Warning: mkdir(): Permission denied in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 81

Warning: fopen(upload/ip_log/ip_log_2024-11.txt): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 83

Warning: fwrite() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 84
A physical fitness profile of state highway patrol officers by gender and age
Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Ann Occup Environ Med : Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search
Advanced Search
mobile menu button

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Ann Occup Environ Med > Volume 29; 2017 > Article
Research Article A physical fitness profile of state highway patrol officers by gender and age
J. Jay Dawes1,2, Robin M. Orr2, Richard R. Flores1, Robert G. Lockie3, Charlie Kornhauser4, Ryan Holmes4
Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2017;29:16.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40557-017-0173-0
Published online: June 1, 2017

1Department of Health Sciences, University of Colorado Colorado Springs, 1420 Austin Bluffs Pkwy, Colorado Springs, CO 80918 USA

2Tactical Research Unit, Bond University, Robina, Gold Coast, 4226 QLD Australia

3Department of Kinesiology, Cal State Fullerton University, 800 N. State College Blvd., Fullerton, CA 92834 USA

4Colorado State Highway Patrol, Training Academy, 700 Kipling Street, Lakewood, CO 80215 USA

• Received: March 31, 2017   • Accepted: May 24, 2017

© The Author(s). 2017

Open AccessThis 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.

  • 295 Views
  • 1 Download
  • 86 Web of Science
  • 84 Crossref
  • 102 Scopus
prev next
Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF

  • Background
    Law enforcement officers perform physically demanding tasks that generally remain constant as they age. However, there is limited population-specific research on age, gender and normative fitness values for law enforcement officers as opposed to those of the general population. The purpose of this study was to profile the current level of fitness for highway patrol officers based on age and gender and provide percentile ranking charts unique to this population.
  • Methods
    Retrospective data for six-hundred and thirty-one state troopers (♂ = 597; mean age = 39.52 ± 8.09 yrs; mean height = 180.72 ± 7.06 cm; mean weight = 93.66 ± 15.72 kg: ♀ = 34; mean age = 36.20 ± 8.45 years; mean height = 169.62 ± 6.65 cm; mean weight = 74.02 ± 14.91 kg) collected in 2014–2015 were provided for analysis. Data included demographic (age), anthropometric (height and weight), and select fitness (VJ, push-ups, sit ups, isometric leg/back strength, isometric grip strength and 20 m shuttle run test) information.
  • Results
    There were generally significant differences between genders for all anthropometric and fitness measures, most consistently in the 30–39 age groups. While there was a general decline in push-up and shuttle run performance in female officers, these results did not reach significance. For male officers, there were significant differences between the 20–29 year-old age group and the 30–39, 40–49 and 50–59 year-old groups with the younger group performing better in VJ, push-ups, sit ups and number of shuttle runs than the older groups. There were no differences in isometric grip strength and leg back dynamometer measures between age groups.
  • Conclusion
    Male officers tended to be heavier, taller and perform significantly better than female officers in all measures bar sit-ups. While there appeared to be a general decline in certain physical characteristics across genders with increasing age the notable differences were between the youngest male age group (20–29 years) and all other male age groups with a potential reason being the lack of fitness requirements once typically younger cadets leave the academy. Percentile rankings for the assessed measures were found to have elements very specific to this population when compared to the general population and those provided in this paper can be used to inform future profiling and research in this population.
  • Keywords:

    Keywords

    Police; Law enforcement; Occupational fitness
Law enforcement officers (LEOs) can be called upon, at a moment’s notice, at any hour of the day to serve the citizens they have sworn to protect [1]. Provision of this service can see LEOs perform physically and mentally demanding tasks in an occupation that is often spent in a sedentary position punctuated with bursts of physical exertion [1, 2]. These demanding tasks may include, but are not limited to, pursuing and apprehending a suspect, forcing entry during a search warrant, close encounter hand-to-hand combat, lifting heavy objects, and maneuvering quickly on foot to a situation [1]. As such, performance of these tasks require the officer to possess an adequate base of cardiorespiratory and muscular fitness in order to perform these duties in an effective manner [3]. In addition to these abrupt physical exertions, LEOs can spend a good portion of their work shifts sitting in a patrol car or at a desk completing reports [1]. The combination of this sedentary behavior, and potential for the associated negative impact on physical fitness, coupled with near maximal exertions may increase ones risk for injury, morbidity, and mortality. It is therefore not surprising that LEOs have been found to be twice as likely to suffer from cardiovascular disease as the general population [4]. Therefore, the need to attain and maintain physical fitness is imperative to an officer’s overall health and ability to perform job-tasks safely and effectively throughout their career [1]. Furthermore, it is suggested that LEOs need to be more physically fit than the general population [5].
Spitler et al. [3] measured and evaluated oxygen uptake, body composition, and muscular strength, endurance and power for 12 police officers. The researchers discovered that the officers displayed average to above average rankings in health and physical fitness when compared to age and gender based norms in their respective age groups [3]. While the small sample size in this study limits inferences to the larger law enforcement population, this work is supported by other research [6, 7]. For example, a study by Dawes et al. [7] observed that LEOs generally maintained their push-up ability as they aged, notably increasing their capability above that of the general population age comparative norms. In this study increases in percentage of body fat, which increased with age, was the most strongly negatively correlated (r = -.540, p < .001) factor for push-up performance decline as opposed to age alone (p = .330). There is however conflicting research. Sorensen et al. [1] found that Finnish LEOs decreased significantly decreased in push-up ability over a 15-year period (mean difference -3.4, p < .001) as well as VO2max, pull up and sit up performance. Furthermore, Sorensen et al. [1] suggested that high levels of stress and a lack of physical fitness in LEOs may lead to a decline in health and fitness over the course of their career.
Acknowledging these conflicting findings, it is imperative to appreciate that as an officer ages the physical demands of patrolling and performing essential job tasks generally remain constant. As such, regardless of age, maintenance of fitness is critical to ensure safety for the officer, their teammates, and the public [8, 9]. On this basis, minimal research has examined the physical and physiological characteristics of police officers with a large enough sample size to establish normative, or reference, data within this population.
Establishing population-specific normative values will allow for the comparison of LEO officers to the general population and may also provide greater insight into population-related differences in fitness. Furthermore, through establishing normative values, greater insight for developing strength and conditioning programs to improve, or maintain, fitness over the course of an officer’s career can be gained. Therefore, the purpose of this investigation was to profile the current level of fitness for highway patrol officers based on age and gender and provide percentile ranking charts unique to this population.
Retrospective data for six-hundred and thirty-one state troopers (♂ = 597; mean age = 39.52 ± 8.09 years; mean height = 180.72 ± 7.06 cm; mean weight = 93.66 ± 15.72 kg: ♀ = 34; mean age = 36.20 ± 8.45 years; mean height = 169.62 ± 6.65 cm; mean weight = 74.02 ± 14.91 kg) were provided for analysis. This data were collected in 2014–2015 as part of the agencies normal yearly fitness assessment. Prior to the analysis, approval for the use of the data was obtained from the University of Colorado Colorado Springs Institutional Review Board (IRB 15-074) for human subjects and the Bond University Human Research Ethics Committee (RO 1927).
This data included demographic (age) and anthropometric (height and weight) information as well as select fitness measures (VJ, push-ups, sit ups, isometric leg/back strength, isometric grip strength and 20 m shuttle run test), and was collected by the state patrol training staff.
Age, height and weight
Age (yrs), height (in) and weight (lbs) measurements for incumbents were self-reported by the state troopers. All imperial measures were subsequently converted to metric values for analysis.
Vertical jump
Vertical jump (VJ) height provides an indirect measure of lower-body power [10], and thus features in many testing batteries for LEOs [2, 11–15]. VJ height was measured using a Just Jump (ProBotics Inc, Huntsville, Al) electrical contact operated system. The Just Jump Mat is a 27-in. x 27-in. mat that calculates VJ height by measuring vertical displacement time. Vertical jump height for this device was calculated by measuring the amount of time the feet are not in contact with the mat. All troopers were instructed to step on the mat, and when ready perform a countermovement arm swing and jump as high as possible. This score was used to determine the VJ height of each trooper. The best of 3 attempts were taken and maximal jump height was recorded to the nearest 0.5 in. before being converted into metric units.
1-Minute push-ups
The 1-min push-up test is commonly completed by law enforcement officers and provides a measure of endurance for the upper-body muscles [11–14, 16]. This test also provides an indication of relative strength and the ability to move the body weight [17, 18]. In this test, all troopers had been required to begin the test in the standard “up” position with the body rigid and straight, the hands positioned slightly wider than shoulder-width apart and the fingers pointed forward. A partner then placed a fist on the floor directly under the individual’s chest. On the “go” command, the tester began the stopwatch and the participant would bend their elbows, lowering themselves until their chest was in contact with their partner’s fist and then extend the elbows until back in the “up” position. The troopers then proceeded to perform as many push-ups as possible in the time allotted using this technique. Troopers were allowed to rest in the straight-arm position, as long a neutral trunk position was maintained. The test was terminated when a trooper was unable to perform this movement with proper technique, or when the one-minute time limit expired.
1-Minute sit-ups
All troopers were required to begin the assessment lying in a supine position, with the knees bent, feet flat on the ground and the arms positioned in front of the body with arms wrapped across the chest and each hand on the opposite shoulder. Once in position the participant will flex the trunk, elevating the shoulders off the floor until the elbows touch the knees. During this assessment each trooper had a partner anchor their feet in place to assist in keeping the feet flat on the floor throughout the exercise movement. On the “go” command, the tester began the stopwatch and the participant began the assessment. The troopers then proceeded to perform as many sit-ups as possible in 1-min using this technique.
Isometric leg/back strength
Although potentially not as precise an isometric mid-thigh pull on a force plate, the leg/back chain dynamometer does provide the advantage of being less expensive, more efficient, and easily transportable, and still capable of providing quantitative data [19]. This assessment has been used as a measure of strength in athletic populations [20]. Considering this, isometric a leg/back chain dynamometer (Medico Inc., Phoenix, Az.) was used to measure the strength of the legs and lower back. The chain, which connects the scale on one end and a handle on the other, was adjusted so that the trooper’s knees were bent at approximately 110°. While maintaining good spinal posture, straight arms and feet flat on the base of the dynamometer, the troopers pulled the handle upward as hard as possible by extending through the hips and knees. This dynamometer was calibrated within .05 kg using an industrial portable digital hanging scale prior to use. Troopers were allowed a single trial and their score to the nearest pound was recorded.
Grip strength
Dominant hand grip strength was measured using a handgrip dynamometer (Takei Scientific Instruments, Japan). The dynamometer was adjusted so that the base of the first metacarpal and the middle four fingers were in contact with the handle. Troopers were then instructed to squeeze the handle as hard as possible. One attempt was allowed and the sore was recorded to the nearest kilogram.
20 Meter Multi-Stage Fitness Test (20 m-MSFT)
Troopers were required to run back and forth between two lines marked on the ground spaced exactly 20 meters apart. The speed of running for this test is standardized by pre-recorded auditory cues (beeps). The initial speed for the test is set at 8.5 km/h and increases by 0.5 km/h with each additional stage. This test is scored according to the final stage and shuttle (e.g. Stage 5.5) the participant is able to achieve before being unable to run at the speed required. The test was terminated when the participant was unable to reach the next line twice in a row in accordance with the auditory cues. Final scores by stage and shuttle were converted for total number of shuttles completed.
Data management and statistical analysis
The retrospective data were divided into five separate age groups in order to compare trooper fitness scores on push-ups, sit-ups, grip strength and aerobic fitness to age and gender norms in the general population. These groups consisted of 1: 20–29 years. (n = 89); Group 2: 30–39 years. (n = 218); Group 3: 40–49 years. (n = 226); Group 4: 50–59 years. (n = 57); and Group 5: 60–69 (n = 5). The data were analyzed both by gender, to identify any gender specific differences, but also as pooled data to investigate absolute age based requirements regardless of gender. Using the SPSS 23.0 software package, a descriptive statistical analysis was conducted to determine mean fitness scores for the entire sample with independent samples t-tests used to compare results by gender and by gender within each age grouping. Additionally, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), with pairwise comparisons was used to compare mean differences in fitness scores between age categories within gender. If a significant difference between groups was found within the ANOVA, a Bonferroni post hoc adjustment was used to determine where the significance lay. The level of significance was set at p ≤ 0.01 to control for family-wise error. In addition, SPSS was used to create percentile charts for future comparison. Due to the small size of Group 5, the data from this group were excluded from statistical analysis and provided for future reference only.
Not all officers performed every fitness test due to individual injury status and willingness to participate. Descriptive data and all fitness tests for the entire sample and by gender are displayed in Table 1. As there were only 5 participants in Group 5 (male only) their data were removed for inferential analysis. While there were no significant differences between gender groups in age (p = 0.021) or sit up repetitions (p = 0.064), there were significant differences across all other measures (Table 1). When considered by age groups there were significant differences between genders with some exceptions. In the oldest group, 50–59 year olds, there were no significant differences between genders while in the 20–29 year and 40–49-year age groups there were no significant differences in sit up performance (p = 0.425 and p = 0.775 respectively), and shuttle run performance (p = 0.11 and p = 0.113 respectively). In addition, no significant differences between genders were noted in VO2 between the 40–49-year-old age group (p = 0.79). Of note, the only age group where there were significant differences between genders for all measures were the 30–39-year-old age group) (See Table 2).
Table 1
Descriptive data and fitness test results by gender
Measure Female officers Male officers
Age (yrs)
♀ = 34 ♂ = 597		 36.21 ± 8.45 39.52 ± 8.09
Weight (kg)
♀ = 31 ♂ = 587		 67.49 ± 25.62 91.99 ± 19.54a
Height (cm)
♀ = 33 ♂ = 588		 164.65 ± 29.82 177.98 ± 23.13a
Vertical Jump (cm.)
♀ = 33 ♂ = 588		 36.80 ± 5.69 50.74 ± 8.89a
Leg/Back Dynomometer (kgk ♀ = 33 ♂ = 592 116.53 ± 20.85 170.68 ± 37.46a
Grip (Kg)
♀ = 32 ♂ = 589		 37.875 ± 5.34 55.04 ± 7.77a
Push-ups (repetitions)
♀ = 29 ♂ = 582		 24.24 ± 11.63 39.09 ± 15.61a
Sit-ups (repetitions)
♀ = 33 ♂ = 583		 31.06 ± 9.52 34.46 ± 10.29
Shuttles (number)
♀ = 31 ♂ = 550		 26.19 ± 10.86 38.04 ± 19.87a
aSignificantly different from female officers at ≤ .001
Table 2
Descriptive data and fitness test results by gender stratified by age
Age Measure Group population Female officers Male officers
20–29
Group 1		 Weight (kg)
n = 89: ♀ = 6: ♂ = 83		 83.82 ± 16.38 69.55 ± 15.69* 84.85 ± 16.03
Height (cm)
n = 89: ♀ = 6: ♂ = 83		 179.14 ± 7.78 167.64 ± 7.18* 179.97 ± 7.17
Vertical Jump (cm.)
n = 88: ♀ = 6: ♂ = 82		 57.25 ± 9.68 40.46 ± 8.13* 58.47 ± 8.79
Grip (kg)
n = 87: ♀ = 6: ♂ = 81		 53.53 ± 8.49 37.67 ± 5.57* 54.67 ± 7.47
Push-ups (repetitions)
n = 88: ♀ = 6: ♂ = 82		 46.52 ± 15.07 30.50 ± 9.95* 47.70 ± 14.74
Sit-ups (repetitions)
n = 89: ♀ = 6: ♂ = 83		 40.98 ± 8.35 38.33 ± 10.56 41.17 ± 8.22
Leg/Back Dynomometer (kg)
n = 89: ♀ = 6: ♂ = 83		 169.50 ± 42.27 109.85 ± 26.69* 173.81 ± 39.94
Shuttles (number)
n = 86: ♀ = 6: ♂ = 80		 54.07 ± 21.00 33.33 ± 6.41 55.63 ± 20.90
30–39
Group 2		 Weight (kg)
n = 218: ♀ = 16: ♂ = 202		 89.32 ± 19.73 63.50 ± 28.87* 91.37 ± 17.35
Height (cm)
n = 218: ♀ = 16: ♂ = 202		 177.83 ± 22.46 159.23 ± 43.07* 179.30 ± 19.40
Vertical Jump (cm)
n = 215: ♀ = 16: ♂ = 199		 51.49 ± 9.02 36.00 ± 5.82* 52.73 ± 8.03†
Grip (kg)
n = 214: ♀ = 15: ♂ = 199		 54.65 ± 9.40 37.20 ± 4.51* 55.97 ± 8.30
Push-ups (repetitions)
n = 213: ♀ = 15: ♂ = 198		 39.44 ± 15.44 25.13 ± 13.05* 40.52 ± 14.96†
Sit-ups (repetitions)
n = 212: ♀ = 16: ♂ = 196		 36.04 ± 9.93 28.81 ± 10.51* 36.63 ± 9.67†
Leg/Back Dynomometer (kg)
n = 201: ♀ = 16: ♂ = 200		 166.56 ± 38.86 113.35 ± 12.22* 170.81 ± 37.08
Shuttles (number)
n = 201: ♀ = 15: ♂ = 186		 40.98 ± 19.84 25.93 ± 12.57* 42.19 ± 19.85†
40–49
Group 3		 Weight (kg)
n = 262: ♀ = 10: ♂ = 252		 94.34 ± 20.51 69.13 ± 27.64* 95.34 ± 19.59†
Height (cm)
n = 262: ♀ = 10: ♂ = 252		 176.02 ± 27.88 170.18 ± 5.35* 176.25 ± 28.38
Vertical Jump (cm.
n = 258: ♀ = 9: ♂ = 249		 47.80 ± 7.70 34.95 ± 5.13* 48.29 ± 7.37†
Grip (kg)
n = 259: ♀ = 9: ♂ = 250		 54.46 ± 8.01 36.89 ± 5.06* 55.09 ± 7.36
Push-ups (repetitions)
n = 252: ♀ = 6: ♂ = 246		 36.22 ± 15.53 16.83 ± 3.66* 36.70 ± 15.41†
Sit-ups (repetitions)
n = 256: ♀ = 9: ♂ = 247		 31.70 ± 9.82 30.78 ± 5.83 31.73 ± 9.94†
Leg/Back Dynomometer (kg)
n = 258: ♀ = 9: ♂ = 249		 168.94 ± 38.53 118.43 ± 24.28* 170.76 ± 37.73
Shuttles (number)
n = 237: ♀ = 8: ♂ = 229		 31.01 ± 15.43 22.50 ± 10.30 31.31 ± 15.52†
50–59
Group 4		 Weight (kg)
n = 57: ♀ = 2: ♂ = 55		 89.76 ± 27.35 85.05 ± 11.23 89.94 ± 27.79†
Height (cm)
n = 57: ♀ = 2: ♂ = 55		 178.20 ± 25.06 171.45 ± 8.98 178.45 ± 25.46
Vertical Jump (cm)
n = 56: ♀ = 2: ♂ = 54		 43.66 ± 8.18 40.51 ± 10.59 43.79 ± 8.18†
Grip (kg)
n = 54: ♀ = 2: ♂ = 52		 52.11 ± 7.68 48.00 ± 4.24 52.27 ± 7.76
Push-ups (repetitions)
n = 54: ♀ = 2: ♂ = 52		 31.15 ± 14.42 21.00 ± 15.56 31.54 ± 14.39†
Sit-ups (repetitions)
n = 55: ♀ = 2: ♂ = 53		 29.62 ± 9.58 28.50 ± 2.12 29.66 ± 9.76†
Leg/Back Dynomometer (kg)
n = 57: ♀ = 2: ♂ = 55		 164.79 ± 34.84 153.41 ± 14.46 165.21 ± 35.36
Shuttles (number)
n = 52: ♀ = 2: ♂ = 50		 26.54 ± 13.00 21.50 ± 4.95 26.74 ± 13.20†
60–69
Group 5		 Weight (kg)
n = 5: ♀ = 0: ♂ = 5		 89.36 ± 11.06 - 89.36 ± 11.06
Height (cm)
n = 5: ♀ = 0: ♂ = 5		 173.23 ± 6.57 - 173.23 ± 6.57
Vertical Jump (cm.)
n = 4: ♀ = 0: ♂ = 4		 40.34 ± 4.39 - 40.34 ± 4.39
Grip (kg)
n = 5: ♀ = 0: ♂ = 5		 50.20 ± 3.27 - 50.20 ± 3.27
Push-ups (repetitions)
n = 5: ♀ = 0: ♂ = 5		 39.20 ± 12.68 - 39.20 ± 12.68
Sit-ups (repetitions)
n = 5: ♀ = 0: ♂ = 5		 25.40 ± 11.89 - 25.40 ± 11.89
Leg/Back Dynomometer (kg)
n = 5: ♀ = 0: ♂ = 5		 169.55 ± 20.62 - 169.55 ± 20.62
Shuttles (number)
n = 5: ♀ = 0: ♂ = 5		 23.40 ± 7.16 - 23.40 ± 7.16
*Significantly different from male officers at ≤ .01, †Significantly different from 20–29 years old, p < .01
When comparing each gender by their own age group (Table 2) there were no significant differences between anthropometric or performance results for any of the female age groups. While some general trends towards a reduction in performance did appear, for example a general reduction in push-up and shuttle run performance, these declines in performance did not reach significance. It should also be noted that female grip strength did approach the stringent level significance required for this study (p = 0.042) with the older group (Group 5: 50–59 years, n = 38) increasing in strength. However significant differences did exist across all age groups in VJ (p < 0.001), push-up (p < 0.001), sit up (p < 0.001), shuttle run (p < 0.001) and VO2 (p < 0.001) results for male officers. In addition, while significant differences did exist in weight among male officers (p < 0.001) the Bonferroni post hoc assessment identified that the differences in weight existed only between the 20–29-year-old group and both the 40–49-year-old (p < 0.001) and 50–59-year-old (p = 0.006) groups.
Given the lower number of female participants, especially when stratified across age groups, percentile ranking charts were constructed for only male police officers. The percentile ranking charts VJ (see Table 3), grip strength (see Table 4), push-ups (see Table 5), sit-ups (See Table 6), leg back dynamometer (see Table 7) and number of shuttles (See Table 8) are shown below.
Table 3
Percentile ranking of male police officer VJ ability (cm)
Age group
(n)		 20–29
(n = 82)		 30–39
(n = 202)		 40–49
(n = 247)		 50–59
(n = 54)
Mean (SD) 58.47 (8.79) 52.73 (8.03) 48.29 (7.37) 43.79 (8.18)
Percentile
95 72.89 65.90 60.38 57.21
90 69.72 63.01 57.72 54.26
85 67.61 61.08 55.95 52.30
80 65.85 59.48 54.48 50.66
75 64.36 58.11 53.23 49.27
70 63.04 56.91 52.12 48.04
65 61.90 55.86 51.16 46.98
60 60.67 54.74 50.13 45.84
55 59.61 53.77 49.25 44.85
50 58.47 52.73 48.29 43.79
45 57.33 51.69 47.33 42.73
40 56.27 50.72 46.45 41.75
35 55.04 49.60 45.42 40.60
30 53.90 48.55 44.46 39.54
25 52.58 47.35 43.35 38.31
20 51.09 45.98 42.10 36.92
15 49.33 44.38 40.63 35.28
10 47.22 42.45 38.86 33.32
5 44.05 39.56 36.20 30.37
Table 4
Percentile ranking of male police officer grip strength ability (kg)
Age group
(n)		 20–29
(n = 83)		 30–39
(n = 199)		 40–49
(n = 250)		 50–59
(n = 52)
Mean (SD) 54.67 (7.47) 55.97 (8.30) 55.09 (7.36) 52.27 (7.76)
Percentile
95 66.92 69.58 67.16 65.00
90 64.23 66.59 64.51 62.20
85 62.44 64.60 62.74 60.34
80 60.94 62.94 61.27 58.79
75 59.67 61.53 60.02 57.47
70 58.55 60.29 58.92 56.31
65 57.58 59.21 57.96 55.30
60 56.54 58.05 56.93 54.21
55 55.64 57.05 56.05 53.28
50 54.67 55.97 55.09 52.27
45 53.70 54.89 54.13 51.26
40 52.80 53.90 53.25 50.33
35 51.76 52.73 52.22 49.24
30 50.79 51.65 51.26 48.23
25 49.67 50.41 50.16 47.07
20 48.40 49.00 48.91 45.75
15 46.90 47.34 47.44 44.20
10 45.11 45.35 45.67 42.34
5 42.42 42.36 43.02 39.54
Table 5
Percentile ranking of male police officer push-up ability (repetitions)
Age group
(n)		 20–29
(n = 82)		 30–39
(n = 198)		 40–49
(n = 246)		 50–59
(n = 52)
Mean (SD) 47.70 (14.74) 40.52 (14.96) 36.70 (15.41) 31.54 (14.39)
Percentile
95 71.81 65.05 61.97 55.14
90 66.52 59.67 56.42 49.96
85 62.99 56.08 52.73 46.51
80 60.05 53.09 49.64 43.63
75 57.55 50.54 47.02 41.18
70 55.34 48.30 44.71 39.02
65 53.43 46.35 42.71 37.15
60 51.38 44.26 40.55 35.14
55 49.61 42.46 38.70 33.41
50 47.70 40.52 36.70 31.54
45 45.79 38.58 34.70 29.67
40 44.03 36.78 32.85 27.94
35 41.97 34.69 30.69 25.93
30 40.06 32.74 28.69 24.06
25 37.85 30.50 26.38 21.90
20 35.35 27.95 23.76 19.45
15 32.41 24.96 20.67 16.57
10 28.88 21.37 16.98 13.12
5 23.59 15.99 11.43 7.94
Table 6
Percentile ranking of male police officer sit up ability (repetitions)
Age group
(n)		 20–29
(n = 83)		 30–39
(n = 196)		 40–49
(n = 247)		 50–59
(n = 53)
Mean (SD) 41.17 (8.22) 36.63 (9.67) 31.73 (9.94) 29.66 (9.76)
Percentile
95 54.65 52.49 48.03 45.67
90 51.69 49.01 44.45 42.15
85 49.72 46.69 42.07 39.81
80 48.07 44.75 40.08 37.86
75 46.68 43.11 38.39 36.20
70 45.44 41.66 36.90 34.74
65 44.38 40.40 35.61 33.47
60 43.23 39.05 34.22 32.10
55 42.24 37.89 33.02 30.93
50 41.17 36.63 31.73 29.66
45 40.10 35.37 30.44 28.39
40 39.12 34.21 29.25 27.22
35 37.96 32.86 27.85 25.85
30 36.90 31.60 26.56 24.58
25 35.66 30.15 25.07 23.12
20 34.27 28.51 23.38 21.46
15 32.62 26.57 21.39 19.51
10 30.65 24.25 19.01 17.17
5 27.69 20.77 15.43 13.65
Table 7
Percentile ranking of male police officer leg back dynamometer ability (kg)
Age group
(n)		 20–29
(n = 83)		 30–39
(n = 200)		 40–49
(n = 247)		 50–59
(n = 55)
Mean (SD) 173.81 (39.94) 170.81 (37.08) 170.76 (37.73) 165.21 (35.36)
Percentile
95 239.31 231.62 232.64 223.20
90 224.93 218.27 219.05 210.47
85 215.35 209.37 210.00 201.98
80 207.36 201.96 202.45 194.91
75 200.57 195.65 196.04 188.90
70 194.58 190.09 190.38 183.60
65 189.39 185.27 185.47 179.00
60 183.80 180.08 180.19 174.05
55 179.00 175.63 175.66 169.81
50 173.81 170.81 170.76 165.21
45 168.62 165.99 165.86 160.61
40 163.83 161.54 161.33 156.37
35 158.23 156.35 156.05 151.42
30 153.04 151.53 151.14 146.82
25 147.05 145.97 145.48 141.52
20 140.26 139.66 139.07 135.51
15 132.27 132.25 131.52 128.44
10 122.69 123.35 122.47 119.95
5 108.31 110.00 108.88 107.22
Table 8
Percentile ranking of male police shuttle run ability (number of shuttles)
Age group
(n)		 20–29
(n = 80)		 30–39
(n = 194)		 40–49
(n = 229)		 50–59
(n = 50)
Mean (SD) 55.63 (20.90) 42.19 (19.85) 31.31 (15.52) 26.74 (13.20)
Percentile
95 89.91 74.74 56.76 48.39
90 82.38 67.60 51.18 43.64
85 77.37 62.83 47.45 40.47
80 73.19 58.86 44.35 37.83
75 69.63 55.49 41.71 35.58
70 66.50 52.51 39.38 33.60
65 63.78 49.93 37.36 31.89
60 60.86 47.15 35.19 30.04
55 58.35 44.77 33.33 28.46
50 55.63 42.19 31.31 26.74
45 52.91 39.61 29.29 25.02
40 50.41 37.23 27.43 23.44
35 47.48 34.45 25.26 21.59
30 44.76 31.87 23.24 19.88
25 41.63 28.89 20.91 17.90
20 38.07 25.52 18.27 15.65
15 33.89 21.55 15.17 13.01
10 28.88 16.78 11.44 9.84
5 21.35 9.64 5.86 5.09
The purpose of this investigation was to profile the current level of fitness for highway patrol officers based on age and gender and provide percentile ranking charts unique to this population. With regards to the between-gender comparisons, it was discovered that, on average, male officers, were heavier, taller and displayed greater lower limb power, dominant hand grip strength, upper limb muscular endurance and metabolic fitness than female officers. No significant differences were found between genders in trunk muscular endurance except between the 30–39-year age groups. For the age analysis, there was a general decline in mean performance between male officer age groups in weight, VJ, push-ups, sit ups and number of shuttles completed. However, these differences were generally only significant between those between 20–29 years of age and age groups ranging from 30 to 59 years of age. In contrast to this, the performance of the female officers did not vary significantly across the different age range groups.
When investigating the results by gender there were significant differences in height and body weight between male and female police officers, which is to be expected given previous research investigating gender differences in height and body weight [21]. Given that males tend to have greater skeletal muscle mass [21] and that greater muscle mass is a major factor in gender-related differences in strength [22, 23], the differences in strength (leg/back dynamometer, grip strength), strength endurance (push-ups) and strength influenced movements (e.g. leg power for VJ) observed between the genders in this study are not unexpected. This is reflected in the significant differences between genders in the performance tests measured in this study, including the VJ, leg/back dynamometer, maximum push-ups in 1-min, and grip strength. With the one exception of the 30–39-year-old age group, there were no significant differences between the genders in the sit-up test. This result was not surprising given that some research investigating trunk flexion strength-endurance differences between genders failed to find significant differences when assessing two different trunk flexion exercises [24]. In this study, relatively smaller female sample sizes may have been a notable factor in the differences in findings. Male officers also reported significantly higher MSFT results and a higher predicted VO2 max when compared to the female officers. These results was again expected as males tend to display greater aerobic power and work efficiency when compared to females [25], both of which would positively contribute to MSFT performance.
These gender difference findings are epitomized by fitness requirements of tactical populations that are normalized for gender. For example, in the Australian Army, males are required to complete a higher number of push-up repetitions and complete an aerobic run of 2.4 km in a faster time [26]. Conversely, there are no differences in sit up requirements between genders [26].
When considering the impact of age on performance, it is known that body weight has a tendency to increase with advancing age in the general population [27]. In this study, there appeared to be a similar trend in male officers with body weight increasing with age. However, these increases in body weight with age were only significant in two cases, being the 40–49 and 50–59 year groups being heavier than the 20–29-year group. When comparing mean ages of other research samples in law enforcement, the demographic profiles in this study were similar. For example, in research conducted with male police academy cadets mean ages of 23.7 years [28], 24.6 years [29], and 27.4 years [12] mean weights were reported as being 82.1 kg [28], 82.4 kg [29], and 85.4 kg [12] respectively with the mean male weight in this study for the 20–29 year old age group being 84.85 kg. Likewise, in research including incumbent officers, demographic samples included mean ages of 37.0 year [30], 37.1 year [29], and 37.9 years [31] with a mean mass of 88.7 kg [31], 90.2 kg [30], 94.6 kg [29], respectively compared to a mean weight of 91.4 kg in the 30–39 year age category in this study. Furthermore, research including specialist police (e.g. Special Weapons and Tactics [SWAT] team) mean ages were 33.3 years [32], 34.7 years [33] and 36.5 years [2] with mean body weights of 89.2 kg [32], 91.5 kg [33] and 93.3 kg [2]; again comparative with the findings of this study.
However, it should be noted that in these aforementioned comparative studies, age was not stratified. In the only other known study of LEOs that included body weight by age stratification, no significant differences in weight across the age groups was found (20–29 years = 87.9 ± 12.86 kg: 30–39 years = 91.27 ± 14.56 kg: 40–49 = 93.15 ± 15.26 kg: 50–59 years = 88.26 ± 11.09 kg) with the body weights by age stratification being similar to those of this study [7]. Furthermore, in this study by Dawes et al. [7], there was no significant association between body weight and age (r = .046, p = .296). One potential reason for the differences in findings between the study by Dawes et al., and this study is the larger standard deviation in body weights reported across all age categories in this study. As such, while body weight may generally increase with age it may not necessarily be by a significant amount in a law enforcement population.
In this study, there was a general decrease in VJ height across age for both genders, although this decrease was only significant in the 20–29-year-old male group. A decrease in VJ height with increasing age is noted in the literature. As an example, in one study Korhonen et al. [34] found that sprint-trained older men performed more poorly in the VJ when compared to younger sprinters (18–33 year group: 52.5 ± 1.62 cm; 40–49 year group: 42.0 ± 0.97 cm; 50–59 year group: 33.1 ± 0.89 cm). A reduction in VJ ability, and hence power, can be linked to the reductions in Type II muscle fiber size, muscle force output, and rate of force development that can occur with aging [34, 35]. Considering this, the results of VJ performance in this study mirror the results associated with body weight and aging whereby the significant difference occurred only with the youngest group (20–29 years). A potential reason for this similarity can be the association between body weight and VJ performance. While percentage of body fat, lean muscle mass and fat mass were not determined in this study, a study by Dawes et al. [36] did find a strong and significant correlation between these composition measures and VJ performance (-.566, .391, and − .369 respectively). Based on these findings, Dawes et al. [36] recommended that increasing lean body mass and decreasing body fat could both positively influence VJ performance. For the female officer population there did appear to be a general decline in VJ performance as age increased, but there were no significant differences. A potential reason for this lack of difference with aging lies in research suggesting that older females may be able to maintain stretch-shortening function better than men [35], a physiological function which could benefit VJ performance.
For the push-up assessment, similar results were found whereby the 30–39, 40–49, and 50–59 year groups for the males all performed significantly fewer repetitions than the 20–29-year group. These results contrast the findings of Dawes et al. [7], who found that 1-min push-up performance did not vary with age in male LEOs. However, this may have occurred because the 30–39, 40–49, and 50–59 year groups from this study performed fewer repetitions than the corresponding age groups in the study by Dawes et al. [7] (30–39 years: 44.65 ± 15.57 repetitions; 40–49 years: 43.92 ± 15.74 repetitions; 50–59 years: 43.71 ± 15.09 repetitions) while the 20–29 year old group performed more repetitions than those in the study by Dawes et al. [7] (44.48 ± 15.47 repetitions). Although not reaching significance, there was a general decline in the female LEOs groups with increasing age. Given this strong trend a lack of significance may have been due to the small sample size of female LEOs across the stratified age groups. This same trend was evident in the sit-up results. For male LEOs there was a trend towards fewer sit-up repetitions across the age group with significant differences only observed between the 20–29-year-old group and all other groups. Likewise, there were no significant differences in sit ups between female officer age groups with a leveling of performance over the age of 30 year.
When considering the aerobic capacity of the male officers, as measured by the MSFT, the 30–39, 40–49, and 50–59 year groups performed significantly poorer than the 20–29-year group. As for several of the other tests, there was a general decline in the MSFT performance and VO2 max for the females, without any significant interactions. On the surface, these results appear to be indicative of the age-related declines that occur in cardiorespiratory function [37]. There could potentially, however, be other limiting factors in the endurance running performance of older LEOs. Anecdotally, many of the older LEOs noted that a limiting factor in the MSFT was not their aerobic fitness, but rather previous injury or joint stress (e.g. knee pain) that caused cessation of the test. Increased body mass and occupations that involve heavy lifting (such as law enforcement work) can lead to joint degeneration and osteoarthritis later in life [38]. This factor could limit the value of using estimated VO2 from this assessment as a measure in this population.
In this study, performance in the isometric strength tests (isometric leg/back pull and grip strength) was similar across all age groups for the male and female officers. As isometric strength can have a tendency to decrease with age [39], it is notable that LEOs appear to be able to maintain this capacity across the different age ranges. Although the requirement for LEOs to have a measure of isometric strength to perform occupation-specific tasks (e.g, including pushing, pulling, dragging, carrying, grappling, defensive tactics, etc [13, 40] may provide a reason for the maintenance of this type of strength, confirmation of these findings and reasons for this isometric strength maintenance require further investigation.
To inform future research as well as provide an interim profile of law enforcement officers, one aim of this research was to provide percentile ranking charts unique to this population. The importance of developing a law enforcement specific profile is clearly identified when the percentile ranking results of this law enforcement population are compared to the percentile rankings of the general population [41]. For example, in the push-up assessment the law enforcement 15th percentile ranking (see Table 5) is equivocal to that of the 50th percentile for the normative populations being: Group 20–29 = 33 repetitions, Group 30–39 = 27 repetitions; Group 40–49 = 21 repetitions and Group 50–59 = 15 repetitions. On this basis, using normative percentile data to guide conditioning and reconditioning of law enforcement may be notably underestimating law enforcement fitness. Consider an injured 35-year-old police officer undergoing reconditioning for return-to-work who can complete 27 push-ups. While this would stand the officer on the 50th percentile of the general population, this officer would only be at a level just below the 20th percentile of his specific population. Conversely, there were very little differences between the general population in sit-up performance with the 50th percentile for the general population generally being in the 45th–50th percentile of police officers. For VJ jump results were in-between with the 50th percentile for the general male population ranking from 15th Percentile (40–49 year old and 50–59 year old groups) to the 35th percentile (30–39 year old group) of male police officers.
There were certain limitations for this research that should be noted. Only select physiological characteristics were analyzed in this research: lower-body power, isometric grip of the dominant hand and back/leg strength, upper-body and abdominal strength endurance, and aerobic fitness. It would be of benefit to further analyze the influence of age on other capacities, such as maximal upper- and lower-body strength measured via repetition-maximum tests (e.g. bench press and squat), sprinting speed, and flexibility. This study was cross-sectional in design, and future studies employing a longitudinal approach would be of benefit to better inform impacts of aging on a LEO population. Although typical of LEO and police research [11, 12, 5], there were a limited number of female officers in this sample and as such additional research studies or larger cohorts are needed to support the finding presented in this study.
The findings of this study suggest that, on average, male LEOs tended to be heavier, taller and displayed greater lower limb power, dominant hand grip strength, upper limb muscular endurance and metabolic fitness than female officers with no consistent differences in trunk muscular endurance. Furthermore, across both genders it appears that certain physical characteristics may decline with age in LEOs. This included lower-body power, upper-body strength endurance, and aerobic capacity as measured by the MSFT. Based on these findings, and within the context of the limitations, an initial profile of male and female LEOs across different age ranges: 20–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, and 60–69 years of age was established.
Percentile rankings, which were found to have elements very specific to this population when compared to the general population, were provided based on the data, including VJ, hand grip strength, number of push-ups and sit-ups completed in 1-min; leg/back chain dynamometer; and number of MSFT shuttles. These population specific percentile rankings can be used to inform expectations of performance above those generated for the general population in an LEO population.
N/A.
Funding
No funding was received for this research.
Availability of data and materials
As the data is drawn from a law enforcement population, the data and materials will only be made available upon specific request made to the corresponding author who will seek approval from both the law enforcement agency and the Bond University Human Research Ethics Committee prior to the provision of any data.
Authors’ contributions
JD: Developed the research plan, sought ethics approval (US), collated the data, assisted in the analysis and manuscript preparation. RO: Obtained ethics approval (Australia), assisted in, and finalized, the statistical analysis and interpretation of the data and edited the manuscript. RF: Collated the data, analysed the results and drafted the paper. RL: Assisted in the drafting and final preparation of the manuscript. CK & RH: Assisted in the collection and preparation of the data, reviewed the manuscript and obtained departmental approvals for the study and release of information. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Ethics approval for this study, employing retrospective non-identifiable data, was provided the University of Colorado: Colorado Springs Institutional Review Board (IRB 15-074) for human subjects and the Bond University Human Research Ethics Committee (RO 1927). Gatekeeper approval for use of third party data was provided by the law enforcement organization where this study took place as part of the ethics committee approval process. As this data were retrospective and non-identifiable, it met the pre-requisites for a waiver of participant consent as there were no means through which the participants could be identified and consent gained.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

ANOVA

Analysis of Variance

cm

Centimetres

in

Inches

kg

Kilograms

lbs

Pounds

LEO

Law Enforcement Officer

MSFT

Multi-Stage Fitness Test

SPSS

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

VJ

Vertical Jump

VO2

Volume of Oxygen consumed

yrs

Years
  • 1. Sörensen L, Smolander J, Louhevaara V, Korhonen O, Oja P. Physical activity, fitness and body composition of Finnish police officers: a 15-year follow-up study. Occup Med 2000;50(1):3–10. 10.1093/occmed/50.1.3.Article
  • 2. Dawes JJ, Orr RM, Elder CL, Krall K, Stierli M, Schilling B. Relationship between selected measures of power and strength and linear running speed amongst Special Weapons and Tactics police officers. J Australian Strength Cond 2015;23(3):23–28.
  • 3. Spitler D, Jones G, Hawkins J, Dudka L. Body composition and physiological characteristics of law enforcement officers. Br J Sports Med 1987;21(4):154–157. 10.1136/bjsm.21.4.154. 3435817.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 4. Ramey SL, Downing NR, Knoblauch A. Developing strategic interventions to reduce cardiovascular disease risk among law enforcement officers: the art and science of data triangulation. Workplace Health & Safety 2008;56(2):54–62. 10.1177/216507990805600202.
  • 5. Rossomanno CI, Herrick JE, Kirk SM, Kirk EP. A 6-month supervised employer-based minimal exercise program for police officers improves fitness. J Strength Cond Res 2012;26(9):2338–2344. 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31823f2b64. 22067246.PubMed
  • 6. Boyce RW, Jones GR, Schendt KE, Lloyd CL, Boone EL. Longitudinal changes in strength of police officers with gender comparisons. J Strength Cond Res 2009;23(8):2411–2418. 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181bac2ab. 19826280.ArticlePubMed
  • 7. Dawes J, Orr RB, Conroy R, Pope R. The Effect of Age on Push-up Performance amongst Male Law Enforcement Officers. Australian Strength and Conditioning Journal 2016;24(4):23–27.
  • 8. Rhea MR. Needs Analysis and Program Design for Police Officers. Strength & Conditioning Journal 2015;37(4):30–34. 10.1519/SSC.0000000000000082.Article
  • 9. Plat MJ, Frings-Dresen MHW, Sluiter JK. A systematic review of job-specific workers’ health surveillance activities for fire-fighting, ambulance, police and military personnel. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2011;84(8):839–857. 10.1007/s00420-011-0614-y. 21318608.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 10. Lockie RG, Murphy AJ, Knight TJ, Janse de Jonge XAK. Factors that differentiate acceleration ability in field sport athletes. J Strength Cond Res 2011;25(10):2704–2714. 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31820d9f17. 21878822.ArticlePubMed
  • 11. Crawley AA, Sherman RA, Crawley WR, Cosio-Lima LM. Physical fitness of police academy cadets: Baseline characteristics and changes during a 16-week academy. J Strength Cond Res 2016;30(5):1416–1424. 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001229. 26466133.PubMedPMC
  • 12. Cocke C, Dawes J, Orr RM. The use of 2 conditioning programs and the fitness characteristics of police academy cadets. J Athl Train 2016;51(11):887–896. 10.4085/1062-6050-51.8.06. 27863188.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 13.
  • 14. Beck AQ, Clasey JL, Yates JW, Koebke NC, Palmer TG, Abel MG. Relationship of physical fitness measures vs. occupational physical ability in campus law enforcement officers. J Strength Cond Res 2015;29(8):2340–2350. 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000863. 26203741.ArticlePubMed
  • 15. Pryor RR, Colburn D, Crill MT, Hostler DP, Suyama J. Fitness characteristics of a suburban Special Weapons and Tactics team. J Strength Cond Res 2012;26(3):752–757. 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318225f177. 22289693.ArticlePubMed
  • 16.
  • 17. Mozumdar A, Liguori G, Baumgartner TA. Additional revised push-up test norms for college students. Measurement in Physical Education & Exercise Science 2010;14(1):61–66. 10.1080/10913670903484835.Article
  • 18.
  • 19. Andrews AW, Thomas MW, Bohannon RW. Normative values for isometric muscle force measurements obtained with hand-held dynamometers. Phys Ther 1996;76(3):248–259. 10.1093/ptj/76.3.248. 8602410.ArticlePubMed
  • 20. Manna I, Khanna GL, Dhara PC. Effect of training on anthropometric, physiological and biochemical variables of U-19 volleyball players. J Hum Sport Exer 2012;7(1):12.
  • 21. Janssen I, Heymsfield SB, Wang Z, Ross R. Skeletal muscle mass and distribution in 468 men and women aged 18–88 yr. J Appl Physiol 2000;89(1):81–88. 10904038.ArticlePubMed
  • 22.
  • 23. Miller AEJ, MacDougall JD, Tarnopolsky MA, Sale DG. Gender differences in strength and muscle fiber characteristics. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 1993;66(3):254–262. 10.1007/BF00235103. 8477683.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 24. Evans K, Refshauge KM, Adams R. Trunk muscle endurance tests: reliability, and gender differences in athletes. J Sci Med Sport 2007;10(6):447–455. 10.1016/j.jsams.2006.09.003. 17141568.ArticlePubMed
  • 25.
  • 26. Tofari PJ, Laing Treloar AK, Silk AJ. A Quantification of the Physiological Demands of the Army Emergency Responder in the Australian Army. Mil Med 2013;178(5):487–494. 10.7205/MILMED-D-12-00423. 23756005.ArticlePubMed
  • 27. Williamson DF. Descriptive epidemiology of body weight and weight change in U.S. adults. Ann Intern Med 1993;119(7 Pt 2):646–649. 10.7326/0003-4819-119-7_Part_2-199310011-00004. 8363190.ArticlePubMed
  • 28. Lagestad P, Van den Tillaar R. A Comparison of Training and Physical Performance of Police Students at the Start and the End of Three-Year Police Education. J Strength Cond Res 2014;28(5):1394–1400. 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000273. 24755870.ArticlePubMed
  • 29. Boyce R, Jones G, Llyod C, Boone E. A Longitudinal Observation of Police: Body Composition Changes Over 12 Years with Gender and Race Comparisons. Journal of Exercise Physiology Online 2008;11(6):1–13.
  • 30. Dempsey PC, Handcock PJ, Rehrer NJ. Impact of police body armour and equipment on mobility. Appl Ergon 2013;44:957–961. 10.1016/j.apergo.2013.02.011. 23668780.ArticlePubMed
  • 31. McGill S, Frost D, Lam T, Finlay T, Darby K, Cannon J. Can fitness and movement quality prevent back injury in elite task force police officers? A 5-year longitudinal study. Ergonomics 2015;58(10):1682–1689. 10.1080/00140139.2015.1035760. 25952105.ArticlePubMed
  • 32. Carlton SD, Carbone PD, Stierli M, Orr RM. The Impact of Occupational Load Carriage on the Mobility of the Tactical Police Officer. J Australian Strength Cond 2014;22(1):32–37.
  • 33.
  • 34. Korhonen MT, Cristea A, Alén M, Häkkinen K, Sipilä S, Mero A, Viitasalo JT, Larsson L, Suominen H. Aging, muscle fiber type, and contractile function in sprint-trained athletes. J Appl Physiol 2006;101(3):906–917. 10.1152/japplphysiol.00299.2006. 16690791.PubMed
  • 35. Lindle RS, Metter EJ, Lynch NA, Fleg JL, Fozard JL, Tobin J, Roy TA, Hurley BF. Age and gender comparisons of muscle strength in 654 women and men aged 20–93 yr. J Appl Physiol 1997;83(5):1581–1587. 9375323.ArticlePubMed
  • 36. Dawes JJ, Orr RM, Siekaniec CL, Vanderwoude AA, Pope R. Associations between anthropometric characteristics and physical performance in male law enforcement officers: a retrospective cohort study. Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2016;28(1):1. 10.1186/s40557-016-0112-5. 26835129.ArticlePubMed
  • 37. Jackson AS, Sui X, Hébert JR, Church TS, Blair SN. Role of lifestyle and aging on the longitudinal change in cardiorespiratory fitness. Arch Intern Med 2009;169(19):1781–1787. 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.312. 19858436.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 38. Lau EC, Cooper C, Lam D, Chan VN, Tsang KK, Sham A. Factors associated with osteoarthritis of the hip and knee in Hong Kong Chinese: obesity, joint injury, and occupational activities. Am J Epidemiol 2000;152(9):855–862. 10.1093/aje/152.9.855. 11085397.ArticlePubMed
  • 39.
  • 40.
  • 41.

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  
    • The Development of Normative Fitness Data and Analyzing the Relationships Between 20MSFT and 2.4-km Run Performance in Australian Police Recruits
      Patrick Campbell, Danny Maupin, Robert G. Lockie, J. Jay Dawes, Vinicius Simas, Elisa Canetti, Ben Schram, Robin Orr
      Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • A profile of occupational tasks performed by mounted police officers
      Elisa F.D. Canetti, Ashlee Gersbach-Seib, Ryan Moore, Ben Schram, Robin Orr, Robin M. Orr, Gemma S. Milligan, Sam D. Blacker, Jace Drain, Tara Reilly, Etienne Chassé, Andrew Siddall, Stephen Foulis, Helen Kilding, Veronica Jamnik
      Work.2024; 77(4): 1235.     CrossRef
    • Effects of implementing a mandatory and consequential annual fitness assessment in a fire department over the initial 4-year period
      Joel Martin, Michael Toczko, Megan Sax van der Weyden, Robert Lockie
      Work.2024; : 1.     CrossRef
    • Evaluating the Variability Between 20-m Multistage Fitness Test Estimating Equations in Law Enforcement Recruits
      Patrick Campbell, Danny Maupin, Robert G. Lockie, J. Jay Dawes, Vinicius Simas, Elisa Canetti, Ben Schram, Robin Orr
      Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.2024; 38(4): 742.     CrossRef
    • Determining the Changes in Law Enforcement Recruit Aerobic Fitness Using the 2.4-km Run and 20-m Multistage Fitness Test. Does the Type of Test Matter?
      Patrick Campbell, Danny Maupin, Robert G. Lockie, J. Jay Dawes, Vinicius Simas, Elisa Canetti, Ben Schram, Robin Orr
      Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.2024; 38(6): 1111.     CrossRef
    • Strength Training Frequency and Athletic Performance in High School Girls Basketball Players
      Erika Viramontes, J. Jay Dawes, Jared W. Coburn, Robert G. Lockie
      Journal of Human Kinetics.2024; 91: 19.     CrossRef
    • Age-Related Declines in Health and Fitness among Law Enforcement Officers Compared to Population Norms
      Katherine A. Frick, Philip J. Agostinelli, Julia F. Swinford, Mick E. Harris, C. Brooks Mobley, JoEllen Sefton
      Healthcare.2024; 12(7): 714.     CrossRef
    • Relationships Between Strength and Power With the 74.84-kg (165-lb) and 90.72-kg (200-lb) Body Drags
      Matthew R. Moreno, J. Jay Dawes, Robin M. Orr, Joseph M. Dulla, Robert G. Lockie
      Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.2024; 38(7): 1305.     CrossRef
    • Exercise motivations of law enforcement officers in Northeast Louisiana
      YuChun Chen, Todd J Castleberry
      The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles.2023; 96(2): 289.     CrossRef
    • Stress inoculation training and critical thinking skills: California law enforcement academies
      Jarrod M. Bowen
      International Journal of Training Research.2023; : 1.     CrossRef
    • Test-Retest Reliability and Minimum Difference Values of a Novel and Portable Upright Row Strength Assessment in Probation Officers
      Nicholas A. Buoncristiani, Jacob A. Mota, Gena R. Gerstner, Hayden K. Giuliani-Dewig, Eric D. Ryan
      International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2023; 20(3): 2236.     CrossRef
    • Relationships Between Physical Fitness Assessment Measures and a Workplace Task-Specific Physical Assessment Among Police Officers: A Retrospective Cohort Study
      Robert Lockie, J. Jay Dawes, Takato Sakura, Benjamin Schram, Robin M. Orr
      Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.2023; 37(3): 678.     CrossRef
    • Physical Demands of Air Force Special Operations Command Flight Crews: A Needs Analysis and Proposed Testing Protocol
      Jeffrey Paschall, Jay Dawes
      Strength & Conditioning Journal.2023; 45(3): 354.     CrossRef
    • Establishing Reference Data for Fitness Assessment of Law Enforcement Officers Using a Qualitative Systematic Review
      Luís Miguel Massuça, Vanessa Santos, Luís Monteiro
      Healthcare.2023; 11(9): 1253.     CrossRef
    • Improvement of Health and Morphofunctional Status of Law Enforcement Officers of Older Age Groups during the Organized Motor Activities
      Oleksandr Lutskyi, Ivan Okhrimenko, Maryna Halych, Viktoriia Lytvyn, Olena Kudermina, Maksym Hrebeniuk, Ihor Bloshchynskyi
      Current Aging Science.2023; 16(3): 227.     CrossRef
    • Age and Sex Differences in Fitness Among Brazilian Federal Highway Patrol Officers
      Eduardo Frio Marins, J. Jay Dawes, Fabrício Boscolo Del Vecchio
      Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.2023; 37(6): 1292.     CrossRef
    • Characterization of Injuries Suffered by Mounted and Non-Mounted Police Officers
      Robin Orr, Elisa F. D. Canetti, Rodney Pope, Robert G. Lockie, J. Jay Dawes, Ben Schram
      International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2023; 20(2): 1144.     CrossRef
    • Longitudinal Changes in Health and Fitness Measures Among State Patrol Officers by Sex
      J. Jay Dawes, Marcel Lopes dos Santos, Charles Kornhauser, Ryan J. Holmes, Brent A. Alvar, Robert G. Lockie, Robin M. Orr
      Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.2023; 37(4): 881.     CrossRef
    • A Research Note on Relationships Between Age, Body Size, Strength, and Power With Throwing Velocity in High School Water Polo Players
      Robert G. Lockie, Alexander M. Wakely, Erika Viramontes, J. Jay Dawes
      Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.2023; 37(8): e466.     CrossRef
    • Four-Year Training Course for Police Officers (CFOP) and Fitness Outcomes of Police Academy Cadets: A Cohort Study from 2004 to 2020
      Luís Miguel Massuça, Luís Monteiro, Gabriel Coutinho, Vanessa Santos
      Healthcare.2023; 11(21): 2901.     CrossRef
    • A retrospective study of physical fitness and mental health among police students in Sweden
      Sandra Krugly, Daniel Bjärsholm, Alexander Jansson, Arne Rosendal Hansen, Olof Hansson, Kajsa Brehm, Angelica Datmo, Anna Hafsteinsson Östenberg, Jenny Vikman
      The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles.2023; 96(3): 430.     CrossRef
    • Profiling the absolute and relative strength of a special operations police unit
      Kimberly A. Talaber, Robin M. Orr, Danny Maupin, Ben Schram, Ksaniel Hasanki, Adam Roberts, Jeremy Robinson
      BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation.2022;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Health and fitness data for police officers within a health and wellness program: Implications for occupational performance and career longevity
      Robert G. Lockie, J. Jay Dawes, Robin M. Orr
      Work.2022; 73(3): 1059.     CrossRef
    • Physical Performance of Brazilian Military Policemen: A Longitudinal Analysis by Occupational Specialties
      Luiz Rezende, Rodolfo A. Dellagrana, Luiz Gustavo Rodrigues Oliveira-Santos, Arthur Duarte Fantesia Costa Cruz, Maycon Felipe da Silva Mota, Christianne F. Coelho-Ravagnani
      International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2022; 19(24): 16948.     CrossRef
    • Differences in Fitness between Firefighter Trainee Academy Classes and Normative Percentile Rankings
      Robert George Lockie, Robin M. Orr, Fernando Montes, Tomas Jason Ruvalcaba, J. Jay Dawes
      Sustainability.2022; 14(11): 6548.     CrossRef
    • Profiling the Typical Training Load of a Law Enforcement Recruit Class
      Danny Maupin, Ben Schram, Elisa F. D. Canetti, Joseph M. Dulla, J. Jay Dawes, Robert G. Lockie, Robin M. Orr
      International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2022; 19(20): 13457.     CrossRef
    • Do baseline physical fitness measures predict law enforcement academy graduation?
      Daniel Marks, Justin J. Merrigan, Joel Martin
      Work.2022; 72(1): 263.     CrossRef
    • Fitness components associated with performance of a law enforcement physical employment standard in police cadets
      Sébastien POIRIER, Annie GENDRON, Philippe GENDRON, Claude LAJOIE
      The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness.2022;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Normative Values for Health-Related Physical Fitness in First-Year Police Officers
      Lovro Štefan, Mario Kasović, Mario Culej
      Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.2022; 36(9): 2530.     CrossRef
    • Use of Physical Fitness Assessments in Tactical Populations
      Robin M. Orr, Robert Lockie, Gemma Milligan, Cheryl Lim, Jay Dawes
      Strength & Conditioning Journal.2022; 44(2): 106.     CrossRef
    • Identifying the Physical Fitness and Health Evaluations for Police Officers: Brief Systematic Review with an Emphasis on the Portuguese Research
      Luís M. Massuça, Vanessa Santos, Luís F. Monteiro
      Biology.2022; 11(7): 1061.     CrossRef
    • Slowing the Path of Time: Age-Related and Normative Fitness Testing Data for Police Officers From a Health and Wellness Program
      Robert G. Lockie, Robin M. Orr, J. Jay Dawes
      Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.2022; 36(3): 747.     CrossRef
    • Physical fitness standards: An assessment of potential disparate impact for female state police applicants
      Frederick A Williams, George E Higgins
      International Journal of Police Science & Management.2022; 24(3): 250.     CrossRef
    • Fit (and Healthy) for Duty: Blood Lipid Profiles and Physical Fitness Test Relationships from Police Officers in a Health and Wellness Program
      Robert G. Lockie, Robin M. Orr, J. Jay Dawes
      International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2022; 19(9): 5408.     CrossRef
    • Profiling the New Zealand Police Trainee Physical Competency Test
      J. Jay Dawes, Jordan Scott, Elisa F. D. Canetti, Robert G. Lockie, Ben Schram, Robin M. Orr
      Frontiers in Public Health.2022;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Importance of Ability-Based Training for Law Enforcement Recruits
      Robert Lockie, Joseph Dulla, Robin Orr, Jay Dawes
      Strength & Conditioning Journal.2021; 43(3): 80.     CrossRef
    • A Preliminary Investigation: Evaluating the Effectiveness of an Occupational Specific Training Program to Improve Lower Body Strength and Speed for Law Enforcement Officers
      Ian Bonder, Andrew Shim, Robert G. Lockie, Tara Ruppert
      International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2021; 18(14): 7685.     CrossRef
    • Profiling the New Zealand police physical appraisal test
      Robin Marc Orr, Elisa Canetti, Jason Movshovich, Robert Lockie, Jay Dawes, Ben Schram
      International Journal of Emergency Services.2021; 10(2): 266.     CrossRef
    • Profiles of US Law Enforcement Officers’ Diagnosed Health Conditions
      Elizabeth A. Mumford, Weiwei Liu, Bruce G. Taylor, Sandra Ramey
      Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine.2021; 63(5): 422.     CrossRef
    • Effect of a Law Enforcement Academy Training Program on Validated Fitness Outcomes of Cadets
      Gabriel J. Martinez, Mark G. Abel
      Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.2021; 35(4): 955.     CrossRef
    • Examining the impact of grip strength and officer gender on shooting performance
      Andrew Brown, Simon Baldwin, Brittany Blaskovits, Craig Bennell
      Applied Ergonomics.2021; 97: 103536.     CrossRef
    • Optimization of the Critical Speed Concept for Tactical Professionals: A Brief Review
      Nathan D. Dicks, Robert W. Pettitt
      Sports.2021; 9(8): 106.     CrossRef
    • Effects of Sex and Age on Physical Testing Performance for Law Enforcement Agency Candidates: Implications for Academy Training
      Ashley M. Bloodgood, J. Jay Dawes, Robin M. Orr, Michael Stierli, Karly A. Cesario, Matthew R. Moreno, Joseph M. Dulla, Robert G. Lockie
      Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.2021; 35(9): 2629.     CrossRef
    • Motor Skill, Movement Competency, and Physical Fitness Assessments for Reserve Officers' Training Corps Cadets
      Megan B. McGuire, Robert G. Lockie
      Strength & Conditioning Journal.2021; 43(2): 75.     CrossRef
    • Relationship Between the 20-m Multistage Fitness Test and 2.4-km Run in Law Enforcement Recruits
      Robert G. Lockie, J. Jay Dawes, Matthew R. Moreno, Karly A. Cesario, Katherine Balfany, Michael Stierli, Joseph M. Dulla, Robin M. Orr
      Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.2021; 35(10): 2756.     CrossRef
    • Physical fitness: Differences between initial hiring to academy in law enforcement recruits who graduate or separate from academy
      Robert G. Lockie, J. Jay Dawes, Robin M. Orr, Joseph M. Dulla
      Work.2021; 68(4): 1081.     CrossRef
    • Profiling the Injuries Sustained by Police Trainees Undergoing Initial Training: A Retrospective Cohort Study
      Sally Sawyer, Ben Schram, Rodney Pope, Robin Orr
      International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2021; 18(14): 7335.     CrossRef
    • With great power comes great ability: Extending research on fitness characteristics that influence work sample test battery performance in law enforcement recruits
      Robert G. Lockie, Matthew R. Moreno, Karly A. Rodas, Joseph M. Dulla, Robin M. Orr, J. Jay Dawes
      Work.2021; 68(4): 1069.     CrossRef
    • The 20-m Multistage Fitness Test and 2.4-km Run: Applications to Law Enforcement Fitness Assessment
      Robert G. Lockie, Joseph M. Dulla, Robin M. Orr, J. Jay Dawes
      Strength & Conditioning Journal.2021; 43(6): 68.     CrossRef
    • Effect of grip size and grip strength on pistol marksmanship in police officers: A pilot study
      Robin Orr, Anthony Rofe, Ben Hinton, Jay Dawes, Gianpiero Greco, Robert Lockie
      Nauka, bezbednost, policija.2021; 26(1): 61.     CrossRef
    • How Fit Are Special Operations Police Officers? A Comparison With Elite Athletes From Olympic Disciplines
      Lukas Zwingmann, Marvin Zedler, Stefan Kurzner, Patrick Wahl, Jan-Peter Goldmann
      Frontiers in Sports and Active Living.2021;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • How Does Time Spent Working in Custody Influence Health and Fitness Characteristics of Law Enforcement Officers?
      Robert G. Lockie, Karly A. Rodas, J. Jay Dawes, Joseph M. Dulla, Robin M. Orr, Matthew R. Moreno
      International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2021; 18(17): 9297.     CrossRef
    • Moving Past the One-Size-Fits-All Education-Training Model of Police Academies to the Self-Prescribed Individualized Exercise Prescription Model
      Zacharias Papadakis, Andreas Stamatis, Filip Kukic, Nenad Koropanovski
      International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2021; 18(21): 11676.     CrossRef
    • Skeletal Muscle Mass and Fat Mass Relationships With Physical Fitness Test Performance in Law Enforcement Recruits Before Academy
      Robert G. Lockie, Blake N. Carlock, Tomas J. Ruvalcaba, Joseph M. Dulla, Robin M. Orr, J. Jay Dawes, Megan B. McGuire
      Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.2021; 35(5): 1287.     CrossRef
    • Recruit Fitness Standards From a Large Law Enforcement Agency: Between-Class Comparisons, Percentile Rankings, and Implications for Physical Training
      Robert G. Lockie, J. Jay Dawes, Robin M. Orr, Joseph M. Dulla
      Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.2020; 34(4): 934.     CrossRef
    • Sport medicine and safety at work
      Paola V. Gigliotti, Alexander Piratinskij, Saadsaoud Foued, Igor Diemberger, Rezhna Adil Rasheed, Giorgio Fanò-Illic, Francesco Coscia
      European Journal of Translational Myology.2020; 30(1): 107.     CrossRef
    • 2.4-km Run and 20-m Multistage Fitness Test Relationships in Law Enforcement Recruits After Academy Training
      Robert G. Lockie, Javier A. Hernandez, Matthew R. Moreno, Joseph M. Dulla, J. Jay Dawes, Robin M. Orr
      Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.2020; 34(4): 942.     CrossRef
    • Physical Fitness, Sex Considerations, and Academy Graduation for Law Enforcement Recruits
      Robert G. Lockie, J. Jay Dawes, Joseph M. Dulla, Robin M. Orr, Erika Hernandez
      Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.2020; 34(12): 3356.     CrossRef
    • Relationships between Isometric Strength and the 74.84-kg (165-lb) Body Drag Test in Law Enforcement Recruits
      Robert G. Lockie, Matthew R. Moreno, Megan B. McGuire, Tomas J. Ruvalcaba, Ashley M. Bloodgood, Joseph M. Dulla, Robin M. Orr, J. Jay Dawes
      Journal of Human Kinetics.2020; 74(1): 5.     CrossRef
    • Waist Circumference and Waist-to-Hip Ratio in Law Enforcement Agency Recruits: Relationship to Performance in Physical Fitness Tests
      Robert G. Lockie, Tomas R. Ruvalcaba, Michael Stierli, Joseph M. Dulla, J. Jay Dawes, Robin M. Orr
      Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.2020; 34(6): 1666.     CrossRef
    • Developing the Fitness of Law Enforcement Recruits during Academy Training
      Danny J. Maupin, Ben Schram, Elisa F. D. Canetti, Jay J. Dawes, Robert Lockie, Robin M. Orr
      Sustainability.2020; 12(19): 7944.     CrossRef
    • We Need You: Influence of Hiring Demand and Modified Applicant Testing on the Physical Fitness of Law Enforcement Recruits
      Robert G. Lockie, J. Jay Dawes, Matthew R. Moreno, Megan B. McGuire, Tomas J. Ruvalcaba, Ashley M. Bloodgood, Joseph M. Dulla, Robin M. Orr
      International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2020; 17(20): 7512.     CrossRef
    • Special Weapons and Tactics Occupational-Specific Physical Assessments and Fitness Measures
      Jessica Strader, Ben Schram, Shane Irving, Jeremy Robinson, Robin Orr
      International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2020; 17(21): 8070.     CrossRef
    • Characterization of the Physical Fitness of Police Officers: A Systematic Review
      Eduardo F. Marins, Gabriela B. David, Fabrício B. Del Vecchio
      Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.2019; 33(10): 2860.     CrossRef
    • Comparing levels of fitness of police Officers between two United States law enforcement agencies
      Cory J. Myers, Robin M. Orr, Kiyoshi S. Goad, Benjamin L. Schram, Robert Lockie, Charlie Kornhauser, Ryan Holmes, J. Jay Dawes, Gemma S. Milligan, Sam D. Blacker, Pieter E.H. Brown, Andrew G. Siddall
      Work.2019; 63(4): 615.     CrossRef
    • Tracking Training Load and Its Implementation in Tactical Populations: A Narrative Review
      Danny Maupin, Ben Schram, Robin Orr
      Strength & Conditioning Journal.2019; 41(6): 1.     CrossRef
    • Impact of Various Clothing Variations on Firefighter Mobility: A Pilot Study
      Robin Orr, Vini Simas, Elisa Canetti, Daniel Maupin, Ben Schram
      Safety.2019; 5(4): 78.     CrossRef
    • Physical Characteristics by Sex and Age for Custody Assistants From a Law Enforcement Agency
      Robert G. Lockie, Robin M. Orr, Michael Stierli, Karly A. Cesario, Matthew R. Moreno, Ashley M. Bloodgood, Joseph M. Dulla, J. Jay Dawes
      Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.2019; 33(8): 2223.     CrossRef
    • The Influence of Physical Fitness on Reasons for Academy Separation in Law Enforcement Recruits
      Robert G. Lockie, Katherine Balfany, Ashley M. Bloodgood, Matthew R. Moreno, Karly A. Cesario, Joseph M. Dulla, J. Jay Dawes, Robin M. Orr
      International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2019; 16(3): 372.     CrossRef
    • The effects of aerobic fitness on day one physical training session completion in law enforcement recruits
      Robert G. Lockie, Matthew R. Moreno, Karly A. Cesario, Megan B. McGuire, J. Jay Dawes, Robin M. Orr, Joseph M. Dulla.
      Journal of Trainology.2019; 8(1): 1.     CrossRef
    • Aerobic fitness, upper-body strength and agility predict performance on an occupational physical ability test among police officers while wearing personal protective equipment
      Eduardo Frio Marins, Leo Cabistany, Charles Bartel, J. Jay Dawes, Fabrício Boscolo Del Vecchio
      The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness.2019;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • A Preliminary Analysis of Relationships between a 1RM Hexagonal Bar Load and Peak Power with the Tactical Task of a Body Drag
      Robert G. Lockie, Katherine Balfany, Jenna K. Denamur, Matthew R. Moreno
      Journal of Human Kinetics.2019; 68(1): 157.     CrossRef
    • Obesity Prevalence and Musculoskeletal Injury History in Probation Officers
      JACOB A. MOTA, ZACHARY Y. KERR, GENA R. GERSTNER, HAYDEN K. GIULIANI, ERIC D. RYAN
      Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise.2019; 51(9): 1860.     CrossRef
    • Time Spent Working in Custody Influences Work Sample Test Battery Performance of Deputy Sheriffs Compared to Recruits
      Robert G. Lockie, Robin M. Orr, Matthew R. Moreno, J. Jay Dawes, Joseph M. Dulla
      International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2019; 16(7): 1108.     CrossRef
    • The Relationship between Fitness and Marksmanship in Police Officers
      Hannah Muirhead, Robin Orr, Ben Schram, Charlie Kornhauser, Ryan Holmes, J. Jay Dawes
      Safety.2019; 5(3): 54.     CrossRef
    • Associations between Specialist Tactical Response Police Unit Selection Success and Urban Rush, along with 2.4 km and 10 km Loaded Carriage Events
      Rhiannon Thomas, Ben Schram, Shane Irving, Jeremy Robinson, Robin Orr
      International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2019; 16(19): 3558.     CrossRef
    • Relationships Between Absolute and Relative Strength and Power in Male Police Officers of Varying Strength Levels
      J. Jay Dawes, Robert G. Lockie, Charles L. Kornhauser, Ryan J. Holmes, Robin M. Orr
      Journal of Science in Sport and Exercise.2019; 1(3): 281.     CrossRef
    • Assessing Differences in Anthropometric and Fitness Characteristics Between Police Academy Cadets and Incumbent Officers
      Robin M. Orr, J. Jay Dawes, Rodney Pope, Joseph Terry
      Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.2018; 32(9): 2632.     CrossRef
    • Analysis of the Effects of Sex and Age on Upper- and Lower-Body Power for Law Enforcement Agency Recruits Before Academy Training
      Robert G. Lockie, J. Jay Dawes, Robin M. Orr, Michael Stierli, Joseph M. Dulla, Ashley J. Orjalo
      Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.2018; 32(7): 1968.     CrossRef
    • Profiling the metabolic fitness of a special operations police unit
      Danny Maupin, Jeremy Robinson, Thomas Wills, Shane Irving, Ben Schram, Robin Orr
      Journal of Occupational Health.2018; 60(5): 356.     CrossRef
    • Relationship of Absolute and Relative Lower-Body Strength to Predictors of Athletic Performance in Collegiate Women Soccer Players
      Emily Andersen, Robert Lockie, J. Dawes
      Sports.2018; 6(4): 106.     CrossRef
    • Physical Fitness Characteristics That Relate to Work Sample Test Battery Performance in Law Enforcement Recruits
      Robert G. Lockie, J. Jay Dawes, Katherine Balfany, Ciara E. Gonzales, Maria M. Beitzel, Joseph M. Dulla, Robin M. Orr
      International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2018; 15(11): 2477.     CrossRef
    • CARDIORESPIRATORY AND NEUROMUSCULAR FITNESS OF FEDERAL HIGHWAY POLICE OFFICERS
      Eduardo Frio Marins, Rodrigo Wiltgen Ferreira, Fabrício Boscolo Del Vecchio
      Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Esporte.2018; 24(6): 426.     CrossRef
    • Grip Strength and Its Relationship to Police Recruit Task Performance and Injury Risk: A Retrospective Cohort Study
      Robin Orr, Rodney Pope, Michael Stierli, Benjamin Hinton
      International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2017; 14(8): 941.     CrossRef

    • PubReader PubReader
    • ePub LinkePub Link
    • Cite
      CITE
      export Copy Download
      Close
      Download Citation
      Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.
      Format:
      • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
      • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
      Include:
      • Citation for the content below
      A physical fitness profile of state highway patrol officers by gender and age
      Ann Occup Environ Med. 2017;29:16  Published online June 1, 2017
      DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40557-017-0173-0
      Close
    • XML DownloadXML Download
    A physical fitness profile of state highway patrol officers by gender and age
    A physical fitness profile of state highway patrol officers by gender and age
    MeasureFemale officersMale officers
    Age (yrs)
    ♀ = 34 ♂ = 597    		36.21 ± 8.4539.52 ± 8.09
    Weight (kg)
    ♀ = 31 ♂ = 587    		67.49 ± 25.6291.99 ± 19.54a
    Height (cm)
    ♀ = 33 ♂ = 588    		164.65 ± 29.82177.98 ± 23.13a
    Vertical Jump (cm.)
    ♀ = 33 ♂ = 588    		36.80 ± 5.6950.74 ± 8.89a
    Leg/Back Dynomometer (kgk ♀ = 33 ♂ = 592116.53 ± 20.85170.68 ± 37.46a
    Grip (Kg)
    ♀ = 32 ♂ = 589    		37.875 ± 5.3455.04 ± 7.77a
    Push-ups (repetitions)
    ♀ = 29 ♂ = 582    		24.24 ± 11.6339.09 ± 15.61a
    Sit-ups (repetitions)
    ♀ = 33 ♂ = 583    		31.06 ± 9.5234.46 ± 10.29
    Shuttles (number)
    ♀ = 31 ♂ = 550    		26.19 ± 10.8638.04 ± 19.87a
    AgeMeasureGroup populationFemale officersMale officers
    20–29
    Group 1    		Weight (kg)
    n = 89: ♀ = 6: ♂ = 83    		83.82 ± 16.3869.55 ± 15.69* 84.85 ± 16.03
    Height (cm)
    n = 89: ♀ = 6: ♂ = 83    		179.14 ± 7.78167.64 ± 7.18* 179.97 ± 7.17
    Vertical Jump (cm.)
    n = 88: ♀ = 6: ♂ = 82    		57.25 ± 9.6840.46 ± 8.13* 58.47 ± 8.79
    Grip (kg)
    n = 87: ♀ = 6: ♂ = 81    		53.53 ± 8.4937.67 ± 5.57* 54.67 ± 7.47
    Push-ups (repetitions)
    n = 88: ♀ = 6: ♂ = 82    		46.52 ± 15.0730.50 ± 9.95* 47.70 ± 14.74
    Sit-ups (repetitions)
    n = 89: ♀ = 6: ♂ = 83    		40.98 ± 8.3538.33 ± 10.5641.17 ± 8.22
    Leg/Back Dynomometer (kg)
    n = 89: ♀ = 6: ♂ = 83    		169.50 ± 42.27109.85 ± 26.69* 173.81 ± 39.94
    Shuttles (number)
    n = 86: ♀ = 6: ♂ = 80    		54.07 ± 21.0033.33 ± 6.4155.63 ± 20.90
    30–39
    Group 2    		Weight (kg)
    n = 218: ♀ = 16: ♂ = 202    		89.32 ± 19.7363.50 ± 28.87* 91.37 ± 17.35
    Height (cm)
    n = 218: ♀ = 16: ♂ = 202    		177.83 ± 22.46159.23 ± 43.07* 179.30 ± 19.40
    Vertical Jump (cm)
    n = 215: ♀ = 16: ♂ = 199    		51.49 ± 9.0236.00 ± 5.82* 52.73 ± 8.03†
    Grip (kg)
    n = 214: ♀ = 15: ♂ = 199    		54.65 ± 9.4037.20 ± 4.51* 55.97 ± 8.30
    Push-ups (repetitions)
    n = 213: ♀ = 15: ♂ = 198    		39.44 ± 15.4425.13 ± 13.05* 40.52 ± 14.96†
    Sit-ups (repetitions)
    n = 212: ♀ = 16: ♂ = 196    		36.04 ± 9.9328.81 ± 10.51* 36.63 ± 9.67†
    Leg/Back Dynomometer (kg)
    n = 201: ♀ = 16: ♂ = 200    		166.56 ± 38.86113.35 ± 12.22* 170.81 ± 37.08
    Shuttles (number)
    n = 201: ♀ = 15: ♂ = 186    		40.98 ± 19.8425.93 ± 12.57* 42.19 ± 19.85†
    40–49
    Group 3    		Weight (kg)
    n = 262: ♀ = 10: ♂ = 252    		94.34 ± 20.5169.13 ± 27.64* 95.34 ± 19.59†
    Height (cm)
    n = 262: ♀ = 10: ♂ = 252    		176.02 ± 27.88170.18 ± 5.35* 176.25 ± 28.38
    Vertical Jump (cm.
    n = 258: ♀ = 9: ♂ = 249    		47.80 ± 7.7034.95 ± 5.13* 48.29 ± 7.37†
    Grip (kg)
    n = 259: ♀ = 9: ♂ = 250    		54.46 ± 8.0136.89 ± 5.06* 55.09 ± 7.36
    Push-ups (repetitions)
    n = 252: ♀ = 6: ♂ = 246    		36.22 ± 15.5316.83 ± 3.66* 36.70 ± 15.41†
    Sit-ups (repetitions)
    n = 256: ♀ = 9: ♂ = 247    		31.70 ± 9.8230.78 ± 5.8331.73 ± 9.94†
    Leg/Back Dynomometer (kg)
    n = 258: ♀ = 9: ♂ = 249    		168.94 ± 38.53118.43 ± 24.28* 170.76 ± 37.73
    Shuttles (number)
    n = 237: ♀ = 8: ♂ = 229    		31.01 ± 15.4322.50 ± 10.3031.31 ± 15.52†
    50–59
    Group 4    		Weight (kg)
    n = 57: ♀ = 2: ♂ = 55    		89.76 ± 27.3585.05 ± 11.2389.94 ± 27.79†
    Height (cm)
    n = 57: ♀ = 2: ♂ = 55    		178.20 ± 25.06171.45 ± 8.98178.45 ± 25.46
    Vertical Jump (cm)
    n = 56: ♀ = 2: ♂ = 54    		43.66 ± 8.1840.51 ± 10.5943.79 ± 8.18†
    Grip (kg)
    n = 54: ♀ = 2: ♂ = 52    		52.11 ± 7.6848.00 ± 4.2452.27 ± 7.76
    Push-ups (repetitions)
    n = 54: ♀ = 2: ♂ = 52    		31.15 ± 14.4221.00 ± 15.5631.54 ± 14.39†
    Sit-ups (repetitions)
    n = 55: ♀ = 2: ♂ = 53    		29.62 ± 9.5828.50 ± 2.1229.66 ± 9.76†
    Leg/Back Dynomometer (kg)
    n = 57: ♀ = 2: ♂ = 55    		164.79 ± 34.84153.41 ± 14.46165.21 ± 35.36
    Shuttles (number)
    n = 52: ♀ = 2: ♂ = 50    		26.54 ± 13.0021.50 ± 4.9526.74 ± 13.20†
    60–69
    Group 5    		Weight (kg)
    n = 5: ♀ = 0: ♂ = 5    		89.36 ± 11.06-89.36 ± 11.06
    Height (cm)
    n = 5: ♀ = 0: ♂ = 5    		173.23 ± 6.57-173.23 ± 6.57
    Vertical Jump (cm.)
    n = 4: ♀ = 0: ♂ = 4    		40.34 ± 4.39-40.34 ± 4.39
    Grip (kg)
    n = 5: ♀ = 0: ♂ = 5    		50.20 ± 3.27-50.20 ± 3.27
    Push-ups (repetitions)
    n = 5: ♀ = 0: ♂ = 5    		39.20 ± 12.68-39.20 ± 12.68
    Sit-ups (repetitions)
    n = 5: ♀ = 0: ♂ = 5    		25.40 ± 11.89-25.40 ± 11.89
    Leg/Back Dynomometer (kg)
    n = 5: ♀ = 0: ♂ = 5    		169.55 ± 20.62-169.55 ± 20.62
    Shuttles (number)
    n = 5: ♀ = 0: ♂ = 5    		23.40 ± 7.16-23.40 ± 7.16
    Age group
    (n)    		20–29
    (n = 82)    		30–39
    (n = 202)    		40–49
    (n = 247)    		50–59
    (n = 54)
    Mean (SD)58.47 (8.79)52.73 (8.03)48.29 (7.37)43.79 (8.18)
    Percentile
    9572.8965.9060.3857.21
    9069.7263.0157.7254.26
    8567.6161.0855.9552.30
    8065.8559.4854.4850.66
    7564.3658.1153.2349.27
    7063.0456.9152.1248.04
    6561.9055.8651.1646.98
    6060.6754.7450.1345.84
    5559.6153.7749.2544.85
    5058.4752.7348.2943.79
    4557.3351.6947.3342.73
    4056.2750.7246.4541.75
    3555.0449.6045.4240.60
    3053.9048.5544.4639.54
    2552.5847.3543.3538.31
    2051.0945.9842.1036.92
    1549.3344.3840.6335.28
    1047.2242.4538.8633.32
    544.0539.5636.2030.37
    Age group
    (n)    		20–29
    (n = 83)    		30–39
    (n = 199)    		40–49
    (n = 250)    		50–59
    (n = 52)
    Mean (SD)54.67 (7.47)55.97 (8.30)55.09 (7.36)52.27 (7.76)
    Percentile
    9566.9269.5867.1665.00
    9064.2366.5964.5162.20
    8562.4464.6062.7460.34
    8060.9462.9461.2758.79
    7559.6761.5360.0257.47
    7058.5560.2958.9256.31
    6557.5859.2157.9655.30
    6056.5458.0556.9354.21
    5555.6457.0556.0553.28
    5054.6755.9755.0952.27
    4553.7054.8954.1351.26
    4052.8053.9053.2550.33
    3551.7652.7352.2249.24
    3050.7951.6551.2648.23
    2549.6750.4150.1647.07
    2048.4049.0048.9145.75
    1546.9047.3447.4444.20
    1045.1145.3545.6742.34
    542.4242.3643.0239.54
    Age group
    (n)    		20–29
    (n = 82)    		30–39
    (n = 198)    		40–49
    (n = 246)    		50–59
    (n = 52)
    Mean (SD)47.70 (14.74)40.52 (14.96)36.70 (15.41)31.54 (14.39)
    Percentile
    9571.8165.0561.9755.14
    9066.5259.6756.4249.96
    8562.9956.0852.7346.51
    8060.0553.0949.6443.63
    7557.5550.5447.0241.18
    7055.3448.3044.7139.02
    6553.4346.3542.7137.15
    6051.3844.2640.5535.14
    5549.6142.4638.7033.41
    5047.7040.5236.7031.54
    4545.7938.5834.7029.67
    4044.0336.7832.8527.94
    3541.9734.6930.6925.93
    3040.0632.7428.6924.06
    2537.8530.5026.3821.90
    2035.3527.9523.7619.45
    1532.4124.9620.6716.57
    1028.8821.3716.9813.12
    523.5915.9911.437.94
    Age group
    (n)    		20–29
    (n = 83)    		30–39
    (n = 196)    		40–49
    (n = 247)    		50–59
    (n = 53)
    Mean (SD)41.17 (8.22)36.63 (9.67)31.73 (9.94)29.66 (9.76)
    Percentile
    9554.6552.4948.0345.67
    9051.6949.0144.4542.15
    8549.7246.6942.0739.81
    8048.0744.7540.0837.86
    7546.6843.1138.3936.20
    7045.4441.6636.9034.74
    6544.3840.4035.6133.47
    6043.2339.0534.2232.10
    5542.2437.8933.0230.93
    5041.1736.6331.7329.66
    4540.1035.3730.4428.39
    4039.1234.2129.2527.22
    3537.9632.8627.8525.85
    3036.9031.6026.5624.58
    2535.6630.1525.0723.12
    2034.2728.5123.3821.46
    1532.6226.5721.3919.51
    1030.6524.2519.0117.17
    527.6920.7715.4313.65
    Age group
    (n)    		20–29
    (n = 83)    		30–39
    (n = 200)    		40–49
    (n = 247)    		50–59
    (n = 55)
    Mean (SD)173.81 (39.94)170.81 (37.08)170.76 (37.73)165.21 (35.36)
    Percentile
    95239.31231.62232.64223.20
    90224.93218.27219.05210.47
    85215.35209.37210.00201.98
    80207.36201.96202.45194.91
    75200.57195.65196.04188.90
    70194.58190.09190.38183.60
    65189.39185.27185.47179.00
    60183.80180.08180.19174.05
    55179.00175.63175.66169.81
    50173.81170.81170.76165.21
    45168.62165.99165.86160.61
    40163.83161.54161.33156.37
    35158.23156.35156.05151.42
    30153.04151.53151.14146.82
    25147.05145.97145.48141.52
    20140.26139.66139.07135.51
    15132.27132.25131.52128.44
    10122.69123.35122.47119.95
    5108.31110.00108.88107.22
    Age group
    (n)    		20–29
    (n = 80)    		30–39
    (n = 194)    		40–49
    (n = 229)    		50–59
    (n = 50)
    Mean (SD)55.63 (20.90)42.19 (19.85)31.31 (15.52)26.74 (13.20)
    Percentile
    9589.9174.7456.7648.39
    9082.3867.6051.1843.64
    8577.3762.8347.4540.47
    8073.1958.8644.3537.83
    7569.6355.4941.7135.58
    7066.5052.5139.3833.60
    6563.7849.9337.3631.89
    6060.8647.1535.1930.04
    5558.3544.7733.3328.46
    5055.6342.1931.3126.74
    4552.9139.6129.2925.02
    4050.4137.2327.4323.44
    3547.4834.4525.2621.59
    3044.7631.8723.2419.88
    2541.6328.8920.9117.90
    2038.0725.5218.2715.65
    1533.8921.5515.1713.01
    1028.8816.7811.449.84
    521.359.645.865.09
    Table 1 Descriptive data and fitness test results by gender

    aSignificantly different from female officers at ≤ .001

    Table 2 Descriptive data and fitness test results by gender stratified by age

    *Significantly different from male officers at ≤ .01, †Significantly different from 20–29 years old, p < .01

    Table 3 Percentile ranking of male police officer VJ ability (cm)

    Table 4 Percentile ranking of male police officer grip strength ability (kg)

    Table 5 Percentile ranking of male police officer push-up ability (repetitions)

    Table 6 Percentile ranking of male police officer sit up ability (repetitions)

    Table 7 Percentile ranking of male police officer leg back dynamometer ability (kg)

    Table 8 Percentile ranking of male police shuttle run ability (number of shuttles)

    Table 1

    Table 2

    Table 3

    Table 4

    Table 5

    Table 6

    Table 7

    Table 8

    Ann Occup Environ Med : Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
    © Korean Society of Occupational & Environmental Medicine.
    Close layer
    TOP