Dawes et al.

Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (2016) 28:26

DOI 10.1186/s40557-016-0112-5

RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access

Associations between anthropometric

characteristics and physical performance in
male law enforcement officers: a
retrospective cohort study
James Jay Dawes1, Robin Marc Orr2*, Claire Louise Siekaniec1, Andrea Annie Vanderwoude3 and Rodney Pope2

Abstract
Background: Police officers are often required to undertake physically demanding tasks, like lifting, dragging and
pursuing a suspect. Therefore, physical performance is a key requirement.
Methods: Retrospective data for 76 male police officers (mean age = 39.42 ± 8.41 years; mean weight = 84.21 ± 12.91 kg)
was obtained. Data included anthropometric (skinfolds, estimated percentage body fat, lean body mass and fat
mass) and physical performance (1 Repetition Maximum Bench Press, 1–min sit-ups, 1-min push-ups, vertical
jump, 300 m run, 1.5 mile run) measures and correlations between anthropometric measurement and fitness
score were obtained.
Results: Estimated percentage body fat was significantly (p ≤ .001) and negatively correlated with all performance
measures, except sit-ups and 300 m and 1.5 mile run performance. Estimated lean body mass was significantly and
positively (p ≤ .001) correlated with push-ups, bench press and vertical jump measures, while increasing estimated
fat mass was significantly (p ≤ .001) associated with reduced performance on sit-up, vertical jump, 1.5 mile run and
estimated maximal voluntary oxygen uptake.
Conclusions: A targeted approach, going beyond just decreasing percentage body fat to also selectively increasing
lean mass, should be applied for optimal improvement in physical fitness performance.
Keywords: Police, Body fat, Fitness, Strength, Tactical

Background and a 1.5 mile run to assess aerobic fitness. Although

At any point in time, on-duty law enforcement officers these fitness tests cannot serve as a complete predictor
may be required to push, pull, lift, carry, drag, jump, of overall fitness and job performance, empirical re-
vault, crawl, sprint, use force, and sustain pursuit of a search has shown a link between levels of fitness and
suspect [1–3]. Therefore, physical fitness is a key risk of injury [5, 6]. Furthermore, levels of fitness, and in
requirement for this population. Although there are no turn cardiovascular health, are known to be related to
national standards of physical fitness for law enforce- the risks of cardiovascular disease; a recognized cause of
ment officers, The Cooper Institute of Aerobic Fitness mortality in police officers, with police officers twice as
[4] recommends a battery of tests for this population likely as the general population to suffer this disease [7].
that includes 1-min sit-up and 1-min push-up tests to On this basis, means of improving, or at least maintain-
assess muscular endurance, a 1 repetition max (RM) ing, levels of fitness are important.
bench press (BP) to assess muscular strength, a 300 m Anthropometric measurements, like skinfold measure-
run and vertical jump test to assess anaerobic power, ments, are often used as a predictor of performance and
health status in the general population [8]. While
* Correspondence: [email protected] anthropometric measurements may not be suitable as a
2
Tactical Research Unit, Bond University, Robina, Queensland, Australia determinant of law enforcement selection they may be
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article

© 2016 The Author(s). Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to
the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver
(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Dawes et al. Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (2016) 28:26 Page 2 of 7

useful in predicting physical capability, job performance Methods

and, as such, identifying areas for improvement, particu- Participants
larly at a cohort level. Considering this, limited research Retrospective data for seventy-six (n = 76) male law en-
has been done in tactical populations (like firefighter/ forcement officers (mean age = 39.42 ± 8.41 year; mean
first responder, military and law enforcement) on the use weight = 84.21 ± 12.91 kg; mean est. VO2 max = 41.31 ±
of skin fold anthropometric measurements, with the 65 ml/kg/min) belonging to a volunteer fitness program
results suggesting a relationship between skinfold thick- were analysed in this investigation. Approval was
ness and physical performance. obtained from the University of Colorado, Colorado
Williford and Scharf-Olson [9] demonstrated a relation- Springs Institutional Review Board for human subjects
ship between sum of skinfolds and job performance in (IRB 15-074) and the Bond University Human Research
firefighters. Overall, the researchers found that a higher Ethics Committee (RO1927), prior to the analysis of
percentage of body fat was linked with poorer perform- this retrospective data.
ance in simulated job tasks and could be used as a pre-
dictor of job performance. Similarly, Ricciardi, et al. [10] Measures
observed a reduced aerobic capacity and load carriage task All anthropometric measures (weight and 3-site skinfold
performance ability in military participants with increased measurements) and muscular strength, power and
levels of body fat. Even when participants were wearing endurance assessments (1 RM Bench press, 1 –min sit-
relatively light loads (10 kg body armour), the amount of ups, 1-min push-ups, vertical jump) had been conducted
body fat of males (17 %) and females (26 %) was found to indoors at the law enforcement agency’s training facility.
negatively correlate (r = −0.88; p < .001) with physical task Measures of anaerobic (300 m) and aerobic (1.5 mile
performance [10]. In a recent study of a law enforcement run) fitness had been performed with participants run-
population, Dawes et al. [11] found that the sum of skin- ning around a predetermined course spanning local city
folds, as recommended by Jackson and Pollock, was nega- blocks as fast as possible. Assessment protocols and
tively correlated with muscular endurance assessments order used when the retrospective data were collected
(push-ups, sit-ups, pull-ups) as well as obstacle course are listed below.
performance in Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) of-
ficers. The strongest significant relationship occurred be- Weight
tween sum of skinfolds and pull-up assessment. While Weight (lbs) measurements for the officers were col-
these reported relationships between fat mass and physical lected using standard procedures on a doctors beam
fitness performance do not provide conclusive evidence of scale (Cardinal; Detecto Scale Co, Webb City, MO), and
cause-and-effect relationships, they do suggest that phys- then entered into a spreadsheet and converted to kgs.
ical training to decrease overall fat mass may, either dir-
ectly (reducing the non-functional mass to be lifted) or Skinfold measurements
indirectly (muscular training effect) have a positive impact Employing the skinfold assessment protocol as recom-
on muscular endurance performance. These reported rela- mended by Jackson and Pollock [14] and previously
tionships therefore warrant further scrutiny. employed in a law enforcement population [11], sum of
Not all studies support the findings of poorer physical skinfolds (SS) were collected from three sites. Duplicate
performance with increased levels of body fat. Both measures of the chest, abdomen, and thigh were taken
Frykman, et al. [12] and Pandorf, et al. [13] found that on the right side of the body using Lange Skinfold
body fat (21-32 %) did not affect assessed performance of Calipers (Lange, Beta Technology Inc, Cambridge,
load carriage tasks like obstacle courses and a 3.2 km MD), rotating among sites to allow skin to regain normal
loaded run. However, whether this finding reflected body texture and thickness, and recorded to the nearest centi-
fat alone, or the influence of overall body weight and meter. Percentage body fat (%BF), lean body mass (LBM
stature on absolute VO2max, was not apparent. Given [kg]) and fat mass (FM [kg]) were calculated using scale
the contrasting findings, and the reliance that society weight and the prediction formula provided by Jackson
places upon these tactical personnel having the physical and Pollock [15].
capability to perform their jobs efficiently and effectively,
further research, specifically investigating associations 1-min push-ups
between body composition and physical performance in Upper-body muscular endurance was measured using a
a law enforcement population may be of benefit. There- protocol previously employed in a law enforcement
fore, the purpose of this study was to investigate and population [11] with the duration modified to 1-min. All
report on the relationship between body composition (as officers were required to begin the test with the body
determined through skinfold measurements) and physical rigid and straight, the elbows fully extended, the hands
fitness performance in male law enforcement officers. positioned slightly wider than shoulder-width apart and
Dawes et al. Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (2016) 28:26 Page 3 of 7

the fingers pointed forward. This position constituted on the flat bench. Officers were then instructed to main-
the ‘up’ position. To facilitate and control push-up tain a 5-point contact (head, shoulders and glutes in
depth, a partner placed a closed fist on the floor directly contact with the bench and both feet on the floor). Eyes
under the officer’s chest. On the verbal command ‘go’ were lined up directly below the barbell on the rack. The
the participant proceeded to bend their elbows, lowering barbell was then lifted off the rack until it was posi-
themselves until their chest was in contact with their tioned directly over the officer’s chest. In a controlled
partner’s fist and then extending their elbows until back manner, the officer lowered the bar to the chest, lightly
in the ‘up’ position. The officer continued in this fashion touched the bar against the chest, then extended the
repeating as many repetitions as possible within the 1-min arms to return the bar to the starting position. This
period recorded by the tester on a handheld stopwatch. 1RM was then converted to a 1RM Bench press ratio
Officers were allowed to rest in the straight-arm position, (BPR) score (weight lifted/body weight) in order to
as long a neutral trunk position was maintained and the measure relative upper-body strength.
time had not elapsed. The test was terminated when an
officer was unable to perform this movement with proper 300 meter run
technique, or when the 1-min time limit expired. A 300 m course was measured around a city block. Of-
ficers were instructed to run this course, as fast as
1-min sit-ups possible. Upon completion each participant’s time was
The technique used for this test is detailed by Hoffman recorded to the nearest 0.10 s on a hand held stopwatch.
and Collingwood [16]. All officers were required to
begin the assessment lying in a supine position with the 1.5 mile run
knees bent to around 90° and the feet flat on the ground. A ¾ mile course was measured around local city blocks.
Hands were placed behind the neck with fingers inter- Following a 2 h rest, officers were instructed to run this
laced. Once in position the participant flexed their course twice, as fast as possible. Upon completion each
trunk, elevating their shoulders off the floor until their participant’s time was recorded to the nearest 0.10 s on
elbows touched their knees. During this assessment each a hand held stopwatch. Estimated VO2 max was then
officer had a partner anchor their feet in place to assist calculated using charts provided by the Cooper Institute
in keeping the feet flat on the floor throughout the exer- for Aerobics Research [19].
cise movement. On the verbal command ‘go’ the tester
began the stopwatch and the participant began the Statistical analysis
assessment. The officers then proceeded to perform as The data was entered into a computer file suitable for
many sit-ups as possible in 1-min using this technique. statistical analysis using the SPSS 22.0 software package
[20]. A descriptive statistical analysis was conducted to
Vertical jump determine mean scores and standard deviations for each
Vertical jump height was collected using a Vertec™ ap- skinfold site and each measure of performance. Partici-
paratus (Vertec Scientific Ltd., Aldermaston, UK). After pant results were summarized for two participant group-
determining the standing upward reach height for each of- ings, based on anthropometric results. These groups
ficer they were instructed to perform a rapid counter- were: (i) those participants found to have an ‘above ave-
movement jump with an arm swing, jump as high as rage’ percentage body fat for their age group; being
possible, and attempt to displace the horizontal plastic fins above 15.0 % for males up to the age of 30 years of age,
on the device. The best of three attempts was taken and and above 17.0 % for males up to 50 years of age; and
maximal jump height was recorded to the nearest 1.2 cm (ii) ‘average’ percentage body fat and below, being 15.0 %
(0.5 in.). Peak power output was then calculated using the and below for males up to the age of 30 years of age,
Sayers power equation (See Equation 1) [17]. This equa- and 17.0 % and below for males up to 50 years of age
tion is considered to be more valid than that of Harman et [8]. These groups were devised from normative data in
al [18] in estimating peak power from vertical jump [17]. order to allow for future simplified categorizations
Equation 1: Sayers [17] Peak Power equation through which to implement potential recommenda-
tions. Differences between these groups in physical per-
Peak power ðWattsÞ ¼ 60:7  height ðcmÞ þ 45:3 formance on the measured fitness characteristics were
 body massðkg Þ−2055 first determined using an independent samples t-test,
and subsequently using an ANCOVA with age included
as a covariate. Pearson’s correlation analyses were
1 RM bench press performed to investigate relationships between the
Officers were instructed to begin by lying down in a anthropometric and performance measures. The level of
standard bench press rack and positioning themselves statistical significance was set a priori at 0.001. This
Dawes et al. Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (2016) 28:26 Page 4 of 7

stringent level of significance was chosen in order to fitness test results. Consistent with the findings reported
control the family-wise error rate (or probability of from the independent samples t-tests (Table 1) and
making spurious significant findings, or Type I errors, ANCOVA (Table 2), comparing groups based on %BF,
when conducting multiple statistical tests of hypoth- the Pearson’s correlation analyses indicated that body
eses), that would otherwise accompany the large num- composition, assessed in terms of %BF, was significantly
ber of statistical tests performed [21]. correlated with push-ups, vertical jump height, bench
press ratio and estimated VO2max (Table 3). However,
Results there were differences noted in the associations between
Descriptive results for actual and estimated anthropo- estimated lean mass (LM; kg) and estimated fat mass
metric measurements and actual and estimated fitness (FM; kg) and physical fitness performance measures.
performance results for the cohort as a whole and for LM was significantly and positively correlated with
each of the two body fat groups are presented in Table 1. push-ups, vertical jump height, estimated peak power,
Significant differences between the two groups are also bench press and bench press ratio, while increasing FM
indicated in Table 1, based on the results of independent was significantly associated with reductions in perfor-
samples t-tests. mance on vertical jump, 1.5 mi run and estimated
The ANCOVA (Table 2) indicated that age was not a VO2max (Table 3).
significant predictor of any of the performance variables,
when the level of significance was set at 0.001 as Discussion
planned. While participants with an above average %BF The purpose of this study was to investigate the relation-
were observed to consistently perform at a lower level ship between body composition (as determined through
on physical fitness tests than those with average or skinfold measurements) and physical fitness perform-
below average %BF (Table 1), this difference only ance in male law enforcement officers. In general, the
reached statistical significance (p ≤ .001; Tables 1 and 2) results suggest that body composition, when assessed in
in push-ups, vertical jump height and bench press ratio. terms of %BF or FM (measured in kg) or LM (also
Table 3 demonstrates the correlations between specific measured in kg), is associated with physical fitness per-
anthropometric measurements and specific physical formance. Apart from the intuitive association between

Table 1 Descriptive information for full-time officers as a cohort and by %BF groupings
Measure Cohort ‘Average’ and below groupb ‘Above average’ groupb
Mean ± SD Mean ± SD Mean ± SD
n = 76 n = 31 n = 45
Weight (kg) 84.45 ± 12.80 82.82 ± 13.40 85.58 ± 12.40
Chest skinfold (mm) 13.74 ± 5.52 8.77 ± 3.54 17.16 ± 3.77a
Abdominal skinfold (mm) 24.57 ± 8.85 17.74 ± 6.52 29.27 ± 7.00a
Thigh skinfold (mm) 12.72 ± 4.99 10.19 ± 3.26 14.47 ± 5.25a
Sum of skinfolds (mm) 51.01 ± 14.56 36.71 ± 9.03 60.87 ± 7.88a
Estimated body fat (%) 16.89 ± 4.60 12.40 ± 3.21 19.98 ± 2.25a
Estimated lean mass (kg) 70.21 ± 11.45 72.71 ± 12.82 68.48 ± 10.20
Estimated fat mass (kg) 14.24 ± 4.50 10.11 ± 2.66 17.09 ± 3.06a
Push-ups (reps) 55.58 ± 17.35 64.39 ± 16.39 49.51 ± 15.43a
Sit-ups (reps) 41.05 ± 6.96 43.51 ± 6.34 39.32 ± 6.92
Vertical jump height (cm) 61.26 ± 7.96 65.75 ± 7.55 58.17 ± 6.71a
Estimated peak power (w) 5478.38 ± 829.96 5661.33 ± 828.93 5352.34 ± 815.99
Bench press (kg) 93.79 ± 25.91 102.21 ± 27.16 88.00 ± 23.60
Bench press ratio (BPR) 1.10 ± 0.23 1.22 ± 0.23 1.02 ± 0.18a
300 m (secs) 56.03 ± 10.67 52.96 ± 6.26 58.15 ± 12.49
1.5 mile run (min:secs) 12.75 ± 2.30 11.86 ± 1.47 13.37 ± 2.57
Estimated VO2 max (ml.kg.min.-1) 41.31 ± 6.50 43.96 ± 4.36 39.49 ± 7.12
a
Significant difference between groups, with p < .001
b
Groups: i) ‘Average and below’ included participants with a %BF of 15.0 % and below for males up to the age of 30 years of age, and 17.0 % and below for
males up to 50 years of age, and ii) ‘Above average’ included participants with a %BF above 15.0 % for males up to the age of 30 years of age, and above
17.0 % for males up to 50 years of age [8]
Dawes et al. Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (2016) 28:26 Page 5 of 7

Table 2 ANCOVA results between groups with age as the covariate

Age %BF groups
n Measure F value and Sig F value and Sig
76 Push-ups (reps) F(1,73) = 0.282, p = .597 F(1,73) = 15.113, p < .001a
76 Sit-ups (reps) F(1,73) = 3.100, p = .083 F(1,73) = 8.674, p = .004
76 Vertical jump height (cm) F(1,73) = 10.299, p = .002 F(1,73) = 19.018, p < .001a
76 Estimated peak power (w) F(1,73) = 1.536, p = .219 F(1,73) = 2.013, p = .160
76 Bench press (kg) F(1,73) = 0.243, p = 0.623 F(1,73) = 5.354, p = .023
76 Bench press ratio (BPR) F(1,73) = 1.339, p = 0.251 F(1,73) = 17.119, p < .001a
75 300 m (secs) F(1,73) = 2.067, p = .155 F(1,73) = 3.661, p = .060
76 1.5 mile run (min:secs) F(1,73) = 3.121, p = .081 F(1,73) = 7.270, p = .009
76 Estimated VO2max (ml.kg.min.-1) F(1,73) = 1.755, p = .189 F(1,73) = 8.388, p = .005
%BF Percentage Body Fat
a
significant difference at p < .001

higher %BF and its associated poorer performance, the The other exception was that of vertical jump height
results go further in suggesting that FM may not be which was significantly correlated with both FM (nega-
strongly associated with all forms of physical perform- tive correlation) and LM (positive correlation). A poten-
ance and rather decreased LM may be more strongly as- tial reason for this finding is that the nature of the
sociated with, and possibly responsible for decreases in vertical jump requires an element of strength but also
some physical fitness performance measures. In essence, the ability to lift the entire body mass off the ground
the study found that for measures of aerobic fitness, FM (like running). As such, although the expectation that in-
may be of greater predictive importance than LM and, creased LM would increase performance on this power
conversely, for measures of strength and muscular en- task held true (ie the increased LM appeared to generate
durance (like bench press, peak power and push-ups), a sufficient increase in leg power to overcome and
LM may be more important than FM. exceed the additional LM to be lifted), it was also not-
There were two exceptions—the sit-up and the vertical able, though not unexpected, that increased FM had the
jump. Unlike the other measures of muscular endurance, opposite effect.
sit-up performance was more strongly correlated with This information is particularly useful in suggesting
FM than LM, though it should be noted that the nega- ways in which performance improvement might be
tive relationship between sit-up performance and FM achieved in the law enforcement population. The corre-
did not quite reach the stringent level of statistical sig- lations between lean mass and performance measures
nificance adopted in this study (Tables 2 and 3). A po- were stronger in strength, muscular endurance and
tential reason for this difference is the distribution of fat power orientated aspects of performance than correla-
mass, with previous research [11] suggesting that an in- tions of those performance measures with fat mass. It
creased sum of skinfolds around the abdomen impacted may therefore be more effective to intervene with train-
on sit-up performance but not push-up performance. ing designed to increase lean muscle mass and muscle
strength, endurance and power rather than work primar-
Table 3 Correlations between anthropometric measures and ily to decrease fat mass in order to improve strength, en-
fitness scores durance and power related physical fitness performance.
Fitness and anthropometric information %BF LM (kg) FM (kg) Conversely, focusing on decreasing fat mass and increas-
Push-ups (reps) −.413a .444a −.210 ing metabolic fitness and muscular endurance, rather
Sit-ups (reps) −.198 −.177 −.308 than increasing lean body mass, may be the most appro-
Vertical jump height (cm) −.566 a
.391a
−.369a priate approach when attempting to increase run times,
Estimated peak power (w) −.343 .879a .107
be they anaerobic or aerobic in requirement. It is im-
portant, that other factors that influence performance,
Bench press (kg) −.327 .781a
.073
like current sport and exercise regime, smoking and diet
Bench press ratio (BPR) −.448a .392a −.241 are likewise considered.
300 m (secs) .244 .049 .290 The limited available studies profiling and investigat-
1.5 mile run (min:secs) .285 .181 .399a ing the anthropometric and fitness characteristics of po-
Estimated VO2 Max.(ml.kg.min.-1) −.287 −.214 −.419a lice officers restricts the ability to compare the findings
%BF Percentage Body Fat, LM Lean Mass, FM Fat Mass
of this study to results of other studies. However, from
a
Correlation is significant with p ≤ .001 the limited studies available, the participants in this
Dawes et al. Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (2016) 28:26 Page 6 of 7

study, while of similar ages, were found to be generally fat and at the same time improving metabolic fitness
lighter (84.45 ± 12.88 kg) than those observed in two and muscular endurance should be the conditioning goal
separate studies by Boyce et al. (93.2 ± 16.2 kg [22]: to improve sit-up performance and run times, be they
94.6 ± 15.9 kg [23]) and have a lower %BF (16.9 ± 4.6 short or longer distance. Increasing lean body mass and
compared to 19.1 ± 5.9 [22] and 18.5 ± 6.2 % [23] respect- decreasing body fat can both positively influence vertical
ively). One of the studies by Boyce et al, [23] reported jump performance.
measures of FM and LM and while the participants in this
Authors’ contributions
study had less FM (14.25 ± 7.50 kg versus 18.7 ± 8.5 kg) JD: Obtained ethics approval (US), collected and analyzed data and assisted
than participants in the study reported by Boyce et al. in the preparation of the manuscript. RO: Obtained ethics approval (Australia),
[22], they also had less LM (70.21 ± 11.45 kg versus assisted in the analysis of the data and edited and finalized the manuscript.
CS: Analyzed some components of the data and assisted in the drafting of the
75.9 ± 9.6 kg). The other study by Boyce et al. [22] manuscript. AV: Analyzed some components of the data and assisted in the
included one measure of strength, the bench press, in drafting of the manuscript. RP: Oversaw and finalized the statistical analysis
which their participants recorded slightly higher scores and interpretation of the data and edited the manuscript. All authors read
and approved the final manuscript.
(96.3 ± 20.9 kg) than those observed in this study
(93.79 ± 25.91 kg). When considering the %BF and Competing interests
weight of the participants in this latter study by Boyce There are no conflicts of interest with this research and all ethical
requirements for research have been met. All authors contributed
et al., [22], the higher absolute bench press results align appropriately to the development of this manuscript. This manuscript
with the findings of this study which indicated a signifi- is original and has not previously published, nor is it being considered
cant and strong correlation between LM and bench elsewhere until a decision is made as to its acceptability by the Annals
of Occupational and Environmental Medicine Editorial Review Board.
press (kg) results.
Author details
1
Limitations Department of Health Sciences, University of Colorado-Colorado Springs,
Colorado Springs, CO, USA. 2Tactical Research Unit, Bond University, Robina,
The data analyzed for this study was retrospective and Queensland, Australia. 3Gatorade sports nutrition intern, University of
therefore some data of value was missing. For example, Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
it would have been beneficial to include participant
Received: 3 January 2016 Accepted: 25 May 2016
height data in the analyses, but this was unavailable for
this cohort. In addition, only three skinfold sites were
used, and future research may benefit from the use of 7 References
1. Anderson GS, Plecas D, Segger T. Police officer physical ability testing–Re-
skinfold sites [24] to increase skinfold sensitivity and as validating a selection criterion. Policing Int J Police Strateg Manag. 2001;
such the influence of skinfold site measures at specific 24(1):8–31.
sites and performance. Finally, the participants in this 2. Arvey RD, Landon TE, Nutting SM, Maxwell SE. Development of physical
ability tests for police officers: A construct validation approach. J Appl
study were volunteers undertaking a fitness program as Psychol. 1992;77(6):996.
such there may be limitations in generalization to the 3. Bissett D, Bissett J, Snell C. Physical agility tests and fitness standards:
broader population. Considering this, while there is a perceptions of law enforcement officers. Police Pract Res. 2012;13(3):208–23.
4. Cooper Institute. Law Enforcement Commonly Asked Question: Frequently
potential for the data to have excluded the very unfit asked questions regarding fitness standards in law enforcement. 2006.
who may not have wanted to participate in this program, https://www.cooperinstitute.org/vault/2440/web/files/684.pdf Accessed
the opposite may be true whereby the very fit would fol- 25 Nov 2015.
5. Pope R, Herbert R, Kirwan JD, Graham BJ. Predicting attrition in basic
low their own current fitness regime. military training. Mil Med. 1999;164(10):710–714.
6. Meigh N, Steele M, Orr R. Metabolic fitness as a predictor of injury risk in
Conclusion conditioned military trainees undertaking an arduous field training exercise.
In: 1st Australian Conference on Physiological and Physical Employment
In conclusion, physical performance in law enforcement Standards: 2012.Wollongong, NSW, Australia: University of Wollongong;
is critical and anthropometric measurements can be 2012.
used to guide conditioning interventions to improve per- 7. Ramey SL, Downing NR, Knoblauch A. Developing strategic interventions to
reduce cardiovascular disease risk among law enforcement officers the art
formance. This study supports evidence that increasing and science of data triangulation. Am Assoc Occup Health Nurses J. 2008;
%BF is associated with decreasing performance. More 56(2):54–62.
importantly, this study suggests a targeted approach, 8. Ratamess N. Assessment and evaluation. In: ACSM’s foundations of strength
and conditioning. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012. p. 451–88.
going beyond just decreasing %BF to also selectively 9. Williford HN, Scharff-Olson M. Fitness and body fat: an issue of performance.
increasing lean mass, should be applied in efforts to Fire Eng. 1998;151(8):83–87.
achieve optimal improvement in physical fitness per- 10. Ricciardi R, Deuster P, Talbot LA. Effects of Gender and Body Adiposity on
physiological responses to physical work while wearing body armor. Mil
formance. For example, rather than reducing body fat, Med. 2007;172(7):743–8.
increasing lean body mass should be the conditioning 11. Dawes J, Orr RM, Elder C, Rockwell C. Association between body fatness
goal to increase performance in upper-body muscular and measures of muscular endurance among part-time swat officers. J Aust
Strength Cond. 2014;22(4):33–37.
endurance measures (like push-ups and bench press) 12. Frykman PN, Harman E, Pandorf CE. Correlates of obstacle course
and peak power generation. Conversely, decreasing body performance among female soldiers carrying two different loads. In: RTO
Dawes et al. Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (2016) 28:26 Page 7 of 7

meeting proceedings 56: soldier mobility: innovations in load carriage

system design and evaluation. Kingston: Research and Technology
Organisation/North Atlantic Treaty Organization; 2000.
13. Pandorf CE, Harman E, Frykman PN, Patton JF, Mello RP, Nindl BC. Correlates
of load carriage and obstacle performance among women. Work. 2002;
18(2):179–89.
14. Jackson AS, Pollock ML. Practical assessment of body composition. Physician
Sports Med. 1985;113:76–90.
15. Jackson AS, Pollock ML. Generalized equations for predicting body density
of men. Br J Nutr. 1978;40(03):497–504.
16. Hoffman R, Collingwood TR. Fit for duty. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2005.
17. Sayers SP, Harackiewicz DV, Harman EA, Frykman PN, Rosenstein MT.
Cross-validation of three jump power equations. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
1999;31(4):572–577.
18. Harman EA, Rosenstein MT, Frykman PN, Rosenstein RM, Kraemer WJ.
Estimation of human power output from vertical jump. J Strength Cond
Res. 1991;5(3):116–20.
19. Cooper Institute: Physical Fintess Assessment. TX:USA: Cooper Institute, 2006.
https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/police/CooperStandards.pdf Accessed
25 Nov 2015.
20. SPSS Inc. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Version 20)
[computer software]. IBM Corporation; 2010.
21. Bland JM, Altman DG. Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method.
BMJ. 1995;310(6973):170.
22. Boyce R, Willett T, Mullins A, Jones G, Cottrell R. Health Promotion Strategies
Derived from a Metropolitan Police Weight Loss Competition with Weight
Loss Comparisons by Gender and BMI Category. Int J Allied Health Sci Pract.
2014;12(3):10. http://nsuworks.nova.edu/ijahsp/vol12/iss3/10/.
23. Boyce R, Jones G, Llyod C, Boone E. A longitudinal observation of police:
body composition changes over 12 years with gender and race
comparisons. J Exerc Physiol Online. 2008;11(6):1–13.
24. Harman E, Garhammer J. Pandorf, C. Administration, scoring, and
interpretation of selected tests. In: Baechle TR, Earle RW, eds. Essentials of
strength training and conditioning. Champaign: IL: Human Kinetics; 2008. p.
287-318.

Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central

and we will help you at every step:
• We accept pre-submission inquiries
• Our selector tool helps you to find the most relevant journal
• We provide round the clock customer support
• Convenient online submission
• Thorough peer review
• Inclusion in PubMed and all major indexing services
• Maximum visibility for your research

Submit your manuscript at

www.biomedcentral.com/submit