Last week we asked for “test dummy” results for the following assessments:
- MTI Relative Strength Assessment
- MTI Tactical Athlete Work Capacity Assessment
- MTI Military Athlete 3/3/3 Endurance Assessment
We received twenty-four responses from folks who completed one or more of the assessments. Fourteen of those are military personnel, three are law enforcement, and seven are civilians. Here’s how they did…
The Relative Strength Assessment had the most score submissions by far. The scores showed a wide range, with the lowest score at 2.8 and the highest at 6.4. However, thirteen out of nineteen of the respondents score over 5, which is in our “Excellent” range. What does that mean? Here’s a few options:
- This group of athletes comprised of strength mutants
- Our scoring system is too easy
- Some combination of both
A bias towards strength training is common, especially amongst tactical athletes. It’s fun to lift heavy… Nothing wrong with that. What should be kept in mind is ensuring you remain balanced in training for and meeting the demands of job related performance.
If you can Front Squat 400 lbs, but can’t make the 8 mile movement under load to the objective, what’s the point? The three main fitness components we train and test (Strength, Work Capacity, Endurance) must work in conjunction with one another.
We didn’t have enough submissions for all three tests to analyze individual and search for holes in fitness. Ideally, an athlete will take all three tests in three consecutive days. The results should tell you where the holes in your fitness are.
Scored “Good” in Strength and Work Capacity, but “Poor” in Endurance? Grab your ruck and get to work.
Despite the high strength numbers, we’re going to keep the the strength scores… for now. The overarching question is whether athlete scores should influence the standards of the scoring system. We need more data in order to determine the right answer.
The Work Capacity assessment is our newest, and it’s a beautifully simple measure of tactical work capacity demands. Level change, sprint, and repeat. This was the second effort at collecting data for the assessment after Rob’s visit to a Hawaii based infantry unit.
The average of respondents for the work capacity assessment was 56, although with a much wider variation across our current scale of scoring. As a whole, the scoring was fairly consistent with the Hawaii results. We only received eight scores on this survey, so we’re anxious to gather more data and see if the variation changes.
The 3/3/3 Endurance assessment received the smallest amount of attention, with only 6 participants. The average score was 16.5, right in the middle of our “Good” range. None of the athletes scored in the “Excellent” range, and only one score in the “Poor” range. The scoring system for this test seems like it needs the least amount of adjusting, although the limited data leaves it open for tweaking.
We want more data on these assessments. CLICK HERE to go to the survey.
Want to help, but don’t want to take every assessment?
No worries – do what you can and fill out the survey to input your data on the assessment(s) you did complete.
Questions? Email firstname.lastname@example.org