Anthropometrics and body composition predict performance during a simulated direct-fire engagement

Abstract

This study determined anthropometric and body composition predictors of performance during a simulated direct-fire engagement. Healthy subjects (N = 33, age = 25.7 ± 7.0 yr) underwent anthropometric and body composition assessments before completing a simulated direct-fire engagement – consisting of marksmanship with cognitive workload assessment and a fire-and-move drill (16 × 6-m sprints) while wearing combat load. Susceptibility to enemy fire was modelled on sprint duration. Partial correlations and multiple linear regressions established the relationships between predictors and performance outcomes, controlling for age and sex. Significance was p ≤ 0.05. Higher percent body fat, fat mass, fight load index predicted greater susceptibility to enemy fire (r = 0.40 to 0.42) and lower cognitive performance (r= -0.45 to −0.49). Higher BMI also predicted lower cognitive performance (r= -0.49). Shorter stature/hand length predicted higher marksmanship accuracy (r= -0.40), while higher fat-free mass/fat-free mass index predicted slower reaction times (r = 0.36–0.41). These data suggest anthropometric and body composition measures modulate combat effectiveness and reinforce body composition standards in military organisations.

Practitioner summary: This study identified field-expedient anthropometric and body composition predictors of a simulated direct-fire engagement that evaluated survivability (i.e. susceptibility to enemy fire) and lethality (i.e. marksmanship, cognitive performance) outcomes. Our findings suggest that anthropometric and body composition measures may play a role in soldier survivability and lethality during simulated direct-fire engagements.

Keywords:

• Survivability
• marksmanship
• lethality
• combat effectiveness
• adiposity
• military

Acknowledgements

The authors would also like to thank Shea Crum, Blake Goodman, and Jason Sartor for their efforts in assisting with data collection.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of Army, Department of Defense, or U.S. Government. Any citations of commercial organisations and trade names in this report do not constitute an official Department of the Army endorsement or approval of the products or services of these organisations.

Additional information

Funding

Funding for the current study was provided by Kansas State University College of Health and Human Sciences Doctoral Dissertation Award and the Kansas State University Arts, Humanities, and Social Science Small Grant.