The TRU is a network of multidisciplinary international experts who investigate ways to optimise the physical and cognitive capabilities, and safety of tactical personnel – whether military, law enforcement, firefighters, or first responder organisations. It is a part of Bond University’s Faculty of Health Sciences & Medicine, which received the highest possible ranking of ‘well above world standard’, and ‘at world standard’ for human movement and sports science, from the Australian Research Council (ARC) in its Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) 2015 results.
The overarching aim of the group is to improve the wellbeing and occupational performance of those who serve and ensure new research findings are shared across the different tactical populations.
The TRU provides services to government, industry, academic and private institutions. These include research projects, consultancy reports and educational and training packages.
Since 2015, the TRU team has conducted research across multiple tactical agencies covering initial training through to specialist selection and rehabilitation.
Consultancy projects have included the development of evidence-based, tactically viable, reports to inform multiple agencies and the generation of injury management, assessments, and conditioning optimization frameworks.
Education and training services use the latest research evidence and practical experience to provide workshops, courses or longer programs to tactical personnel as well as their support staff, such as physiotherapists, physical training instructors, and strength and conditioning coaches.
New article alert!
The Relationship Between Acute: Chronic Workload Ratios and Injury Risk in Sports: A Systematic Review
Purpose: Low injury rates have previously been correlated with sporting team success, highlighting the importance of injury prevention programs. Recent methods, such as acute:chronic workload ratios (ACWR) have been developed in an attempt to predict and manage injury risk; however, the relation between these methods and injury risk is unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to identify and synthesize the key findings of studies that have investigated the relationship between ACWR and injury risk.
Methods: Included studies were critically appraised using the Downs and Black checklist, and a level of evidence was determined. Relevant data were extracted, tabulated, and synthesized.
Results: Twenty-seven studies were included for review and ranged in percentage quality scores from 48.2% to 64.3%. Almost perfect interrater agreement (κ = 0.885) existed between raters. This review found a high variability between studies with different variables studied (total distance versus high speed running), as well as differences between ratios analyzed (1.50– 1.80 versus ≥ 1.50), and reference groups (a reference group of 0.80– 1.20 versus ≤ 0.85).
Conclusion: Considering the high variability, it appears that utilizing ACWR for external (eg, total distance) and internal (eg, heart rate) loads may be related to injury risk. Calculating ACWR using exponentially weighted moving averages may potentially result in a more sensitive measure. There also appears to be a trend towards the ratios of 0.80– 1.30 demonstrating the lowest risk of injury. However, there may be issues with the ACWR method that must be addressed before it is confidently used to mitigate injury risk. Utilizing standardized approaches will allow for more objective conclusions to be drawn across multiple populations.
New article alert!
Simulated fire ground scenarios (SFGS) provide firefighters with an opportunity to maintain skills, receive feedback, and optimize performance. Although there is extensive research on heart rate (HR) changes in the firefighter population, few examine the differences between positions. Firefighters are primarily responsible for fire suppression and control (23), officers for emergency operations and organizational management, paramedics for providing on-scene emergency medical care, and drivers are responsible for driving the fire apparatus. Utilizing HR analysis to quantify the physical demands of SFGS among firefighting crews by position. Sixty-seven male (age: 38.97 ± 9.17; ht: 177.99 ± 6.45 cm. wt: 88.83 ± 13.55 kg) firefighters (FF) participated in this investigation. FF crews performed two SFGS involving the suppression and control of a structural fire. Participants were outfitted with heart rate (HR) monitors and average heart rate (HRavg) and maximum heart rate (HRmax) data were collected for each of the two SFGS. Significant differences were observed for Age (P = 0.01), APMHR (P = 0.01), HRmax1(P = 0.04), and HRmax2(P = 0.04) in which firefighters had higher values for Age-predicted maximal heart rate (APMHR), HRmax1, HRmax2compared to the officers. SFGS can be very physically demanding events that may elicit maximal or near maximal HR responses regardless of position. Based on the metabolic demands of these events and the individual firefighter’s capabilities, this information can be used to develop resistance training and conditioning programs that optimize performance at maximal or near maximal heart rates.
There are currently no scheduled events.