Nathan D. Dicks

The influence of officer equipment and protection on short sprinting performance

As advances in protective equipment are made, it has been observed that the weight law enforcement officers must carry every day is greatly increasing. Many investigations have noted the health risks of these increases, yet none have looked at its effects on officer mobility. The primary purpose of this study was to examine the influence of both the weight of officer safety equipment, as well as a lateral focal point (FP), on the stride length, stride velocity, and acceleration of the first six strides of a short sprint. Twenty male law enforcement students performed two maximal effort sprint trials, in the participating colleges gymnasium, from each of four starting positions: forwards (control position), backwards, 90° left, and 90° right. Subjects placed in the FP group (n = 9) were required to maintain focus on lateral FP during the 90° left and 90° right trials, and a forwards FP during the backwards trials. On a second testing date, subjects repeated the sprint tests while wearing a 9.07 kg weight belt, simulating officer equipment and protective gear. The belt averaged 11.47 ± 1.64% of subject body mass. A significant main effect of weight belt trials was found (F = 20.494, p < 0.01), in which significant decreases were found for velocity and acceleration. No other significant effects were found as a result of starting position or focal point and no significant interactions were found between independent variables. Conclusively, the results of this study show the increasing weights of duty gear and protective equipment have detrimental effects on officer velocity and acceleration, impeding their mobility, which may be dangerous in use of force or threatening situations.

Influence of Load Carriage on High-Intensity Running Performance Estimation.

Abstract Solomonson, AA, Dicks, ND, Kerr, WJ, and Pettitt, RW. Influence of load carriage on high-intensity running performance estimation. J Strength Cond Res 30(5): 1391–1396, 2016—Load carriage is a necessary burden for tactical athletes. A combination of training modes, including aerobic conditioning and progressive load carriage, may lead to improved performance. The critical speed (CS) concept enables the practitioner to prescribe high-intensity interval training (HIIT) time limits (TLIMs) from a single 3-minute all-out exercise test (3 MT). We sought to examine the effect of a standard load carriage (18.86 kg) on CS and the finite running capacity > CS (D′). A group of trained subjects (age: 26 ± 5 years, height: 181 ± 4 cm, body mass [BM]: 90 ± 14 kg) completed a loaded and unloaded (UL) 3 MT. The CS was reduced by 0.66 ± 0.24 m·s−1 (p < 0.01) in the loaded condition. There was a small nonsignificant increase in D′ (21.25 ± 39.53 m, p = 0.07). The higher the % load carriage relative to BM is, the greater decline in CS (r = 0.83, p < 0.01). A revised CS with load carriage from the UL 3 MT may be calculated using: adjusted CS = original CS + ([−0.0638 × %load]) + 0.6982. Our results indicate that revised CS and TLIMs for fixed distance, fixed time, or fixed speed HIIT prescriptions may be derived from a UL 3 MT. Such calculations would enable more expeditious training for tactical athletes. We recommend further research involving implementation of HIIT using this new method.

The real risks during deadly police shootouts: Accuracy of the naïve shooter

This study aimed to examine the level of shooting accuracy demonstrated by law enforcement recruits upon completion of their law enforcement firearms training in comparison with novice shooters. One hundred and ninety-five male and 52 female law enforcement recruits volunteered. Participants were separated by firearms experience into the following groups: expert (completed law enforcement firearms course, n = 83), intermediate (recreational experience, n = 71) and novice (minimal/no experience, n = 93). All subjects were tested for accuracy at target locations from 3 to 75 ft. For all locations, no difference was found in accuracy between expert and intermediate groups (p > 0.30). Experts and intermediates had better results than novices on all locations (p < 0.05) except from 3 to 15 ft. Alarmingly, experts were only 10% more accurate than novices between 3 and 15 ft. Finally, novices and intermediate shooters were more likely to hit head locations from 3 ft (57%), whereas experts mainly hit the body location (78%). The results of this study indicate that officers had no advantage over intermediate shooters and a small advantage over novices.