A practical framework for training body and mind

When most strength and conditioning practitioners think about programming for soldiers, the conversation tends to default to one of two extremes: either the grim, character-building "thrashing" that have defined military PT for a century, or the polished, periodised training models lifted wholesale from elite sport. Neither, in isolation, is fit for purpose.

A narrative review published in the Strength and Conditioning Journal by Jonpaul Nevin and Dr Martin Ian Jones of Buckinghamshire New University offers something far more useful: a coherent, evidence-based framework that cuts through the noise and gives practitioners a clear blueprint for preparing personnel for the realities of contemporary operations.

It is one of the most valuable summaries of current best practice for training military populations published in recent years and worth a careful read by anyone responsible for the physical, psychological or cognitive preparation of soldiers.

Why this paper matters

The character of conflict has changed. The fundamental nature of it has not. As the authors put it, combat remains a human endeavour - adversarial, dynamic, complex and lethal - and one that places extraordinary demands on the individual carrying and operating the weapon system.

What makes this paper stand out is its rejection of single-discipline thinking. Human Performance Optimisation (HPO) cannot be solved by physical training alone. It requires a coordinated, interdisciplinary approach across three domains: physiological fitness, psychological readiness and cognitive performance. Get one wrong, and the system fails.

This mirrors the institutional shift already underway across NATO visible in the US Army's Holistic Health and Fitness (H2F) doctrine toward treating soldiers' preparation as deliberate, scientific and integrated rather than incidental to the rest of their training.

The Nevin–Jones Framework

1. Physiological Fitness

The authors are clear that the era of endurance-only military PT is over. The modern soldier requires a broad spectrum of physical capabilities - movement skill, strength, power, aerobic capacity, anaerobic capacity, speed and agility - developed concurrently.

Their recommended architecture is:

• Conjugated block periodisation at the macro/mesocycle level, with daily undulating periodisation (DUP) during weekly microcycles. This balances concentrated adaptation in specific qualities with the reality that operators must maintain a continually high baseline.
• Concurrent strength and endurance training, 2–3 sessions per week.
• Progressive load carriage every 7–14 days, building toward operationally relevant weights (the paper notes modern operational loads of 26–60 kg) and distances.
• Battle PT - combatives, casualty extractions, fire and manoeuvre drills, obstacle courses to provide combat specificity.
• Judicious use of extreme conditioning programmes (ECPs) like CrossFit-style sessions, 1–2 times per week, used as a tool rather than a religion.
• Recovery and monitoring underpinned by sleep (7–9 hours), nutrition, and evidence-based monitoring technologies (GPS, HRM, force plates, velocity-based training).

2. Psychological Readiness

Resilience is trainable, and the S&C environment is one of the most effective venues for training it. The authors centre their recommendations on developing self-efficacy,  Bandura's well-established construct describing an individual's belief in their capacity to execute a course of action. Their practical levers:

• Self-Determination Theory (SDT) to build coaching environments that satisfy relatedness, competence and autonomy.
• Vicarious experience and social persuasion using stories, peers and targeted feedback to build the conviction that "if they can do it, so can I."
• Stress Inoculation Training (SIT) through deliberate, structured exposure to controlled stressors to develop hardiness and grit.
• Arousal regulation with breath-work and body awareness techniques to down-regulate physiological responses to stress.

3. Cognitive Performance

This is where the paper is most forward-leaning. As the authors quote, "the most important 6 inches on the battlefield are between your ears." They divide cognitive training into:

• Bottom-up approaches like context-specific agility training, reaction-cue work, and pattern recognition challenges embedded in physical sessions. A simulated close-quarters battle scenario woven into an agility circuit is a far better cognitive stimulus than a worksheet.
• Top-down approaches including Strategic Memory Advanced Reasoning Training (SMART) strategies, mindfulness, goal-setting, critical reflection and disciplined use of electronic devices in the training environment.

Putting it into practice

Frameworks are only as valuable as their application. Consider a candidate with a 24-week preparation runway, using the Nevin–Jones model, the mesocycle structure might look like this:

Weeks 1–8 - General Preparation (Foundational Capacity)

The aim is robust musculoskeletal tolerance and an aerobic base. A DUP microcycle runs heavy compound strength (Mon), zone 2 endurance (Tue), accessory and movement skill (Wed), tempo intervals (Thu), light strength (Fri), and a progressive loaded march every 10–14 days (starting at 15 kg over 8 km on hilly terrain). Battle PT stays light -  bodyweight circuits, obstacle familiarisation. Psychologically, the emphasis is on mastery experiences: small, repeated wins that build self-efficacy from the ground up. SMART habits are introduced early including phones out of training spaces, journalled session reflections.

Weeks 9–16 - Specific Preparation (Tactical Capacity)

The conjugated emphasis shifts toward load-bearing strength endurance, high-intensity intervals and progressive load carriage. Loads build toward 25–30 kg over 12–20 km. One ECP-style session per week provides controlled exposure to fatigue under cognitive load and this is where Stress Inoculation Training is consciously applied: candidates rehearse self-talk, tactical breathing and problem-solving cues within the session, not as a separate workshop. Pair-based training begins to leverage vicarious experience pairing candidates who are succeeding with those who are struggling combined with exposure to experienced operators.

Weeks 17–22 — Pre-Selection (Mission Specificity)

Training closely replicates course demands. Loaded marches reach selection weight and distance. Battle PT intensifies — simulated casualty carries, stretcher races, log runs, short-sleep training serials. Cognitive load is layered in: navigation challenges under fatigue, decision-making drills mid-session, kit-check protocols enforced under time pressure. This is bottom-up cognitive training by another name. Recovery becomes non-negotiable with sleep tracking, structured nutrition and active recovery every 7–10 days.

Weeks 23–24 — Taper and Sharpen

Volume drops sharply. Intensity and specificity are preserved. The focus shifts to arousal regulation, sleep banking and rehearsing the candidate's mental model of the course. Confidence is reinforced through coaching cues that reference the candidate's documented progress, social persuasion grounded in evidence, not empty encouragement.

The bottom line

The Nevin–Jones framework is valuable precisely because it resists the temptation to over-complicate. Their message is clear: train the whole soldier, periodise intelligently, integrate the physical with the psychological and cognitive, and build the recovery scaffolding to support it all.

For coaches, instructors and unit S&C practitioners working with personnel heading toward selection, deployment or any task where performance genuinely matters, this paper deserves a place on the bookshelf and the principles deserve a place in the programme.

Reference

Nevin, J., & Jones, M. I. (2023). Human Performance Optimization (HPO) for the Warfighter — Keeping It Simple in a Complex Age: A Narrative Review. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 45(5), 523–530.