By: James Hoffmann, PhD
I have no personal or professional ties to law enforcement. None of my immediate friends or family have served a role in state, local, or federal law enforcement agencies. Nonetheless, I felt a need to write this, because I felt like the resources available to police and other tactical athletes are frankly awful. The issue is not how well intentioned they are, but rather the goals and objectives are completely misplaced and not aligned with reality.
My goals are that after reading this, law enforcement officers (LEOs) will:
1. Have a better understanding of what fitness characteristics are most relevant to workplace performance
2. Immediately implement a framework for their training and nutrition
3. Understand how to shift their training and nutritional priorities based on their projected workflows throughout the year
What Makes Training for Law Enforcement Uniquely Challenging?
The Physical Demands of LEOs Can Vary Significantly
Law enforcement agencies employ a wide spectrum of employees which vary in their fitness requirements. Laboratory technicians, engineers, administrators, and dispatch officers really don’t have any additional physical demands than that of everyday people. Whereas SWAT officers have very intensive physical, skill, and tactical requirements to be effective. A large portion of police officers fall somewhere between these two poles, where the work requires heightened physical fitness, but not necessarily that of a decathlete.
This makes developing fitness standards, goals, and training programs increasingly difficult since there is not a ‘one size fits all’ approach for LEOs. Instead, fitness goals and programs may need to be stratified to the various subgroups within Law Enforcement. This creates additional bureaucratic burdens for implementation and assessment and admittedly becomes incredibly tedious.
The Unpredictable Nature of the Work
Athletes have the great privilege of knowing exactly when and where to be for their competitions. Accordingly, they can develop their training programs to be peaked and ready to compete on competition days, while training hard during noncompetition times to increase their fitness.
LEOs and other first responders have the unique challenge that at any moment on the job they may need to execute high levels of performance. These instances can be a matter of life and death, and a poor performance can result in devastating consequences for themselves, their colleagues, and the communities they serve. Some shifts may be largely uneventful, and some shifts may require a literal fight to survive.
In sport and exercise sciences, we use the term ‘preparedness’ to describe an athlete’s ability to express their fitness. Their fitness is their capability to be strong, fast, explosive, enduring, etc., and is diminished by the presence of fatigue. The term preparedness can be thought of as an athlete’s fitness minus the performance reduction of fatigue. More simply, how well they can perform right now given the current conditions of their lives.
The conundrum with the relationship between fitness and fatigue is that to develop higher levels of fitness, rigorous training is needed, and rigorous training generates fatigue. Fatigue reduces performance.
So, for LEOs, there is an odd conflict of interest: being too fatigued from training lowers preparedness but being insufficiently fit is a liability. Naturally, some LEOs will be apprehensive about rigorous training so they can maximize their preparedness on the job.
The obvious downside of an apprehensive approach to training is that increasing fitness will increase their capabilities as a LEO, in addition to lowering injury risk and reducing all-cause mortality.
Poor Standards and Resources
The fitness standards used to assess LEOs and the resources for improving fitness are woeful to say the least. They are well intentioned, but completely not aligned with the physical demands of LEOs nor the current state of fitness within Law Enforcement. A common problem I have observed is that both fitness standards and fitness recommendations are not based on a true needs analysis of the positions. This might sound like an academic formality, however the needs analysis provides the basis of Specificity of training. The ‘north star,’ so to speak. Without this, there is no way to establish what makes for a successful LEO and how to assess, develop training programs based on the assessment, and reassess over time.
Fitness test batteries for LEOs are often a hodgepodge of nonsensical assessments with no validity to the demands of the job. There is a great emphasis on cardiovascular and muscular endurance tests, largely because these tests are simple and easy to implement. Accordingly, fitness recommendations often parallel the goals of these tests, stressing the need for endurance. Although these recommendations would be fine in the context of general health promotion, they are not aligned with the actual needs of LEOs based on the physical demands of the job. LEOs often have extended periods of little activity or low-intensity activities, followed by short bursts of very intense activity, often in conjunction with a teammate. These activities typically also include some forms of resistance, be it from obstacles or noncompliant humans.
As I will demonstrate later, LEOs generally need to be strong, powerful, and mobile. This is contradictory to most resources which emphasize the need for endurance. This is not a trivial semantic difference. LEOs need to quickly get to people or places of interest and exert physical control, not run laps around their communities.
A Brief Needs Analysis for Law Enforcement
A proper needs analysis for any athletic endeavor is a lengthy and somewhat tedious endeavor. It is roughly the equivalent of an academic manuscript. For the sake of brevity, we will narrow down our LEO needs analysis to focus on a few key areas: body composition, physical demands, and injuries.
Body Composition
Within the United States (and also throughout the world), LEOs are largely suffering from a FATNESS problem rather than a FITNESS problem. A large portion of LEOs are overfat and under-muscled. Being overfat has a direct negative impact on their ability to perform their duties, and their ability to sustain a productive career across their lifespan. It also impacts their overall quantity and quality of life. LEOs also suffer from a time series effect where BMI tends to rise throughout their careers as they age. LEOs who begin their careers overfat often end up obese in the latter portions of their careers.
Physical Demands
A key precursor to developing an effective training program is understanding what the athlete needs to do to be successful in their endeavors. In sport and exercise science, we try to identify key performance indicators (KPIs) that directly reflect the athlete’s ability to perform well. These KPIs also need to be accessible using laboratory or field-based testing. Once we establish our KPIs, we then establish some normative standards of performance for each KPI. A simple way to think of this is a three-tiered approach: acceptable scores, insufficient scores, and exceptional scores. The acceptable scores represent the average or normative value that an athlete would need to be competitive. An insufficient score is typically about 2 standard deviations below the acceptable score—meaning a non-competitive score. Likewise, an exceptional score is typically two standard deviations above the acceptable score—meaning a value that is competitively advantaged.
LEOs must perform numerous different tasks, many of which are not physically demanding. For our purposes, we want to highlight the more physically demanding tasks as they will have the most significant training implications. A wonderful article (full citation below) outlines some of the required physical tasks of California patrol officers. Here are some key findings that can help shape the needs analysis for LEOs:
Taken from: Dulla, J. (2016, September). Occupationally fit for duty: What are the physical tasks of California patrol law enforcement officers? TSAC Report, 26–29.
- Running: LEOs need to be able to run about 161 yards. Most of the time these runs will include obstacles requiring jumping or climbing and will involve a resistant subject.
- Resisting Combative Subjects: About 1/3 of the time this is performed without assistance. Combative subjects will weigh about 180 lbs and are often under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
- Moving Persons: LEOs may need to move individuals who are incapacitated or unable to move on their own for a variety of reasons—including, but not limited to, intoxication, medical emergencies, or mental health crises. These individuals typically weigh around 180 lbs and often need to be moved approximately 40 feet. In most cases (about 85%), the person is lying down. Approximately 30% of the time, the LEO must move the individual without assistance.
- Dragging and Pulling Objects: Ranges from 20–60 lbs over distances of 6–27 ft. 80% of the time this must be done without assistance.
- Lifting and Carrying Objects: Requires lifting and carrying 40 lbs (usually from the ground), 85% of the time without assistance.
- Pushing Objects: LEOs may be required to push heavy objects such as motor vehicles (typically weighing 2,000–3,000 lbs), as well as large debris, disabled equipment, or barricades. These tasks often involve moving the object 50–58 feet, and are performed without assistance approximately 60% of the time. This is not limited to vehicles and may occur in a variety of emergency or operational contexts.
- Jumping, Hurdling, and Vaulting: During foot pursuits and emergency responses, LEOs often need to jump over fences, scale walls, and navigate other physical barriers—all while on the move. Officers should be able to jump up to 39 inches vertically, leap across gaps of approximately 36 inches, clear obstacles around 24 inches high, and safely jump down from heights up to 72 inches. About two-thirds of these actions are performed while running, with the remainder initiated from a standstill.
These are representative examples of the physical tasks LEOs must perform. Naturally, there will be variations based on location and the specific positions each LEO holds. Still, this provides a fair snapshot of what a LEO might be required to do at any given time. This is meant to be illustrative and not reflective of every law enforcement position.
Injuries
Injury rates among LEOs can vary significantly across studies, likely due to methodological differences and how injuries are reported. Reported injury incidences range from 250 to 2,500 per 1,000 personnel per year. The most common injury types are strains and sprains, followed by more general muscle pains. While the most frequently reported injury sites are broadly in the upper body, lower back and hip issues are also commonly reported by officers, particularly among those with years of experience wearing fully loaded duty belts, which can weigh between 15–25 pounds. The prolonged strain from carrying this weight—especially during long shifts spent standing, walking, or sitting in patrol vehicles—can contribute to chronic musculoskeletal issues. The most common injury mechanisms overall involve interactions with non-compliant offenders: A critical review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(2), 142)
LEOs must also carry a great deal of equipment which can range from 25-35 lbs. This can include body armor, communications, weapon systems, and a variety of tools. This extra weight can be substantive and potentially injurious when the LEO is not acclimated to the extra loading. Data from military and rucking research indicate that an athlete’s ability to perform under heavy loading is strongly related to their strength and lean body mass. Progressively increasing the equipment load from a lighter load to a standard load over time can also help muscles and connective tissues acclimate to the increased stress.
Implications from the Needs Analysis
Most of the physical tasks Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) must perform are strength and power-related. LEOs must exert large forces and move explosively and dynamically. Their tasks share similarities with sports such as baseball, American football, hockey, etc., where athletes experience significant downtime interspersed with very intense, short bursts of effort, often coordinated with teammates against opposition.
LEOs must efficiently move various objects and obstacles, including people, across short to moderate distances. They need the capability to run, jump, and climb dynamically while on the move, and also grapple and control large, non-compliant subjects. These tasks primarily depend on strength and, in some cases, specifically power. Both strength and power are directly related to lean body mass (LBM).
Body composition is a critical concern for LEOs, presenting a dual issue: they often carry excess body fat or obesity while being under-muscled. The most straightforward path to enhancing overall athletic performance and health is maintaining a healthy weight and body fat percentage. If the goal is to have better endurance, run faster, or jump higher, weight loss provides the quickest improvement. The secondary priority for overall performance and health improvement is increasing LBM. Greater muscle mass allows for greater force and power production. Additionally, increased LBM correlates with a lower mortality rate. Specifically for LEOs, having greater LBM—and thus slightly heavier bodyweight—can significantly assist with tasks like moving heavy objects or controlling non-compliant subjects.
Physical altercations in law enforcement unfortunately do not separate individuals into weight classes, unlike combat sports. Even an exceptionally strong officer weighing 135 lbs will likely struggle to control a non-compliant, intoxicated subject weighing 220 lbs due purely to size differences. While skill remains an important factor, this highlights the significance of physical size. Greater LBM increases an officer's strength, power, and overall weight, enhancing their ability to control and move people and objects.
However, this does not imply that LEOs should indiscriminately maximize muscle gain. Instead, similar to many athletes, they should seek to optimize their strength and power relative to their body weight. Muscle gain should be pursued until they feel strong, run faster, jump higher, and farther without being negatively impacted by excessive bodyweight.
Key Performance Indicators
With this information, we can begin to outline some KPIs for LEOs. A quick disclaimer: the tests and values listed in this section serve as examples and suggestions. They are imperfect but reasonable, derived from a combination of available literature, the author’s experience, and the author’s opinion. You may adapt these to individual or departmental needs to accurately reflect the specific populations you work with.
Additionally, the author recommends not differentiating standards by gender, except for body composition measures. Although this can be an unpopular opinion, the logic is straightforward: KPIs should realistically reflect the actual work performed, and in the case of LEOs, tasks do not discriminate by gender. Male and female officers alike must perform these tasks, meaning the normative standards are the same for both genders. This implies that in some cases, female officers may have to train more rigorously than male officers to meet the same normative standards. However, the normative values should not necessarily be based solely on male performance standards, but rather represent the realistic demands faced by all LEOs.
Here are some examples:
Percent Body Fat:
- Males aged 20–40: 10–15% body fat
- Males aged 40+: 15–20% body fat
- Females aged 20–40: 15–20% body fat
- Females aged 40+: 20–25% body fat
Males and females have well-documented differences in normative body fat levels. In this instance, we are simply using acceptable versus insufficient standards. Body fat percentages higher than the listed ranges for each age and gender group represent an insufficient score. While it might seem logical that lower body fat levels represent exceptional scores, fatigue and difficulty maintaining extremely low body fat percentages may negatively affect LEOs’ performance. Put plainly, if LEOs are within the listed body fat range for their gender and age group, they are considered good to go.
Lean Body Mass (LBM):
LBM is more difficult to assign normative values due to the wide variations in body size and muscularity. Instead of using LBM directly as a KPI, proxy measurements of strength will be used. LBM and strength generally correlate closely, and strength is much simpler to quantify and assess. Therefore, multiple measurements of strength will represent the role of LBM.
Strength:
Strength can be scaled in several different ways, the most common being a 1 repetition maximum (1RM) lift. However, traditional 1RM testing is typically not the best use of time and energy, and carries a higher risk of injury. Instead, we can utilize an estimated 1RM derived from the athletes’ training data. Numerous calculators exist to roughly convert various set-and-rep schemes into an estimated 1RM, sufficient for our purposes. This estimated 1RM will serve as an absolute measure of strength, quantifying how much force a LEO can generate.
For absolute strength, we recommend two tests:
- Estimated 1RM Deadlift
- Grip Strength
Because LEOs must pick up, carry, and control people and objects, these tests are both ideal and easy to implement.
Strength can also be expressed relative to one’s own body weight. This is generally referred to as relative strength, or the strength-to-bodyweight ratio. This measurement can be more valuable when describing dynamic movements like running and jumping, as these activities are heavily influenced by bodyweight. In this case, we can use another lower-extremity test, such as an estimated 1RM squat, and scale it to the athlete’s bodyweight. This can also help assess the potential for diminishing returns from increasing lean body mass (LBM). There is a point where additional bodyweight may no longer produce increases in relative strength and could become cumbersome. At this stage, LEOs can shift their focus to other areas of fitness rather than continuing to increase LBM.
Lower Extremity Power
Since LEOs need to run and jump effectively, running and jumping tests have high validity. A countermovement jump (CMJ) is a simple yet effective test for assessing both lower-body power and jump height. It can be conducted using the old-fashioned method with chalk and a ruler, or more modern equipment such as a jump mat or jump-height flags. Because LEOs typically need to jump while on the move, the countermovement jump may be a preferable assessment compared to a static jump test; however, both methods are appropriate.
Although a 150-meter sprint test may seem natural given the typical running distance of 161 yards described in the needs analysis, the 150-meter test does not have many normative comparisons available. Instead, we might opt for the 100-meter sprint test, which has significantly more normative data for comparison. Alternatively, departments could begin collecting their own internal 150-meter sprint data and establish their own standards. For simplicity, we will use the 100-meter sprint test because it is more common and relatively close to the demands outlined in the needs analysis.
Training Hierarchy for Law Enforcement
Based on the needs analysis, training goals for LEOs can be structured into three major milestones, which should be addressed in order of importance.
The first milestone is achieving adequate body fat levels. Simply put, everything downstream of being overfat is irrelevant until this issue is resolved. Being overfat is undoubtedly the greatest obstacle to the performance, safety, and health of LEOs.
The second milestone involves building lean body mass (LBM) and strength until adequate strength levels are achieved. Although this sounds straightforward, it's actually the most time-consuming and complex of the three milestones. Muscle growth is a slow and challenging process. It also introduces additional complexity, because gaining muscle mass typically involves concurrently gaining some body fat. As a result, the second milestone often blends aspects of the first two milestones—LEOs cycle through phases of muscle and strength gain followed by periods of shedding excess fat throughout the year. Most LEOs will spend the majority of their careers working within this phase.
The third milestone is developing speed and power. Once LEOs are sufficiently strong and can consistently maintain appropriate body fat levels, they can effectively focus on enhancing power and speed to optimize performance. However, focusing on power and speed before adequately addressing strength and body composition goals largely wastes time and effort. Being overfat, undermuscled, or weak must be corrected before employing highly specific training methods.
First milestone: Percent body fat
The most immediate fitness goal for LEOs is reaching the recommended body fat percentages outlined previously. Achieving this milestone should be prioritized before advancing to training methods more specifically aligned with law enforcement activities. The optimal approach to fat loss is hypertrophy training paired with a caloric deficit, achieved through calorie restriction and increased physical activity. LEOs needing fat loss should spend approximately two-thirds of the year focused on reducing body fat and about one-third on maintenance or strength training. Fat loss is an arduous process with potential long-term negative effects, so LEOs experiencing burnout should utilize a maintenance period—a relatively easy training program paired with an isocaloric diet—to recover. Those still feeling physically and mentally strong after weight loss can choose a strength-focused program paired with an isocaloric diet. Generally, weight loss phases should last between 8 to 15 weeks, interspersed with maintenance or strength periods.
Second milestone: LBM and strength
Once LEOs achieve their body fat targets, the next priority is gaining muscle and strength, foundational elements of fitness critical to law enforcement and most athletic pursuits. The best way to build muscle is hypertrophy training combined with a hypercaloric diet, typically structured in 8 to 15-week cycles interspersed with active rest or strength periods. LEOs aiming to gain muscle and strength should spend roughly half the year focused on muscle gain (or fat loss), one-quarter on general strength, and the remaining quarter on maximal strength. This process can become complex because muscle gains typically come with increases in body fat—an undesirable outcome if excessive. Therefore, muscle gain phases periodically alternate with fat loss phases to shed accumulated body fat. The general training pattern should cycle from hypertrophy to strength to maximal strength and repeat throughout the year.
Third milestone: LEO-specific training
Though it might initially seem counterintuitive, the third and final milestone involves training specifically aimed at the core performance characteristics essential for LEOs: strength, power, and speed. Several factors explain why this milestone is last:
- Being overfat significantly impedes the development of these traits.
- Power and speed depend heavily on an established foundation of strength.
- Strength itself is derived from muscle mass and skill development.
- Power and speed are sensitive fitness attributes that fluctuate based on training emphasis and thus should primarily be targeted when job performance demands it most.
Within this phase, officers will spend less time on body composition and more time developing maximal strength, explosiveness, and moderate-distance running speed. Hypertrophy training can still be included but should represent a smaller portion of the annual training plan. LEOs should plan to spend roughly one-quarter of the year focused on hypertrophy (either muscle gain or fat loss), one-quarter on general strength, one-quarter on maximal strength and power, and the final quarter on power and speed training—in that specific order. Throughout the year, calorie intake should generally remain at maintenance levels, except during designated periods specifically targeting body composition changes (muscle gain or weight loss).
LEOs using this milestone system will likely encounter scenarios where they achieve the second or third milestones before completing the first. Similarly, some LEOs may score highly on certain KPIs while scoring poorly on others, resulting in mixed outcomes and uncertainty about prioritizing their training goals.
This is exactly where the milestone system becomes helpful. Simply put, nothing downstream matters if an officer is currently overfat. It doesn't matter how strong or powerful they are if excessive body fat remains an issue. Losing body fat first will only enhance their overall fitness and can elevate acceptable performance scores to exceptional ones.
Similarly, once body fat is adequately addressed, nothing downstream matters if the officer remains undermuscled and weak. Even if an officer already has good speed, becoming stronger is likely to improve their speed further and offer numerous additional benefits.
This milestone system helps clarify and prioritize the most crucial training goals, providing LEOs with clear, tangible objectives and outcomes to strive for. There's no practical reason to spend valuable time on single-leg plyometrics or obstacle courses when body fat levels are still at 30%.
A Periodization Framework for Law Enforcement
Now that we have some milestones and KPIs to train for, the next issue is sequencing training for LEOs in an annual plan that strategically allows them to train hard at times and exert high levels of preparedness at others. The difficult question is: When should hard training occur, and when should officers be most prepared for demanding work—especially when that work is inherently unpredictable? This is the core dilemma in most tactical and first responder environments. Everything makes sense in theory—until we apply these ideas to real-world scenarios. Then, things get very complicated, very quickly.
To navigate this complexity, we need to identify times when LEOs must be in peak condition, and other times when they can afford to train hard and sacrifice some short-term performance in favor of long-term adaptation. To do this, the author proposes a relatively novel idea: use trends in crime and LEO engagement within the community to establish higher and lower preparedness periods throughout the year. This can be thought of as analogous to the “competition” and “off-season” periods in sports. While the analogy isn’t perfect, it provides a reasonable framework for building an annual training plan around an otherwise unpredictable profession.
To implement this model, we must reframe LEO and first responder work from being purely “unpredictable” to something more “probabilistic.” While it’s true that any given shift could produce a wide range of outcomes, data shows that crime and police engagement tend to follow certain trends. These trends will vary by location, and each department should strive to establish its own specific patterns. But when examining aggregate data, we can see notable commonalities nationwide.
Before going further, it's important to acknowledge several limitations to this approach:
- Crime reporting and analysis are imperfect
- Crimes can occur without LEO intervention
- LEOs often intervene in situations before a crime officially occurs
- Crime incidents are not equivalent to LEO engagements with the community
- Statistics may not fully capture the complexity of each situation, especially since suspects have the right to due process and short-term incidents may not reflect long-term outcomes
These are all valid critiques of the model being proposed. However, the author has not found a more comprehensive alternative for periodizing training in a way that aligns with the realities of law enforcement work. For now, this appears to be the most evidence-based approach to solving a complex problem.
Crime tends to follow seasonal patterns. Moving forward, we’ll use criminal activity as a close proxy for LEO engagement with the community. While this data can be proprietary or difficult to access, crime statistics are more readily available. Ideally, each department would track and plot their own LEO engagement data over time—incidents where officers intervened to prevent or stop potential crimes. In the absence of that complex data, criminality statistics offer an imperfect but reasonably close substitute.
Broadly speaking, criminal activity tends to peak in warmer months—especially summer—and decline during colder months—particularly in winter. The highest rates typically occur as temperatures rise in spring and summer and decline as temperatures drop in fall and winter. While this may sound purely academic, it provides the foundation for a probabilistic approach to real-world training periodization.
If we have a probabilistic understanding of when LEOs are more or less active, we also have a roadmap for when their physical preparedness should be highest or lowest. In the strength and conditioning world, athletes have “peaking” or “in-season” programs that help them express their fitness and maintain readiness without accumulating excessive fatigue. Sports like basketball, soccer, and football span several months of competition, requiring a training approach that balances readiness with maintenance of existing gains. Athletes drop fatigue to express their abilities, but they generally don’t make significant new fitness improvements during this phase—they’re showing what they already have.
When athletes are not competing, they can train much harder to build fitness. This is commonly called the “off-season” or general preparatory phase. Without the need for peak performance, they can tolerate more fatigue in order to drive adaptation. While the details can be complex, the basic principle is this: train hard when you're not competing, and train lighter when you are.
For LEOs, we can apply this same principle to structure their annual training plan. During high-crime periods—such as the summer months—they should pivot to training that emphasizes readiness and performance expression. During low-crime periods—such as the winter months—they can shift to training that emphasizes long-term fitness gains. Spring and fall would serve as transitional phases, similar to specific preparatory periods or active rest in the athletic training world.
Let’s break down some examples of how this periodized model might look using the milestone system.
First Milestone: Percent Body Fat
For LEOs working on the first milestone, the primary goal is to reduce body fat to the normative targets previously outlined. Fat loss is a fatiguing process and can directly interfere with job performance. Because of this, it should be addressed during periods of lower operational demand. Therefore, the fat loss phase of the program will be scheduled during the fall and winter months—when LEO activity tends to be at its lowest.
To accomplish this, LEOs will engage in hypertrophy-style resistance training paired with a hypocaloric (calorie-deficit) diet for periods lasting approximately 8 to 15 weeks. These fat loss phases will be interspersed with diet breaks—lasting roughly 4 to 10 weeks—during which officers will consume maintenance calories and shift to a strength-based training program. While a maintenance hypertrophy program could also be used during this time, strength is a critical performance metric for law enforcement. As such, this transition period provides an ideal opportunity to develop strength without the added stress of a caloric deficit.
As LEOs in this milestone phase transition into the summer months, they will pivot once again—this time to a maintenance-level diet paired with a strength-focused training program. This combination is designed to reduce accumulated fatigue and enhance operational preparedness during the higher activity season.
Here is a sample of how this might be implemented:
Again, this is just meant to be an example. There are many ways to implement this framework, and timelines should always be adjusted based on the actual demands and schedules of each department.
Second Milestone: Lean Body Mass and Strength
Once LEOs have reached and can consistently maintain an effective body fat percentage, the next focus shifts toward building muscle mass and strength. Of all the physical attributes, strength likely provides the greatest return on investment for both fitness training and job performance—once excess body fat is under control.
Strength gains come from two primary sources: increases in lean body mass and improved neuromuscular performance through consistent, hard training. The former—gaining muscle—tends to occur more slowly over time, while the latter can improve steadily with a well-structured training regimen. Because muscle gain is a slower process, this is the phase where most LEOs will likely spend the majority of their careers.
It’s also worth noting that increasing muscle mass often comes with some accompanying fat gain, which will need to be managed periodically. As a result, this milestone tends to be slower and more nuanced than the first.
Fortunately, LEOs who have followed this structured milestone process will already be familiar with weight loss phases and can approach future fat loss periods more efficiently. In a typical year, LEOs might complete 1–2 focused muscle-gain phases, and ideally only one short fat-loss phase to stay within the targets of the first milestone.
Here is a sample of how this might be implemented:
Again, keep in mind that this is just an example.
Third Milestone: LEO-Specific Training
Once LEOs can consistently maintain an effective body composition and have reached their strength goals, they can progress to the highest level of training specificity. At this stage, the focus shifts heavily toward developing maximal strength, power, and speed.
Power and speed are more time-sensitive fitness qualities. They require a high level of physical preparedness just to be trained effectively and are typically best developed during times when those attributes are most needed. In contrast, strength—and even maximal strength—can be trained year-round, and the ability to express strength doesn’t significantly decline as long as regular training continues.
Although it might seem like a minor shift, incorporating power and speed work represents a major change in training focus. These types of training offer relatively low returns on investment unless the athlete already has a solid foundation of strength. In most cases, strength is the primary limiting factor in performance for strength and power-based tasks—making it the most efficient area to train until that foundation is firmly established.
The bulk of power and speed training should be programmed during periods when officers need to be most explosive, agile, and fast. Naturally, this aligns with the summer months, when LEOs require higher levels of preparedness. Therefore, prioritizing these qualities during that season is likely the most effective strategy.
Most officers will still need to periodically revisit body composition goals throughout the year via fat loss or muscle gain phases. However, when body composition is not a concern, LEOs may choose to add more power and speed-focused work—especially if those are areas of weakness. That said, strength and maximal strength will still comprise a significant portion of the overall training plan.
Here is an example of how this might be implemented:
There are many ways to approach this process. The needs analysis of the individual officer—and their progression through the milestone system—should be the primary factor in how training is structured. The challenge for leadership is that every LEO will present a unique mix of strengths and weaknesses, making an individualized approach necessary.
The milestone system is designed to help streamline this process by setting broad, clearly defined goals that officers can “clump” into, rather than attempting to manage hundreds of fully individualized programs. LEOs working on the first milestone will have very similar, if not nearly identical, training programs (aside from minor individual adjustments). As officers advance to the second milestone and beyond, their programming becomes increasingly tailored to their specific needs.
Special Considerations for LEOs
Because of the unique nature of their work, LEOs may need to modify their training more than a typical athlete would. Below are several important considerations to help ensure training enhances performance without compromising safety or job readiness:
- Avoid local muscular and systemic overreaching.
Training intensity and volume should be managed carefully. LEOs should train slightly less hard—both per muscle group and overall—than someone training purely for fitness. This is the #1 priority to avoid becoming physically compromised on the job.
- Avoid training to failure.
Keep reps in reserve (RIR) between 3 and 1. Training to failure can result in excessive fatigue and diminished performance—both in the gym and on duty.
- Avoid training before a shift.
Whenever possible, schedule workouts after your shift, or at least not directly beforehand. This prevents acute fatigue from interfering with on-the-job performance. Unfortunately, this often means workouts won’t always be as intense or “glorious” as they might otherwise be. That’s okay—your safety comes first.
- Use autoregulation.
Stick to a general training plan, but be flexible. If you’re feeling worn down, take a lighter day. If you’re feeling strong and energetic, go ahead and push a bit harder. The key is being honest about your capabilities and the potential recovery cost of a tough workout. If you can handle it, go for it. If you think it’ll wipe you out for the next few days, pull back a little.
- Bias hypertrophy work toward heavier rep ranges.
Since strength is a key performance indicator (KPI), focus on building fast-twitch muscle fibers. Use heavier rep ranges than traditional bodybuilding—think 5–10 reps for heavy work, and 10–15 for lighter work.
- Emphasize step counts over traditional cardio.
While cardiovascular training isn’t bad, it offers limited specificity and a lower return on investment for LEOs. Instead, prioritize general physical activity—especially walking. High step counts improve cardiovascular health, burn calories efficiently, and help LEOs stay present and active in their communities. This approach is less fatiguing than structured cardio sessions. That said, in colder climates or for officers who spend a lot of time in vehicles, supplemental cardio may be appropriate. Just try to avoid using cardio as a blunt tool for calorie burning—stay active in practical, productive ways whenever possible.
- Limit “psyching up” during training.
While getting amped up can boost short-term performance, it also causes significant nervous system fatigue. Worse, it can desensitize your body’s natural stress responses—which are essential for real-world performance. Save those adrenaline spikes for when you really need them, not for chasing PRs in the gym.
- Favor compound exercises with barbells and dumbbells.
LEOs should bias their training toward movements that carry over to real-world performance. That means prioritizing compound lifts using free weights. Machines can still be useful, but most time should be spent on barbell and dumbbell movements for maximal transfer of training effects.
- Maintain jumping and sprinting technique year-round.
While LEOs don’t need to train jumping and sprinting intensely year-round, maintaining a baseline level of technique is wise. Keep light, technique-focused work in the program to reinforce sound biomechanics. During power and speed phases, training can shift toward performance improvement. Outside those phases, a small amount of technique work goes a long way toward maintaining readiness.
Final Thoughts
It’s worth reiterating that all metrics, KPIs, and sample templates included here are simply suggestions. Each department should conduct a more detailed needs analysis of their officers and adjust timelines based on the unique demands of their community. With that information, leadership can implement the milestone and periodization framework with greater precision and impact.
It is my sincere hope that law enforcement officers—and those in leadership positions—can use this resource to improve performance, health, and long-term well-being. In some small way, I hope this contributes to repaying the incredible service and sacrifice you provide.
If you’d like support applying this framework to your unique situation—whether it’s for you or your team—I’d be honored to help. Click here to learn more and get started.
With great respect and admiration,
James Hoffmann
Find Dr. Hoffmann on...
IG: @rpdrjames
