Scott Royer

Physical, Physiological, and Dietary Comparisons Between Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command Critical Skills Operators and Enablers

Introduction Tactical demands of a Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC) Critical Skills Operator (CSO) require high levels of physical performance. During combat deployments, teams of CSOs are supplemented with enablers who specialize in mission-specific tasks. MARSOC CSOs and enablers serve alongside each other in extreme combat environments, often enduring the same physical demands, but the selection process for each group is very different. The purpose of this observational study was to quantify the physical, physiological, and dietary differences of MARSOC CSOs and enablers, as this may have a direct impact on tactical performance and provide important information to shape future research. Materials and Methods Fat free mass (FFM), fat mass (FM), fat mass index (FMI), fat free mass index (FFMI), anaerobic power (AP), anaerobic capacity (AC), aerobic capacity (VO2max), knee flexion (KF), knee extension (KE), trunk extension (TE), and trunk flexion (TF) isokinetic strength were collected. Dietary intake was collected using automated self-administered 24-hr dietary recalls (ASA24) for a subgroup of subjects. Results Testing on 164 male CSOs (age: 27.5 ± 3.8 yr, height: 178.7 ± 6.5 cm, mass: 85.7 ± 9.1 kg, and 7.6 ± 2.9 yr of military service) and 51 male enablers (age: 27.8 ± 5.4 yr, height: 178.4 ± 8.5 cm, mass: 83.8 ± 11.8 kg, and 7.9 ± 5.4 yr of military service) showed there were no significant differences for age, height, mass, or years of military service. (p > 0.05). CSOs demonstrated greater physiological performance in AP (W/kg) (p = 0.020), AC (W/kg) (p = 0.001), and VO2max (ml/kg/min) (p = 0.018). There were no significant differences in FM and FFM (p > 0.05), however CSOs demonstrated significantly higher FFMI (p = 0.011). CSOs also demonstrated greater KF (%BW) (p = 0.001), KE (%BW) (p = 0.001), TE (%BW) (p = 0.010), and TF (%BW) (p = 0.016). No differences in energy or macronutrient intake were observed in the subgroup. Conclusions MARSOC CSOs demonstrated significantly greater FFMI, AP, AC, VO2max, KF, KE, TE, and TF compared with enablers. Dietary intake was consistent between groups, but fueling concerns were identified for all personnel in the subgroup. These findings suggest the need for future studies to examine what physiological and strength thresholds are necessary to operate effectively as a member of a MSOT and determine the relationship between specific performance deficits and risk of injury. In addition, the integration of nutrition strategies that augment and optimize the performance of both CSOs and enablers may be beneficial.

Epidemiological Analysis Of Injuries Occurring In Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Personnel: 3086 Board #151 June 3, 3: 30 PM - 5: 00 PM.

Special Operation Forces have been shown to sustain greater rates of musculoskeletal injuries than conventional forces. These injuries result in loss in deployable operators, which negatively impacts force readiness. In addition to Operators (OPs), Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC) also utilizes Combat Support Personnel (CSP) to support OP missions. These CSP may also be at risk for sustaining similar injuries and mechanisms as OPs. PURPOSE: Describe injury epidemiology in MARSOC personnel and compare injury patterns between OPs and CSP. METHODS: A total of 141 MARSOC personnel (85 OPs, 56 CSP) completed an injury history questionnaire and described musculoskeletal injuries that occurred in the previous 12 months. Injury proportions were calculated for OPs and CSP. Proportions of injured subjects were compared between OPs and CSP using Fisher’s exact tests. RESULTS: A total of 43 injuries were reported within the previous 12 months, 25 of which were classified as preventable (15 in OPs, 10 in CSP). There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of injured subjects between OPs and CSP. Preventable injuries were sustained by 14% of OPs and 16% of CSP. Both OPs and CSP sustained the majority of preventable injuries while performing lifting and running activities (27% and 40% for OPs and 40% and 50% for CSP, respectively). Also, the knee and lumbopelvic region were the most commonly reported location of preventable injuries for OPs (20% each) and CSP (30% each). The top three most common injury types were muscle strain, tendinopathy, and pain/spasm. CONCLUSION: Approximately 15% of MARSOC personnel experienced preventable injuries within 12 months prior to the questionnaire. Therefore, the force would significantly benefit from performance and injury prevention programs to mitigate preventable injuries and optimize force readiness. Because the majority of injuries were sustained during physical training there is a need to monitor training readiness to avoid overtraining and fatigue. Additionally, OPs and CSP seem to sustain similar injury patterns with similar mechanisms, suggesting CSP should also be included in injury prevention initiatives to optimize force readiness.

Epidemiological Analysis Of Injuries Occurring In Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Personnel: 3086 Board #151 June 3, 3

Special Operation Forces have been shown to sustain greater rates of musculoskeletal injuries than conventional forces. These injuries result in loss in deployable operators, which negatively impacts force readiness. In addition to Operators (OPs), Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC) also utilizes Combat Support Personnel (CSP) to support OP missions. These CSP may also be at risk for sustaining similar injuries and mechanisms as OPs. PURPOSE: Describe injury epidemiology in MARSOC personnel and compare injury patterns between OPs and CSP. METHODS: A total of 141 MARSOC personnel (85 OPs, 56 CSP) completed an injury history questionnaire and described musculoskeletal injuries that occurred in the previous 12 months. Injury proportions were calculated for OPs and CSP. Proportions of injured subjects were compared between OPs and CSP using Fisher’s exact tests. RESULTS: A total of 43 injuries were reported within the previous 12 months, 25 of which were classified as preventable (15 in OPs, 10 in CSP). There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of injured subjects between OPs and CSP. Preventable injuries were sustained by 14% of OPs and 16% of CSP. Both OPs and CSP sustained the majority of preventable injuries while performing lifting and running activities (27% and 40% for OPs and 40% and 50% for CSP, respectively). Also, the knee and lumbopelvic region were the most commonly reported location of preventable injuries for OPs (20% each) and CSP (30% each). The top three most common injury types were muscle strain, tendinopathy, and pain/spasm. CONCLUSION: Approximately 15% of MARSOC personnel experienced preventable injuries within 12 months prior to the questionnaire. Therefore, the force would significantly benefit from performance and injury prevention programs to mitigate preventable injuries and optimize force readiness. Because the majority of injuries were sustained during physical training there is a need to monitor training readiness to avoid overtraining and fatigue. Additionally, OPs and CSP seem to sustain similar injury patterns with similar mechanisms, suggesting CSP should also be included in injury prevention initiatives to optimize force readiness.

Epidemiological analysis of injuries occurring in Marine Corps forces special operations personnel

Special Operation Forces have been shown to sustain greater rates of musculoskeletal injuries than conventional forces. These injuries result in loss in deployable operators, which negatively impacts force readiness. In addition to Operators (OPs), Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC) also utilizes Combat Support Personnel (CSP) to support OP missions. These CSP may also be at risk for sustaining similar injuries and mechanisms as OPs. PURPOSE: Describe injury epidemiology in MARSOC personnel and compare injury patterns between OPs and CSP. METHODS: A total of 141 MARSOC personnel (85 OPs, 56 CSP) completed an injury history questionnaire and described musculoskeletal injuries that occurred in the previous 12 months. Injury proportions were calculated for OPs and CSP. Proportions of injured subjects were compared between OPs and CSP using Fisher’s exact tests. RESULTS: A total of 43 injuries were reported within the previous 12 months, 25 of which were classified as preventable (15 in OPs, 10 in CSP). There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of injured subjects between OPs and CSP. Preventable injuries were sustained by 14% of OPs and 16% of CSP. Both OPs and CSP sustained the majority of preventable injuries while performing lifting and running activities (27% and 40% for OPs and 40% and 50% for CSP, respectively). Also, the knee and lumbopelvic region were the most commonly reported location of preventable injuries for OPs (20% each) and CSP (30% each). The top three most common injury types were muscle strain, tendinopathy, and pain/spasm. CONCLUSION: Approximately 15% of MARSOC personnel experienced preventable injuries within 12 months prior to the questionnaire. Therefore, the force would significantly benefit from performance and injury prevention programs to mitigate preventable injuries and optimize force readiness. Because the majority of injuries were sustained during physical training there is a need to monitor training readiness to avoid overtraining and fatigue. Additionally, OPs and CSP seem to sustain similar injury patterns with similar mechanisms, suggesting CSP should also be included in injury prevention initiatives to optimize force readiness.