• Comparative Study of Army Physical Readiness Protocol TC 3-22.20 vs. ROTC CrossFit Training

      Henry, Timothy; LaFountain, Richard; The College at Brockport (2012-05-07)
      The purpose of this research study was to compare two premier training programs’ effectiveness in college-aged ROTC cadets at the College at Brockport. Ten volunteer participants, five from each test group, were asked to complete a battery of tests, including Biodex System II Isokinetic Dynamometer, Sit and Reach, Push-Up to Failure, and Forestry Step Test, to evaluate their lower body strength, flexibility, upper body strength, muscle endurance, metabolic, and flexibility improvements after training for four weeks. Cadets (n=5) in their first or second year of ROTC (19.6±0.54), known as MSI’s and MSII’s, using the TC 3-22.20 Military Physical Readiness Training Protocol were pre-tested the first week in April 2012, and again the last week in April 2012. Similarly, third year cadets (n=5), MSIII’s training with the CrossFit program were pre and post-tested in the same weeks as the TC 3-22.20 group. The testing results from pre and post tests from each test group were compared in an attempt to determine effectiveness of each training regimen. The test results for the Biodex System II, lower body strength evaluation, show an increase (16.92%) in average concentric flexion strength at the knee of the dominant leg for the TC 3-22.20 test group (48.26ft-lbs to 57.18ft-lbs). The CrossFit group increased (2.40%) from pre-test to post-test, concentric flexion strength at the knee of the dominant leg (56.68ft-lbs to 58.06ft-lbs). Using the Biodex, concentric average strength of extension at the knee was increased in the TC 3-22.20 group (6.40%) and CrossFit group (4.40%). The TC 3-22.20 group increased average strength of extension at the knee (113.52ft-lbs to 121.02ft-lbs), while the CrossFit group showed average increase (103.42ft-lbs to 108.02ft-lbs). Average flexibility values negatively changed in the TC 3-22.20 group (-47.8%), and the CrossFit group (-11.0%). Push-ups to failure average percent change (-37.2%) in TC 3-22.20 total group decrease (44.0 to 30.2). Push-up to failure count average in CrossFit group positively changed (5.79%). Average push-ups to failure increased (73.8 to 78.2). Estimated 1-RM average, TC 3-22.20 group (-31.2%) decreased (164.7lbs to 120.2lbs) overall. CrossFit test group 1-RM average positively changed (4.05%) corresponding to an increase (239.0lbs to 248.9lbs). Finally, estimated VO2 Max average was decreased (-40.0%) in the TC 3-22.20 test group (46.8ml/kg/min to 31.2ml/kg/min). Estimated VO2 Max average values in the CrossFit group changed (1.27%) and an increase of (47.1ml/kg/min to 48.0ml/kg/min). Paired T-tests were performed on each data set. The results of this study produced little statistically significant data to scientifically suggest one training program to be more effective than its counterpart in this four week trial. T-test results yield a p-value (0.052) indicating a statistically significant decrease in estimated VO2 Max for TC 3-22.20 test group. More research is required to accurately determine if enhanced effectiveness results from training protocol TC 3-22.20 or CrossFit in college-aged ROTC cadets.