Out-of-shape soldiers a 'national threat'

[GAP]

Officers shouldn't run ... it make the troops nervous. 

It all depends on what direction they are running......

 

[kevincanada]

According to BMI score 21.7 is exactly middle of normal.  I'm 6'0""  I would need to weigh 160 pounds.

I haven't weighed that since I was 14 years old. I was skin and bone then, people use to think I was underweight.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I'm pretty sure the biggest problems are coming out of the NCR.

 

[GnyHwy]

I'm pretty sure the biggest problems are coming out of the NCR.

That, and the really far back support trades. 
 
Mods, how do I start a survey with 5 choices?  I am curious to the answer of this.

What would happen if all persons in the NCR and 2nd and 3rd line support were all extremely overweight?

All please chime in.

I realize I am starting a shitstorm here, but if all everyone is worried about is perception than let's just get everyone lipo.  It's probably cheaper than all the paperwork.

 

[Nostix]

"Being fit may be a requirement of service, but I expect you to do personal PT on your own time. The workday is for work".

"The workday is not 0800 to 1600. If you have to come in at 0700 and stay until 1800 to meet our objectives, I expect you to do that. You're being paid 24/7."

... Enough said.

 

[Jarnhamar]

"The workday is not 0800 to 1600. If you have to come in at 0700 and stay until 1800 to meet our objectives, I expect you to do that. You're being paid 24/7."[/i]

... Enough said.

Are you being factious?

 

[Nostix]

Facetious? No.

And I'm not trying to claim that it's outrageous.

But if you want certain things to happen, others are going to fall by the wayside. It's not a sustainable expectation, but I see it asked of pers all the time.

Edit: And if there is any confusion because I was only partially quoted, I have no problem with having personnel stay late for critical work. I have a problem when supervisors co-opt family time twice; once to push PT out of the work-day, and a second time to extend the work day for non-critical tasks.

 

[DVC185]

A lot of interesting thoughts here and I can appreciated the point of view from the tech on the floor up to and especially inclusive of the CO's thoughts.

I will not rehash the failing of CFPAS, PT scoring or that dirty little French fact but wish to address the foundation of a culture of fitness. Nor will I discuss much on the CF Expres test or the new FORCE which I have read on a forum somewhere that it was created for the overweight middle aged female to pass. That's quite harsh I think but you must admit it appears the physical standard has lowered. For what it's worth, I achieved exempt on my last fitness test. But anyway.....

Right out of the block, I support PT testing at the recruiting center to eliminate the chaff so to speak as well as to ensure our PY dollars are spent on the right people.

The item I wish to address and haven't seen discussed yet in this topic is compulsory service in the combat arms and associated supporting arms for a minimum period of time prior to moving on to other occupations.  I have been a strong proponent of that as I believe it builds character, teaches tolerance and has the added bonus of providing sound soldiering skills to all.

I would suspect most of us have seen the purple trade guys and gals who have spent 10 years or so at Air Force bases or some HQs only to find themselves in a service battalion or horrors, an actual regiment. Most of them have a tough time meeting the physical training requirements. And we have all seen the Air Force guy who has never worked shift or outside on the flight line and complains the minute any extra effort is required. I'm sure we could dig up some Navy examples also.

Yup.....2, 3 or 4 years spent on the pointy end in the dirt and all the physical training that goes on there may be what we need to establish a higher level of physical fitness awareness and indoctrinate our young people into the culture of fitness.

OK, I know that the idea has merit and also pitfalls like who will fly the planes or drive the ships but after 37 years in, my ship has sailed. I'll let the ones with a stake in the outcome work out the details.

 

[MikeL]

The item I wish to address and haven't seen discussed yet in this topic is compulsory service in the combat arms and associated supporting arms for a minimum period of time prior to moving on to other occupations.  I have been a strong proponent of that as I believe it builds character, teaches tolerance and has the added bonus of providing sound soldiering skills to all.

So service in a non Combat Arms MOSID doesn't build character, tolerance, etc?

Not everyone is cut out physically, mentally, or medically for the Combat Arms so why force everyone into that? In my mind, that would turn some people who could be great Techs, Clerks, Mechanics, etc away from the military. Plus, you are delaying the CF from getting new people into those support trades, and you get a number of people in the Combat Arms that don't want to be there, and other problems.

As for teaching "Soldering skills" isn't this why we have BMQ-Land(formally SQ) for all pers in Army DEU and some of the purple trades?

 

[cupper]

Thanks to the last few posts from Cupper and EO Tech I have a greater appreciation of what you guys do during your day to day and maybe I was seeing this problem through my Infantry Officer lenses and not being objective enough.

Umm... That was all EO Tech. I haven't posted in this thread.

But I've always thought BMI was crap, just to throw in my  :2c:

BUT now dealing with the results of some poor lifestyle choices (damn you fried food and beer!) I do agree that BMI can be an indicator of potential health issues.

As for PT on the PER, why put it on a sliding scale. Just make it Pass / Fail, and if the member exceeds the standard but a certain set level (say top 10% of that unit / trade group or what have you), they get a bonus point. No more, no less regardless of how much more they may go beyond the bonus level.

 

[DVC185]

So service in a non Combat Arms MOSID doesn't build character, tolerance, etc ?

Not everyone is cut out physically, or mentally, etc for the Combat Arms so why force everyone into that? In my mind, that would turn some people who could be great Techs, Clerks, Mechanics, etc away from the military. Plus, you are delaying the CF from getting new people into those support trades, and you get a number of people in the Combat Arms that don't want to be there, and other problems.

Hey, I said that there were some pitfalls associated with the concept.

It has been my experience that those who came from the Army were more well rounded characters...and I'm using the term characters loosely. > Of the 41 CWOs in my branch, a rather high percentage had some form of Army experience. Take from that what you want to.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Umm... That was all EO Tech. I haven't posted in this thread.

But I've always thought BMI was crap, just to throw in my  :2c:

BUT now dealing with the results of some poor lifestyle choices (damn you fried food and beer!) I do agree that BMI can be an indicator of potential health issues.

As for PT on the PER, why put it on a sliding scale. Just make it Pass / Fail, and if the member exceeds the standard but a certain set level (say top 10% of that unit / trade group or what have you), they get a bonus point. No more, no less regardless of how much more they may go beyond the bonus level.

LOL I must have been reading a little too quickly, ok 100% credit to EO Tech  ;D

 

[kratz]

<SNIP>
The item I wish to address and haven't seen discussed yet in this topic is compulsory service in the combat arms and associated supporting arms for a minimum period of time prior to moving on to other occupations.  I have been a strong proponent of that as I believe it builds character, teaches tolerance and has the added bonus of providing sound soldiering skills to all.<SNIP>

Frak this post.  :facepalm:

The downhill slope has now been achieved.

In one sentence, this post has impugned those same characteristics to which you want to see improved.

Your statement disrespects my 20+ years and the majority of CSS who are already dedicated, willing to work to pull it out "last minute", and the requirement to put with with combat / hard sea bias...No. Support does not have any character, tolerance for others BS, or can be a soldier / sailor.

I'll bite my own a$$ if you willing do my job for

2, 3 or 4 years spent on the service end of the dirt and all the physical and mental hours that goes on there may be what we need to establish a higher level of readiness.

Cheap shoots across the bow go both ways. 

 

[armyvern]

There is a difference between Cbt Arms in garrison, who train to maintain their skills, and CSS soldiers in garrison, who actively employ their skills in garrison.

CSS soldiers have clear deliverables and tasks in garrison.  For example, if vehicles are not maintained, the unit VOR goes up and operational readiness is clearly, quantifiably diminished.  If an infantry platoon doesn't do a periodic refresher on MGs, the impact isn't visible or quantifiable, and a commander can't see it.

So a commander will order his support soldiers to lower his VOR.  Since we aren't issued more than 24 hours in a day, leaders have to prioritize tasks within that time.  And if soldiers have to work 10 hours a day in garrison they'll do so, plus add in a few Saturdays.  So PT may get pushed to the right - because their commanders have given higher priorities to their troops.

Commanders have three COAs:

(1) Request additional resources;
(2) Accept a higher VOR;
(3) Accept less PT.

COA (4), more PT and lower VOR, results in burnt out CSS soldiers - particularly when they see their Cbt Arms brethren and sistren sliding out at 15h00, when they've still got another 3 hours of work ahead of them.

Bang on.

In our Unit, it goes like this:

0730-0830hrs / 5 days per week  = mandatory PT (and we are still doing both FORCE and BFT in this Command);
1430hrs-1500hrs we CSS folk watch everyone else slide out (same ones who slide at 1130hrs for lunch and return at 1320ish habitually) leaving our cars in the parking lot until 1730-1800ish 4 or 5 days a week and a couple weekend days a month.

Morale is awesome (everywhere but Sp).

Wether or not it's the PT or the work that gets done pre-0730hrs or post-1600hrs (ie: "on our own time") is a BS point because it WILL be one or the other that happens "on our own time".

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Ok seriously guys, the intent here is not to turn this into a cbt arms vs css bashathon!  That serves no purpose and is total BS anyways because everyone has their role to play in making the big machine work! 

This keeps degrading into some sort of individualistic rant and not about what can be done with our present system to achieve results across the board.  I get it, everyone has different jobs to do so we obviously cannot dedicate the same amount of time at work to fitness?  So what now then?  We have basically just admitted that we can't possibly compare what a cbt arms members goes through to that of a supporter so why do we paint the fitness requirements with the same broad brush?

So I throw it out there again, what can be done to improve physical fitness across the CF? 

 

[McG]

As for PT on the PER, why put it on a sliding scale. Just make it Pass / Fail, and if the member exceeds the standard but a certain set level (say top 10% of that unit / trade group or what have you), they get a bonus point. No more, no less regardless of how much more they may go beyond the bonus level.

This is a bad idea.  The threshold for gaining PER points for higher fitness would fluctuate from unit to unit based on average local level of fitness.  People would be penalized or rewarded as much for who they work with as what their level of fitness is.

As long as we were to keep with a common test, there is nothing saying that the Infantry performance threshold for ES need be the same as the Cook or Int Op thresholds.  It just needs for each occupation to be consistent within itself across the CAF.

 

[Monsoon]

So I throw it out there again, what can be done to improve physical fitness across the CF?

Does anyone have any evidence to suggest that there actually is a problem? This thread was started because of a tabloid article about something a media "expert" said.* We all know that people occasionally fail the EXPRES/FORCE test, and that we could do a better job of pinning down the chronic malingerers, and we've all heard stories about the waste of money spent in Warrior Platoon programs at BMQ. But can anyone point to an instance on deployment where a mission was compromised or failed because of the lack of physical fitness of someone in an operational or support trade? It's easy to make a fetish of flat tummies and sharp jaws, but if there's no impact on the oft-referred-to pointy end, maybe we shouldn't be throwing money and effort at a problem that doesn't really exist.

* Incidentally, the partial quote of the self-described "expert" sounds a lot like something said a couple of years ago by a US general, but the actual context was that the lack of physical fitness of the general population (not of the military) was a strategic threat to their forces' ability to sustain recruiting.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Does anyone have any evidence to suggest that there actually is a problem? This thread was started because of a tabloid article about something a media "expert" said.* We all know that people occasionally fail the EXPRES/FORCE test, and that we could do a better job of pinning down the chronic malingerers, and we've all heard stories about the waste of money spent in Warrior Platoon programs at BMQ. But can anyone point to an instance on deployment where a mission was compromised or failed because of the lack of physical fitness of someone in an operational or support trade? It's easy to make a fetish of flat tummies and sharp jaws, but if there's no impact on the oft-referred-to pointy end, maybe we shouldn't be throwing money and effort at a problem that doesn't really exist.

* Incidentally, the partial quote of the self-described "expert" sounds a lot like something said a couple of years ago by a US general, but the actual context was that the lack of physical fitness of the general population (not of the military) was a strategic threat to their forces' ability to sustain recruiting.

Our dear old CDS Rick Hillier was the first to allude to this:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2006/01/04/forces060104.html

http://www.espritdecorps.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=501:weighing-in-on-military-fat&catid=39ersonnel&Itemid=96

 

[UnwiseCritic]

I have seen the fitness standards compromise an attack on ex Maple Guardian. I have seen multiple soldiers fall out of company attacks and platoon attacks on desert ram. I have had too personally leave a medic close to 400m behind on a live fire night platoon attack. All of the people involved in these instances were sent overseas. Fortunately only on our "new" mission.

And do we wait until we are operationally compromised before fixing the problem? Obviously no, so we are brainstorming ideas to solve said problem as we are headed in the wrong direction. All because we want too look better on paper.

 

[Old EO Tech]

LOL I must have been reading a little too quickly, ok 100% credit to EO Tech  ;D

Don't worry RD, I work with and for many infantry officers and NCO/WO's that understand far less about CSS operations that what you have indicated in your posts.  And several of them are in key Admin Coy positions that really can not fail or the Bn suffers for it.  Not to start another tangent, but even though Sustainment is one of 5 pillars of combat, I really don't believe it well taught as are the other pillars.  I was posted in WX for 6 years and I never saw sustainment tested in any great way by CMTC Maple Guardian Ex's, in fact the culture was drive the "rental fleet" until the wheels fall off :-/  Even though our mantra is train how you fight, and you would never do this with your own equipment.

Jon