Chapter 1.5 - “Field based progressive load carriage, usually 2-3 times a week, focused on short intense sessions.”
The best way to build rucking performance is field based progressive load carriage, usually 2-3 times a week, focused on short intense sessions. This statement is at the core of our ruck programming, and it garners more criticism than almost anything else. This shouldn’t be contentious, but it is. It throws the established conventional wisdom on its head. It counters decades of “that’s what I did” institutional and personal momentum. Thirty years ago, the program was 8 weeks of rucks with a 6-miler week one and a 24-miler in week eight, adding a few miles each week. You started at 35 pounds and slowly moved up to 75 pounds by the final week. You complemented this with the classic body-building split of chest and tri, back and bi, and shoulders and legs. Throw in some Fartleks (remember those?) and maybe an “advanced” technique like a swim or two and there was your SFAS prep plan. For many, this remains ‘the plan” today. You might throw in some updates like AMRAP, or HIIT, or track repeats, but the rucking remains nearly identical. Just look at the official SWCS produced SFAS Prep plan or any of the official THOR3 plans. Some of these don’t even have weightlifting! But they definitely get the rucking part wrong as well.
Most Soldiers hate rucking. It is almost seen as punishment and there is little wonder why. Most units don’t train for rucking. They simply host an annual or semi-annual 12-mile ruck march event for unit validation. It becomes, predictably, an emotionally significant event. Because nobody in the unit has adequately prepared for it, there is always a marked increase in associated injury rates. Put plainly, it sucks. It spawns the ‘rucking is bad for you, wear dress socks to prevent blisters, and load up on creatine and energy drinks’ narrative that prevails almost uncontested. Boomer Fudd-lore bullshit. This is the reality that so much of the literature addresses. We’re not unsympathetic to the misery, we simply maintain that those people aren’t preparing correctly. And our recommendation is hard work, so it’s bound to be unpopular. It is a relentless and intense process (just like SFAS). So, lots of people predictably resist it. We should note that our training statement is not our opinion, it is what the evidence…the peer reviewed, real world recorded evidence…shows us. You can certainly make an argument that “peer-reviewed” doesn’t hold the credibility that it once did. But it is still the gold-standard. And we should recognize that experience does matter, so your observations and practice can certainly inform your argument. But not at the exclusion of what the empirical evidence demonstrates. In the Taxonomy of Information, data and evidence outweigh narrative and anecdotes. Let’s take a look at the counter-argument.
What our position doesn’t say might be a more revealing place to start. We don’t say the only way, we say the best. There are many ways to train rucking. You could program the antithesis method…treadmill based, set pace and weight, once every 2 weeks, focused on long slow distance…and you would certainly see some sort of stimulus, particularly in poorly trained athletes. But not better than our method. Not the best. There is also a significant distinction to be made with how we define best. Best for what? Injury prevention or VO2 Max? Muscular endurance or flexibility? There are near unlimited variables and the literature seems to favor injury prevention. Fair enough, but we’re training to get selected, not to primarily avoid injury. We define best as increased speed and weight carrying capacity. Finally, we say build rucking performance, not maintain performance. We are assuming that the athlete is beginning from a relatively low performance benchmark. Once you build to a high-performance benchmark there is little evidence to suggest that more than once a week is indicated. But were specifying the best way to build. Words matter.
The field based progressive load carriage component is very well established in the literature. You would struggle to find a study that concludes anything but this. A Systematic Review of the Effects of Physical Training on Load Carriage Performance (Knapik, Harman, Steelman, & Graham, 2012) is a fairly comprehensive meta-analysis of this component and should provide more than enough support for this conclusion to even the most doubtful skeptic. Many critics also cite that this article concludes only one weekly progressive load carriage session, not our recommended 2-3. But this isn’t the conclusion in the studies that it reviews. The full conclusion is “…field-based training conducted at least three times per week that incorporates a wide variety of training modes and includes one weekly progressive load carriage…”, so three times a week is much more relevant, and one might conclude at least one weekly progressive load carriage. The conclusion is not clear in this literature, so we should continue to seek clarification elsewhere, as we have done.
The Army itself has published some guidance via the Uniformed Services University Human Performance Resources Initiative and recommends “limiting ruck marches to one every 10–14 days, planned in coordination with resistance training and cardio days.” (Uniformed Services University, 2023) They base this recommendation on Technical Information Paper No. 12-054-054-0616 (Army Public Health Center, 2016). But the TIP itself concludes that this methodology:
“…may provide optimal performance with the least risk of injury. Because exceeding four marches a month may unnecessarily increase risk, training regimens should not exceed one distance march a week. Unit mission, baseline fitness levels, other physical activities and training, as well as terrain and climate must also be considered.”
Again, the focus of these recommendations is injury prevention, not performance. And even this recommendation includes uncertainty (may) and the caveat that mission and baseline fitness levels must also be considered. Our mission is building elite rucking performance. Our mission is SFAS. We are certainly mindful of injury prevention, but it is not the primary consideration. All of the literature that recommends rucking frequency less recurrently than at least once a week are prioritizing injury prevention, not performance gains. We also prioritize establishing high baseline fitness levels before rucking in earnest. Our methodology includes eight weeks of preparatory fitness…strength, flexibility, mobility, and cardio baseline…before rucking is prescribed. This is exactly in accordance with the literature already cited (Orr, Pope, Johnston, & Coyle, 2010). Evidence.
We should also note the actual recommendation in the TIP is “…field-based training conducted at least 3 times per week…”. Why the distinction between load carriage and other field-based activities? Other than injury prevention in low-fitness trainees, what is the difference in load carriage training versus any other physical training modality? There is no evidence that in a properly conditioned athlete that more frequency correlates to higher injury rates. Would any reasonable credentialed coach program any other physical event only 2 or 3 times a month? What sort of performance gains could one realistically expect training an activity every 10-14 days? One should be mindful of overtraining, but what about undertraining? Can you realistically expect optimum performance gains with such infrequent training? Which method is better, twice a month or twice a week? Not what methods are acceptable, rather what is the best.
Finally for frequency, we absolutely must layer on top of this the analysis of the specific training mission of SFAS. No reasonable person believes that training twice a month would be adequate to build rucking performance for Selection. There is no evidence to support such a conclusion. At SFAS you will be rucking nearly every day for the duration. During Gate Week you will have several timed rucks of an unknown distance. If you are fast enough, you get to go to Land Nav Week. Here you will be rucking every single day. You will be under a ruck for 8-10 hours a day. Again, if you’re fast enough and you can manage the inherent cognitive load and find your points, you earn a shot at Team Week. In Team Week you will be under a ruck, and then some (see: The Sandman) for upwards of 22 or 23 hours a day. And finally, the Long Range Movement. Seemingly endless miles on a bruised and battered body with likely shredded and compromised feet. Twice a month prep? Good fucking luck. In the Knapik, et al meta-analysis the training frequency is as varied as 3-5 times a week, while the intensity and duration were manipulated (Knapik, Harman, Steelman, & Graham, 2012). So, following well established exercise protocols we can conclude that 2-3 times a week is the best frequency for building performance, particularly SFAS level performance.
The final variable in our recommendation is intensity. You can manipulate intensity with three common variables: speed, distance, and weight. Some studies cite duration, but duration is a derivative of speed and distance. We use all three of these variables in our programming with our benchmark variable being speed. And because we focus on short intense sessions, we can focus our programming manipulation on the speed and weight. We develop our understanding of short intense sessions from five key studies, Soldier Load Carriage: Historical, Physiological, Biomechanical, and Medical Aspects (Knapik, Reynolds, & Harman, 2004), Optimizing Operational Physical Fitness (NATO's Research & Technology Organization, 2009), The Development of a Preselection Physical Fitness Training Program for Canadian Special Operations Regiment Applicants (Carlson & Jaenen, 2012), The Role of Strength and Power in High Intensity Military Relevant Tasks (Maladouangdock, 2014), and Optimizing the Physical Training of Military Trainees (Orr & Pope, 2015). We should also note that these studies and many of their cited sources, further support the 2-3 times week frequency conclusion.
What these studies conclude is that intensity matters, particularly with regards to load carriage training. Intensity must be sufficient to elicit a physiological response proportionate to that recommended for cardiovascular and metabolic fitness development, with the speed and weight gradually progressed to levels that meet programming needs (Kraemer, et al., 2004). These studies also note that one of the key factors in injury prevention is fatigue and that fatigue sets in at the tail ends of duration, so shorter is better (Bloch, et al., 2023). Some studies cite distances as short as 2-3 miles and even .25 mile sessions (Poel, 2016). We conclude that this is too short, except for specific targeted sessions, to achieve the fitness, technique, and misery management elements of rucking specific fitness. We determined that the ‘sweet spot’ of maximum intensity and sustainable misery balanced with relative injury prevention is 5 miles. We could have chosen 4 and we could have chosen 6 as the evidence is inconclusive at this level of detail, so we assessed 5 miles as optimum. You can certainly train for longer distances, but your intensity will suffer, and intense sessions are better. Remember, we are looking for the best method.
There it is. The thesis statement: The best way to build rucking performance is field based progressive load carriage, usually 2-3 times a week, focused on short intense sessions. You have the argument, the counter-argument, the logic, the evidence, and the literature review. We only cite about a dozen sources here, but there as many as several thousand articles to support these conclusions. This is an evidence-based conclusion, supported by countless peer-reviewed articles, following all of the most accepted and well-established fitness programing principles. Just because it goes against what you did, or what your buddy recommends, or what Skull and Dagger SpecOps Fitness, LLC recommends doesn’t mean much in the face of the overwhelming evidence. You are free to program your rucking train-up in any manner that you choose. But if you aren’t doing it as field based progressive load carriage, usually 2-3 times a week, focused on short intense sessions then you aren’t doing it the best way. Choose your experts, and your expert advice, carefully. SFAS is an upside-down world and requires a deliberate and informed prep.
Ruck Programming Bibliography
Army Public Health Center. (2016). TECHNICAL INFORMATION PAPER NO. 12-054-0616: Foot Marching, Load Carriage, and Injury Risk. Aberdeen Proving Grounds: TECHNICAL INFORMATION PAPER NO. 12-054-0616.
Bloch, A., Steckenrider, J., Zifchock, R., Freisinger, G., Bode, V., & Elkin-Frankston, S. (2023). Effect of Fatigue on Movement Patterns During a Loaded Ruck March. Military Medicine.
Carlson, M., & Jaenen, S. (2012). The development of a preselection physical fitness training program for Canadian Special Operations Regiment applicants. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.
Knapik, J. J., Harman, E. A., Steelman, R. A., & Graham, B. S. (2012). A Systematic Review of the Effects of Physical Training on Load Carriage Performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 585-597.
Knapik, J., Reynolds, K., & Harman, E. (2004). Soldier load carriage: historical, physiological, biomechanical, and medical aspects. Mil Med.
Kraemer, W., Vescovi, J., Volek, J., Nindl, B., Newton, R., Patton, J., . . . Häkkinen, K. (2004). Effects of concurrent resistance and aerobic training on load-bearing performance and the Army physical fitness test. Military Medicine.
Maladouangdock, J. (2014). The Role of Strength and Power in High Intensity Military Relevant Tasks. University of Connecticut .
NATO's Research & Technology Organization. (2009). Optimizing Operational Physical Fitness. Neuilly: NATO.
Orr, R., & Pope, R. (2015). Optimizing the Physical Training of Military Trainees. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 53-59.
Orr, R., Pope, R., Johnston, V., & Coyle, J. (2010). Load carriage: minimising soldierinjuries through physical conditioning –a narrative review. Journal of Military and Veterans' Health, 31-38.
Poel, D. (2016). THE EFFECTS OF MILITARY STYLE RUCK MARCHING ON LOWER EXTREMITY LOADING. The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Uniformed Services University. (2023). Load carriage strategies to improve military fitness. Retrieved from Human Performance Resources by CHAMP: https://www.hprc-online.org/physical-fitness/training-performance/load-carriage-strategies-improve-military-fitness
