DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A NEW

PHYSICAL TRAINING CONCEPT IN THE NORWEGIAN

NAVY SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND
PAUL ANDRÉ SOLBERG,1 GØRAN PAULSEN,1,2 OLE GUNNAR SLAATHAUG,1 MAGNHILD SKARE,1
DALLAS WOOD,3 SHAUN HULS,3 AND TRULS RAASTAD1,2
1
Defence Institute; 2Department of Physical Performance, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo, Norway; 3Virginia Beach, VA

ABSTRACT more frequent muscular endurance and power training.

Solberg, PA, Paulsen, G, Slaathaug, OG, Skare, M, Wood, D, Because of frequent interruptions, the LP tended to be more
Huls, S, and Raastad, T. Development and implementation of difficult to follow than the NLP and is suggested when conti-
a new physical training concept in the Norwegian Navy Special nuity is possible, whereas an NLP is recommended for main-
Operations Command. J Strength Cond Res 29(11S): S204– tenance and when standing on national preparedness.
S210, 2015—A high level of physical fitness is one important KEY WORDS linear periodization, nonlinear periodization,
factor for optimal performance in Special Operation Forces individualization, block periodization and Special Forces
(SOF). Still, information about physical training for SOF oper-
ators is not easily accessible. This study aimed to implement INTRODUCTION

T
and assess a new training concept in the Norwegian Navy
raditionally, physical training for the Norwegian
SOF. A longitudinal study where 22 operators completed
Navy Special Operation Forces (SOF) operators
a 6-month linear periodization (LP), followed by a 6-month non- was focused on aerobic endurance, through run-
linear periodization (NLP) program. Both protocols were block ning and local muscular endurance training (body-
periodized, focusing on either strength or aerobic capacity. A weight circuit training). However, with new demands and
battery of tests covering strength, endurance, power, mobility, organizational modifications, changes are required. First, the
and body composition was performed, and individual capacity need for high levels of maximal strength for today’s war-
analyses were established. A training week consisted of 5 to 6 fighter was acknowledged (9). Second, the unit recognized
sessions including 1 or 2 individualized sessions directed that the training needed to fit better with the work schedule.
towards improving the weakest capacity. The LP had a clear Third, frequent maximum intensity trainings, combined with
effect on mobility (19 6 9%), abdominal strength (25 6 16%), performing a very stressful job, seemed to cause a high rate
upper body power (PowerUB; 6 6 9%), standing long-jump (3 of training-related injuries. With a selection and training
duration over 2 years, it is crucial to keep the selected oper-
6 6%), pull-ups (24 6 31%), agility (2 6 4%), V_ O2max (2 6
ators healthy and fit at all times. In addition, the contract
3%), fat percent (25 6 31%), and muscle mass (1 6 3%).
time has increased from 3 years to a whole career, placing an
The NLP increased abdominal strength (15 6 17%), standing
emphasis on longevity. Moreover, previous assessments indi-
long-jump (3 6 4%), and anaerobic capacity (10 6 8%), cated that most SOF operators already had a generally high
whereas V_ O2 max (23 6 4%) and PowerUB (22 6 7%) physical fitness level. Therefore, a combination of mixed
decreased. Additional analyses showed clear increases among endurance-based training, exclusive of any individualization,
those individually instructed to improve strength. Results sup- does probably not provide the optimal stimulus to improve
port the benefits of combined periodized programming and other capacities such as strength and power (8).
individualized training sessions among SOF operators with ini- Basic military training does not seem to improve
tially good fitness levels. Largest effects were observed in the physical capacities such as strength and power, or even
first phase with the LP. However, subsequent NLP additionally aerobic capacity (2,12,14). This may particularly be true
increased anaerobic and jumping capacity, possibly due to among those with a high fitness level (2,11). Therefore,
one aim of this study was to individualize the physical
training more than previously (2,9,12). Hence, work de-
Address correspondence to Paul André Solberg, [email protected]. mands and capacity analyses were developed through as-
29(11S)/S204–S210 sessments, literature review, and observations. Initial
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research assessments indicated that endurance capacities were bet-
Ó 2015 National Strength and Conditioning Association ter developed than strength capacities compared with
the TM

S204 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

similar units. Consequently, improving strength was more the analyses. All subjects provided written informed con-
focused than previous training. In addition, injury etiology sent, and the Regional Ethics Committee of Southern Nor-
and location were collected. With that information, way approved the study.
specific injury prevention exercises could be included and
Development of Work Demand Analyses and
exercises or training methods with high injury risk could
Individual Training
be avoided.
The test battery covered several physical capacities, and to
First, to optimize for short- and long-term outcomes of
be able to give proper feedback on what the operators
training, while preserving the health of the operators,
individually should prioritize, it consisted of single-capacity
a systemized periodized training protocol had to be imple-
tests, rather than multiple-capacity tests. Physical demands
mented (3,9,15). The positive effects of periodized training
were initially calculated based on the average of all
are well documented, with blocked (BP), linear (LP), and
operators, results from elite ice hockey, and other military
nonlinear (NLP) periodization programs reported to suc-
forces. The reason for using results from ice hockey was the
cessfully increase strength, power, and muscle mass
lack of specific reference values for SOF operators and that
(3,5,8,10,14,15). Unfortunately, the effects of these periodiza-
the average on the tests mainly reflects their previous
tion protocols are not known among well-trained military
training. In addition, ice hockey players who were relatively
personnel.
matched in body composition also used many of the tests,
In addition to LP and NLP, BP (8) protocols with alter-
and ice hockey players need both maximum strength and
nating focus on endurance and strength were included for
endurance.
the following reasons: (a) the possibility to base the blocks
Individual feedback and programs were handed out about
on the work schedule: when conditions made it difficult to
6 weeks after assessment (while waiting for feedback, they all
do strength training, the block could be endurance-based
followed the same training protocol). The operators were
(less equipment needed); (b) by using short blocks (1–3
instructed to work on their weakest capacity, and 5 specific
weeks), the operators could be generally fit without perform-
programs were made for 2 sessions per week in the following
ing concurrent aerobic and strength training; and (c) the
7 physical capacities: strength, hypertrophy, aerobic endur-
conditions for improving strength should be better with
ance, mobility and stability (combined program), and speed
a nonconcurrent protocol (8,9,12).
and power (combined).
The specific aims of this longitudinal study on SOF
operators’ physical training were to evaluate the effects of Tests
2 different periodization programs (LP and NLP), combined Qualified test personnel (Master’s degree in Sport Science)
with BP, on changes in physical performance and fitness, as performed all assessments over 3 days in a standardized
well as to evaluate the practical application in an SOF unit. sequence. Before the physical tests, a 10-minute general
Because of the longitudinal design with the LP program warm-up with stationary bike or through running was
preceding the NLP program, it was, however, not possible performed.
to directly compare the effects of the 2 programs. Bodyweight, body fat, and muscle mass were measured
using a whole-body bioelectrical impedance device
METHODS (InBody720; Biospace, San Francisco, Calif.) in fasted state
(12 hours) wearing only underwear.
Experimental Approach to the Problem
Maximal strength in the upper and lower body was
This was a 12-month longitudinal study among SOF
measured with 1RM (1 repetition maximum) in leg-press
operators performed from spring 2012 to spring 2013.
and bench-press. The leg-press test started in the lowest
Subjects completed a 6-month alternating endurance and
position (knee and hip angle were 80 and 558, respectively)
strength-blocked LP, followed by a 6-month blocked NLP.
and was approved when the knees were straightened out. In
Work and demand analyses were developed, and operators
bench-press, participants lowered the bar to touch their
were also trained individually on the weakest capacity. At
chest and then straightened out their arms. Glutes and
baseline, the operators completed a questionnaire assessing
shoulders had to be in contact with the bench throughout
the type and localization of previous and present injuries.
the lift. Warm-up included sets of 10, 6, 3 repetitions, and
Two weeks before the training intervention were used to
1RM was assessed to the closest 10 kg for leg-press and 5 kg
teach proper lifting techniques.
for bench-press and established within 2 to 4 maximal trials.
Subjects Two maximal repetition tests for the upper body were also
Twenty-two Norwegian Navy Special Operations Com- performed; loaded pull-ups (11.25 kg, 25 pounds) were used
mand (NORNAVSOC) operators (age: 28 6 4 years, to mimic a pull-up with vest and helmet, and abdominal
height: 182 6 6 cm) completed the 2 protocols. Only op- muscle capacity was measured with a test used by several
erators who completed all 3 measurements and .50% of sports in Norway called “brutal-bench.” In brutal-bench, the
the subscribed sessions with ,14 days of interruption in operator is suspended vertically from an abdominal bench
training (work, sickness, or deployment) were included in with knees at 908 and ankles secured (knees creased 908 over

VOLUME 29 | NUMBER 11 | SUPPLEMENT TO NOVEMBER 2015 | S205

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 S206

New Physical Training Concept in NORNAVSOC

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the

TABLE 1. Design of linear and nonlinear training protocols.*†

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7

LP (3 mo 3 2)
Hypertrophy block 3 3 10RM “Push” Long run Individual 3 3 10RM “Pull” 3 3 10RM WB Individual Rest
(1–3 wk)
Strength block 3–4 3 5RM “Push” Power Short interval 3–4 3 5RM WB/ 3–4 3 5RM Individual Rest
(1–3 wk) individual “Pull”
TM

Maximum strength block 5, 3, 1 + 6–8RM Power Short interval Individual 5, 3, 1 + 6–8RM Individual Rest
(1–3 wk)
Mixed endurance block Short interval/pyramid Tempo/long interval 3 3 10RM WB Long Run/individual Sprint/shuffle run Individual Rest
(1–3 wk) interval
(between all strength
blocks)
NLP (6 mo)
Strength block 12–20RM/CC 3 3 5–6RM Long interval 3 3 10RM/individual 3–5 3 1–5RM Individual Rest
(1–3 wk)
Endurance block Long run Short interval/Pyramid 3 3 6–10RM WB Individual Long interval Individual Rest
(1–3 wk) interval
Deload week (typical)† CC and stability Swimming Circuit WB Stability and mobility Long run Individual Rest

*LP = linear periodization; RM = repetition maximum; WB = whole-body exercise; NLP = nonlinear periodization; CC = close combat.
†Deload week after every 4th–6th week during NLP, easy day during LP (long run + stretching) (long intervals: 2–6 minutes; short intervals: ,2 minutes; long run: 30–60 minutes;
tempo: 2 3 8–10 minutes); power indicates jumps and medicine ball.

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

TABLE 2. Baseline values and percent change in all variables and magnitude-based inferences for the changes and
for the difference in the changes.*†z§k

Baseline LP (0–6 mo) NLP (6–12 mo)

% Change 6 SD % Change 6 SD
Variable Mean 6 SD (695% CI) Inference (95% CI) Inference

Strength
Bench-press (kg) 104 6 11 2 6 6 (3) Trivial* 2 6 5 (3) Trivial*
Leg-press (kg) 300 6 38 21 6 15 (6) Trivial** 2 6 13 (6) Trivial*
Pull-ups (reps†) 9 6 4 24 6 31 (17) Small[*** 1 6 20 (11) Trivial**
Brutal-bench (reps) 14 6 3 25 6 16 (9) Mod[**** 15 6 17 (9) Mod[***
Speed/power
Medball toss (mz) 3.9 6 0.4 6 6 9 (4) Mod[*** 22 6 7 (3) SmallY*
CMJ (cm) 41.4 6 3.1 21 6 5 (2) Trivial** 2 6 5 (3) Trivial*
Standing LJ (cm) 234 6 16 3 6 6 (3) Small[** 3 6 4 (3) Small[**
Agility (s) 5.2 6 0.2 22 6 4 (2) Small[** 21 6 3 (2) Trivial*
Endurance
V_ O2max (ml$kg21$min21) 60.0 6 4.2 2 6 3 (1) Small[* 23 6 4 (2) SmallY**
3000 m run (min) 11.1 6 1 0 6 4 (2) Trivial* 21 6 4 (2) Trivial*
EVAC test (s) 49 6 8 2 6 12 (7) Trivial* 210 6 8 (5) Mod[***
Mobility
FMS (0-24§) 18 6 2 19 6 9 (6) Large[**** 1 6 7 (5) Trivial*
Body composition
Body mass (kg) 83 6 6 21 6 3 (2) Trivial** 1 6 3 (1) Trivial**
Fat (%) 11.5 6 2.7 25 6 31 (13) Small[* 23 6 24 (11) Trivial*
LBM (%) 51 6 2 1 6 3 (2) Small[* 0 6 2 (1) Trivial*

*LBM = lean body mass; LJ = long jump; LP = linear periodization; NLP = nonlinear periodization; CI = confidence interval; CMJ =
countermovement jump; FMS = functional movement screen.
†Repetitions performed with 11.25 kg.
zMeter with a 9.0 kg medicine ball.
§Points.
kN = 22; data log-transformed and adjusted to baseline means of the variable; 95% confidence intervals for the mean changes
indicated in parentheses. Asterisks indicate effects clear at the 5% level (difference from baseline) and likelihood that the true effect is
substantial or trivial, as follows: *[possible (25–75%), **[likely (75–95%), ***[very likely (95–99.5%), and ****[most likely (.99.5%).
A likely clear effect is significant at p # 0.05 level.

the top side of the bench and ankles secured). The subjects test (EVAC) was developed. The participants first ran a 100
held on to a circular rope (length: 30 cm) located behind m course, and in the second lap, they picked up a dummy
their neck with 3 fingers from each hand (elbows and with a combat vest weighing 80 kg and dragged it through
shoulders flexed), and a successful repetition required that the same course while holding it with one hand in the vest
the elbows touched the knees. strap. The test was performed on an indoor rubber floor
Lower body power was measured during a maximal and validated against 300 m runs and the Wingate test (1).
vertical countermovement jump (CMJ) on a force plate Mobility was assessed with an 8-test version of the functional
(HUR Labs Oy, Tampere, Finland) and standing long-jump. movement screen (FMS) where diagonal lift was excluded (4).
Upper body power was measured with a kneeling 2-handed The same person performed the test at all time points.
medicine ball toss from the chest (9 kg, 20 pounds). Best Count of injuries was collected through self-report in
result out of the 3 trials was recorded. a retrospective manner at 6 and 12 months.
Agility was measured with a 5-10-5 agility test (13) using The subjects were previously familiar with bench-press,
photocells (Brower Timing Systems, Draper, Utah). The pull-ups, and the 3000 m run and were familiarized to some
subjects were given 2 trials to each side, and started ran- of the new tests (EVAC, standing long-jump, and agility).
domly by choice to left or right. The average of the best 2 However, they were not familiarized to CMJ, PowerUB,
trials was recorded. V_ O2max, FMS, and brutal-bench. The coefficient of variation
Aerobic capacity was assessed with a V_ O2max running (CV) is not known for PowerUB, brutal-bench, or FMS in
test on a treadmill (2) and with a 3000 m run on a track. As this instance, but CMJ and V_ O2max have shown a CV of
a combat-like measure of anaerobic capacity, an evacuation 3–5% when testing different populations in our laboratory.

VOLUME 29 | NUMBER 11 | SUPPLEMENT TO NOVEMBER 2015 | S207

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 New Physical Training Concept in NORNAVSOC

Training Protocols NLP, the week after 2 blocks (4 to 6 weeks) was easy
Subjects trained 5 to 6 sessions per week, with 3 to 4 (1 maintenance strength and endurance session at 60–80%
common sessions focusing on the main capacity of the block of HRmax, respectively, and stretching, swimming, stability,
(duration of 1 to 3 weeks with main focus on endurance or easy running the other days).
strength based on the work schedule), 1 session to maintain
Statistical Analyses
the other capacity, and 1 or 2 individual sessions (Table 1). A
All effects were calculated in a spreadsheet adjusting for
15-minute warm-up was performed before every session
baseline value (6). Changes are presented as mean relative
starting with foam roll, 5 minutes running or rowing, and
change (in %) 6 SD, with their magnitudes and inferences
finishing with about 6 movement preparation and stability
(Table 2). Probabilistic magnitude-based inferences (7) were
exercises for shoulders, hips, and spine for injury prevention
used to evaluate the chance of effects being trivial, beneficial,
reasons. The preparation exercises were selected based on
or harmful with their respective uncertainties using the 95%
the results from FMS and their injury location.
confidence interval (see Table 2 for inferences). Magnitude of
The LP consisted of 2 mesocycles of 3 months that started
all standardized effects was calculated (post-pre/SD of pre)
with a hypertrophy block (3 3 10RM, push-session: e.g.,
and evaluated with the scale suggested by Reference (7).
squat, Bulgarian squat, dumbbell chest-press, shoulder-press,
Individual progress was considered clear when p # 0.05.
triceps press, and pull-session: e.g., deadlift, Romanian dead-
lift, pull-ups, standing row and biceps curl), followed by
RESULTS
a block of mixed endurance training (sprints or shuffle run
at 90–100% of HRmax; short or pyramid intervals, 20 sec- During LP, there was a large beneficial effect on FMS and
onds to 2 minutes at 80–90%; long intervals, 2–6 minutes at small-to-moderate improvements in pull-ups, brutal-bench,
70–80%; a long run at 60–70% or individual training). Next, PowerUB, standing long-jump, agility, V_ O2max, and muscle
a block of typical strength training (4 3 5RM, push and pull) mass. In addition, a small reduction in fat percent occurred
was completed before a new block of mixed endurance was (Table 2). With subsequent NLP, most changes were trivial,
introduced. Finally, a maximum strength block (5, 3, 1RM but there were moderate improvements in brutal-bench and
on base exercises such as clean, squat, deadlift, pull-ups, and EVAC, together with a small increase in standing long-jump.
bench-press, while 6–8RM were used on assistance exercises Furthermore, a small decrease in PowerUB and V_ O2max
such as standing row and shoulder-press) was completed. occurred.
Cleans and jumping were included once per week during All assessments were above baseline at 12 months except
the strength and maximum strength blocks. Then, a similar for V_ O2max (22 6 5%, small, possibly negative), and the
mesocycle was performed once more. The maintenance operators with the lowest baseline improved the most. In
endurance session was typically short intervals (1–2 minutes addition, there was a small decrease in self-reported count
at 80–90% of HRmax), while the maintenance strength ses- of injuries during LP (26%) with a larger decrease during
sion was typically hypertrophy (3 3 10RM in front squats, NLP (230%).
deadlift, dumbbell chest-press, standing row, dumbbell The operators who during LP were strength focused (n =
shoulder-press, pull-ups, back-raise, and brutal-bench). 8) clearly improved bench-press (5 6 4%), brutal-bench (23 6
Throughout LP, 1 day per week was easy (70–80% of 17%), pull-ups (66 6 55%), and FMS (23 6 11%). Those
1RM during strength block or a 40-minute long run at aiming to increase stability and mobility (n = 5) improved
60–70% of HRmax during endurance block). brutal-bench (31 6 21%) and FMS (24 6 12%, p = 0.06).
In the following 6 months, an alternating endurance and There was a tendency for the group focusing on increasing
strength-blocked NLP was performed. A typical strength aerobic capacity (n = 5) towards higher V_ O2max (3 6 5%, ns).
block lasted 1 to 3 weeks and consisted of a muscular Fewer individual changes occurred during NLP, but the
endurance or anaerobic session (circuit training with 12–20 operators focusing on improving strength (n = 5) increased
repetitions and 30-second breaks, but sometimes, a close brutal-bench (20 6 19%), standing long-jump (5 6 2%), and
combat training was performed when required by work EVAC (6 6 3%), whereas the operators individually working
plan), a strength session (5–6RM), a power session with their speed and power (n = 4) had a reduction in
(1–5RM), and a hypertrophy session (8–10RM). The V_ O2max (23 6 1%).
strength block used a split method (2 upper body and 2
lower body sessions per week) to ensure proper recovery. DISCUSSION
The endurance block also lasted 1 to 3 weeks and followed This study supports the beneficial effects of periodized and
a similar daily undulating system with short intervals (20 individualized training. Improvements were mainly trivial or
seconds–2 minutes at 80–90% of HRmax), long runs small, but still considered important among SOF operators
(40–60 minutes at 60–70%), long intervals (2–6 minutes at with an initially good physical fitness level. Larger changes
70–80%), and a sprint/shuffle run (90–100%). The mainte- were, however, expected in leg-press due to more squat
nance session consisted of 3 3 6210 RM with exercises training, whereas, less time was spend on bench-press
covering the whole body as described above. During the compared with previous training regimes. Importantly, and
the TM

S208 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

in accordance with the aim of the individualized training facilitates and easy week when necessary). However, it is still
sessions, the less fit operators increased the focused capaci- crucial that facilities with proper strength training equipment
ties more than the operators meeting the work demand at are prioritized. Because of the traditional training methods,
baseline. Basic military training has been shown to reduce many military camps do not have a proper gym, which
V_ O2max by 3% in initially endurance-trained soldiers (.60 makes it difficult to build the strength and power needed (9).
ml$kg$21$min21) (3). Consequently, it was no surprise that Second, compared with previous unit training, every block
the focus on strength training at the cost of less aerobic and session now had a clear and specific goal (8), and this
training was insufficient to maintain V_ O2max in the best seemed to have positive motivational effects. Special Opera-
aerobically trained operators. tion Forces operators have much information to digest, and
The study design makes it hard to compare LP with training is a place to get a time-out. Hence, not to focus on
NLP, mainly not only because LP was preceding NLP but increasing everything simultaneously seemed beneficial. Fur-
also because some variables were not matched between thermore, strength or endurance was maintained with 1
protocols; e.g., different training volume and work assign- moderate-to-hard session per week (15), and that, the resid-
ments, and some confounding factors were not well ual training effect seems to last up to 3 weeks (8). At last, not
controlled; e.g., traveling, sleep, and nutrition. Ideally, being too heavily or overtrained is extremely important for
these factors should have been matched or controlled, the warfighter (9). The block training may help avoid this
but the nature of the SOF operators’ work made this chal- because different systems are trained over shorter periods, but
lenging. Therefore, comparisons with other studies are also easy weeks or session was also included to be safe. In that
difficult (3,15). However, some practical experiences are relation, another observation was that the easy training ses-
worth mentioning. First, many had previously trained the sions during LP often became too hard. The mental readjust-
typical 8–12RM and less maximal “1RM-training.” Hence, ment from a hard to an easy session seemed more difficult
the operators responded well to the maximal strength than from a hard to an easy week. Hence, we suggest using
block during LP. Of negative experiences, there were easy weeks rather than easy sessions for operators.
problems with adherence to the LP. All operators followed The individualization of training through capacity analyses
the same common protocol, but some lost a block or 1 was effective in making the operators’ overall capacity visible
week due to traveling, courses, or exercise. Consequently, and motivated them to train directly towards improving their
there was a potential risk of injury when an operator lost weakest capacity. In addition, the risk of injuries is probably
a whole block and continued on the program with the reduced by focusing on improving weak capacities rather than
other from the unit (one example could be the loss of improving a good one (11), less training is needed to improve
a 5RM block and moving directly from 10RM, with endur- a weakness than improving a strength, and by having a good
ance in between, to the maximum strength block). Further- general fitness level, one can train and increase relatively quick
more, a LP is originally intended for athletes who prepare towards a specific capacity needed for a mission.
for competitions (3), and it is questionable that operators There were several limitations to the study in addition to
need to, or should, peak their performance level at certain those already mentioned. First, without a control group, we
time points. cannot know whether it is the protocols or only the planned
The NLP was easier to adjust to the work schedule, and training, or the variation in volume, intensity, or exercises,
the operators liked the daily variation in the program. There could potentially cause the positive effects (3,10). A cross-
were fewer improvements during the NLP, probably because over design would have been preferable. Many new tests
of the initial positive effect of the LP program, but anaerobic were implemented (brutal-bench, PowerUB, FMS, CMJ,
capacity and power tended to increase. These improvements leg-press, V_ O2max, and EVAC), and there could be possible
probably occurred due to a higher frequency of maximum learning effects during the LP (15). The CV of some of the
and Olympic lifts with a higher stress on the neurological tests could be larger than the shown improvements or de-
system (10), but also more local muscular endurance. Impor- creases. Hence, the results could be random, but baseline
tantly, there were decreases in self-reported counts of injuries was controlled for in all analyses to correct for the phenom-
during both LP and NLP; so, the program seemed success- enon of regression to the mean. However, the well-known
ful. Nonlinear periodization had the largest decrease, but this pull-up test increased much during LP, whereas performance
could be related to time and not to the protocol itself. How- in the new EVAC test only increased during the second
ever, the operators reported increases in shoulder injuries period with NLP. Therefore, the protocols probably affected
during NLP, and the likely reason was the inclusion of more different outcomes, and practically, that means that they can
overhead lifting (snatch, jerk, etc.), and not the increase in be used differently. An LP can be used when continuous
frequency of heavy weights. training is possible (6 weeks or more), up to a planned
Other experiences were that block training had several deployment or to increase an individual capacity, while an
positive properties. First and foremost, block training enabled NLP can be used under a deployment, in periods when one
the adjustment of the program into the busy work plan of the must stay alert (e.g., readiness) or when the individual goal is
Norwegian Navy SOF operators (blocks based on access to to maintain several physical capacities simultaneously.

VOLUME 29 | NUMBER 11 | SUPPLEMENT TO NOVEMBER 2015 | S209

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 New Physical Training Concept in NORNAVSOC

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS 4. Frohm, A, Heijne, A, Kowalski, J, Svensson, P, and Myklebust, G. A

nine-test screening battery for athletes: A reliability study. Scand J
Knowing the physical demands and organization is impor- Med Sci Sports 22: 306–315, 2012.
tant, and therefore closeness to the personnel should be 5. Harries, SK, Lubans, DR, and Callister, R. Systematic review and
highlighted when training programs for SOF operators are meta-analysis of linear and undulating periodized resistance training
programs in muscular strength. J Strength Cond Res 29: 1113–1125,
developed. It is also crucial that the leadership prioritizes 2015.
physical training and supports necessary changes. The study
6. Hopkins, WG. Spreadsheets for analysis of controlled trials, with
emphasizes quality training and that both blocked LP and adjustment for a subject characteristic. Sports sci 10: 46–50, 2006.
NLP are beneficial, but probably for different reasons. When 7. Hopkins, WG, Marshall, SW, Batterham, AM, and Hanin, J.
possible, individual feedback and training should be facili- Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise
tated because this motivated the operators to improve their science. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41: 3–13, 2009.
weakest capacity. At last, the use of block training custom- 8. Issurin, V. Block periodization versus traditional training theory: A
review. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 48: 65–75, 2008.
ized to the work schedule, together with a flexible period-
9. Kraemer, WJ and Szivak, TK. Strength training for the warfighter. J
ization (9), may solve the continuity problem observed for Strength Cond Res 26: S107–S118, 2012.
the training conducted by the investigated SOF unit. 10. Rhea, MR, Ball, SD, Phillips, WT, and Burkett, LN. A comparison of
linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS and intensity for strength. J Strength Cond Res 16: 250–255, 2002.
The authors thank Norwegian Navy Special Operations 11. Rosendal, L, Langberg, H, Skov-Jensen, A, and Kjear, M. Incidence
Command (NORNAVSOC) for taking initiative and financ- of Injury and physical performance adaptations during military
training. Clin J Sport Med 13: 157–163, 2003.
ing the project. They also thank Anders Aandstad, Håvard
12. Santtila, M, Kyröläinen, H, and Häkkinen, K. Changes in
Hamarsland, Geir Holden, Hege Østgård, Andreas Angelt- maximal and explosive strength, electromyography, and muscle
veit, and Mats Johansen for their help with assessment. thickness of lower and upper extremities induced by combined
strength and endurance training in soldiers. J Strength Cond Res
23: 1300–1308, 2009.
REFERENCES 13. Sawyer, DT, Ostarello, JZ, Suess, EA, and Dempsey, M.
1. Angeltveit, A, Paulsen, G, Solberg, PA, and Raastad, T. The validity, Relationship between football playing ability and selected
reliability and performance determinants of a new job-specific performance measures. J Strength Cond Res 16: 611–616, 2002.
anaerobic work capacity-test for Norwegian Special Operation 14. Simáo, R, Spineti, J, De Salles, B, Matta, T, Fernandes, L, Fleck, S,
Forces. J Strength Cond Res 1 June 2015. [Epub Ahead of Print]. Rhea, M, and Strom-Olsen, H. Comparison between nonlinear and
2. Dyrstad, SM, Soltvedt, R, and Hallén, J. Physical fitness and linear periodized resistance training: Hypertrophic and strength
physical training during Norwegian military training. Mil Med 171: effects. J Strength Cond Res 26: 1389–1395, 2012.
736–741, 2006. 15. Tan, B. Manipulating resistance training program variables to
3. Fleck, SJ. Periodized strength training: A critical review. J Strength optimize maximum strength in men: A review. J Strength Cond Res
Cond Res 13: 82–89, 1999. 13: 289–304, 1999.

the TM

S210 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.