(29) AGE-RELATED DIFFERENCES IN FITNESS IN FIREFIGHTER ACADEMY RECRUITS

Saturday, July 13, 2024

10:00 AM – 11:30 AM East Coast USA Time

Location: Exhibit Hall

Poster Presenter(s)

Scott D. Brau, DPT, CSCS, TSAC-F

Doctoral Student
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Mukwonago, Wisconsin, United States

Author(s)

David J. Cornell, PhD, DPT, CSCS, TSAC-F, FACSM

Assistant Professor
University of Massachusetts Lowell
Lowell, Massachusetts, United States
Rudi Marciniak, PhD, CSCS, TSAC-F, EP-C

Assistant Professor
Ball State University
Muncie, Indiana, United States
Benjamin J. Mendelson, MS, CSCS, RSCC

Doctoral Student
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States
Kyle T. Ebersole, PhD, LAT, ATC

Professor
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States

Abstract Details:

Background: Firefighter (FF) recruit academies may include applicants from fire cadet programs and/or from the general population. Prior cadets often represent the youngest age group in a class of mixed recruits that oftentimes consists of a wide range of ages. While research has explored longitudinal age-related differences between recruit classes, little is known about age-related fitness differences within incoming recruits.

Purpose: To explore initial fitness differences between six separate age groups of incoming FF academy recruits.

Methods: Fitness data were collected from separate FF academy recruit cohorts (2018-2019, 2021-2023) of the same urban fire department resulting in 242 total recruits. Recruits were separated into six age groups: 19-21 yrs (A1, cadets only), 22-25 yrs (A2), 26-30 yrs (A3), 31-35 yrs (A4), 36-40 yrs (A5), and ≥ 41 yrs (A6). Upon entry into the academy, recruits completed a battery of assessments, including: measures of body mass (BM, kg); skinfolds to estimate percent body fat (PBF, %); a movement efficiency screen (MES, 0-100); muscular strength from the sum of right and left handgrip (SHG, kg); muscular endurance from the total number of push-ups completed during a paced, 2-minute test (PU); and estimated aerobic capacity (V̇O_2peak, mL/kg/min) and relative 1-minute heart rate recovery (HRR, %) from the 5-minute Forestry Step Test. SHG was normalized to BM. One-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) were used to examine the influence of age in normally distributed data (MES, SHG, PU, HRR) and Kruskal-Wallis tests for non-normal data (BM, PBF, and V̇O_2peak). Pairwise comparisons determined differences between age groups. An alpha of 0.05 determined statistical significance.

Results: Descriptive data is presented in Table 1. Non-significant age differences were found for MES (F_5,56 = 1.80, P = 0.13), SHG (F_5,56 = 1.49, P = 0.21), and PU (F_5,57 = 2.40, P = 0.05). However, significant age differences were identified for BM (H₅ = 31.05, P < 0.001; A1 < A5), as well as PBF (H₅ = 26.70, P < 0.001; A1 < A4, A5, A6), V̇O_2peak (H₅ = 80.58, P < 0.001; A1 > A2, A3, A4, A5, A6), and HRR (F_5,54 = 8.95, P < 0.001; A1 > A3, A4).

Conclusions: The youngest age group had better body composition and greater aerobic fitness. However, the lack of age group differences in movement efficiency, muscular strength or endurance may suggest a limit to the physical preparation benefits from the cadet experience in the youngest age group. Further, absence of differences between the five older age groups may suggest age alone cannot differentiate physical readiness in recruits. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Training emphasizing aerobic fitness may be needed for recruits not entering from a cadet program. Despite all recruits potentially benefiting from movement efficiency and muscular strength and endurance programming, as the age of the incoming recruit increases, greater relative training focus may be needed for weight management and aerobic capacity.

Acknowledgements: None