Fitness and Body Composition Characteristics of Special Weapons and Tactics Team Members of Law Enforcement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The job demands of members in Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams of law enforcement agencies involve heavy exertion, yet it remains uncertain whether this special population has adequate fitness levels to sustain high intensity work efforts. PURPOSE: To examine the fitness and body composition characteristics of SWAT members. METHODS: Fourteen healthy men (mean ± SD; age = 33.1 ± 5.7 y, height = 180.7 ± 5.4 cm, mass = 90.6 ± 10.0 kg) from SWAT teams of local law enforcement agencies completed five health-related fitness assessments. These included 1) a total body dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scan to determine lean body mass (LBM), fat mass (FM), bone mass (BM), percent body fat (%body fat), bone mineral density (BMD), and a BMD T-score; 2) a one-repetition maximum (1RM) test of upper body strength on a bench press; 3) a graded exercise test on a treadmill to measure maximum oxygen uptake (V[Combining Dot Above]O2max); 4) a YMCA submaximal bench press test to measure upper body muscular endurance; and 5) the Canadian trunk forward flexion test to measure hamstring flexibility. RESULTS: Participants had an LBM of 70.1 ± 7.2 kg, FM of 17.2 ± 5.5 kg, BM of ± 0.6 kg, %body fat of 18.7 ± 4.7%, a BMD of 1.3 ± 0.1 g·cm-2, and a T-Score for BMD of 1.06 ± 1.15. Absolute and relative 1RM on the bench press were 120.9 ± 14.5 kg and 1.35 ± 0.22 kg·kg-1, respectively. V[Combining Dot Above]O2max was 47.9 ± 5.5 ml·kg-1·min-1. Participants completed 52 ± 15 repetitions on the YMCA submaximal bench press test. Distance reached on the Canadian trunk forward flexion test was 30.7 ± 5.7 cm. CONCLUSION: According to ACSM normative data for 30-39-year-old males, participants’ body fat percentage is classified as fair. According to normative data from the World Health Organization, this population displayed a higher-than-average BMD T-score compared to other 30-year-old men. Participants demonstrated very good to excellent levels of cardiorespiratory fitness, muscular strength, muscular endurance, and flexibility, suggesting their fitness levels are appropriate for the vigorous exertions involved in this occupation. This information is beneficial for fitness professionals who train the tactical population. Partially Supported by NIGMS Training Grant GM083883
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".