See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327531655

Fitness Testing: Not Just For Athletes Anymore

Article  in  Strength and Conditioning · October 2018

DOI: 10.1519/SSC.0000000000000393

CITATIONS READS

0 22,037

1 author:

David D. Peterson
Cedarville University
13 PUBLICATIONS   61 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Comparing Performance Category Criteria for U.S. Navy Alternate Physical Readiness Tests View project

All content following this page was uploaded by David D. Peterson on 28 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by H/PS/bSpyGYwaPeqcFGVVBJ/SIAmtge+FaD62hjC4/HUvP5mptpwr59mShefaUBT40JJ89dOEbjMlSZ+uwmpYmVnBqXgORQ2pzwvJodN/TR86NgFCwFdbOBSgCSZhK++9+YW1+Pir0E= on 10/01/2018
60 VOLUME 40 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2018
Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Periodic Fitness Testing:
Not Just for Athletes
Anymore
David D. Peterson, EdD, CSCS*D
Department of Kinesiology and Allied Health, Cedarville University, Cedarville, Ohio
ABSTRACT
STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING
PROFESSIONALS, PERSONAL
TRAINERS, AND COMPETITIVE
ATHLETES HAVE LONG USED
PERIODIC FITNESS TESTING AS AN
EFFECTIVE TRAINING PRACTICE.
THIS CONCEPT IS RARELY USED,
HOWEVER, BY THE NOVICE EXER-
CISER OR GENERAL PUBLIC. IN
ADDITION, MOST OF THE CUR-
RENT FITNESS TESTS ASSESS
ONLY A FEW OF THE DIFFERENT
COMPONENTS OF FITNESS.
UNLIKE CURRENT FITNESS TESTS,
THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
EVALUATES 10 OF THE DIFFERENT
COMPONENTS OF FITNESS,
THEREBY PROVIDING USERS
WITH A MORE COMPLETE OVER-
VIEW OF THEIR CURRENT FITNESS.
IN ADDITION, IF USERS ARE FOUND
DEFICIENT IN A PARTICULAR
COMPONENT(S) OF FITNESS, THE
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT PRO-
VIDES SPECIFIC TRAINING REC-
OMMENDATIONS FOR
IMPROVEMENT.
INTRODUCTION
or decades, strength and condi-
F
tioning professionals, personal
trainers, as well as exercise en-
thusiasts have used periodic fitness
testing as part of their training pro-
gram. More often than not, however,
Address correspondence to David D. Peterson
ddpeterson@cedarville.edu.
Copyright Ó National Strength and Conditioning Association
individuals, who do not fall into 1 of
these 3 categories, do not take advan-
tage of this training practice. Even so,
it could be argued that everyone,
regardless of their fitness level or sta-
tus, should perform regular fitness test-
ing to determine where they are in
terms of physical fitness as well as
where they should be based on their
age and sex. Knowing one’s physiolog-
ical strengths and weaknesses can serve
as a powerful motivator for change and
incentive for regular participation in
a sound exercise program.
Current practice recommends that
individuals perform fitness testing
on starting any new exercise pro-
gram as well as periodically to doc-
ument improvements made over
time. Periodic fitness testing serves
the following purposes: identify
physiological strengths and weak-
nesses; rank individuals for selection
purposes; predict future performan-
ces; evaluate the effectiveness of
training program; track performance
over time; and, assign training pa-
rameters (e.g., recommended % of 1
repetition maximum) (37).
Periodic fitness testing requires the use
of a predetermined battery of events
called a fitness test. By definition, a fit-
ness test is a series of exercises designed
to assess specific components of fitness.
Examples include the U. S. Navy Phys-
ical Readiness Test (PRT), National
Football League (NFL) and National
Basketball Association (NBA) Com-
bines, and the Nike Speed, Power,
Agility, Reaction, and Quickness
(SPARQ) Combine. To effectively
measure all the physiological require-
ments associated with a particular
sport or profession, a fitness test
should incorporate as many different
components of fitness as possible.
Table 1 provides a comprehensive list-
ing of the different components of fit-
ness, to include both health-related
and performance-related components.
A field test, however, is a test used to
assess a particular component of fitness.
Most field tests are performed outside
the laboratory and do not require exten-
sive training or expensive equipment to
administer. For example, the PRT uses
the 1.5-mile run to evaluate aerobic
capacity, sit-ups to evaluate muscular
endurance, and push-ups to evaluate
muscular strength. These tests were cho-
sen due to their minimal requirement for
equipment and ease of administration.
In order for a field test to be an effec-
tive and viable option for assessment, it
should be (42):
 Valid: A field test should measure
what it is supposed to measure.
The 1.5-mile run is a valid measure
of assessing aerobic fitness; how-
ever, push-ups are not a valid mea-
sure of muscular strength due to
the high number of repetitions
required to receive a high score.
KEY WORDS:
body composition; muscular strength;
muscular endurance; aerobic capacity;
power; anaerobic capacity
 Table 1
Components of physical fitness
Health-related components of fitness
Aerobic capacity
Body composition
Flexibility
Muscular endurance
Strength
— Reaction time
— Speed
Instead, push-ups are a valid
measure of assessing muscular
endurance.
 Objective: A field test should be free
from individual bias. The 1.5-mile run
is considered to be objective because
the time used to score the event will
likely not change regardless of test
administrator. The number of suc-
cessfully completed push-ups, how-
ever, is likely to differ significantly
depending on the test administrator
and their enforcement and tolerance
of exercise form. Generally speaking,
tests that use distance or time (e.g.,
standing long jump, 1.5-mile run) to
score performance have a higher
degree of objectivity than those that
use repetitions (e.g., sit-ups, push-ups,
 Feasible: A field test should be prac-
pull-ups).
 Reliable: The results of a field test
should be repeatable. For a test to
Table 2
Complete listing of the different events
Part A. Health-related components
of fitness
Waist circumference
FMS deep squat
Hex bar deadlift
Plank
1-mile run
FMS 5 Functional Movement Screen.
Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Performance-related
components of fitness
Agility
Anaerobic capacity
Balance
Coordination
Power
be reliable, any variation in perfor-
mance should be the result of
a change in fitness level and not
inherent inconsistencies associated
with the test. If an individual’s fitness
level did not change, then their score
should be relatively consistent from
one test to another. However, not all
field tests have high reliability. The
reliability of the plank, for example,
has been called into question by
some researchers because the time
held to exhaustion can differ greatly
from one attempt to the next (51).
This premise seems to be true for
most tests that require an isometric
hold until exhaustion (e.g., flexed-
arm hang, flexor endurance test, wall
squat).
tical in terms of cost, time to admin-
ister, equipment, and space required
Part B. Performance-related
components of fitness
Stork stand
Pro-agility
Standing long jump
40-yd dash
300-yd shuttle
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
to facilitate. Although V̇ O2max test-
ing in the laboratory would undoubt-
edly provide the most accurate
results in terms of aerobic fitness; this
type of testing is not a feasible option
for most individuals. The 1.5-mile
run, however, is considered feasible
due to its ease of administration
and minimal requirement for
equipment.
 Relevant: A field test should also
include events that effectively
assess the physiological require-
ments pertinent to the individual’s
sport or profession. For example,
although it could be argued that
service members require adequate
core muscular endurance to safely
perform their duties, rarely do they
conduct repetitive spinal flexion as
a specific job task (12). Instead,
they stabilize their core to lift,
push, pull, or carry (44). As a result,
although admittedly less reliable
than sit-ups, the plank is consid-
ered to be more relevant and there-
fore likely the better testing option
for service members.
When performing multiple field tests
at once, it is important that tests be
conducted in a specific order to ensure
that participation in one event does
not negatively affect performance in
subsequent events. According to the
National Strength and Conditioning
Association, the proper sequence of
events for field tests is as follows: non-
fatiguing, agility, power/strength,
speed, muscular endurance, anaerobic
capacity, and aerobic capacity (37).
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT TOOL
Although there are numerous fitness
tests and health screens already avail-
able (e.g., PRT, NFL and NBA Com-
bines, Nike SPARQ), few, if any, assess
all the different components of fitness.
With most of the current tests, it is
possible for individuals to excel on
the limited number of fitness compo-
nents included in the assessment but
struggle with other components not
represented. For example, service
members who can easily pass the
PRT may also have poor flexibility,
balance, and coordination. However,
61
 Periodic Fitness Testing

because these components are not as-

sessed in the PRT, service members
may not be aware of their deficiencies
in these areas and therefore not take
the necessary corrective steps to
address them.
The proposed assessment was created
as a comprehensive fitness test that
included all the health-related and
most of the performance-related com-
ponents of fitness. All the events
included in the proposed assessment
meet the criteria for a viable field test
(i.e., valid, objective, reliable, feasible,
and relevant) with age- and sex-based
performance standards documented in
the literature (3,4,18,20,46). Due to the
large number of tests included, it is rec-
ommended that at least 24 hours of
recovery be afforded between the
health-related and performance-
related assessments.
In addition, the proposed assessment
provides some alternative testing op-
tions for several of the different com-
ponents of fitness for those individuals Figure 1. Waist circumference. Measurement is taken on bare skin, across the navel
with injuries and/or specific testing (belly button), and with the arms down on the sides. Take measurement at
preferences. For example, if an individ- the end of a normal, relaxed exhalation. Discourage subjects from holding
ual is unfamiliar or uncomfortable with their breath during the measurement. Round measurement down to nearest
using the Functional Movement 1/2 inch and record (e.g., round 34 3/4 inches to 34 1/2 inches).
Screen (FMS) to evaluate their flexibil-
refers to any method of estimating invasive to identify and measure. Cur-
ity/mobility, they could use the sit-
the percentages of muscle, fat, bone, rent research has reported the
reach test instead.
and water within the body. Research single-site umbilicus measurement to
Finally, the proposed assessment has shown that abdominal fat content be a valid method of assessing
allows strength and conditioning is highly correlated with all-cause mor- obesity-related health risk as well
professionals, personal trainers, as tality risk and abdominal circumfer- as having favorable intraobserver reli-
well as the individual to assess cur- ence provides a good indicator of ability scores (intraclass correlation
rent fitness levels quickly and accu- health risk (11,28,39). As a result, the coefficient [ICC] 5 0.979) (32). A pho-
rately. If an individual is deemed tograph along with instructions
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
average or below average on a partic- on how to take the umbilicus measure-
and Air Force currently use a single-site
ular component of fitness, Tables 6 ment is provided in Figure 1. Waist
abdominal circumference measure-
and 7 can be used to provide specific circumference measurements are re-
ment, taken at the superior border of
training recommendations for corded in inches and rounded down
the iliac crest, to assess body composi-
improvement. A comprehensive list- to the nearest half-inch.
ing of the different events for both tion and health risk (16). Although
portions of the proposed assessment both the NIH and Air Force use the
(i.e., health-related and performance- iliac crest as the preferred measure- Functional Movement Screen deep
related components of fitness) is pro- ment site, the proposed assessment squat (flexibility/mobility). Flexibility
vided in Table 2. uses a single-site abdominal circumfer- is the ability of a joint to move freely
ence measurement taken at the umbi- through its entire range of motion
PROPOSED HEALTH-RELATED licus for several reasons: (a) the (ROM). Mobility is the freedom of
TESTS accuracy of measurement is compara- a limb to move unhindered through
ble with that of the iliac crest (32), (b) it a desired ROM. Although most indi-
Waist circumference (body composi- is an easier landmark to identify in both viduals participate in a regular exercise
tion). Body composition assessment males and females, and (c) it is less program for the purpose of losing

62 VOLUME 40 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2018

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Figure 2. Functional Movement Screen (FMS) deep squat. Adapted with permission from Cook, G. Functional Movement Systems
—Screening, Assessment, Corrective Strategies. Portland, OR: Lotus Publishing, 2010. pp. 373–380.

weight and/or improving fitness levels,

some researchers argue that improving
one’s functionality and ability to per-
form activities of daily living should
also be a viable reason to exercise (6).
To be functional, individuals need to be
able to demonstrate appropriate ROM
as well as stability at the joints (6). Cur-
rent research has shown the FMS to
have high interrater reliability for all
the different tests (ICC values ranging
from 0.91 to 1.00), with an ICC value of
0.99 for the FMS deep squat (7).
Photographs along with detailed in-
structions on how to perform and
score the FMS deep squat are provided
in Figure 2 (13). It is worth mentioning
that the FMS was developed and in-
tended to be used as a collective battery
of tests, with no test meant to be used
Figure 3. Hex bar deadlift. Participant begins by standing in the middle of the hex
in isolation. Therefore, to provide
bar. (A) Participant then squats down and grabs the upper handles. In this
a more comprehensive assessment of position, participant’s thighs should be just above parallel to the floor with
mobility and stability, it is recommen- the torso bent forward at about a 458 angle. (B) While keeping his/her back
ded that individuals participate in and straight, participants then push through his/her heels to extend at the
be evaluated on all 7 of the FMS fun- knees and hips until they reach a full upright position. Once standing, the
damental movement patterns (i.e., participant slowly lowers the bar back to the floor.

63
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Periodic Fitness Testing

deep squat, hurdle step, in-line lunge,

shoulder mobility, active straight-leg
raise, trunk stability push-up, and
rotary stability). If the strength and
conditioning professional, personal
trainer, and/or participant are unfamil-
iar with the FMS, an alternate method
of assessing lower-body flexibility is the
sit-reach test (24).

Hex bar deadlift (muscular strength).

Figure 4. Plank. Participant places elbows on the floor at shoulder width directly Muscular strength is the maximum
below the shoulders. Participant makes a fist with both hands and points amount of force that a muscle can pro-
them forward. Participant lifts his/her torso so that the body forms duce in a single effort. Regular strength
a straight line through the shoulders, hips, knees, and ankles. Participant training has been shown to help
holds this position for as long as possible. The test is ended when the improve cardiovascular health and
participant can no longer maintain proper form or any body part other reduce mortality risk (45). Due to the
than the forearms and balls of the feet comes in contact with the floor. number of muscles used as well as the
functionality of the movement pattern,
it could be argued that the deadlift is
the best single exercise to measure
strength. However, using the deadlift
as a field test may not be recommended
for all individuals, especially those with
low back ailments or little to no lifting
experience. As a result, the hex bar
deadlift may be a safer and more suit-
able test for assessing muscular
strength. Several recent studies have
reported that not only can people lift
more weight with a hex bar, it may be
a more effective exercise in terms of
developing maximal force, power,
and velocity (8,30,49). Several studies
have shown the hex bar deadlift to be
a valid method of assessing muscular
strength (8,30,49). In fact, one study
reported the hex bar deadlift to dem-
onstrate significantly higher greater
peak force (2,553.20 6 371.52 N), peak
power (1,871.15 6 451.61 W), and
peak velocity (0.805 6 0.165 ms) values
than those of the straight barbell dead-
lift (2,509.90 6 364.95 N, 1,639.70 6
361.94 W, and 0.725 6 0.138 ms,
respectively) (p # 0.05) (8). A photo-
graph along with instructions on how
to perform the hex bar deadlift test is
provided in Figure 3. Individuals are
Figure 5. 1.0-mile run. Participant stands behind the starting line. On the command allowed to use the upper D handles
“go,” participant begins running at his or her own pace. Participants are and wear wrist straps when performing
allowed to walk during the test, but it is strongly discouraged. Pacers are the test. Proposed hex bar deadlift
permitted during the test as long as there is no physical contact between scores were derived, in part, using the
them and the participant. Test can be performed on a standard 200-m squat and deadlift standards developed
track, 400-m track, or a premeasured course. Participants can also test on by Lon Kilgore from the Kilgore Acad-
a treadmill as long as the incline is set for and remains at a 1% grade (25). emy (26,27). Hex bar deadlift scores are

64 VOLUME 40 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2018

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 calculated by dividing the amount
of weight lifted (lbs.) by body
weight (lbs.).
Plank (muscular endurance). Muscu-
lar endurance is the ability of a mus-
cle or muscle group to exert force
against a set resistance repeatedly
without fatiguing. Although consid-
ered a valid, reliable, and feasible
assessment of core muscular endur-
ance, numerous studies have shown
that sit-ups have poor operational
relevance. Several researchers now
recommend that isometric trunk sta-
bilization exercises (e.g., plank) be
used instead of repetitive spinal flex-
ion exercises when assessing core
muscular endurance (38). In addi-
tion, high-volume sit-up training
may actually result in low back
injuries (35). As a result of this find-
ing, Army researchers are now rec-
ommending that the sit-up event be
removed as a physical fitness test
requirement for service members
with previous low back injuries
(19). Although disputed by White-
head et al. (2012), who reported poor
reliability when subjects are asked to
hold the plank until exhaustion,
other studies have shown the plank
to be a safe, feasible, and relevant
field test (5,38). For example, another
study found the plank to be a valid
and reliable method of assessing core
muscular endurance with interrater
(ICC 5 0.62; confidence interval
[CI] 5 0.50–0.75), intrarater
(ICC 5 0.83; CI 5 0.73–0.90), and
test-retest (ICC 5 0.63; CI 5 0.46–
0.75) reliability scores being reported
(5). A photograph along with in-
structions on how to perform the
plank test is provided in Figure 4.
Plank hold times are recorded
in minutes and seconds. If the partic-
ipant is unable to perform the plank
(e.g., due to a lower back and/or
shoulder injury), an alternative test
for assessing core muscular endur-
ance is the Flexor Endurance Test
(FLEX) (15,35,36).

1.0-mile run (aerobic capacity). Aero-

bic capacity is the maximum amount
of physiological work that can be per-
formed as measured by an individual’s
oxygen consumption. Although
numerous sports and professions
require a certain degree of aerobic fit-
ness to perform well, it is rare for either
to require individuals to run long dis-
tances without stopping. Therefore,
participation in run tests exceeding
1.0 mile may not be necessary, or rel-
evant, for some individuals. Although
the 1.5-mile and 12-minute run tests
demonstrated a higher correlation of
aerobic capacity, numerous studies
have shown the 1.0-mile run test to
also be a valid predictor of V̇ O2max
(24,33). In fact, correlation values as
high as 0.88 and 0.96 have been re-
ported (24). Other research has shown
Figure 6. Stork stand. Participant needs to remove his/her shoes, place the hands on
the 1.0-mile run test to also have a high
the hips, and position the nonsupporting foot on the inside knee of the
degree of test-retest reliability (r 5
supporting leg. Participant then raises the heel of the supporting leg to
balance on the ball of the foot. Time is started when the heel is raised from 0.92) (24). Proposed 1.0-mile run times
the floor and stopped when any of the following occurs: Hand(s) come off were derived, in part, using the Amer-
the hips, supporting foot swivels or moves in any direction, nonsupporting ican College of Sports Medicine’s
foot loses contact with the knee, and heel of the supporting foot touches (ACSM) cardiorespiratory fitness clas-
the floor. sifications (V̇ O2max) and predicted

65
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Periodic Fitness Testing

V̇ O2max for 1.5-mile walk/run times by

McArdle et al. (2010) (2,34). One mile
run times are recorded in minutes and
seconds. Instructions on how to
administer the 1.0-Mile Run Test are
provided in Figure 5. If the participate
is physically unable or medically dis-
couraged from running, another option
for assessing aerobic capacity is the
2-km Rower Test (40,41).

PROPOSED PERFORMANCE-
RELATED TESTS

Stork stand (balance). Balance is

defined as the ability to maintain
Figure 7. Pro-agility. Participant positions himself/herself in a 3-point stance at the center static and dynamic equilibrium (24).
cone with feet shoulder width apart and equally placed on either side of the Although most researchers and
center cone. The hand in contact with the floor determines which direction the
strength and conditioning professio-
participant will travel. On the command “go,” the participant will accelerate to
the first cone, then change direction and accelerate to the opposite cone, nals agree that balance is an important
before changing direction again and accelerating through the center cone. attribute for individuals to have, train-
Participants are required to touch the base of each outer cone with their hand. ing recommendations for balance are
probably the least defined of all the
various components of fitness (2).
However, research has shown that
balance impairment significantly in-
creases one’s risk of falls and hip frac-
ture, even in adults without
documented neurological disorders.
As a result, balance training is highly
encouraged for everyone, especially
older adults (2). Research has shown
the stork stand to have face validity
and good test-retest reliability (r 5
0.87) (24). Stork stand hold times are
recorded in seconds. A photograph
along with instructions on how to per-
form the Stork Stand is provided in
Figure 6. Another testing option for
balance is the unipedal stance
test (48).

Pro-agility (agility). Agility is defined as

the ability to move quickly and easily.
Most strength and conditioning profes-
sionals recommend that training pro-
grams include running drills that require
frequent changes in direction, in addition
to straight line running. This is an impor-
tant training recommendation to con-
sider because straight line running has
Figure 8. Standing long jump. Participant stands behind a marked line with feet hip been shown to improve straight line
width apart. Using a 2-foot take-off and landing, participant swings the speed but not change-of-direction speed,
arms and bends the knees to produce the forward drive. Participant jumps which is arguably more relevant (44).
as far as possible without falling forward or backward. Participant is af- Therefore, both straight line and
forded 3 attempts, with the best attempt being recorded for score. change-of-direction run training should

66 VOLUME 40 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2018

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 correlation between both lower-body,
upper-body strength tests and standing
long jump performance (9,10,21,24). In
fact, correlation values as high as 0.607
have been reported (24). Other
research has shown the standing long
jump to also have a high degree of
test-retest reliability (r 5 0.963) (24).
Research has also shown jump tests to
be operationally relevant and better than
other commonly administered field tests
(e.g., push-ups, sit-ups, and 3.2-km dis-
tance run) at predicting battlefield perfor-
mance (22). As a result, certain U.S.
Army researchers are now recommend-
ing that service members be required to
participate in a jump test as part of their
Figure 9. Forty-yard dash. Participant begins from a stationary 3-point stance semiannual physical fitness testing
with the front foot on or behind the starting line. Participant may lean because improving their jumping ability
across the starting line as long as the bottom hand and front foot do not would likely improve their ability to fight
cross the starting line. No rocking movements are allowed before and survive on the battlefield (22). These
starting the test. findings suggest that jump tests would
also correlate well with several of the
be included in strength and conditioning on how to perform the pro-agility test is short-duration, high-intensity movement
programs (23). Current research shows provided in Figure 7. Pro-agility run times patterns found in sport. A photograph
the pro-agility test to possess good con- are recorded in seconds. along with instructions on how to per-
current validity (ICC values as high as form the standing long jump is provided
0.91 when correlated with the L-cone Standing long jump (power). Power is in Figure 8. Standing long jump scores
drill) as well as test-retest reliability the ability to generate as much force as are recorded in centimeters. Some addi-
(ICC values as high as 0.87) (21). A possible as quickly as possible. Numer- tional testing options for power include
graphic depiction along with instructions ous studies have shown a high the vertical jump and kneeling powerball
toss (23,40).

Forty-yard dash (speed). Speed is the

ability to move the limbs quickly.
Some researchers argue that
fast-paced runs are more operationally
relevant and applicable than traditional
long-distance runs for service members
(40). Regular speed training may help
to improve one’s jump height, jump
power, jump length, squat strength,
sprint speed, and agility (44). In addi-
tion, regular sprint training has been
shown to help develop both aerobic
and anaerobic capacity (17). Current
research has reported evidence of good
concurrent validity (ICC values as high
as 0.93 with correlated with the 20-yd
Figure 10. Three-hundred-yard shuttle. Using 2 cones placed 25 yards apart, par-
dash) and test-retest reliability (ICC
ticipant begins by placing one foot on start line. On the command “go,” the
participant runs to the opposite cone, touches the line with his/her foot, values as high as 0.94) with the 40-yd
turns and runs back to the start line. Participant runs down and back 6 dash (21). A photograph depicting the
times without stopping (totaling 300 yards). After a 2-minute rest period, proper body position for the stationary
the test is repeated. The participant’s score is determined by taking the 3-point stance along with instructions
average of the 2 trials. on how to administer the 40-yd dash is

67
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
68

Periodic Fitness Testing

Table 3
Proposed performance standards for part A (health-related components of fitness)
VOLUME 40 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2018

Male Female

Waist circum. FMS squat Hex bar deadlift Plank 1-Mi. Run Pts Waist circum. FMS squat Hex bar deadlift Plank 1-Mi. Run

32 3 2.6 5:00 5:45 100 28 3 1.8 5:00 6:25

— — — 4:54 5:49 99 — — — 4:54 6:31
32.5 — 2.5 4:48 5:53 98 — — — 4:48 6:36
— — — 4:42 5:57 97 28.5 — 1.7 4:42 6:42
33 — 2.4 4:36 6:01 96 — — — 4:36 6:48
— — — 4:30 6:05 95 — — — 4:30 6:52
33.5 — 2.3 4:24 6:09 94 29 — 1.6 4:24 6:58
— — — 4:18 6:13 93 — — — 4:18 7:04
34 — 2.2 4:12 6:17 92 29.5 — 1.5 4:12 7:10
34.5 — 2.1 4:06 6:21 91 — — 1.4 4:06 7:16
35 2 2.0 4:00 6:25 90 30 2 1.3 4:00 7:22
— — — 3:56 6:29 89 — — 1.2 3:56 7:26
35.5 — — 3:52 6:33 88 30.5 — 1.1 3:52 7:30
— — 1.9 3:48 6:37 87 — — 1.0 3:48 7:34
36 — — 3:44 6:41 86 31 — 0.99 3:44 7:38
— — — 3:40 6:45 85 — — 0.98 3:40 7:42
36.5 — 1.8 3:36 6:49 84 31.5 — 0.97 3:36 7:46
— — — 3:32 6:53 83 — — 0.96 3:32 7:50
37 — — 3:28 6:57 82 32 — 0.95 3:28 7:54
— — 1.7 3:24 7:01 81 — — 0.94 3:24 7:58
37.5 — — 3:20 7:05 80 32.5 — 0.93 3:20 8:02
— — 1.6 3:16 7:09 79 33 — 0.92 3:16 8:06
38 — — 3:12 7:13 78 33.5 — 0.91 3:12 8:10
— — 1.5 3:08 7:16 77 34 — 0.90 3:08 8:14
38.5 — — 3:04 7:19 76 34.5 — 0.89 3:04 8:18

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Table 3
(continued )
39 1 1.4 3:00 7:22 75 35 1 0.88 3:00 8:22
— — — 2:56 7:30 74 — — — 2:56 8:31
— — — 2:52 7:38 73 — — — 2:52 8:40
— — — 2:48 7:46 72 — — — 2:48 8:49
— — — 2:44 7:54 71 — — 0.87 2:44 8:58
— — — 2:40 8:02 70 — — — 2:40 9:07
— — — 2:36 8:10 69 — — — 2:36 9:16
39.5 — 1.3 2:32 8:18 68 35.5 — — 2:32 9:25
— — — 2:28 8:26 67 — — — 2:28 9:34
— — — 2:24 8:34 66 — — 0.86 2:24 9:43
— — — 2:20 8:42 65 — — — 2:20 9:52
— — — 2:16 8:50 64 — — — 2:16 10:01
— — — 2:12 8:58 63 — — — 2:12 10:10
— — — 2:08 9:06 62 — — — 2:08 10:19
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

— — — 2:04 9:14 61 — — — 2:04 10:30

40 0 1.2 2:00 9:22 60 36 0 0.85 2:00 10:42
FMS 5 Functional Movement Screen.
69

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
70

Periodic Fitness Testing

Table 4
Proposed performance standards for part B (performance-related components of fitness)
VOLUME 40 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2018

Male Female

Stork stand Pro-agility Standing long jump 40-yd dash 300-yd shuttle Pts Stork stand Pro-agility Standing long jump 40-yd dash 300-yd shuttle

55 4.5 275 4.9 00:55 100 55 4.9 225 5.3 01:00

— — 272 — — 99 — — 222 — 01:01
54 4.6 270 — 00:56 98 54 — 220 5.4 01:02
— — 267 5.0 — 97 — 5.0 217 — 01:02
53 4.7 265 — 00:57 96 53 — 215 5.5 01:03
— — 262 — — 95 — — 212 — 01:04
52 — 260 5.1 00:58 94 52 5.1 210 5.6 01:05
— 4.8 257 — — 93 — — 207 — 01:06
51 — 255 — 00:59 92 51 — 205 5.7 01:07
— — 252 5.2 01:00 91 — — 202 — 01:08
50 4.9 250 — 01:01 90 50 5.2 200 5.8 01:09
— 5.0 247 — 01:02 89 — 5.3 197 — 01:10
49 5.1 245 5.3 01:02 88 49 5.4 195 5.9 01:11
48 5.2 240 — 01:03 87 48 5.5 190 — 01:12
47 5.3 235 — 01:04 86 47 5.6 185 6.0 01:13
46 5.4 230 5.4 01:05 85 46 5.7 180 — 01:14
45 5.5 229 — 01:06 84 45 5.8 179 6.1 01:15
44 5.6 228 — 01:07 83 44 5.9 178 — 01:16
43 5.7 227 5.5 01:08 82 43 6.0 177 6.2 01:17
— 5.8 226 — 01:09 81 — 6.1 176 — 01:18
42 5.9 225 — 01:10 80 42 6.2 175 6.3 01:19
— 6.0 224 5.6 01:11 79 — 6.3 174 — 01:20
41 6.1 223 — 01:12 78 41 6.4 173 6.4 01:21
— 6.2 222 — 01:13 77 — 6.5 172 — 01:22
40 6.3 221 5.7 01:14 76 40 6.7 171 — 01:23

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Table 4
(continued )
39 6.4 220 — 01:15 75 39 6.8 170 6.5 01:24
38 — 219 — 01:16 74 38 — 169 — 01:25
37 — 218 5.8 01:17 73 37 — 168 — 01:26
36 6.5 217 — 01:18 72 36 6.9 167 6.6 01:27
35 — 216 — 01:19 71 35 — 166 — 01:28
34 — 215 5.9 01:20 70 34 — 165 — 01:29
33 6.6 210 — 01:21 69 33 7.0 164 6.7 01:30
32 — 205 — 01:22 68 32 — 163 — 01:30
31 — 200 6.0 01:23 67 31 — 162 — 01:31
30 6.7 195 — 01:24 66 30 7.1 161 6.8 01:32
29 — 190 — 01:25 65 29 — 160 — 01:33
28 — 185 6.1 01:26 64 28 — 158 — 01:34
27 6.8 180 — 01:27 63 27 7.2 156 6.9 01:35
26 — 175 6.2 01:28 62 26 — 154 — 01:36
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

25 — 170 — 01:29 61 25 — 152 — 01:37

24 6.9 165 6.3 01:30 60 24 7.3 150 7.0 01:38
71

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Periodic Fitness Testing

Table 5
Proposed scoring based on the number of events tested

#34 y 35–44 y 45–54 y 55+ y

No. of events 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Elite 100 200 300 400 500 95 190 285 380 475 85 170 260 345 430 80 155 240 320 400
Above average 90 180 260 360 450 85 170 245 340 425 75 155 225 305 380 70 145 210 285 350
Average 75 150 225 300 375 72 145 215 285 355 70 130 200 260 320 65 125 190 250 310
Below average 60 120 180 240 300 60 120 180 240 300 60 120 180 240 300 60 120 180 240 300

provided in Figure 9. Forty-yard dash
times are recorded in seconds.
Three-hundred-yard shuttle (anaero-
bic capacity). Anaerobic capacity is
the maximum amount of physiolog-
ical work, without the need for or
Figure 11. Sample radar chart depicting an athlete’s performance on part A (health-
related components of fitness). FMS 5 Functional Movement Screen.
presence of oxygen, which can be
performed during a high-intensity,
short-duration effort. Similar to tra-
ditional distance-run tests (e.g.,
1.5-mile, 2.0-mile, and 3.0-mile),
shuttle run tests demonstrate high
reliability and correlate well with
V̇ O2max (47). For example, one study
reported a correlation of 0.65
between V̇ O2max and 300-yd shuttle
run times (14). Unlike traditional
long distance-run tests, however,
shuttle runs incorporate multiple
components of fitness (e.g., aerobic
capacity, anaerobic capacity, speed, agil-
ity, and coordination) and thus may pro-
vide a more comprehensive assessment
of an individual’s total work capacity and
overall level of physical fitness. Shuttle
run tests may also offer improved rele-
vance over traditional run tests because
they rely heavily on lactate threshold,
running economy, and the ability to tol-
erate high levels of fatigue (1). As a result
of these findings, certain Army research-
ers are now recommending shuttle runs
replace some of the distance running
used in military physical conditioning
programs to develop a service member’s
speed and stamina. Doing so would, in
turn, likely reduce the service member’s
risk of injury (19). The 300-yd shuttle is
recommended over other shuttle run
tests because it is one of the easiest shuttle
tests to administer and does not require
the use of audio signals, forced pacing
strategies, and V̇ O2max predictive equa-
tions for performance estimation (41). A
graphic depiction along with instructions
on how to perform the 300-yd shuttle is
provided in Figure 10.
Three-hundred-yard shuttle times are re-
corded in minutes and seconds.

PROPOSED AGE AND SEX

CATEGORIES
Research has shown that sarcopenia,
Figure 12. Sample radar chart depicting an athlete’s performance on part B (per- the age-associated loss of skeletal mus-
formance-related components of fitness). cle mass, is inevitable and likely

72 VOLUME 40 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2018

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Figure 13. Customized radar chart comparing an individual athlete’s performance
with the team average. FMS 5 Functional Movement Screen.
responsible, at least in part, for the
decline in muscular strength with age
(31). Studies show that strength peaks
around the age of 25–35 years and de-
clines by 10–15% per decade after the
age of 30 (3,18). After the age of 50, the
rate of decline increases to 12–14% per
decade (3,18). Similarly, aerobic capac-
ity declines by 0.5% per year from the
age of 40–59 years and increases to 2.4%
per year after the age of 60 (4,20,46).
Although numerous studies have
postulated as to what causes these
age-related decreases in physical
capacity (e.g., changes in hormonal
factors and/or muscle contractile
function), many researchers now
believe that it may be a result of
a sedentary lifestyle (4,43). Reduc-
tions in training volume and intensity
are also likely contributors to the
age-related decline in athletic perfor-
mance (43).
In addition, the physiological differen-
ces between male and female athletes,
and the impact these differences have
on athletic performance, is significant
and well documented in the literature
(29,50). Due to these profound anatom-
ical and hormonal differences (e.g., dif-
ferences in muscle hypertrophy, type II
fiber distribution, bone structure, heart
size, O2 carrying capacity, and body fat
percentage), it would not be fair or rec-
ommended to use the same perfor-
mance standards for both males and
females—at least for some events.
Collectively, these findings justify the
rationale for implementing age- and
sex-specific performance standards.
However, these findings do not sup-
port categorizing age standards into
5-year increments (e.g., 17–19, 20–24,
25–29, 30–34, 35–39, 40–44, 45–49, 50–
54, 55–59, 60–64, and 65+) as done in
most military semiannual physical fit-
ness tests (e.g., PRT). Instead, current
research supports the following sex-
specific age categories: #34, 35–44,
45–54, and 55+, thereby reducing the
proposed number of age categories
from 11 to 4.
SCORING, INTERPRETATION, AND
APPLICATION
Similar to the scoring system used by
the Navy Physical Fitness Test (NPFT),
Navy General Fitness Test (NGFT), and
Navy Operation Fitness Test (NOFT),
performance on each event correlates

Table 6
Proposed training recommendations for improving health-related components of fitness

Body composition Flexibility Strength Muscular endurance Aerobic capacity

Improved Various stretches 3–5 Perform core lifts (i.e., involves Strength training Speed work (.90%
nutritional reps per stretch 3 large muscle groups and 2 or $12 reps for 3–6 maximum heart rate with
strategies 5–7 or more times per more joints) 2 or more times sets 2 or more a 1:1–1:5 work to rest ratio)
days per week week per week times per week 1–2 times per week
Low-intensity/ Yoga/pilates 2 or Strength training #6 reps for — Pace/tempo (80–90%
high-duration more times per 3–6 sets 2 or more times per maximum heart rate) 1–2
cardio 3 or more week week times per week
days per week
High-intensity/ Strength training — — Long slow distance (70–80%
low-duration with full range of maximum heart rate) 1–2
cardio 1–2 days motion 2 or more times per week
per week times per week
Regular strength — — — —
training 2 or
more times per
week

73
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Periodic Fitness Testing

Table 7
Proposed training recommendations for improving performance-related components of fitness

Balance Agility Power Speed Anaerobic capacity

Yoga/pilates 2 or more Cone drills (e.g., 60- Plyometric Medium-distance sprints (e.g., 100 m, Short-distance
times per week yd shuttle, pro- training 1–2 200 m) 1–2 times per week sprints (e.g., 40 yd,
agility, T Test) 1–2 times per week 60 m) 1–2 times
times per week per week
Strength training 2 or Hurdle drills 1–2 Strength training Short-distance sprints (#60 m) 1–2 Long-distance sprints
more times per week times per week 1–5 reps 3–5 times per week (e.g., 200 m, 400 m,
sets 2 or more 800 m) 1–2 times
times per week per week
Performing single limb Ladder drills 1–2 — Running form/technique drills (e.g., Long-duration (.30
movements and times per week butt kicks, high knees, bounding, seconds) cone
exercises 2 or more skipping, and running backward) drills (e.g., 300-yd
times per week 1–2 times per week shuttle)

with a specific number of points with
the overall score equating to the sum
of all events (40,41). Proposed
performance norms for the various
health-related and performance-related
components of fitness are provided in
Tables 3 and 4, respectively. The pro-
posed performance categories, which
serve both males and females, for the
health-related and performance-related
components of fitness are provided in
Table 5. Because the physical demands
associated with numerous sport- and
job-related tasks are consistent and inde-
pendent of age and sex, a baseline stan-
dard (i.e., rating of 60) is set and used by
all individuals to pass. However, due to
known physiological differences associ-
ated with age and sex, the scoring used
to receive a specific classification (i.e.,
below average, average, above average,
and elite) is different for males, females,
and various age groups.
Individuals can opt to participate in
one, multiple, or all the proposed
events and have their performance
scored accordingly. After each event
has been tested and scored, radar
charts can also be created in any of
the different Microsoft Office pro-
grams (i.e., Excel, Word, Power-
Point) to provide individuals with
a visual depiction of their current
strengths and weaknesses. Radar
charts can easily be customized by
inputting the names of the different
events in column A (rows 2–6);
a score of 60 to represent below aver-
age in column B (rows 2–6); a score
of 75 to represent average in column
C (rows 2–6); a score of 90 to repre-
sent above average in column D
(rows 2–6); a score of 100 to repre-
sent elite in column E (rows 2–6);
and the individual’s actual scores
for each event in column F (rows
2–6). A sample radar chart for both
the health-related and performance-
related components of fitness is pro-
vided in Figures 11 and 12, respec-
tively. As demonstrated in the
sample radar charts provided, it is
quite possible for an individual to
receive a score of above average or
elite on one battery of tests and aver-
age or below average on the other.
The proposed assessment can also be
tailored by the strength and conditioning
professional to evaluate specific compo-
nents of fitness that are deemed critical
for a particular sport or activity. For
example, the strength coach for a youth
soccer team can opt to use a combina-
tion of the different health-related and
performance-related components of fit-
ness (e.g., muscular strength, agility,
anaerobic capacity, power, and speed)
when assessing the physical fitness of
his or her players. In addition, event
scores can be used to plot and compare
an individual’s performance to that of
other players of similar position (e.g.,
basketball forward, soccer lineman, etc.)
or the collective team as a whole. Fig-
ure 13 provides an example of a custom-
ized protocol that compares the
performance of an individual athlete with
the average performance of his or her
team for each event.
Finally, training recommendations for
improving health-related and
performance-related components of fit-
ness are provided in Tables 6 and 7,
respectively. As mentioned previously,
one of the fundamental purposes of the
proposed assessment is to help individu-
als identify their current physiological
strengths and weaknesses as well as pro-
vide specific training recommendations
to help train for and correct those
deficiencies.
It is important to note that although each
of the aforementioned tests have been
evaluated and validated independently,
the same cannot be said for the proposed
assessment as an independent/stand-
alone battery of tests. So, although the
proposed assessment is divided into
2 parts (i.e., health-related and
performance-related) and the individual
tests are administered in a specific
sequence (i.e., nonfatiguing, agility,
power/strength, speed, muscular endur-
ance, anaerobic capacity, and aerobic
capacity) to try and mitigate the impact
of fatigue on performance, additional
testing and research is needed before for-
mal implementation.

74 VOLUME 40 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2018

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding:
The author reports no conflicts of interest
and no source of funding.
David D.
Peterson is cur-
rently assigned as
an Assistant
Professor of
Kinesiology and
Coordinator of
the Multi-Age
Physical
Education
(MAPE) Program at Cedarville
University in Ohio.
REFERENCES
1. Aandstad A, Holme I, Berntsen S, and
Anderssen S. Validity and reliability of the
20 meter shuttle run test in military
personnel. Mil Med 176: 513–518, 2011.
2. American College of Sport Medicine.
ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing
and Prescription (10th ed). Philadelphia,
PE: Wolters Kluwer, 2018. pp. 91–96.
3. Bergh U and Danielsson U. Predictions
from physical fitness tests impact of age
and gender. Paper presented at: The RTO
HFM Workshop: Officer Selection;
November 1999; Monterey, CA.
4. Bongard V, McDermott AY, Dallal GE, and
Schaefer EJ. Effects of age and gender on
physical performance. Age 29: 77–85,
2007.
5. Boyer C, Tremblay M, Saunders T,
McFarlane A, Borghese M, Lloyd M, and
Longmuir P. Feasibility, validity, and
reliability of the plank isometric hold as
a field-based assessment of torso muscular
endurance for children 8–12 years of age.
Pediatr Exerc Sci 25: 407–422, 2013.
6. Bryant CX and Green DJ. ACE Personal
Trainer Manual: The Ultimate Resource for
Fitness Professionals (4th ed). San Diego,
CA: American Council on Exercise, 2010.
pp. 135–170.
7. Butler RJ, Plisky PJ, and Kiesel KB.
Interrater reliability of videotaped
performance on the functional movement
screen using the 100-point scoring scale.
Athletic Train Sports Health Care 4: 103–
109, 2012.
8. Camara KD, Coburn JW, Dunnick DD,
Brown LE, Galpin AJ, and Costa PB. An
examination of muscle activation and power
characteristics while performing the
Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
deadlift exercise with straight and
hexagonal barbells. J Strength Cond Res
30: 1183–1188, 2016.
9. Carlock JM, Smith SL, Hartman MJ, Morris
RT, Ciroslan DA, Pierce KC, Newton RU,
Harman EA, Sands WA, and Stone MH.
The relationship between vertical jump
power estimates and weightlifting ability: A
field-test approach. J Strength Cond Res
183: 534–539, 2004.
10. Castro-Pinero J, Ortega FB, Artero EG,
Girela-Rejon MJ, Mora J, Sjostrom M, and
Ruiz JR. Assessing muscular strength in
youth: Usefulness of standing long jump as
a general index of muscular fitness.
J Strength Cond Res 24: 1810–1817,
2010.
11. Cerhan JR, Moore SC, Jacobs EJ,
Kitahara CM, Rosenberg PS, Adami HO,
Ebbert JO, English DR, Gapstur SM, Giles
GG, Horn-Ross PL, Park Y, Patel AV,
Robien K, Weiderpass E, Willett WC,
Wolk A, Zeleniunch-Jacquotte A, Hartge
P, Bernstein L, and Berrington de
Gonzalez A. A pooled analysis of waist
circumference and mortality in 650,000
adults. Mayo Clin Proc 89: 335–345,
2014.
12. Contreras B and Schoenfeld B. To crunch
or not to crunch: An evidence-based
examination of spinal flexion exercises, their
potential risks, and their applicability to
program design. Strength Cond J 33: 8–
18, 2003.
13. Cook G. Functional Movement Systems—
Screening, Assessment, Corrective
Strategies. Portland, OR: Lotus Publishing,
2010. pp. 373–380.
14. Cumming GR and Keynes R. A fitness
performance test for school children and its
correlation with physical working capacity
and maximal oxygen uptake. Can Med
Assoc J 96: 1262–1269, 1967.
15. Dejanovic A, Cambridge EDJ, and McGill
S. Isometric torso muscle endurance
profiles in adolescents aged 15-15:
Normative values for age and gender
differences. Ann Hum Biol 41: 153–158,
2014.
16. Department of the Air Force. Air Force
Guidance Memorandum for AFI 36-2905,
Fitness Program. AFI36-2905_AFGM6.
Washington, DC, 2013. Available at:
http://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/
afrotc/docs/UpdatedDocs2013/Fitness%
20Program%20AFI%2036-2905.pdf.
Accessed: February 22, 2018.
17. DeWeese B and Nimphius S. Program
design and technique for speed and agility
training. In: Essentials of Strength Training
and Conditioning (4th ed). Haff G and
75
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
Triplett N, eds. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics, 2016. pp. 522–528.
18. Doherty TJ. The influence of aging and sex
on skeletal muscle mass and strength. Curr
Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 4: 503–508,
2001.
19. Evans R, Reynolds K, Creedon J, and
Murphy M. Incidence of acute injury related
to fitness testing of U.S. Army personnel.
Mil Med 170: 1005–1010, 2005.
20. Gardner AW and Montgomery PS.
Differences in exercise performance and
leisure-time physical activity in older men
and women. Clin Geriatr Med 1: 9–15,
2008.
21. Gillen ZM, Miramonti AA, McKay BD,
Leutzinger TJ, and Cramer JT. Test-
retest reliability and concurrent validity
of athletic performance combine tests
in 6–15-year old male athletes.
J Strength Cond Res, In Press.
22. Harman EA, Gutekunst DJ, Frykman PN,
Sharp MA, Nindl BC, Alemany JA, and
Mello RP. Prediction of simulated
battlefield physical performance from field-
expedient tests. Mil Med 173: 36–41,
2008.
23. Hoffman J. Norms for Fitness,
Performance, and Health. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics, 2006. pp. 59–64.
24. Johnson BL and Nelson JK. Practical
Measurements for Evaluation in Physical
Education (4th ed). Minneapolis, MN:
Burgess, 1986. pp. 237–238.
25. Jones AM and Doust JH. A 1% treadmill
grade most accurately reflects the
energetic cost of outdoor running. J Sports
Sci 14: 321–327, 1996.
26. Kilgore Academy. Back Squat Strength
Standards. Available at: http://www.
kilgoreacademy.com/freebies.html.
Accessed: January 25, 2018.
27. Kilgore Academy. Deadlift Strength
Standards. Available at: http://www.
kilgoreacademy.com/freebies.html.
Accessed: January 25, 2018.
28. Klein S. Is visceral fat responsible for the
metabolic abnormalities associated with
obesity? Diabetes Care 33: 1693–1694,
2010.
29. Lewis DA, Kamon E, and Hodgson JL.
Physiological differences between
genders: Implications for sports
conditioning. Sports Med 3: 357–369,
1986.
30. Lockie RG, Moreno MR, Lazar A, Risso FG,
Liu TM, Stage AA, Birmingham-Babauta
SA, Torne IA, Stokes JJ, Giuliano DV, Davis
DL, Orjalo AJ, and Callaghan SJ. The 1
 Periodic Fitness Testing
repetition maximum mechanics of a high-
handle hexagonal bar deadlift compared
with a conventional deadlift as measured
by a linear position transducer. J Strength
Cond Res 32: 150–161, 2018.
31. Lloyd R and Faigenbaum A. Age- and sex-
related differences and their implications
for resistance exercise. In: Essentials of
Strength Training and Conditioning (4th
ed). Haff G and Triplett N, eds. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics, 2016. pp. 148–153.
32. Mason C and Katzmarzyk PT. Variability in
waist circumference measurement
according to anatomic measurement site.
Obesity 17: 1789–1795, 2009.
33. Mayorga-Vega D, Bocanegra-Parrilla R,
Ornelas M, and Viciana J. Criterion-related
validity of the distance- and time-based walk/
run field tests for estimating cardiorespiratory
fitness: A systematic review and meta-
analysis. PLoS One 11: 1–24, 2016.
34. McArdle WD, Katch FI, and Katch VL.
Exercise Physiology: Nutrition, Energy,
and Human Performance (Vol. 349) (7th
ed). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams &
Wilkins, 2010.
35. McGill S. Low Back Disorders: Evidence
Based Prevention and Rehabilitation (3rd
ed). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2016.
pp. 286–289.
36. McGill S, Childs A, and Liebenson C.
Endurance times for low back stabilization
exercises: Clinical targets for testing and
training from a normal database. Arch Phys
Med Rehabil 80: 941–944, 1999.
37. McGuigan M. Principles of test selection
and administration. In: Essentials of
76 VOLUME 40 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2018
Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
View publication stats
Strength Training and Conditioning (Vol.
250) (4th ed). Haff G and Triplett N, eds.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2016.
38. Peterson DD. Possible performance
standards for the plank for inclusion
consideration into the Navy’s physical
readiness test. Strength Cond J 35: 22–
26, 2013.
39. Peterson DD. History of the U.S. Navy body
composition program. Mil Med 180: 91–
96, 2015.
40. Peterson DD. Modernizing the Navy’s
physical readiness test: Introducing the Navy
general fitness test and Navy operational
fitness test. Sport J 2015. Available at:
http://thesportjournal.org/article/
modernizing-the-navys-physical-readiness-
test-introducing-the-navy-general-fitness-
test-and-navy-operational-fitness-test/.
Accessed: January 31, 2018.
41. Peterson DD. The Navy physical fitness
test: A proposed revision to the Navy
physical readiness test. Strength Cond J
37: 60–68, 2015.
42. Peterson DD and Rittenhouse MA. A
Practical Guide to Personal Conditioning.
Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning,
2019. pp. 26–29.
43. Ransdell LB, Vener J, and Huberty J.
Masters athletes: An analysis of running,
swimming, and cycling performance by age
and gender. J Exerc Sci Fit 7: 61–73,
2009.
44. Roy TC, Springer BA, McNulty V, and
Butler NL. Physical fitness. Mil Med 175:
14–20, 2010.
45. Ruiz JR, Sui X, Lobelo R, Morrow JR, and
Jackson AW. Association between
muscular strength and mortality in men:
Prospective cohort study. Br Med J 337:
92–95, 2008.
46. Rust CA, Knechtle B, Rosemann T, and
Lepers R. Sex difference in race
performance and age of peak performance
in the iron triathlon world championship
from 1983 to 2012. Extrem Physiol Med 1:
1–9, 2012.
47. Sporis G, Ruzic L, and Leko G. The
anaerobic endurance of elite soccer
players improved after a high-intensity
training intervention in the 8-week
conditioning program. J Strength Cond
Res 22: 559–566, 2008.
48. Springer BA, Marin R, Cyhan T, Roberts H,
and Gill NW. Normative values for the
unipedal stance test with eyes open and
closed. J Geriatr Phys Ther 30: 8–15,
2007.
49. Swinton PA, Stewart A, Agouris I, Keogh
JW, and Lloyd R. A biomechanical analysis
of straight and hexagonal barbell deadlifts
using submaximal loads. J Strength Cond
Res 25: 2000–2009, 2011.
50. Thibault V, Guillaume M, Berthelot G, El
Helou N, Schaal K, Quinquis L, Nassif H,
Tafflet M, Escolano S, Hermine O, and
Toussaint JF. Women and men in sport
performance: The gender gap has not
evolved since 1983. J Sports Sci Med 9:
214–223, 2010.
51. Whitehead PN, Schilling BK, Peterson DD,
and Weiss LW. Possible new modalities
for the Navy physical readiness test. Mil
Med 177: 1417–1425, 2012.