Tracking Training Load and Its Implementation in Tactical Populations: A Narrative Review

This article was published in Strength and Conditioning Journal in December 2019 (DOI: 10.1519/SSC.0000000000000492).

Note: This article was not submitted to ExultX Spotlight by the authors. However, due to its relevance, we have decided to share it with our community. This text is a commentary on the original article, attempting to highlight the key points. For a more thorough and complete understanding of the content, we strongly recommend everyone to read the original article.

All rights to the findings belong to the authors of the article. Responsibility for the commentary lies with ExultX.

As we published in the Tactical Fitness: Navigating Injury Challenges article, "If tests, assessments, and screenings are already applicable and relatively acceptable in a tactical context, monitoring, in our perspective, is still not well established. This may be one of the main reasons for the prevalence of overuse injuries in tactical settings." Maupin, Schram, and Orr, the authors of the presented article, share our perspective, stating that monitoring and the optimisation of training loads (TL) has not been explored in depth within tactical contexts.

This article discusses tracking training load and the concept of monitoring TL in tactical populations to mitigate injury risk and enhance readiness. Tactical personnel face physically demanding tasks, often involving external loads, which increase their risk of overuse injuries. The article examines methodologies from elite sports to adapt training load monitoring for tactical environments, summarising its impact on fitness, injury risk, and performance.

The authors conducted a comprehensive narrative review of existing literature, synthesising data from studies that examined the impact of TL on injuries, fitness, and performance in both athletic and tactical settings. They explored the methodologies employed in elite sports for monitoring training loads, such as acute:chronic workload ratios (ACWR), internal load (IL), and external load (EL) measurements, assessing their potential applicability to tactical populations. Metrics such as heart rate variability (HRV), rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and volume load were analysed in detail to evaluate their effectiveness in measuring physical and physiological responses within tactical environments. Additionally, the study proposed adaptations, including the use of session-RPE (sRPE) and modified ACWR techniques, to develop feasible and effective strategies for preventing injuries in tactical populations.

The authors present a range of methods to measure internal and external load, as shown in the table below.

Table presenting potential examples of load measurements as proposed by Maupin, Schram, and Orr in this article.

The findings from this research offer practical strategies to optimise training, minimise injuries, and enhance readiness in tactical populations.

Key Takeaways

Training Load Metrics: Training load encompasses the cumulative physical stress experienced during sessions, classified into internal load (e.g., heart rate responses) and external load (e.g., work completed). Combining these provides a well-rounded view of overall demands.

Monitoring Training Loads: Effective monitoring can optimise fitness levels while reducing the likelihood of injuries. However, sudden spikes in workload or chronic overloading substantially increase injury risks, highlighting the need for gradual progressions.

Unique Tactical Challenges: Tactical personnel face distinctive demands, such as carrying heavy gear and unpredictable workloads. Tailored load-monitoring strategies are essential to meet these occupational challenges effectively.

Day-to-Day Applications

Daily Monitoring of Training Loads: Incorporating tools like sRPE into daily routines helps track physical stress. After each session—whether it’s a patrol, operational drill, or physical training—personnel can report effort levels. Multiplying this by session duration provides an easy-to-use metric for monitoring workloads in real time.

Adjusting Workloads Based on Readiness: Metrics like HRV or wellness questionnaires can guide daily decisions. For example, a soldier showing signs of fatigue or inadequate recovery can have their workload adjusted to allow proper rest.

Progressive Training Regimens: Using the ACWR ensures a structured increase in workload over time. For instance, a firefighter preparing for a high-demand operation can gradually increase fitness levels while staying within the safe ACWR range of 0.8 to 1.3, reducing the risk of overuse injuries.

Recovery Tracking: Simple tools like the Total Quality Recovery (TQR) scale can be part of daily check-ins. Encouraging personnel to assess sleep, nutrition, and relaxation fosters a proactive approach to recovery. Poor scores can prompt immediate adjustments, such as reduced workload or additional rest.

Monitoring Operational Loads: During active duty, external loads such as equipment weight and distances covered can be logged using GPS-enabled devices or mobile apps. This data ensures proper tracking of cumulative stress and aids in planning recovery periods, such as scheduling lighter tasks after physically demanding shifts.

Real-Time Decisions: In high-pressure environments, commanders can use tools like fitness watches or subjective feedback systems to redistribute workloads or provide rest to personnel showing signs of strain. This real-time flexibility ensures continued efficiency without risking long-term injuries.

Long-Term Data Analysis: Regularly collecting and analysing TL data allows organisations to refine training schedules and align them with operational demands. For example, patterns of high workloads can be mitigated with structured recovery plans, reducing injury rates over time.

Integrating Cost-Effective Solutions

While advanced tools like GPS units and heart rate monitors offer precision, they may not be feasible for all organisations. Cost-effective alternatives such as mobile GPS apps, fitness watches, and subjective measures like RPE scales are practical substitutes. These tools provide valuable insights into workload trends without requiring substantial financial investments, making them suitable for organisations with constrained budgets.

Most Practical Tool: The session sRPE scale is the most practical tool for monitoring training loads. It is simple, requires no specialised equipment, and is versatile enough to be applied in diverse tactical environments. Personnel can easily report their perceived effort after each session, enabling consistent tracking of workloads without disrupting operations.

Most Cost-Efficient Tools: RPE scales, wellness questionnaires, and manual tracking of workloads stand out as the most cost-efficient methods. Questionnaires provide actionable insights into recovery and fatigue without the need for equipment, while manual logging of distances or training volumes ensures accessibility for organisations with budget limitations.

Best Tool: A combination of internal and external load monitoring provides the most comprehensive approach to understanding training loads. For example, pairing GPS tracking (to measure work done) with sRPE or heart rate monitoring (to gauge physiological responses) offers a holistic perspective on physical demands and recovery needs.

Learn more about the article here.