军队中的体能测试--合理的多样性还是随机性?

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Andrzej Tomczak
{"title":"军队中的体能测试--合理的多样性还是随机性?","authors":"Andrzej Tomczak","doi":"10.1093/milmed/usad504","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this article, I present my views on the diversified approaches to assess the physical fitness of soldiers within selected armies worldwide. I discussed the related common features and paradoxes associated with these approaches. For the comparative analysis, national diversity was taken into account and subjective selection of the physical fitness tests conducted in the armies of the United States, Finland, Germany, India, China, Israel, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and Poland was done. An analysis of the physical fitness tests reveals significant variations, despite the purpose of the assessment being the same, that is, to evaluate a soldier's physical preparedness for combat tasks. Based on the analysis, I categorize the variation in physical fitness tests of soldiers at four levels: (1) single-system function tests (e.g., push-ups, sit-ups) vs. multi-system tests (obstacle courses), (2) considering health aspects vs. not considering health aspects during physical fitness tests, (3) motor components vs. coordination components (e.g.,balance), and (4) tests differentiated by gender and age vs.tests not differentiated by gender and age. In conclusion, I am in favor of multi-system tests, comprised of obstacle courses mirroring potential situations in combat tasks. In my opinion, multi-system tests are superior compared to single-system function tests since they enable a comprehensive assessment of effort, coordination, and mental predispositions necessary for functioning in real-life conditions. I also support physical fitness evaluation that is not differentiated based on a soldier's gender and age, as there is no logical justification for such distinctions.</p>","PeriodicalId":18638,"journal":{"name":"Military Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"309-312"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Physical Fitness Tests in the Army-Legitimate Diversity or Randomness?\",\"authors\":\"Andrzej Tomczak\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/milmed/usad504\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In this article, I present my views on the diversified approaches to assess the physical fitness of soldiers within selected armies worldwide. I discussed the related common features and paradoxes associated with these approaches. For the comparative analysis, national diversity was taken into account and subjective selection of the physical fitness tests conducted in the armies of the United States, Finland, Germany, India, China, Israel, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and Poland was done. An analysis of the physical fitness tests reveals significant variations, despite the purpose of the assessment being the same, that is, to evaluate a soldier's physical preparedness for combat tasks. Based on the analysis, I categorize the variation in physical fitness tests of soldiers at four levels: (1) single-system function tests (e.g., push-ups, sit-ups) vs. multi-system tests (obstacle courses), (2) considering health aspects vs. not considering health aspects during physical fitness tests, (3) motor components vs. coordination components (e.g.,balance), and (4) tests differentiated by gender and age vs.tests not differentiated by gender and age. In conclusion, I am in favor of multi-system tests, comprised of obstacle courses mirroring potential situations in combat tasks. In my opinion, multi-system tests are superior compared to single-system function tests since they enable a comprehensive assessment of effort, coordination, and mental predispositions necessary for functioning in real-life conditions. I also support physical fitness evaluation that is not differentiated based on a soldier's gender and age, as there is no logical justification for such distinctions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18638,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Military Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"309-312\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Military Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usad504\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Military Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usad504","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在这篇文章中,我就全球选定军队中评估士兵体能的多样化方法提出了自己的看法。我讨论了与这些方法相关的共同特征和悖论。在进行比较分析时,考虑到了国家的多样性,并对美国、芬兰、德国、印度、中国、以色列、荷兰、瑞典、瑞士、英国和波兰军队进行的体能测试进行了主观选择。对体能测试的分析表明,尽管评估的目的是相同的,即评估士兵执行作战任务的体能准备情况,但它们之间存在着很大的差异。根据分析,我将士兵体能测试的差异分为四个层次:(1) 单系统功能测试(如俯卧撑、仰卧起坐)与多系统测试(障碍赛);(2) 在体能测试中考虑健康因素与不考虑健康因素;(3) 运动部分与协调部分(如平衡);(4) 按性别和年龄区分的测试与不按性别和年龄区分的测试。总之,我赞成多系统测试,包括反映战斗任务中潜在情况的障碍课程。我认为,多系统测试优于单系统功能测试,因为多系统测试可以全面评估在现实条件下工作所需的努力、协调和心理倾向。我还支持不根据士兵的性别和年龄来区分体能评估,因为这种区分没有任何逻辑依据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Physical Fitness Tests in the Army-Legitimate Diversity or Randomness?

In this article, I present my views on the diversified approaches to assess the physical fitness of soldiers within selected armies worldwide. I discussed the related common features and paradoxes associated with these approaches. For the comparative analysis, national diversity was taken into account and subjective selection of the physical fitness tests conducted in the armies of the United States, Finland, Germany, India, China, Israel, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and Poland was done. An analysis of the physical fitness tests reveals significant variations, despite the purpose of the assessment being the same, that is, to evaluate a soldier's physical preparedness for combat tasks. Based on the analysis, I categorize the variation in physical fitness tests of soldiers at four levels: (1) single-system function tests (e.g., push-ups, sit-ups) vs. multi-system tests (obstacle courses), (2) considering health aspects vs. not considering health aspects during physical fitness tests, (3) motor components vs. coordination components (e.g.,balance), and (4) tests differentiated by gender and age vs.tests not differentiated by gender and age. In conclusion, I am in favor of multi-system tests, comprised of obstacle courses mirroring potential situations in combat tasks. In my opinion, multi-system tests are superior compared to single-system function tests since they enable a comprehensive assessment of effort, coordination, and mental predispositions necessary for functioning in real-life conditions. I also support physical fitness evaluation that is not differentiated based on a soldier's gender and age, as there is no logical justification for such distinctions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Military Medicine
Military Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
393
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Military Medicine is the official international journal of AMSUS. Articles published in the journal are peer-reviewed scientific papers, case reports, and editorials. The journal also publishes letters to the editor. The objective of the journal is to promote awareness of federal medicine by providing a forum for responsible discussion of common ideas and problems relevant to federal healthcare. Its mission is: To increase healthcare education by providing scientific and other information to its readers; to facilitate communication; and to offer a prestige publication for members’ writings.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信