Heat strain during military training activities

The dilemma of balancing force protection and operational capability

Andrew P. Hunt, Daniel C. Billing, Mark J. Patterson, Joanne N. Caldwell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Military activities in hot environments pose 2 competing demands: the requirement to perform realistic training to develop operational capability with the necessity to protect armed forces personnel against heat-related illness. To ascertain whether work duration limits for protection against heat-related illness restrict military activities, this study examined the heat strain and risks of heat-related illness when conducting a military activity above the prescribed work duration limits. Thirty-seven soldiers conducted a march (10 km; ∼5.5 km h−1) carrying 41.8 ± 3.6 kg of equipment in 23.1 ± 1.8°C wet-bulb globe temperature. Body core temperature was recorded throughout and upon completion, or withdrawal, participants rated their severity of heat-related symptoms. Twenty-three soldiers completed the march in 107 ± 6.4 min (Completers); 9 were symptomatic for heat exhaustion, withdrawing after 71.6 ± 10.1 min (Symptomatic); and five were removed for body core temperature above 39.0°C (Hyperthermic) after 58.4 ± 4.5 min. Body core temperature was significantly higher in the Hyperthermic (39.03 ± 0.26°C), than Symptomatic (38.34 ± 0.44°C; P = 0.007) and Completers (37.94 ± 0.37°C; P<0.001) after 50 min. Heat-related symptom severity was significantly higher among Symptomatic (28.4 ± 11.8) compared to Completers (15.0 ± 9.8, P = 0.006) and Hyperthermic (13.0 ± 9.6, P = 0.029). The force protection provided by work duration limits may be preventing the majority of personnel from conducting activities in hot environments, thereby constraining a commander's mandate to develop an optimised military force. The dissociation between heat-related symptoms and body core temperature elevation suggests that the physiological mechanisms underpinning exhaustion during exertional heat stress should be re-examined to determine the most appropriate physiological criteria for prescribing work duration limits.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)307-317
Number of pages11
JournalTemperature
Volume3
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 8 Apr 2016
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • armed forces
  • body core temperature
  • exertional heat stress
  • heat strain
  • heat-related illness
  • military
  • work table

Cite this

Hunt, Andrew P. ; Billing, Daniel C. ; Patterson, Mark J. ; Caldwell, Joanne N. / Heat strain during military training activities : The dilemma of balancing force protection and operational capability. In: Temperature. 2016 ; Vol. 3, No. 2. pp. 307-317.
@article{3e20ab0ff6f1481e9fc4be08eab6848d,
title = "Heat strain during military training activities: The dilemma of balancing force protection and operational capability",
abstract = "Military activities in hot environments pose 2 competing demands: the requirement to perform realistic training to develop operational capability with the necessity to protect armed forces personnel against heat-related illness. To ascertain whether work duration limits for protection against heat-related illness restrict military activities, this study examined the heat strain and risks of heat-related illness when conducting a military activity above the prescribed work duration limits. Thirty-seven soldiers conducted a march (10 km; ∼5.5 km h−1) carrying 41.8 ± 3.6 kg of equipment in 23.1 ± 1.8°C wet-bulb globe temperature. Body core temperature was recorded throughout and upon completion, or withdrawal, participants rated their severity of heat-related symptoms. Twenty-three soldiers completed the march in 107 ± 6.4 min (Completers); 9 were symptomatic for heat exhaustion, withdrawing after 71.6 ± 10.1 min (Symptomatic); and five were removed for body core temperature above 39.0°C (Hyperthermic) after 58.4 ± 4.5 min. Body core temperature was significantly higher in the Hyperthermic (39.03 ± 0.26°C), than Symptomatic (38.34 ± 0.44°C; P = 0.007) and Completers (37.94 ± 0.37°C; P<0.001) after 50 min. Heat-related symptom severity was significantly higher among Symptomatic (28.4 ± 11.8) compared to Completers (15.0 ± 9.8, P = 0.006) and Hyperthermic (13.0 ± 9.6, P = 0.029). The force protection provided by work duration limits may be preventing the majority of personnel from conducting activities in hot environments, thereby constraining a commander's mandate to develop an optimised military force. The dissociation between heat-related symptoms and body core temperature elevation suggests that the physiological mechanisms underpinning exhaustion during exertional heat stress should be re-examined to determine the most appropriate physiological criteria for prescribing work duration limits.",
keywords = "armed forces, body core temperature, exertional heat stress, heat strain, heat-related illness, military, work table",
author = "Hunt, {Andrew P.} and Billing, {Daniel C.} and Patterson, {Mark J.} and Caldwell, {Joanne N.}",
year = "2016",
month = "4",
day = "8",
doi = "10.1080/23328940.2016.1156801",
language = "English",
volume = "3",
pages = "307--317",
journal = "Temperature",
issn = "2332-8940",
number = "2",

}

Heat strain during military training activities : The dilemma of balancing force protection and operational capability. / Hunt, Andrew P.; Billing, Daniel C.; Patterson, Mark J.; Caldwell, Joanne N.

In: Temperature, Vol. 3, No. 2, 08.04.2016, p. 307-317.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Heat strain during military training activities

T2 - The dilemma of balancing force protection and operational capability

AU - Hunt, Andrew P.

AU - Billing, Daniel C.

AU - Patterson, Mark J.

AU - Caldwell, Joanne N.

PY - 2016/4/8

Y1 - 2016/4/8

N2 - Military activities in hot environments pose 2 competing demands: the requirement to perform realistic training to develop operational capability with the necessity to protect armed forces personnel against heat-related illness. To ascertain whether work duration limits for protection against heat-related illness restrict military activities, this study examined the heat strain and risks of heat-related illness when conducting a military activity above the prescribed work duration limits. Thirty-seven soldiers conducted a march (10 km; ∼5.5 km h−1) carrying 41.8 ± 3.6 kg of equipment in 23.1 ± 1.8°C wet-bulb globe temperature. Body core temperature was recorded throughout and upon completion, or withdrawal, participants rated their severity of heat-related symptoms. Twenty-three soldiers completed the march in 107 ± 6.4 min (Completers); 9 were symptomatic for heat exhaustion, withdrawing after 71.6 ± 10.1 min (Symptomatic); and five were removed for body core temperature above 39.0°C (Hyperthermic) after 58.4 ± 4.5 min. Body core temperature was significantly higher in the Hyperthermic (39.03 ± 0.26°C), than Symptomatic (38.34 ± 0.44°C; P = 0.007) and Completers (37.94 ± 0.37°C; P<0.001) after 50 min. Heat-related symptom severity was significantly higher among Symptomatic (28.4 ± 11.8) compared to Completers (15.0 ± 9.8, P = 0.006) and Hyperthermic (13.0 ± 9.6, P = 0.029). The force protection provided by work duration limits may be preventing the majority of personnel from conducting activities in hot environments, thereby constraining a commander's mandate to develop an optimised military force. The dissociation between heat-related symptoms and body core temperature elevation suggests that the physiological mechanisms underpinning exhaustion during exertional heat stress should be re-examined to determine the most appropriate physiological criteria for prescribing work duration limits.

AB - Military activities in hot environments pose 2 competing demands: the requirement to perform realistic training to develop operational capability with the necessity to protect armed forces personnel against heat-related illness. To ascertain whether work duration limits for protection against heat-related illness restrict military activities, this study examined the heat strain and risks of heat-related illness when conducting a military activity above the prescribed work duration limits. Thirty-seven soldiers conducted a march (10 km; ∼5.5 km h−1) carrying 41.8 ± 3.6 kg of equipment in 23.1 ± 1.8°C wet-bulb globe temperature. Body core temperature was recorded throughout and upon completion, or withdrawal, participants rated their severity of heat-related symptoms. Twenty-three soldiers completed the march in 107 ± 6.4 min (Completers); 9 were symptomatic for heat exhaustion, withdrawing after 71.6 ± 10.1 min (Symptomatic); and five were removed for body core temperature above 39.0°C (Hyperthermic) after 58.4 ± 4.5 min. Body core temperature was significantly higher in the Hyperthermic (39.03 ± 0.26°C), than Symptomatic (38.34 ± 0.44°C; P = 0.007) and Completers (37.94 ± 0.37°C; P<0.001) after 50 min. Heat-related symptom severity was significantly higher among Symptomatic (28.4 ± 11.8) compared to Completers (15.0 ± 9.8, P = 0.006) and Hyperthermic (13.0 ± 9.6, P = 0.029). The force protection provided by work duration limits may be preventing the majority of personnel from conducting activities in hot environments, thereby constraining a commander's mandate to develop an optimised military force. The dissociation between heat-related symptoms and body core temperature elevation suggests that the physiological mechanisms underpinning exhaustion during exertional heat stress should be re-examined to determine the most appropriate physiological criteria for prescribing work duration limits.

KW - armed forces

KW - body core temperature

KW - exertional heat stress

KW - heat strain

KW - heat-related illness

KW - military

KW - work table

U2 - 10.1080/23328940.2016.1156801

DO - 10.1080/23328940.2016.1156801

M3 - Article

VL - 3

SP - 307

EP - 317

JO - Temperature

JF - Temperature

SN - 2332-8940

IS - 2

ER -