What is a Tactical Strength and Conditioning Coach?

[Coach Mik]

I feel like I am a fading breed in the military field, that being a GS, full-time strength and conditioning coach or in my case an Exercise Physiologist embedded within the military. Unfortunately, most of the similar positions are contractors and really come and go based on availability of funding. I guess I am just very fortunate, but I really enjoy doing what I do and get a chance in my position to train and work with almost all of the branches of service and a variety of levels of operational fitness needs.

I gotta say, though, right now it seems we are heading way, way off track with tactical strength and conditioning. With the involvement of contractors especially those that on the outside cater to high-priced athletes, the TSAC philosophy that is being pushed from the outside-in is in my opinion simply incorrect. For one, I question the tactical knowledge placed on the training programs being installed. Second, the contracted coaching community has not been vetted for military/tactical experience, rather, the collegiate athletic setting is the training ground for most tactical strength coaches and to say that training is the same in both environments is seriously wrong. Lastly, understanding the needs of tactical operators takes a lot of time, experience, and understanding. In this regard, it is likely possible that influx of a college strength coach into a tactical community could probably in the long run actually do more harm than good. I don't say this to be negative, I say this because we actually need coaches, physiologists, and clinicians who actually have experience working with the military long enough to identify if training programs actually work rather than experimenting to see the outcomes. Military lives and the health of these men and women are too valuable. Simply, our military deserves the very best exercise physiologists and coaches working with them rather than a strength and conditioning "drive-by." All of this is the reason why we have extreme conditioning programs with high injury rates emerging in the military.

Train hard, certainly, but you gotta train smart. Training smart will always prevail over training hard in the long-run, so will training correctly. Have an idea about what the actual goal and intended outcomes of your training are. This should relate directly to tactical, job performance. However, if it is a certain WOD performance record, then your probably headed in the wrong direction. Find some knowledgeable coaches with in-the field experience to talk with about how to train and then move forward. Stay strong, stay healthy!

 

[x SF med]

So, does this mean you are an advocate of mission based functional strength and conditioning?

 

[Coach Mik]

Good question. It would depend on how one uses the definition of "functional." In many circles today, especially those of rehabilitative medicine, that word suggests analyzing things that we can't change very easily or really at all to try and produce quantitative data, such as the implementation of functional movement screens. These screens really don't have justification outside of a lab and they would not represent how I would define "functional" as a tactical exercise physiologist or strength coach with a clinical background. I would define "functional" as pertaining to the function of an individual as far as having optimal health and fitness at any given time during the 365-day training period and then functioning optimally within a tactical group (cohesion, decisive, active), and then ultimately, functioning to accomplish a mission with success and being able to do this at any given notice over the long-haul. All of this is predicated on two things, the willingness of the individual and then the quality of training that is induced.

 

[Johca]

Its connected to a recently developed civilian certification on a national professional association level. Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist - Certified Personal Trainer Certification - NSCA

The Tactical Strength and Conditioning Facilitator® (TSAC-F®) certification is for professionals looking to apply scientific knowledge to physically train military, fire and rescue, law enforcement, protective services, and other emergency personnel to improve performance, promote wellness, and decrease injury risk. That being said it is infested with many current and former military Sports medicine officers, military sports physiologist officers. These be your contractors getting the big dollar contracts to develop military occupational specific human performance standards (PT tests and training requirements. In other words they are all sheep skinned Phd gym teachers and coaches looking for the govt money feeding trough, because govt civilian workers are obsolete inept bureaucrats. (PS I'm being extremely sarcastic as the claim of outsiders is better descriptive oriented towards politically and socially connected former enlisted and commissioned military when actual work history background and experience is scrutinized).

BTW, I actually know since 1993 at least two of the individuals listed as participating authors on the document you attached to your post. One of them, I worked with during 1993-1996, was key researcher involved in recent AETC occupational-specific performance study that completed this past July. I'm also not in anyway connected or affiliated with TASC singing and dancing.

TSAC-F® Certification --

Tactical Strength and Conditioning Facilitators (TSAC-F®) apply scientific knowledge to physically train military, fire and rescue, law enforcement, protective services, and other emergency personnel to improve performance, promote wellness, and decrease injury risk.

They conduct needs analyses and physical testing sessions, design and implement safe and effective strength training and conditioning programs, and provide general information regarding nutrition.

Recognizing their area of expertise is separate and distinct, TSAC Facilitators consult with and refer those they train to other professionals when appropriate.

 

[Johca]

Good question. It would depend on how one uses the definition of "functional." ... I would define "functional" as pertaining to the function of an individual as far as having optimal health and fitness at any given time during the 365-day training period and then functioning optimally within a tactical group (cohesion, decisive, active), and then ultimately, functioning to accomplish a mission with success and being able to do this at any given notice over the long-haul.

Somewhat off the mark. The concept of functional fitness within military circles gaining day-to-day use originates with my duty responsibilities as Chief Of Pararescue Medical Operations and MAJCOM action officer efforts (no combat rescue officers prior to 2000) during the period from 1990 to 1994 pertinent to: (1) keeping the Pararescue Indoctrination (screening and selection) Course justified and validated, (2) keeping the PJ/CCT PAST justified and validated, (3) being involved in development of Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 543, Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1660, GENDER NEUTRALITY REQUIREMENT. See attached document which has current amendments, and (4) writing point papers, position papers, and background papers pertinent to decision to keep the currently closed to women AFSC closed to woman in April 1993. See attached Removal of Combat Aviation Exclusion document.

The 1990 efforts actually started with involvement of the Senior NCO staff action officers on the HQ/AMC staff being involved with developing and implementing Gender Neutral performance standards for the US Coast Guard Helicopter Rescue Swimmer program that was under Congressional pressure to open such duties positions to woman.

Attached also is a graphic (Human Performance JPEG) I made and used back in 1994 concerning occupational-specific human performance needs of importance to having individual ready and able to execute and accomplish pararescue duties that result in lives saved.

 

[Red Flag 1]

I like the gender neutral concept. The question is, will Congress?

 

[x SF med]

It would depend on how one uses the definition of "functional."

the right strength, mobility, flexibility and ROM to actually excel at your job in the SOF world. Over the past 10 years the shape of athe SOF sodier has changed from a generally wiry, lithe, very endurance based individual with an extreme strength to weight ratio; into a more beefy endurance based individual with a very high but not extreme strength to weight ratio (higher mass reducing the ratio in most cases).

The functional fitness is still within the same area (top 10%) on a z-curve, but flowing more toward the norm end of the distribution because of the large mass increase and smaller strength increase per pound of bodyweight.

 

[Johca]

I like the gender neutral concept. The question is, will Congress?

The US Congress wrote it and approved it and a President made it law in 1993. In May 2013 it was amended to give a bit more precise clarity. So the question is considering both made law actions involved elected Democratic Party presidents?

 

[Red Flag 1]

Thanks for the history/civics lesson. You'd think the dates in Bold Face would have been enough to get it thru my concrete head.

It does seem to not always make it into the field.

 

[The Hate Ape]

Functional fitness is preached on our end as well - most of us aren't entirely certain on its meaning either, other than the fact that we do a mixture of CF and body building/strength exercises followed by ruck runs and yoga.

You aren't forced to do their program, they're collegiate and professional level trainers that will consult with you on any area of interest you have. They even have a nutritionist. Meal plans, workouts, physical therapy, they do it all.

Pretty nice little program and I like their attitude. They are there when you need them and if you're just going in to slay some iron on your OFP nobody will bother you either.

 

[The Hate Ape]

the right strength, mobility, flexibility and ROM to actually excel at your job in the SOF world. Over the past 10 years the shape of athe SOF sodier has changed from a generally wiry, lithe, very endurance based individual with an extreme strength to weight ratio; into a more beefy endurance based individual with a very high but not extreme strength to weight ratio (higher mass reducing the ratio in most cases).

The functional fitness is still within the same area (top 10%) on a z-curve, but flowing more toward the norm end of the distribution because of the large mass increase and smaller strength increase per pound of bodyweight.

I feel a hint of bias here. I would be too, as I am with the current generation.

Body types vary so crazily its really hard to agree with you on that. I know wirey ass gray men just like I know the poster child of our org, who's 9ft tall and 1000 lbs of testosterone and facial hair. Truth is, SOF types seemed to have changed only in age (being much younger these days) and seem a little more fine tuned in niche areas. We're much more technology savy, but equally dependent. We also conduct everything under the watchful eye of the ivory towers whereas you guys (my dads era) had a lot more FOM.

Interesting thoughts, end threadjack.

 

[Johca]

Truth is, SOF types seemed to have changed only in age (being much younger these days) and seem a little more fine tuned in niche areas.

Age in SOF has always favored younger than 30 years of age, particularly at the entry level. There are plenty of class pictures (ranger, SEAL, Pararescue, etc) going back to WWII that give evidence of this. The pictures, particularly U.S. Army Ranger pictures after the mid-1980s also do give evidence of more prevalence of the weightlifter/linebacker body build. This is a result of emphasis focusing on weightlifter and football physical fitness methods and perhaps the reliance use of steroids to get performance improvements that has crept into even high school athletic programs.

Otherwise body types do vary considerably which is why body type (Anthropometrics) percentiles ranks exist. Each gender has a range from 1st rank to 100th rank and the US military, since at least WWII) accepts only adults within a general 5th percentile to 95th percentile range for both genders.

2–20. Height

The causes for disqualification are—

a. Men: Height below 60 inches or over 80 inches does not meet the standard.

b. Women: Height below 58 inches or over 80 inches does not meet the standard.

However when minimum and maximum BMI standards is included the general percentile range anthropometrics range (based only on height, weight and allowable body fat) correlates to a range from about the 10th percentile to about the 97th percentile for both genders.

Further the physically demanding SOF on the ground and outside the wire duties, during and since WWII, favor a body anthropometrics range between the male 40th and 70th percentile which correlates to a body stature (standing height) between 67 inches and 72 inches with (if existing) being able to meet specific occupational-performance standards.

 

[The Hate Ape]

Good thing I'm exactly 67 inches