Mini-Study Results: 2/1 Interval Strategy Faster and Mentally Easier Than Continuous Ruck Run

By Jackson Mann, MTI Intern

BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front)

Over a 4-week mini-study, MTI compared a continuous ruck run versus a 2-minute run / 1-minute walk interval (2/1) strategy over six miles with a 60-lb ruck. All four participants tested both methods in a crossover design. Results showed that the 2/1 interval strategy yielded significantly faster average finish times and was rated easier to sustain mentally and physically.

Key Outcomes

● Fastest times were posted by Jackson (1:03) and Sam (1:05) using the 2/1 interval in Week 4.
● Slowest times were posted by Seung (1:45) and Emmett (1:32) using the continuous run in Week 4.
● Average 2/1 interval time: 1:20 (across all trials)
● Average continuous run time: 1:23.75 (across all trials)
● All four athletes reported that the interval strategy was mentally easier and more sustainable.
● The 2/1 structure allowed athletes to mentally “chunk” the ruck, which helped reduce perceived effort.

Rucking Strategy Assessment Results

Average Completion Times by Strategy

Background

Rucking is a fundamental component of military and tactical fitness, yet optimal pacing strategies under moderate to heavy loads remain under-researched. Some tactical athletes use a continuous run or shuffle pace, while others implement timed or terrain-based intervals. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether a fixed 2/1 run-walk interval could outperform a continuous run strategy in terms of speed and sustainability when environmental variables were held constant.

Study Design

The study took place in Ogden, Utah, over four weeks. All rucks were completed on a flat 400-meter track to control terrain. Each ruck was six miles (24 laps) with a 60-lb ruck containing sandbags. Participants were four well-conditioned male athletes with varying ruck backgrounds. The mini-study included two familiarization weeks, followed by two timed assessment weeks. In Week 3 (Assessment 1), Jackson and Sam completed the continuous ruck run, while Emmett and Seung used the 2/1 interval. In Week 4 (Assessment 2), the groups switched strategies, allowing for a full crossover comparison. Performance was measured by total time to completion, with athletes self-timing via synchronized watches. Subjective feedback on pacing, fatigue, and mental demand was collected following each assessment.

Discussion

The results across both assessments point to a clear performance advantage for the 2/1 interval strategy, especially when accounting for average completion time and subjective athlete feedback.

In Assessment 1, Jackson and Sam finished their continuous run in 1:11 and 1:07. Both reported that running the entire six miles was mentally demanding, especially under sustained load, and required continuous focus to avoid burnout. Furthermore, they anecdotally mentioned that their average paces slowed as the ruck continued on. Meanwhile, Emmett and Seung, using the 2/1 intervals, finished in 1:28 and 1:44. Though their times were slower than their counterparts, they emphasized that the interval strategy felt far more manageable. Emmett noted the value of mentally breaking the ruck into small, predictable segments and reported that the time passed more quickly and with less perceived suffering.

In Assessment 2, Jackson and Sam transitioned to the 2/1 strategy and posted the fastest times of the study—1:03 and 1:05. Both expressed that the interval pacing allowed them to push harder during run segments and recover just enough during the walks to sustain momentum. They noted the 2/1 pacing felt not only physically easier but mentally smoother and more structured.

On the flip side, Emmett and Seung now attempted the continuous ruck run. Emmett held a consistent run pace and finished in 1:32—four minutes slower than he had recorded with intervals. He noted that the effort was more taxing and required more concentration to avoid slowing. Seung–although ran the 6 miles–recorded the slowest time of the study at 1:45.

Initially, we expected the continuous run strategy to produce the fastest times, given its simplicity and the ability to maintain forward momentum without interruption. However, the study’s outcomes challenged this assumption. The 2/1 interval strategy not only resulted in the fastest recorded times but also emerged as the more sustainable. This unexpected finding suggests that well-structured intervals may outperform steady-state efforts, especially under load.
Together, the results illustrate that across the board, the 2/1 method consistently offered a psychological edge while being the fastest strategy for each athlete.

Limitations

The study was limited by its small sample size (n=4), with only two athletes testing each strategy per assessment. All rucks were conducted in flat terrain with favorable morning temperatures, so results may not transfer directly to hilly, variable, or real-world operational settings. Additionally, no physiological data (heart rate, perceived exertion scores, or caloric expenditure) were collected, limiting analysis to time and subjective feedback.

Next Steps

Given the apparent performance and advantages of the 2/1 interval strategy, we might evaluate additional interval ratios—such as 3:1 (three-minute run, one-minute walk) or 1:1—to determine whether different time structures can optimize performance while still providing the cognitive and physiological benefits observed with 2:1. A longer run segment may reduce total ruck time but could accelerate fatigue, while shorter intervals might enhance manageability at the potential cost of speed. Identifying the ideal balance between intensity and recovery will allow for more customized pacing prescriptions based on fitness level, terrain, and operational goals.

Another proposed variable for future testing is load carriage weight. While this study standardized the ruck load at 60 lbs, many military and law enforcement ruck events—particularly in baseline fitness assessments—are conducted with lighter loads ranging from 35 to 45 lbs. Testing both strategies under reduced weight will help determine whether the interval advantage scales with load or whether lighter rucks shift the balance back toward continuous pacing.

Furthermore, the flat terrain and favorable conditions of the current study do not reflect the variety of elevation changes encountered during assessments and footmarches. Upcoming studies may evaluate both strategies in hillier terrain.