The data — what we actually measured
What 115 Check-Ins Taught Us
We tracked attendance frequency, at-home training adherence, and self-reported weekly progress across every Warrior Challenge participant from September 2025 through April 2026. Names anonymized. Here is what the patterns show.
115Weekly check-ins analyzed
2.14Avg progress score — fully committed students (of 3.0)
0%Strong progress at under 2×/week (n=16)
36%Strong progress — fully committed (n=36)
At-Home Commitment vs. Strong Progress Rate
% reporting "strong" progress, by physical-training-plan adherence · Strongest variable in the dataset
This is the biggest lever in the entire dataset — more predictive than attendance alone. "Mostly following" and "struggling" are near-identical: 12% vs 7% strong. The gap between committed and everyone else is 26 points. There is no halfway result here.
Attendance vs. Strong Progress Rate
% of check-ins reporting "strong" progress, by weekly class frequency · Reinforces plan commitment
2× per week is the fence — the average, not the commitment. 41% of students training twice a week are stuck at "some progress." At 3+, that drops to 27%. More sessions create more opportunities to reinforce what the at-home plan builds.
What this means if you're starting Monday
One Primary Lever. One Reinforcer. One Rule.
- The primary lever: do the at-home plan fully, or don't bother. Students fully committed hit 36% strong progress and an average score of 2.14/3. Students "mostly" following hit 12% — nearly indistinguishable from those not doing it at all (7%). The cliff is between committed and everyone else. 20 focused minutes beats 60 distracted ones.
- The reinforcer: train 3 times a week, not 2. 41% of students training twice a week are stuck at "some progress." Add one more session and that drops to 27%. The students who commit to the plan and show up 3+ times are the ones driving the top of the dataset.
- The rule: tell us when life intervenes. Students who communicated — about injuries, family emergencies, travel, dietary restrictions — got adapted plans and came back. Students who went silent disappeared. One text prevents a three-week gap from forming.
Full Breakdown — All Variables & Groups
Progress scale: Strong = 3 · Medium = 2 · Some progress = 1 · Needs guidance = 0
Every Check-In — Raw Distribution By Attendance Group
Each dot = one student check-in. Color shows self-reported progress for that week.
Under 2× Per Week
16 check-ins · avg 1.06/3.0
2× Per Week
66 check-ins · avg 1.74/3.0
3+ Times Per Week
33 check-ins · avg 2.0/3.0
Strong Progress Medium Progress Some Progress
The hierarchy matters: Plan commitment is the stronger predictor — a 26-point gap in strong progress between fully committed and everyone else. Attendance reinforces it: 3+ sessions drops the stuck rate by 14 points versus 2×. The work between classes is where results are actually built. Class is where you test them.
Methodology: 115 voluntary weekly check-in submissions via Google Form, Sep 2025 – Apr 2026. Progress self-reported by students on a 4-point scale. Multiple submissions from the same participant counted as separate data points. Student names replaced with codes for anonymity. Data reflects directional patterns for program-level decisions — not clinical conclusions.