How to Evaluate an SFAS Preparation Program

Six criteria for determining whether a training program is appropriate for Special Forces Assessment and Selection.

There is no shortage of physical preparation programs marketed to aspiring Green Berets. Some are developed by experienced strength and conditioning professionals, some by former Special Forces soldiers, and others by individuals whose primary qualification appears to be an impressive social media following. They range from free training guides to expensive subscriptions and personalized coaching services. Most promise to improve your performance, and many claim to be specifically designed for Special Forces Assessment and Selection (SFAS).

But how do you determine whether a program is actually appropriate for SFAS? What distinguishes a well-designed program from one that simply contains a large number of difficult workouts? More importantly, how do you evaluate a program without relying exclusively on testimonials, advertising, or the credentials of the person selling it?

I have spent considerable time examining these questions. Over the past two years, I have purchased, enrolled in, or subscribed to approximately two dozen commercial and publicly available SFAS preparation programs. My objective was to evaluate their programming against the physical demands of selection and the available scientific literature.

Before discussing the results, I need to establish my qualifications and acknowledge a potential conflict of interest. I am not a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist. I do not hold an academic degree or professional certification in exercise science, kinesiology, or strength and conditioning. I have never claimed otherwise.

What I do have is extensive practical experience in the Special Forces community, considerable familiarity with the physical demands of SFAS, and an advanced research degree. My academic training provides the methodological background necessary to examine research, evaluate evidence, develop analytical frameworks, and assess whether a particular intervention is likely to produce its intended outcome. In other words, my qualifications are primarily in operational experience and research methodology rather than professional exercise prescription.

That distinction matters. A qualified strength and conditioning professional brings expertise that I do not possess, particularly in individual assessment, exercise prescription, and the management of athletes with complex physical limitations. Conversely, a coach who has never studied SFAS may lack an adequate understanding of the specific performance environment for which the athlete is preparing.

Ideally, an effective SFAS preparation program incorporates both perspectives: an accurate understanding of selection requirements and a scientifically defensible approach to physical training.

I also have a financial interest in this discussion. I developed Shut Up and Ruck and co-founded SUAR Coaching. I sell training products and frequently recommend my own programs. It would obviously be in my financial interest to conclude that every competing program is inadequate and mine is the only one worth purchasing.

Which, coincidentally, is exactly what I found.

I’m kidding. Mostly.

The appropriate way to address that conflict is to establish the evaluation criteria before applying them and to hold my own programs to the same standards as competing products. A credible assessment should identify both strengths and deficiencies, including those associated with my own work. My objective here is not to convince you that every competing program is worthless. It is to explain the analytical framework I use so that you can apply it to any program you are considering, whether that is SUAR, another commercial product, a free military training guide, or a program you are developing yourself.

I use six primary criteria.

1. Simplicity

I have repeated this principle throughout my writing on land navigation, foot care, rucking, equipment selection, and decision-making: simple is generally better. That principle also applies to physical preparation.

A well-designed training program should provide clear instructions that an athlete can understand and execute without excessive interpretation. The program should identify the exercises, sets, repetitions, loads, distances, intensities, and recovery periods necessary to complete each session.The athlete should be able to open the program, identify the day’s requirements, and begin training.

This does not mean that effective programming is scientifically simple. Exercise prescription involves considerable complexity, particularly when developing multiple physical capacities simultaneously. However, that complexity should be addressed during program development rather than transferred unnecessarily to the athlete.

The distinction is between programming complexity and execution complexity. A program can be sophisticated in design while remaining straightforward to execute.

I am particularly skeptical of programs that require athletes to navigate extensive decision trees, multiple alternative schedules, complicated exercise substitutions, or an unnecessarily large collection of specialized terminology.

Some flexibility is necessary. Athletes have different training histories, equipment limitations, and recovery requirements. However, excessive optionality can create confusion, particularly among novice athletes who lack the knowledge necessary to evaluate competing alternatives.

An example is Tactical Barbell.

I like Tactical Barbell. I own the books, and readers familiar with its programming will recognize several similarities between its basic strength-training principles and those used in Shut Up and Ruck. Tactical Barbell provides a variety of programming approaches, including different strength templates, conditioning protocols, and specialized training options. This flexibility is one of its strengths, particularly for experienced athletes who understand how to select and combine the available components.

It is also a potential weakness for inexperienced candidates.

A novice who encounters terms such as Fighter, Operator, Zulu, Black, Green, HIC, and LSS may struggle to determine which combination is appropriate for SFAS. The difficulty is not necessarily that the individual programs are ineffective. It is that selecting and integrating them requires knowledge that many novice athletes do not yet possess.

An experienced athlete may benefit from this flexibility. A novice preparing for a specific selection event may be better served by a more prescriptive program. My preference is straightforward: establish the athlete’s starting point, identify the required performance outcomes, and provide a clear progression between the two. The athlete should spend more time training than interpreting the instructions.

2. Comprehensiveness

SFAS preparation involves considerably more than running, rucking, and lifting weights.

A comprehensive program must address the physical capacities required for selection, the factors that support their development, and the practical skills necessary to perform under the conditions candidates will encounter. At a minimum, I expect a program to address aerobic endurance, running performance, load carriage, muscular strength, muscular endurance, mobility, movement preparation, and recovery.

I also expect meaningful guidance on nutrition, hydration, sleep, and the management of accumulated training fatigue. Mental preparation and relevant field skills should be addressed either within the program or through clearly identified companion resources. These components should not exist as unrelated additions. They must be integrated into a coherent training structure.

For example, a program that prescribes demanding rucking sessions should account for the strength, aerobic fitness, and musculoskeletal tolerance necessary to complete those sessions. It should also address how rucking interacts with running and lower-body strength training. A program that schedules a heavy lower-body strength session immediately before a demanding ruck may be appropriate under certain circumstances, but that arrangement should be deliberate rather than accidental. The same principle applies to recovery. A program that incorporates substantial running, rucking, and strength-training volume without accounting for the combined workload is incomplete, regardless of how impressive the individual workouts appear.

The Strength Requirement

One of my principal concerns with SFAS preparation programs is the tendency to underemphasize strength development. I have adopted a description used by Terminator Training that characterizes SFAS as an endurance event with a strength component. I think that is a useful broad description of the selection environment.

Unfortunately, some candidates interpret it to mean that endurance is important and strength is merely supplemental. That is not what it means. SFAS requires substantial aerobic endurance, but it also requires candidates to move heavy loads, carry equipment, manipulate awkward objects, negotiate obstacles, and repeatedly perform demanding muscular work under fatigue. Candidates need to be strong. In many cases, stronger than they initially believe.

Calisthenics are useful and should remain part of preparation. They develop relative strength, muscular endurance, and proficiency in movements commonly assessed during military fitness testing. However, calisthenics alone may not provide the most efficient means of developing the maximal strength required for demanding load-carriage and equipment-handling tasks. I therefore expect a comprehensive SFAS preparation program to include progressive resistance training.

My preferred approach emphasizes conventional exercises such as the squat, deadlift, bench press, overhead press, row, and shrug. These exercises develop important movement patterns and muscular capacities using established, measurable loading methods. They are not the only useful exercises, and they do not reproduce every physical demand encountered at SFAS. Their value is that they provide a practical foundation for progressive strength development without unnecessary complexity.

One of the programs I previously recommended was the legacy Special Warfare Center and School SFAS preparation guide, Version 1.2. In retrospect, that recommendation was insufficiently critical. The version I evaluated relied heavily on calisthenics and did not provide the progressive weight-training component I now consider necessary for comprehensive preparation. Its rucking prescription also failed to meet several of my preferred programming criteria.

The fact that a program originates from an official military organization does not automatically establish that it represents the best available preparation methodology. Official guidance deserves consideration, but it should still be evaluated against the relevant performance demands and available evidence. I consider the newer SWCS preparation guidance substantially better. That is an important distinction because criticisms of an older version should not automatically be applied to its replacement.

I would also avoid repeated updates and versions. By definition, a program that is repeatedly updated isn’t comprehensive. Why is it getting another update? What did you miss the last time? SFAS hasn’t changed in 35 years. The exercise science hasn’t changed. The standard hasn’t changed. If you got it wrong last time and had to update it, then what did you miss this time? Updates are marketing and you pay the price for that.

3. Unnecessary or Proprietary Exercises

Another factor I evaluate is the selection of exercises within a program. There is nothing inherently wrong with developing a new exercise or using a specialized movement to address a particular training requirement. Exercise selection should be based on the intended adaptation, the athlete’s capabilities, and the relationship between the movement and the performance objective.

However, I become skeptical when a program relies heavily on exercises that require extensive explanation without demonstrating a clear advantage over conventional alternatives. The question is not whether an exercise is difficult. The question is what the exercise accomplishes. A complicated movement involving multiple positions, unusual grips, and several simultaneous actions may create substantial fatigue. That does not establish that it is an efficient method of developing the physical capacities required for SFAS. Complexity must be justified by a corresponding benefit.

The principle of specificity is relevant here. Training should develop the physical characteristics and movement capabilities necessary for the target activity. However, specificity does not require every exercise to resemble an operational task. A conventional deadlift can develop strength relevant to lifting heavy equipment without requiring the athlete to reproduce an exact selection event. Similarly, squats, rows, presses, and loaded carries can develop useful capacities without being assigned proprietary names.

Basics build champions.

Mountain Tactical Institute (MTI) provides a useful example of the distinction between effective training and unnecessary complexity. In one version of an MTI program I evaluated, the first week incorporated approximately ten exercises or movement variations with names unfamiliar to many conventional gym users. These included movements identified as Leg Blasters, Toes to Sky, Shoulder Teacups, and other specialized exercises. Some of these movements are relatively straightforward once demonstrated. Others combine several movement components.

My criticism is not that the exercises are necessarily ineffective. MTI has developed a substantial body of programming, and many of its methods are physically demanding and potentially useful. My concern is whether that degree of exercise variety provides sufficient benefit to justify the additional complexity, particularly for novice candidates. If an athlete must repeatedly stop to study exercise demonstrations before completing a workout, I want to know what advantage those movements provide over more familiar alternatives. The burden should be on the program developer to justify the additional complexity.

4. Training Volume and Recovery

One of the most persistent misconceptions about SFAS preparation is that the extraordinary physical demands of selection require equally extraordinary daily training volume. Candidates hear accounts of Team Week, prolonged load carriage, heavy equipment movements, and repeated physical events under substantial fatigue. They conclude that preparation must involve similarly exhausting workloads on a routine basis. This reasoning confuses the demands of the performance environment with the methods required to prepare for that environment.

The purpose of training is to produce physiological adaptation. It is not necessary to reproduce the full demands of selection during every training session. Excessive training volume can compromise recovery, reduce the quality of subsequent sessions, and increase the risk of overuse injuries. More training is beneficial only when the additional workload produces sufficient adaptation to justify its recovery cost. This is particularly important for candidates using self-directed programs.

A personalized coach can monitor training performance, identify developing problems, and adjust workload according to the athlete’s response. A fixed training document generally cannot. Consequently, a self-directed program should provide clear progression, recovery guidance, and practical methods for adjusting workload when necessary. I consider this one of the legitimate limitations of Shut Up and Ruck. It is a structured program designed for a defined population, but it cannot provide the same level of individualization as competent personalized coaching.

We attempted to address that limitation through conservative workload management, deliberate progression, and clearly defined performance objectives. Most training days are designed to require approximately 60–90 minutes of work. Longer sessions and particularly demanding training events are incorporated deliberately rather than becoming the normal daily expectation. The program includes relatively few two-a-day training sessions. We also incorporate a limited number of high-fatigue events intended to develop performance under accumulated stress. Those sessions serve a specific purpose. They are not evidence that every training day should be exhausting.

An Example of High-Volume Programming

The Gritty Soldier Get Selected program provides an example of the concerns I have with high-volume preparation.

The program description I originally reviewed advertised six training days per week, with multiple days containing two workouts. That schedule is not automatically inappropriate. Experienced athletes can tolerate substantial training volumes, and certain phases of preparation may justify higher workloads. However, the existence of six training days and frequent double sessions does not establish that the program is superior to a more economical alternative.

I want to know how the workload progresses, how recovery is managed, and whether each session contributes meaningfully to the desired outcome. I also question the practice of presenting a single program as equally appropriate for several different selection courses without clearly explaining how their different physical demands are addressed. SFAS, RASP, POAS, and CAAS share certain physical requirements, but they are not identical selection environments.

A program may provide useful general preparation for all of them. That is different from demonstrating that it is specifically optimized for each. The relevant question is whether the program develops the capacities required for the candidate’s actual objective.

5. Rucking Programming

Of all the factors I evaluate, rucking receives particular attention. Load-carriage performance is one of the most important physical characteristics associated with SFAS preparation. Candidates must repeatedly move under external loads, often across uneven terrain and under substantial fatigue. The physical demands of load carriage differ from those of unloaded running. External load changes movement mechanics, increases energy expenditure, and places additional stress on the musculoskeletal system.

Consequently, effective rucking preparation requires more than general cardiovascular conditioning. Fortunately, load carriage has been studied extensively. Research supports combining progressive resistance training, aerobic conditioning, and task-specific load-carriage exercise to improve performance. A systematic review by Knapik and colleagues (2012) found that training programs combining resistance and aerobic exercise produced substantial improvements in load-carriage performance, with additional benefits when progressive load carriage was incorporated.

The practical conclusion is that rucking performance should be developed through an integrated program rather than treated as an occasional supplement to running. When evaluating rucking prescriptions, I examine the frequency of training, load progression, distance, movement speed, terrain, and relationship to the remainder of the program. A program should provide enough task-specific exposure to improve performance while managing the cumulative musculoskeletal demands associated with loaded movement.

There is no universally established rucking frequency that is optimal for every athlete. Some military load-carriage research supports relatively infrequent, carefully managed loaded sessions when combined with aerobic and resistance training. Other programs use more frequent exposure, particularly when sessions are shorter or less demanding. The appropriate frequency depends on the total training dose, not simply the number of times an athlete puts on a rucksack. This distinction is important because two weekly sessions involving relatively light loads and short distances may impose less stress than a single prolonged session with a substantially heavier load.

For SFAS preparation, I generally favor regular, progressive, field-based load carriage, often incorporating two or three appropriately programmed exposures per week when the athlete’s conditioning and recovery capacity support that frequency.

However, that is a programming preference informed by the demands of selection, not a claim that research has established two or three sessions per week as universally superior. The question is whether the program produces measurable improvements in loaded movement while allowing the athlete to continue progressing in running, strength, and other required capacities.

Evaluating THOR3

I previously examined several THOR3 preparation programs, including six-, ten-, and fourteen-week versions. The versions I reviewed generally included approximately one rucking session per week, although frequency varied between weeks. I considered that prescription insufficiently specific for my preferred approach to SFAS preparation, particularly when compared with programs that incorporate more frequent progressive load-carriage exposure.

However, frequency alone does not establish program quality. A meaningful evaluation must also consider the load, duration, intensity, progression, and other training activities included in the program. My criticism applies to the specific versions I examined, not necessarily to every THOR3 program or subsequent revision. THOR3 also offers specialized programming developed for military populations, and those resources should be evaluated individually.

The broader point is that a program marketed for SFAS should demonstrate a deliberate, defensible method of developing rucking performance. Given the importance of load carriage during selection, I consider deficiencies in this component particularly consequential.

6. Marketing Claims and Evidence

My final criterion concerns how a program is marketed.

I am immediately skeptical of products that guarantee selection, advertise dramatic increases in selection probability, claim to be ranked first without identifying the ranking methodology, or rely heavily on testimonials as evidence of effectiveness. Selection outcomes depend on numerous factors beyond physical fitness. These include cognitive performance, psychological characteristics, decision-making, interpersonal behavior, injuries, and the ability to function under prolonged stress. No physical preparation program can guarantee selection.

Claims that a program doubles or triples the probability of success require particularly careful examination. Doubles the probability compared with what? A historical selection rate? A contemporary class average? A matched group of candidates with similar characteristics? Candidates who purchased the program but did not complete it? Without an appropriate comparison group and clearly defined outcome measures, such claims have little analytical value.

The same problem applies to rankings. A program described as number one should identify who conducted the evaluation, what criteria were used, which programs were compared, and how the results were obtained. Otherwise, the ranking is simply a marketing statement. Testimonials provide even weaker evidence. A candidate who successfully completes selection after using a particular program may genuinely believe that the program contributed to his success. That experience is worth considering, but it does not establish that the program was responsible for the outcome.

Candidates who purchase and complete demanding preparation programs may already possess characteristics associated with higher selection success, including motivation, discipline, and prior physical fitness. Without accounting for those characteristics, it is difficult to determine how much of the observed outcome should be attributed to the program itself. There is also an obvious reporting problem. Successful customers are more likely to provide favorable testimonials, and companies have little incentive to prominently advertise negative experiences. This does not mean that testimonials are fabricated or worthless. It means that they are not a substitute for objective evidence.

I apply the same standard to SUAR.

If we claim that our programming improves running or rucking performance, we should be able to explain the mechanisms, identify the relevant research, and demonstrate that the prescribed training is consistent with those findings. If we make claims about selection outcomes, those claims should be supported by appropriate data rather than anecdotes or marketing language. A good program should be able to explain why it works without relying on exaggerated promises.

Additional Considerations: Price, Access, and Format

The six criteria above address the substance of the training program, but several practical considerations also influence whether a product represents good value.

Price is one of them.

For a self-directed training document, I would be reluctant to spend substantially more than $100 unless the product included meaningful additional services or resources. That is a personal purchasing preference rather than an objective standard of value. A more expensive program may justify its price through better instruction, assessment tools, support, or specialized content. However, price should not be confused with quality.

Access is another consideration. If I purchase a self-directed program, I prefer permanent access to the material rather than a subscription that ends when I stop paying. There are legitimate reasons for subscription-based training services, particularly when they include ongoing updates, coaching, or interactive features. Nevertheless, candidates should understand precisely what they are purchasing and what access they retain.

Format also matters. My preference is for a physical training journal that allows the athlete to record performance, make notes, and review progress without depending on an electronic device. Others may prefer digital tracking, automated calculations, or app-based programming. Those features can be useful, provided they improve execution rather than introduce unnecessary complexity. The important consideration is whether the format helps the athlete consistently complete the prescribed training and evaluate progress.

Applying the Criteria to Shut Up and Ruck

It would be unreasonable to establish these criteria, criticize competing programs, and then exempt my own product from the same evaluation.

Shut Up and Ruck was developed with these principles in mind.

The strength-training component emphasizes six conventional lifts: the squat, deadlift, bench press, overhead press, row, and shrug. These exercises provide a straightforward foundation for progressive strength development.

The program incorporates running, rucking, strength training, mobility, movement preparation, and recovery within a coordinated training structure. It also addresses nutrition, hydration, sleep, and the cognitive demands associated with preparation.

Exercise selection is deliberately conservative. We generally favor established movements with clear training objectives rather than introducing unnecessary exercise variations.

The 5×5 Man Maker is an exception in the sense that it combines several familiar activities into a specific performance challenge. However, the individual movements are conventional, and the purpose of the session is explicitly defined.

Training volume is managed deliberately. Most sessions are intended to be completed within a reasonable period, and demanding high-fatigue events are incorporated selectively rather than routinely.

Rucking receives particular emphasis because of its importance to SFAS performance. The program integrates progressive load carriage with strength and aerobic development rather than treating rucking as an occasional conditioning activity.

Those are the design decisions.

Whether the program succeeds should be evaluated against the same criteria applied to competing products. Candidates should examine the actual prescriptions, assess their suitability, and determine whether the progression is appropriate for their current capabilities. The principal limitation remains individualization. A fixed program cannot evaluate every athlete’s injury history, movement deficiencies, recovery capacity, or response to training. It can provide a structured progression and reasonable modification guidance, but it cannot replace individualized assessment and coaching. That limitation should be acknowledged rather than concealed.

What About Personalized Coaching?

Personalized coaching is a different product category and should be evaluated using additional criteria. A competent coach should begin with an assessment of the athlete’s current capabilities, training history, injuries, performance deficiencies, and preparation timeline. The resulting program should reflect those findings. Simply providing every client with the same training document while describing it as customized programming does not constitute meaningful individualization.

Effective coaching also requires ongoing monitoring, communication, and adjustment. The coach should evaluate whether the athlete is responding to the prescribed workload and modify the program when necessary. These services can justify a substantially higher price than a self-directed training document.

SUAR Coaching provides individualized assessment and programming for candidates who want that level of support. Naturally, I believe our approach is exceptionally well suited to SFAS preparation. But prospective clients should evaluate us using the same standards they apply to anyone else. Ask what assessments are performed, how training is individualized, how frequently progress is reviewed, and what evidence supports the prescribed methods. A coach’s reputation is not a substitute for a defensible training process.

A Final Word About Competing Programs

I have been critical of several programs in this article, but that criticism should not be interpreted as a claim that the organizations or individuals producing them lack competence.

Tactical Barbell offers a substantial collection of useful strength and conditioning methods. Its flexibility may be particularly valuable for experienced athletes who understand how to construct their own training plans.

MTI has developed an extensive catalog of demanding tactical fitness programs. My concerns involve exercise complexity, training volume, and the suitability of particular prescriptions for specific athletes rather than a blanket rejection of its methods.

Gritty Soldier produces accessible military fitness content. My criticism concerns whether the particular program I reviewed provides the most appropriate preparation for SFAS.

THOR3 represents a substantial military performance-training effort, and its programs deserve evaluation according to their specific content and intended populations.

The SWCS preparation materials also demonstrate why version-specific evaluation matters. An older guide may contain important deficiencies that are addressed in subsequent revisions.

I also appreciate CrossFit and recognize its value for developing general physical fitness. However, general fitness and preparation for a specific selection event are not identical objectives. CrossFit may contribute useful training elements without necessarily providing a complete SFAS preparation program.

The distinction is between whether a program can improve fitness and whether it is the most appropriate program for a particular objective. Those are different questions. My evaluation of approximately two dozen programs led me to conclude that many provide useful training but relatively few address all the requirements I consider essential for comprehensive SFAS preparation. That conclusion reflects the criteria I have described, the versions I examined, and my interpretation of the available evidence. It is not proof that every competing program is ineffective.

Candidates should make their own assessments.

Conclusion

Selecting an SFAS preparation program should involve more than choosing the most recognizable brand, following a popular social media personality, or accepting an impressive marketing claim. The physical demands of selection are sufficiently well understood, and the relevant exercise-science literature is sufficiently developed, that preparation programs can be evaluated against meaningful criteria.

I look for simplicity, comprehensiveness, appropriate exercise selection, efficient workload management, defensible rucking prescriptions, and credible marketing claims. A good program should explain what the athlete needs to do, why those activities are necessary, how training progresses, and how performance will be evaluated. It should address the complete performance environment rather than concentrating exclusively on a few familiar fitness tests. It should also recognize that training is a process of physiological adaptation, not a competition to determine who can tolerate the most exhausting daily schedule.

Most importantly, a program should be appropriate for the individual athlete and the specific demands of SFAS. Whether you purchase Shut Up and Ruck, select another commercial program, hire a coach, or develop your own training plan, apply the same analytical standards. Don’t purchase a program because someone tells you it is the best. Determine whether the programming supports that claim.

Basics build champions.

Ruck Up or Shut Up.

Selected 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, 26(2), 585–597. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182429853

Orr, R. M., Pope, R., Johnston, V., & Coyle, J. (2021). Soldier load carriage, injuries, rehabilitation and physical conditioning: An international approach. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(8), 4010. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084010