Abstract
Aim: To investigate relationships between upper-body and trunk fitness measures used in law enforcement agencies (LEAs).
Design: A retrospective cohort study.
Method: Retrospective data were collected from two LEAs (LEA1 n=165; LEA2 n=633). The data of LEA1 included: age, weight, 1-minute push-up (1PU) and sit-up (1SU) repetitions, 1-repetition maximum bench press (1RM Bench) and bench press ratio (BPR). LEA2 included age, weight, 1PU, 1SU, grip dynameter (GRIP) and prone plank (PLANK). A Pearson’s correlation was used to calculate relationships between each of the fitness measures.
Results: 1PU were strongly correlated to 1SU (LEA1 r=0.660; LEA2 r=0.590) and BPR (LEA1 r=0.762), moderately to 1RM Bench (LEA1 r=0.652); and weakly to GRIP (LEA2 r=0.138). 1SU were moderately correlated to BPR (LEA1 r=0.572) and PLANK (LEA2 r= 0.578) and weakly to 1RM Bench (LEA1 r=0.394).
Conclusion: Police trainees and officers who present with higher levels of physical capability are suggested to perform better in a range of different physical fitness and job-specific tests. However, while there were some
orrelations between the upper-body and trunk fitness performance measures, the relationships were not strong enough to
arrant replacing one measure with another.
Key Practice Points:
• Given the diverse fitness requirements of police officers, the conditioning and reconditioning of a diverse range of physical fitness measures must be eveloped as part of return-to-work planning.
• Even though time may be limited and there are relationships between some of these potential outcome measures, police trainees and officers should be assessed using a variety of fitness assessment measures.
Design: A retrospective cohort study.
Method: Retrospective data were collected from two LEAs (LEA1 n=165; LEA2 n=633). The data of LEA1 included: age, weight, 1-minute push-up (1PU) and sit-up (1SU) repetitions, 1-repetition maximum bench press (1RM Bench) and bench press ratio (BPR). LEA2 included age, weight, 1PU, 1SU, grip dynameter (GRIP) and prone plank (PLANK). A Pearson’s correlation was used to calculate relationships between each of the fitness measures.
Results: 1PU were strongly correlated to 1SU (LEA1 r=0.660; LEA2 r=0.590) and BPR (LEA1 r=0.762), moderately to 1RM Bench (LEA1 r=0.652); and weakly to GRIP (LEA2 r=0.138). 1SU were moderately correlated to BPR (LEA1 r=0.572) and PLANK (LEA2 r= 0.578) and weakly to 1RM Bench (LEA1 r=0.394).
Conclusion: Police trainees and officers who present with higher levels of physical capability are suggested to perform better in a range of different physical fitness and job-specific tests. However, while there were some
orrelations between the upper-body and trunk fitness performance measures, the relationships were not strong enough to
arrant replacing one measure with another.
Key Practice Points:
• Given the diverse fitness requirements of police officers, the conditioning and reconditioning of a diverse range of physical fitness measures must be eveloped as part of return-to-work planning.
• Even though time may be limited and there are relationships between some of these potential outcome measures, police trainees and officers should be assessed using a variety of fitness assessment measures.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages | 320 |
| Publication status | Published - 19 Oct 2019 |
| Event | TRANSFORM 2019 Physiotherapy Conference - Adelaide Convention Centre, Adelaide, Australia Duration: 17 Oct 2019 → 19 Oct 2019 https://transform.physio/ https://transform.physio/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Abstract_Book_Adelaide_2019.pdf (Book of Abstracts) https://transform.physio/#program |
Conference
| Conference | TRANSFORM 2019 Physiotherapy Conference |
|---|---|
| Abbreviated title | APA |
| Country/Territory | Australia |
| City | Adelaide |
| Period | 17/10/19 → 19/10/19 |
| Internet address |