Measuring Physical Fitness (Split: CF weighs releasing combat wounded soldiers)

[HItorMiss]

I will correct those things wrong with what your YMCA guy did here. I'm an instructor at CFLRS and I have seen the CF entry standards for the express test by PSP many times it is always the same no exceptions

Hand grip - Hold the dynamometer at a forty-five degree angle from your body, then squeeze as hard as you can. Your arm must not move erratically, and you must not hold your breath. The person administering told me your maximum strength is generally reached around the three second mark.

Arm must be no farther then 45 degrees and not touching the body. Arm cannot move at all once you begin to squeeze. If the arm moves the score is 0

Push ups - Not much to say, push ups. It's easier to do it if you put your feet apart. When I trained up for it, my feet were touching.

Already covered

Sit ups - Hands to your cheeks. Sit ups only count when your shoulder (not head) reaches the matt, and your elbows to your knees. Therefore, don't put your hands behind your head, unless you wish a challenge of course..

Hands are behind the ear not on the cheek fingers touching the head. If the hands move from that position that sit up doesn't count at all. If you start with hands on the cheek you didn't do a single proper sit up. Elbows must touch the top of the knee.

Your YMCA test adminester needs to check what he is giving/doing with the nearest local PSP. On Push ups alone he is way off.

 

[Pusser]

Which I always hated because they never took your starting heart rate into consideration. 

I loved the step test - I have a naturally slow heart rate. 

Having said that, I did my test today - @#*&! I hate that test!  I still maintain it's great for long-legged track stars, but sucks for us short-legged rugby players.  Nevertheless, that tick in the box is taken care of.

However, if we maintained a "culture of fitness," I still argue that we wouldn't need a test at all...

 

[PMedMoe]

I loved the step test - I have a naturally slow heart rate. 

Not me.  Up to 80 bpm while sitting.  I contribute it to my fast metabolism.  ;D

 

[buzgo]

I loved the step test - I have a naturally slow heart rate. 

Having said that, I did my test today - @#*&! I hate that test!  I still maintain it's great for long-legged track stars, but sucks for us short-legged rugby players.  Nevertheless, that tick in the box is taken care of.

However, if we maintained a "culture of fitness," I still argue that we wouldn't need a test at all...

You know, the shuttle run actually favours basketball and soccer players  - anyone who plays stop/go quick moving quick turning sports (like rugby?). Its not a "runners" test. Its an aerobic capacity test...

 

[Haggis]

It's long been recognized that although the science behind the EXPRES test and it's roots in the 5 CMFTE is still valid, the standard and the way we currently assess it needs to be updated.

Recent studies By D Fit have shown the the BFT is not a good indicator of fitness for battle, or even overall fitness.  In fact, the BFT only gets you to level 3 of cardiovascular exertion as compared against the 20 MSR.  I think we all know that the BFT is less about fitness and more about being a "gut check" and a measure of pain management.

There is currently a new study underway to set the next fitness requirements for the CF. It's called Project FORCE (Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment). And, no, I have NO IDEA what the new standards will be.  The project is still quite new and that decision has not yet been made.  Although the project won't deliver a new test or standard before 2013, I've been told that the new test will look very different from what we do now.  It will, however deliver a new CF standard for physical fitness and, maybe, environmental standards, too.

Again, I do NOT know what the new standard will be or may be and NO I do NOT know what the new test is/could be/will be.  So don't ask.

 

[McG]

Until Project FORCE delivers (if it ever does), I believe the Army standard should be (needs to be) the LFCPFS + CF Express.  There are a number of large obese individuals who can throw on a ruck (a relatively light weight in comparison to their overall body mass) and "ruck-out" a BFT and thereby hide their physical inability to actually do the CFExpress (and the required tasks for with it is a statistical indicator).

... also, the two points at merit boards for an exempt standard should only be awarded in the first year.  In the second year, it should drop to one point (because one's fitness standard could very easily make that drop in a year) - if one wants to retain the two points, then one reattains an exempt standard in that second year.

 

[dapaterson]

Better fitness principle: Test every year (Expres).  You require a pass in all of your past three PERs to be eligible for promotion.  No pass this year?  Then it will be at least three years until your file hits the promotion boards.


...though if we are to retain the "Two points for exempt" I agree that it should degrade in year 2 to only one point...

 

[Haggis]

There are many people opting for the LFCPFS over the EXPRES for a number of reasons, many of which have already been discussed. An interesting reason is to avoid having to submit to a preliminary blood pressure check, which could disqualify them from the EXPRES test.

Recently, the VCDS published direction that the only acceptable fitness test within the VCDS Groups is the EXPRES test. There are provisions for those who need to do the LFCPFS (i.e. MP serving with Army units, Class B Reservists who parade with an Army unit, pre-deployment trg to name a few) but the bottm line is that everyone in the VCDS Gp WILL complete an EXPRES test.  Units are required to report quarterly on their success rates and the actions taken against those who fail/are not tested.  So, if you want the extra point on your PER in the VCDS Gp you'd better have an Incentive Exempt on your EXPRES test.

CMP has issued very similar direction for Reservists in the NDHQ PRL.  It would seem, on paper at least, that there is an increased interest and emphasis on fitness within Ottawa.

 

[GnyHwy]

Again, I do NOT know what the new standard will be or may be and NO I do NOT know what the new test is/could be/will be.  So don't ask.

Well then...this seems like a good opportunity for wild speculation, crazy rumours and opinion.

Project FORCE (Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment).

My definition of the above would be: a soldier must have a level of fitness, for the place of their employment, that enables him/her to perform tasks for operations, or in support of operations.

Some examples would be:

Combat arms or support soldier - Is required to kick *** and take names when required.  Test would be much the same as we do now, plus a few other soldier type tasks; perhaps an EXERCISE or two.

Training establishment soldier - Is required to kick *** if necessary; mostly directed towards the combat arms or support soldiers.  Test would be doing PT once in a while, maybe with his/her course, but fitness should be focused on the ability to stay alert after long hours of reading policies, writing assessments, sifting through e-mail, coordinating support staff, retesting failures and listening to general whining.

Higher HQ soldiers - No kicking *** required, unless it's a hard fought argument.  Test would be, do PT if you have the time, but not required.  Efforts should be focused on the ability to have no life, sit through massive ppts, write massive ppts, the ability to research to back up said ppts, sifting through and trying to apply policy, and lastly organizing e-mail by daily deleting the "your inbox is full" message. 

I am sure I have forgot many for all soldier types, but that will do for now.

The only thing I see changing, is that people will not have to bullshit about their results anymore.

 

[Scott]

I just want to make sure everyone understands the proper form to be used on the step test. Sadukar09 correct me if I'm wrong.

You can let it go anytime now, I think he's gotten the point.

Staff

 

[McG]

For those in the office:  http://vcds.mil.ca/cls/dmcs/FilesO/DMCS-69172.pdf

 

[Pusser]

Better fitness principle: Test every year (Expres).  You require a pass in all of your past three PERs to be eligible for promotion.  No pass this year?  Then it will be at least three years until your file hits the promotion boards.


...though if we are to retain the "Two points for exempt" I agree that it should degrade in year 2 to only one point...

The trouble with this approach (as with any black & white or zero tolerance approach) is that there are several reasons one might not be able to pass an Expres Test in a given year that have nothing to do with one's level of fitness.  Whether one has a bad day and slips up or falls to the floor clutching one's chest, the test result is the same - FAIL - come back in three months.  That's ridiculous.  I had one subordinate who had already gotten exempt on the run, but then failed the test completely because he shifted his hand during the push-ups.  Where's the logic in that? 

The current testing regime is a negative, punitive approach, which I believe it counter-intuitive to the goal (i.e. overall fitness).  Instead creating a culture that encourages general fitness and a healthy lifestyle, it creates one where we train to pass the test (e.g. coaching sessions on how to turn on the shuttle run) and ignore everything else.  Why do we run the crap out of people on Basic Training and then stop?

If we had a proper culture of fitness where physical exercises was an integral part of every CF member's life, we wouldn't need a test at all.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The trouble with this approach (as with any black & white or zero tolerance approach) is that there are several reasons one might not be able to pass an Expres Test in a given year that have nothing to do with one's level of fitness.  Whether one has a bad day and slips up or falls to the floor clutching one's chest, the test result is the same - FAIL - come back in three months.  That's ridiculous.  I had one subordinate who had already gotten exempt on the run, but then failed the test completely because he shifted his hand during the push-ups.  Where's the logic in that? 

The current testing regime is a negative, punitive approach, which I believe it counter-intuitive to the goal (i.e. overall fitness).  Instead creating a culture that encourages general fitness and a healthy lifestyle, it creates one where we train to pass the test (e.g. coaching sessions on how to turn on the shuttle run) and ignore everything else.  Why do we run the crap out of people on Basic Training and then stop?

If we had a proper culture of fitness where physical exercises was an integral part of every CF member's life, we wouldn't need a test at all.

More to the point, tests like our BFT do not mean that you're physically fit for battle.

For example, I did the BFT last week in 1 hr 46 minutes, including the ridiculously easy 25m drag thing at the end. I'm in the infantry. Do I feel fit enough to tool up and participate in WW3? Nope. Not based on how fit I was when I was last on operations (more years ago than I care to think about these days!).

We need to rename it to something like: "The fitness test that - if you pass - means you're fit enough to start a proper battle fitness training program that will, after about 3 months of daily beastings up and down big hills etc with large packs and toturous gym sessions, mean you're probably ready to cross the LD and not collapse after the first quick attack".

IMHO, in the meantime, we should develop a proper 'battle' firtness test and do the right training required to pass it.

 

[Jarnhamar]

More to the point, tests like our BFT do not mean that you're physically fit for battle.

For example, I did the BFT last week in 1 hr 46 minutes, including the ridiculously easy 25m drag thing at the end. I'm in the infantry. Do I feel fit enough to tool up and participate in WW3? Nope. Not based on how fit I was when I was last on operations (more years ago than I care to think about these days!).

We need to rename it to something like: "The fitness test that - if you pass - means you're fit enough to start a proper battle fitness training program that will, after about 3 months of daily beastings up and down big hills etc with large packs and toturous gym sessions, mean you're probably ready to cross the LD and not collapse after the first quick attack".

IMHO, in the meantime, we should develop a proper 'battle' firtness test and do the right training required to pass it.

Out of shape overweight reservists who do not do any PT can pass the BFT. (Not in a 1h46m time mind you, to me that's pretty fast.)
I don't think it's a very good "fitness test" either.

Do you think the regular force gives it's members enough time to devote to proper fitness training? Is there a big enough emphasis on it?

Would we be shooting ourselves in the foot if we brought daily PT down to the section and individual level? An increased the standard?

Should we hold combat arms to a different standard than support trades?  I know soldier first and there are no more "front lines" but should we really hold a 47 year old postal clerk  to the same standard as a 22 year old infanteer?

 

[Teeps74]

Out of shape overweight reservists who do not do any PT can pass the BFT. (Not in a 1h46m time mind you, to me that's pretty fast.)
I don't think it's a very good "fitness test" either.

Do you think the regular force gives it's members enough time to devote to proper fitness training? Is there a big enough emphasis on it?

Would we be shooting ourselves in the foot if we brought daily PT down to the section and individual level? An increased the standard?

Should we hold combat arms to a different standard than support trades?  I know soldier first and there are no more "front lines" but should we really hold a 47 year old postal clerk  to the same standard as a 22 year old infanteer?

ROFL

Well, I like the kind of model that holds not only the individual responsible, but also the chain of command.  Should our Pl Comd's, Coy OCs et al be held accountable for the physical fitness of their men, I would suspect there would be a very serious change in our fitness mentality. In this model, there would either be unit PT or time made for individual PT to ensure that PER points are met. More importantly, soldiers would prevent injuries incurred in training and operations...

Yes, infantry should be at a different standard then other trades. Frankly, we are asked to do much much more then the other trades by our trade definition, our TORs. This one standard for all is well... Silly.


ETA: Completion of incomplete thoughts.

 

[blacktriangle]

I honestly PT should be on your own time for everyone, always. Meet up once a week for sports or team building/group activity. Some places do this already but I'd like to see it happen more. Don't make attendance mandatory etc. One year later, fitness test people and kick anyone that fails the hell out! It's PERSONAL fitness for a reason, put the onus on the member.

CoC should have to give the time, member should have to give the effort...

 

[Haggis]

CoC should have to give the time, member should have to give the effort...

The CDS Guidance to Commanding Officers (mandatory reading for EVERY CO), para 2203b reads (emphasis mine):

"Seek out every opportunity for CF members to include exercise in their work routines. The mantras of “fitness on your own time” or “we don’t have time for fitness” are to be eliminated. Given what we know of the power of daily fitness to increase morale, reduce stress, and improve work performance, it is incumbent upon us to be innovative in our approach when a formal fitness routine is impractical."

 

[dapaterson]

The CDS Guidance to Commanding Officers (mandatory reading for EVERY CO), para 2203b reads (emphasis mine):

"Seek out every opportunity for CF members to include exercise in their work routines. The mantras of “fitness on your own time” or “we don’t have time for fitness” are to be eliminated. Given what we know of the power of daily fitness to increase morale, reduce stress, and improve work performance, it is incumbent upon us to be innovative in our approach when a formal fitness routine is impractical."

That "CDS guidance to COs" has over 2203 paragraphs suggests the CDS needs to take a long, hard look at all the crap and BS that's being force-fed down the throats of our COs.

 

[PuckChaser]

That "CDS guidance to COs" has over 2203 paragraphs suggests the CDS needs to take a long, hard look at all the crap and BS that's being force-fed down the throats of our COs.

Or is the system creating a culture that require some COs to be given that much guidance so they can do their jobs properly?

 

[BDTyre]

I honestly PT should be on your own time for everyone, always. Meet up once a week for sports or team building/group activity. Some places do this already but I'd like to see it happen more. Don't make attendance mandatory etc. One year later, fitness test people and kick anyone that fails the hell out! It's PERSONAL fitness for a reason, put the onus on the member.

CoC should have to give the time, member should have to give the effort...

As a reservist, my regiment varies from training year to training year in terms of PT. I do various PT on my own time, every day of the week and I find it actually is a hinderance to do PT on a parade night. I don't see any benefit in doing an intense half hour workout one night a week when, for many of us, it wrecks our normal work out routine for a day or two afterwards.

In terms of the BFT - this shouldn't be an issue. I managed to pass it after a 3-week vacation in the UK (read: pub food) using a day pack and a ball weight for my load. Does that mean I'd be able to engage in a prolonged firefight? Not neccessarily.