Wavell Room
Image default
People and Leadership

Train Like a Predator, Not Like Prey

Why steady-state runs are breaking our soldiers.

In recent years it has been recognised that an over-reliance on steady state running can lead to an increased occurrence in musculoskeletal injuries (MSKIs) with limited physiological benefit.  Nevertheless, across the Army steady state runs often become the ‘default option’ for Physical Training, in addition to a mix of circuit training and loaded marches.  While this type of training provides some physiological benefit to our soldiers, it is neither the most efficient way to develop the ‘Soldier as a platform’ nor to look after a Soldier’s body for time in service and beyond.  With deployability figures and manning levels still shy of Army targets it is more important than ever that we get this right.

The Problem

An internal study conducted over 18 months in an Infantry Battalion (with slightly better than average deployability statistics) showed that 66% of all MSKIs in that Battalion were due to mechanical overuse.  The remaining 34% were due to traumatic causes, such as ankle inversions or accidents.  Of those patients with mechanical injuries, 19% presented with lower back pain, 25% with a knee injury/pain and 28.5% with other lower limb injuries – shin splints, Achilles pain etc.  The remaining 27.5% presented with upper back, shoulder, and upper limb injuries. The British Army recognises 7 causes of MSKI, I’d like to focus on 2 that are pertinent to trained soldiers.  First, when conducting steady-state running in a group of mixed ability, the fittest soldiers will receive little benefit, while the least fit in the group will spend too long at or above their anaerobic threshold to be of physiological value.  While a few will be ‘in zone’ to improve their fitness, this is not an efficient use of time and the majority of soldiers will be causing unnecessary joint wear for relatively little gains.  Studies have shown that repetitive, submaximal loading causes knee cartilage and spinal disks to dehydrate and compress.  In contrast these inert and vulnerable structures have been shown to benefit from structured resistance-based training.  Secondly, soldiers who do perform their own strength and conditioning programs outside organised PT often have a tendency to favour ‘beach weights’ thus over developing the pectorals, anterior deltoid and biceps over the posterior chain.  This often results in ‘lifter’s shoulder’ where the lack of balance in the most complex joint system in the body causes shoulder pain.  A PT program that relies upon steady state running, loaded marches and circuit training (consisting of low weight-high rep exercises) neglects up to 8 of the 10 components of fitness described by the Army’s own PT instruction, AGAI 007.  The result is inactive glutes, imbalanced scapulae, short hamstrings and general musculoskeletal imbalances which cause joint pain or MSKI.  

The Solution

While steady state runs and loaded marches have their place in a unit PT program, they cannot be relied upon as the principal means of fitness training.  Likewise traditional circuit training does not fully stimulate muscular development.  We can do better.  I believe that there are 4 different lines of effort that will make a huge difference, over time, to our deployability and performance.  

Firstly minimise ‘junk miles’ as much as possible.  Every mile a Soldier runs or marches must completed for a specified intended outcome and not for the sake of going for a run.  Running sessions should be streamed by ability where possible to maximise the benefit to the group.  

Secondly we need to increase strength training.  This means proper strength training, not doing deadlifts and squats with 25kg power bags but lifting barbells loaded with bodyweight plus and grounded in good technique.  Stronger kinetic chains lead to greater stride length and cadence, effectively allowing an individual to cover greater distance with less effort at speed.  Increasing maximal strength also improves resilience to injury by reducing tactical loads to a smaller proportion of the soldier’s maximum force.  In addition, tendons respond by increasing stiffness and cell structure durability resulting in becoming less prone to injury.  The hormonal benefits of strength training also increase performance in several other components of fitness.  

Thirdly high intensity interval training has been shown to burn more calories per minute than steady state training, but has the added benefits of being easier on the joints as well as improving muscular strength and both aerobic and anaerobic capacity to a much higher degree.  

Finally improving fitness education is vital.  Basic training should include coaching in the big functional lifts; squat, deadlift and reverse lunge, as well as the use of compression clothing, foam rollers, nutrition, and mobility and recovery techniques.  All soldiers and officers should have the mindset of a tactical athlete, constantly striving to maximise performance of themselves and their subordinates year-round, including whilst deployed on operations and exercises.

A system already exists that incorporates all of the issues discussed here.  The British Army Warrior Fitness (BAWF) competition is a perfect example of the methodology required for optimum performance and is rightly recognised as the correct means to test all of the components of fitness without resorting to some of the more extreme methods used in similar civilian training systems.  If the type of training tested in BAWF became the staple of the Army’s PT programming I believe that, in time, we would only see benefits to performance and deployability across the force.  Executing this change is not simple, strength equipment costs money and will always be a limiting factor, but scheduling training at time other than just routinely at 0800hrs can mitigate this, increasing the experience of PT Instructors and leaders so that they are capable of delivering this type of training will also take time, but failing to try is failing our soldiers.  Lastly, the leadership within any Unit needs to be prepared to change their mindset from the focus of their experience (i.e. runs and loaded marches) to follow the evidence and support their specialist staff who can drastically enhance the deployability of the Soldiers that they lead and improve their lives well into the future.

The views expressed within individual posts and media are those of the author and do not reflect any official position or that of the author’s employees or employer. Concerns regarding content should be addressed to the wavellroom through the contact form


British Army

Josh has 9 years of Infantry leadership experience. He is a British Army Warrior Fitness finalist, a member of the 300 Club and an Iron Major record holder. He Co-Wrote this article with Mike, an Exercise Rehabilitation Instructor, conditioning specialist and speed development coach who has 4 years experience working with infantry soldiers.

Related posts

Winning The Narrative – An Army Officer’s Perspective


Is it time to rethink Army contracts?

Joe B

Long Term Leadership in a Short Term World



Ant January 1, 1970 at 01:00

I agree with much of the article. However, the focus on Crossfit-type fitness must be balanced. One of the best resources for team building, leadership and fitness is the sports pitch. There are many of them in garrisons and they are almost all underused. The coordination and range of movement on a football pitch/in a squash court, for example, are really valuable and not covered by BAWF. I worry that we may be creating a cohort of ballsport-shy Crossfit bores. And I write that as someone who does Crossfit.

Martin I. Jones January 1, 1970 at 01:00

I don’t entirely disagree with many of the ideas and comments in this article, and I commend the authors for trying to make positive changes to physical training. From my perspective, there are a couple of inconsistencies that need to be addressed. Firstly, while steady state running may cause (overuse) injury in some people there are just as many individuals who run who do not report the injury. It could be that poor running technique, inappropriate footwear, and biomechanical problems are more to blame than running (see http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2016/01/08/bjsports-2015-095394.short?rss=1). Secondly, when considering training methodology, it is important to consider training principles and science of training. Astrand et al (2003) define training as “Exposing the organism to a training load or work stress of sufficient intensity, duration, and frequency to produce a noticeable or measurable training effect.” Furthermore, training should be considered in relation to specific tasks. The question for military trainers is “what tasks are we required to complete?” The acronym VISOR is a useful way to remember the key training principles. These are Variation, Individuality, Specificity, Overload, and Reversibility. Variety is necessary to stimulate adaptation so running at the same pace for the same duration will result in limited gains after a time – that said it will help to avoid reversibility of training if those initial gains are maintained. When thinking about specificity trainers need to be aware of the role that military operators play (and how they differ between units) and how these are different to athletes. We train athletes to peak for specific times and dates (e.g., tournaments), but deployment is often less predictable. As such, the precise nature of the role means that fitness maintenance is potentially more salient than progression (periods of training, peaking, and rest). Asking soldiers to complete technical lifts like barbell squats, deadlifts, and military presses will no doubt make them stronger and more powerful, but I wonder whether that type of strength and power is what is required for the role. If a person is training to improve strength for another activity, the exercises should be as close as possible to desired movements. How many times do soldiers back squat when in the field?

Huw Jones January 1, 1970 at 01:00

This is absolutely right. (I also agree with the article, not just because I know Josh and he is indeed massive, bless him). I’m considering submitting my own article to this effect as running is quickly becoming demonised. People don’t think of running and somethig you need to learn but I believe retraining would significantly reduce injury, increase fitness, and increase people’s interest in running.

Dern January 10, 2017 at 09:48

This is my suggestion. Put a pack on, make sure it’s got about 30 kg of kit in it. Then grab a weapon, if you’re lucky get a 5kg rifle, if you’re unlucky or think you are funny grab a GPMG that weighs twice that. Then for extra challenge grab a Bowman or a Javelin. Now take a knee. Walk a bit. Take a Knee again, repeat, and for fun fling yourself to the ground once or twice. Happy days you’ve used the strength you’d train with squats on a simulated patrol. Did you have to life that pack? Or perhaps a stretcher? Or that GPMG and keep it held up? Deadlifts. Military Press? Have you ever tried to drag someone for any serious distance? There we go.

Kev January 1, 1970 at 01:00

Just out of curiosity; what is an Iron Major?

Max January 10, 2017 at 06:53

As a commander within a very ‘fitness-focussed’ Regiment I commend the push to develop a better developed, more physically diverse soldier I have a few opinions-

Firstly, circuits/runs/TABs can be conducted with minimal requirement for support from external agencies, or equipment. I don’t know of any unit that has a spare 15-20 benches and Barbells for a Platoon morning PT session, let alone the amount required for a rifle Coy.

Secondly, as Martin below has stated functional fitness must be exactly that ‘functional.’ As per most things the doctrine of the unit should direct the fitness: I would expect Gunners to conduct more lifting/pushing/throwing based exercises when compared to light infantry who would look to conduct more cardiovascular and loaded marching as is their role on the battlefield.

An area which the Army has been slow to capitalise is swimming and pool training. Most units will at least have access to one, if not one on their establishment for MST purposes. It can provide a very comprehensive session with a bit of PTI imagination, has minimal MSKI impact and requires little in the way of resourcing. In addition (and perhaps most importantly) it is unusual, interesting and fun for the Soldiers, thus ensuring buy-in

Paddy January 10, 2017 at 12:08

Over the past twenty years or so I have seen the science and art of British Army physical training improve immeasurably. The PT corps is better, training establishments’ approach to PD is deeply impressive and units are almost all in the right place. HIIT, strength and conditioning and banning junk miles are mostly now ingrained principles rather than just buzzwords. If we continue to adopt this approach, as well as ensuring sport, especially team-sports, and AT are regular attenders on the FoE then overall beneficial gains will reveal,

But to my mind there is still a fundamental dilemma, as prevelent now as twenty years ago. How do you bring on the bottom 20%? The dilemma stems from fitness being the the result of individual effort; but the Army rightly demands team goals and team leadership in the conduct of fitness activity. The team must be fit for the unit to be operationally effective, but the unit therefore goes the pace of the slowest man or woman. I do not have the answer; but I would like to move on from the running/marching/tabbing vs core strength/HIIT/conditioning debate (which I see as a win for the latter) to a thorough examination of motivational practises to encourage our fatties to become fitties.


Leave a Comment