A comparison of physical performance during one- and two-person simulated casualty drags.

The ability to drag a casualty to safety is critical for numerous physically demanding occupations. This study aimed to establish whether the pulling forces during a one-person 55 kg simulated casualty drag is representative of a two-person 110 kg drag. Twenty men completed up to 12 × 20m simulated casualty drags using a drag bag (55/110 kg) on a grassed sports pitch, with completion times and forces exerted measured. Completion time for the one-person 55 and 110 kg drags were 9.56 ± 1.18s and 27.08 ± 7.71s. Completion time for the 110 kg two-person drags for forwards and backwards iterations were 8.36 ± 1.23s and 11.04 ± 1.11s. The average individual force exerted during the one-person 55 kg drag was equivalent to the average individual contribution during the two-person 110 kg drag (t(16) = 3.3780, p < 0.001); suggesting a one-person 55 kg simulated casualty drag is representative of the individual contribution to a two-person 110 kg simulated casualty drag. Individual contributions can however vary during two-person simulated casualty drags.

Changes in physical performance during British Army Junior Entry, British Army Standard Entry and Royal Air Force Basic Training.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose was to quantify physical performance in men and women during British Army Junior Entry (Army-JE), British Army Standard Entry (Army-SE) and Royal Air Force (RAF) basic training (BT). DESIGN: Prospective longitudinal study. METHODS: 381 participants ((339 men and 42 women) n=141 Army-JE, n=132 Army-SE, n=108 RAF) completed a 2 km run, medicine ball throw (MBT) and isometric mid-thigh pull (MTP), pre-BT and post-BT. To examine changes in pre-BT to post-BT physical test performance, for each course, paired Student t-test and Wilcoxon test were applied to normally and non-normally distributed data, respectively, with effect sizes reported as Cohen's D and with rank biserial correlations, respectively. A one-way between-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) (or Welch ANOVA for non-normally distributed data) compared performance between quartiles based on test performance pre-BT. Where the main tests statistic, p value and effect sizes identified likely effect of quartile, post hoc comparisons were made using Games-Howell tests with Tukey's p value. Data are presented as mean±SD, with statistical significance set at p<0.05. RESULTS: During BT, 2 km run time improved by 13±46 s (-2.1%±8.1%), 30±64 s (-4.8%±12.3%) and 24±27 s (-4.5%±5.1%) for Army-JE, Army-SE and RAF, respectively (all p<0.005). MBT distance increased by 0.27±0.28 m (6.8%±7.0%) for Army-JE (p<0.001) and 0.07±0.46 m (2.3%±10.9%) for Army-SE (p=0.040), but decreased by 0.08±0.27 m (-1.4%±6.0%) for RAF (p=0.002). MTP force increased by 80±281 n (10.8%±27.6%) for Army-JE (p<0.001) and did not change for Army-SE (-36±295 n, -0.7%±20.6%, p=0.144) or RAF (-9±208 n, 1.0±17.0, p=0.603). For all tests and cohorts, participants in the lowest quartile of pre-BT performance scores demonstrated greater improvements, compared with participants in the highest quartile (except Army-JE MBT, ∆% change similar between all quartiles). CONCLUSIONS: Changes in physical performance were observed for the three fitness tests following the different BT courses, and recruits with the lowest strength and aerobic fitness experienced greatest improvements.

A comparison of two commercially available ELISA methods for the quantification of human plasma heat shock protein 70 during rest and exercise stress.

This study compared resting and exercise heat/hypoxic stress-induced levels of plasma extracellular heat shock protein 70 (eHSP70) in humans using two commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELIS)A kits. EDTA plasma samples were collected from 21 males during two separate investigations. Participants in part A completed a 60-min treadmill run in the heat (HOT70; 33.0 ± 0.1 °C, 28.7 ± 0.8 %, n = 6) at 70 % V̇O2max. Participants in part B completed 60 min of cycling exercise at 50 % V̇O2max in either hot (HOT50; 40.5 °C, 25.4 relative humidity (RH)%, n = 7) or hypoxic (HYP50; fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2) = 0.14, 21 °C, 35 % RH, n = 8) conditions. Samples were collected prior to and immediately upon termination of exercise and analysed for eHSP70 using EKS-715 high-sensitivity HSP70 ELISA and new ENZ-KIT-101 Amp'd(™) HSP70 high-sensitivity ELISA. ENZ-KIT was superior in detecting resting eHSP70 (1.54 ± 3.27 ng · mL(-1); range 0.08 to 14.01 ng · mL(-1)), with concentrations obtained from 100 % of samples compared to 19 % with EKS-715 assay. The ENZ-KIT requires optimisation prior to running samples in order to ensure participants fall within the standard curve, a step not required with EKS-715. Using ENZ-KIT, a 1:4 dilution allowed for quantification of resting HSP70 in 26/32 samples, with a 1:8 (n = 3) and 1:16 (n = 3) dilution required to determine the remaining samples. After exercise, eHSP70 was detected in 6/21 and 21/21 samples using EKS-715 and ENZ-KIT, respectively. eHSP70 was increased from rest after HOT70 (p < 0.05), but not HOT50 (p > 0.05) or HYP50 (p > 0.05) when analysed using ENZ-KIT. It is recommended that future studies requiring the precise determination of resting plasma eHSP70 use the ENZ-KIT (i.e. HSP70 Amp'd(®) ELISA) instead of the EKS-715 assay, despite additional assay development time and cost required.

Allergic bronchial eosinophilia: a therapeutic approach for the selection of potential bronchial anti-inflammatory drugs.

Aeroallergen-induced infiltration of eosinophils in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) in guinea pigs was used as a marker of bronchial inflammation. Drugs were administered orally 4 h after aeroallergen challenge. Allergic bronchial eosinophilia in guinea pigs was inhibited by orally administered dexamethasone and methylprednisolone. Terfenadine (a newer H1-receptor antagonist), theophylline (a nonspecific phosphodiesterase inhibitor), and salbutamol (a beta 2-agonist) did not influence allergic eosinophilic infiltration. Many of these agents, administered prophylactically, have been reported to suppress allergic eosinophilic infiltration in the BALF of guinea pigs. Methylprednisolone, a steroid, inhibits allergic bronchial eosinophilia regardless of the time of administration; that is, 2 h before or 4 h after aeroallergen challenge. The therapeutic approach used in this study may facilitate drug discovery for bronchial inflammation/asthma.