AF needed to protect against CVD, for example, Mandsager et al. [77] stratified subjects by AF into five performance groups and observed an inverse association between AF and long-term mortality (Fig. 2). Furthermore, there was no upper limit of benefit of increased AF on mortality risk [77]. Although specific AF levels associated with disease and mortality have not yet been determined in military populations, general population datasets provide useful AF benchmarks.

Risk (hazard ratio [HR]) of all-cause mortality for AF performance groups [77].
Generic aerobic fitness standards as a military requirement
Despite some studies demonstrating an association between higher levels of AF and factors influencing military performance, this is not a consistent finding. An absolute value, above which benefits are conferred or acceptable performance is achieved, has not been clearly determined. Indeed, different levels of AF might be required for different aspects of performance, and/or for different individuals. Moreover, the military operating environment is undergoing transformation, marked by the integration of new technologies such as artificial intelligence and robotics. This shift is accompanied by a change in emphasis within human capabilities, transitioning from traditional attributes, like load carriage and physical strength, to prioritising decision dominance and mental endurance [78]. The findings of this review would suggest that there is unlikely to be one level of generic AF that is associated with ‘acceptable’ performance in all aspects of all military roles. Neither is there likely to be one level of AF that is associated with ‘optimal’ individual military performance. Such fitness levels are difficult to determine when ‘acceptable’ and ‘optimal’ job performance are difficult to quantify, and when previous studies have used a variety of methods to measure and express AF.
Unjustified emphasis on any aspect of fitness has the potential to lose (or miss the opportunity to recruit) highly effective personnel and encourages serving personnel to spend a disproportionate amount of time and effort on an aspect of their readiness that may not be the most beneficial. As described by Reilly et al. [79], in nations where PES and physical fitness tests must be linked to a bona fide job requirement, a clear link between the task and the required level of AF must be demonstrated to avoid legal challenge and unnecessary barriers to retention [79]. Where organisations also adopt the Soldier First principle, or Universality of Service, requirements on personnel at all levels of the organisation should reflect actual and reasonable expectations, not nice to haves.
Generic aerobic fitness tests and benchmarks as a military enabler
Although this review has highlighted that the evidence for in-service, generic AF standards per se is equivocal, the review has also demonstrated the actual and potential benefits of increased AF for the performance and health of military personnel, and this should be innovatively and proactively encouraged. In-service, generic AF testing could be used as one component of a health-related fitness assessment, separate to but alongside a role-related PES, to provide a more complete fitness profile of military personnel [3]. However, rather than using pass/fail standards, evidence-based age and sex benchmarking of generic AF test scores could be used. Adjusted benchmarks based on age and sex are justified in such a context, whereas standards for occupational/job-related fitness assessments (i.e. PES) should be the same for everyone, as job-related requirements remain the same. This approach would enable military personnel to obtain a better understanding of their own fitness level, provide motivation for continuous improvement (or maintenance), allow progress to be tracked, and provide meaningful metrics to the chain of command to guide and prioritise program delivery [3]. Other aspects of the health-related fitness evaluation might include body composition, muscular strength, muscular endurance, and flexibility, all of which are known to have a relationship with good health [80]. The goal of such an evaluation would be to help promote continuous improvement, rather than be pass or fail, as per the Canadian Armed Forces FORCE Fitness Profile. In addition to fitness, it should be recognised that other important factors also influence individual military performance and readiness, including physical activity levels, diet, smoking, alcohol consumption, stress and anxiety, personality traits, and sleep. Therefore, to optimise military performance and readiness, emphasis should not be placed on fitness alone; rather, a holistic approach should be adopted, incorporating nutrition, lifestyle, and behavioural strategies.
Conclusion
This review explored the relationship between generic AF and various aspects of military performance and readiness. While some associations were identified, there is no specific threshold of generic AF that confers improved military performance or readiness. Until further research can establish how much fitness is enough, the enforcement of standalone, in-service, pass/fail, generic AF test standards in military organisations lacks justification. That said, this review has also demonstrated that increased AF benefits key outcomes influencing individual military performance and readiness, and thus, task-specific, in-service assessments of AF (in the form of evidence-based PES) may be warranted for specific sub-populations, and the monitoring of health-related fitness (via generic AF testing) would be beneficial for all, with benchmarks rather than pass-fail standards for the latter.
While research suggests no upper limit to the benefits of increased AF, it is vital to recognise that AF is just one element affecting performance, with lifestyle and behavioural factors also playing significant roles. Emphasis needs to shift from “how do we test” to “how do we best support military, law enforcement and emergency services personnel to enhance and maintain their physical fitness throughout their careers?” Organisations should promote a culture that encourages positive lifestyle behaviours, alongside assessing and supporting fitness, through consultation and guidance rather than strict testing and remedial actions. The literature suggests that enforcement of AF test standards, without evidence to support a bona-fide job requirement, opens military organisations up to legal challenge and has the potential to limit the recruitment and retention of effective personnel. As highlighted in the final report of NATO HFM RTG 269, military members are incentivised to achieve fitness and activity goals when they understand the importance of being fit and healthy, when they know that PES and physical fitness tests are fair and justified, and when a balance of carrot and stick (bonus and malus) approaches is used. To continually advance military performance and readiness, careful consideration of the use and application of generic, in-service AF tests and standards, across the range of military contexts, is required.
Disclaimer
The opinions or assertions contained herein are the private views of the authors and are not to be construed as official or reflecting the views of the New Zealand Defence Force.
Ethical approval
Not applicable.
Informed consent
Not applicable.
Conflict of interest
Not applicable.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
Not applicable.
Funding
Not applicable.
