# CF army fitness manual



## rifleman17 (25 Aug 2012)

Hi all,

Does anybody know where I could get a hard copy of the current CF army fitness manual?  And how much would it cost me?

Thanks in advance.

Regards


----------



## Haggis (25 Aug 2012)

Track down your Unit Physical Training Officer/NCO or drop by the gym and ask one of the PSP folks.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Aug 2012)

If you're unable to track one down I'll mail you one.


----------



## rifleman17 (25 Aug 2012)

Will do.

Thanks fellas.


----------



## TSpoon (25 Aug 2012)

Until you get your hands on a hard copy .....

fliiby.com/file/825059/eghtzchhqe.html

sorry for not posting the actual link but I'm not exactly technology oriented

As an aside, after you've tried out the AFM, try looking into www.militaryathlete.com
No offence to the folks who wrote the AFM, its definately an improvement on the usual "run,pushups,situps,stretching" but it's only a step in the right dirrection, don't look at it as the be all end all of fitness for soldiers  :2c:


----------



## aesop081 (25 Aug 2012)

TSpoon said:
			
		

> No offence to the folks who wrote the AFM, its definately an improvement on the usual "run,pushups,situps,stretching" but it's only a step in the right dirrection, don't look at it as the be all end all of fitness for soldiers  :2c:





> *Reserve Infantry Applicant*



Thanks for you  :2c: . Let us know when you have actual experience to back it up.


----------



## TSpoon (25 Aug 2012)

I'm guessing you didn't click on the link I provided for "actual experience" ??? 

I never implied I had any experience in combat or anything of that sort if that's whats got you so rattled.The guy who wrote in on the main page of the website(link) does,maybe you should ask him ?


----------



## aesop081 (25 Aug 2012)

TSpoon said:
			
		

> I'm guessing you didn't click on the link I provided for "actual experience" ???



No, i did not as it has no relation to *you*.



> I never implied I had any experience in combat or anything of that sort if that's whats got you so rattled.



You have none, yet you posted as if you had any idea what level of fitness a soldier needs. You clearly imply that you do, or at the very least, attempt to speak as if you have any experience in soldiering:



> No offence to the folks who wrote the AFM, its definately an improvement on the usual "run,pushups,situps,stretching" but it's only a step in the right dirrection, don't look at it as the be all end all of fitness for soldiers


  

Maybe if you are quoting someone else, your post should reflect that fact.



> The guy who wrote in on the main page of the website(link) does,maybe you should ask him ?



I don't need to ask him or anyone else. My comment was about *you*.


----------



## rifleman17 (25 Aug 2012)

TSpoon said:
			
		

> Until you get your hands on a hard copy .....
> 
> fliiby.com/file/825059/eghtzchhqe.html
> 
> ...



I appreciate the advice, but I'll stick with the CFAFM for now.  The exercises in it will help me meet the standards expected of me when I finally get to do my trades course.  After that's done, I'll consider looking into other stuff.

Regards,

PD


----------



## TSpoon (25 Aug 2012)

@CDNAviator
That's all very nice, but it doesn't change what I said in regards to the AFM among other things.If you would actually like to discuss the benefits of the AFM vs another training proram i'm all ears, seeing as something I DO have experience in is fitness/training/whatever you wan to call it.And I have gained some (some, not a lot) of insight into the fitness demands of soldiers.And yes,it was through second-hand sources but that doesn't affect the quality of the information.I never said I have first hand experience in the military, but your entire argument seems to rely on calling me out on that.Also, unlike yourself, I have actually contributed to this thread in a positive manner by providing the OP with a link to the AFM so he can get started as soon as he likes.I never said it was a bad program,just not the best.Why would you settle for second best with something this important?? 

All i was trying to do was help the guy out and try and spread the word about MA programming.All you were trying to do was dispute some very silly points and inflate your ego.


----------



## TSpoon (25 Aug 2012)

Punching Dummy said:
			
		

> I appreciate the advice, but I'll stick with the CFAFM for now.  The exercises in it will help me meet the standards expected of me when I finally get to do my trades course.  After that's done, I'll consider looking into other stuff.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> PD




No worries.Happy training


----------



## The_Falcon (25 Aug 2012)

TSpoon said:
			
		

> @CDNAviator
> That's all very nice, but it doesn't change what I said in regards to the AFM among other things.If you would actually like to discuss the benefits of the AFM vs another training proram i'm all ears, seeing as something I DO have experience in is fitness/training/whatever you wan to call it.And I have gained some (some, not a lot) of insight into the fitness demands of soldiers.And yes,it was through second-hand sources but that doesn't affect the quality of the information.I never said I have first hand experience in the military, but your entire argument seems to rely on calling me out on that.Also, unlike yourself, I have actually contributed to this thread in a positive manner by providing the OP with a link to the AFM so he can get started as soon as he likes.I never said it was a bad program,just not the best.Why would you settle for second best with something this important??
> 
> All i was trying to do was help the guy out and try and spread the word about MA programming.All you were trying to do was dispute some very silly points and inflate your ego.



You provided a link that's about it.  You are inflating your own ego, by trying to relate that your experience whatever that maybe, is comparable to the experience and education of the authors and contributors to the manual, several of whom are PhD's in the field of Exercise Physiology (google is a wonderful tool look people up), have among other things also wrote the pre-selection guide for JTF 2.  Unless you have the credentials to match theirs, or actual experience in the military, your opinion on the usefulness of the manual, is meaningless.  The phrase stay in your lane is applicable here.


----------



## TSpoon (26 Aug 2012)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> You provided a link that's about it.  You are inflating your own ego, by trying to relate that your experience whatever that maybe, is comparable to the experience and education of the authors and contributors to the manual, several of whom are PhD's in the field of Exercise Physiology (google is a wonderful tool look people up), have among other things also wrote the pre-selection guide for JTF 2.  Unless you have the credentials to match theirs, or actual experience in the military, your opinion on the usefulness of the manual, is meaningless.  The phrase stay in your lane is applicable here.



Sorry if I came off as a "know-it-all", that was definately not my intent.However, looking at two programs(AFM and MA) from purely a fitness POV,In my opinion(which I know you don't care for much,it's still just my opinion) something that is 

1. periodized(i.e. cycles focused on specific goals : strength,stamina,Anaroebic power,etc)
2.Focused on improving relative strength,which is the foundation of athletic performance(and you don't get stronger by throwing around 95lbs. for 3 rounds of work)
3.High in Volume(of work)
and 4. has injury prevention drills worked in
(MA  has all of this)

has a far better chance of suceeding then something that is randomized and focused on getting guys in and out of the gym as fast as possible(note: the above was in reagrds to the AFM, not the JTF2 program, which is quite well thought out and periodized, although with a different goal in mind)

Once again, I never claimed to have served anywhere, at anytime.I was mearly taking a message from somewhere else,along with some of my own thoughts, and conveying them to you fellas.I thought that's what forums were for ?


----------



## The_Falcon (26 Aug 2012)

TSpoon said:
			
		

> Sorry if I came off as a "know-it-all", that was definately not my intent.However, looking at two programs(AFM and MA) from purely a fitness POV,In my opinion(which I know you don't care for much,it's still just my opinion) something that is
> 
> 1. periodized(i.e. cycles focused on specific goals : strength,stamina,Anaroebic power,etc)
> 2.Focused on improving relative strength,which is the foundation of athletic performance(and you don't get stronger by throwing around 95lbs. for 3 rounds of work)
> ...



Then you actually didn't read the AFM very carefully.  It is periodized (its a 12 week cycle), the fitness checks outlined in the AFM are there to guide the user, and highlight which areas they require specific improvement in, and should therefore direct their focus.  It's wasn't made for "athletic" performance it was made to enable a person to easily pass the Army Fitness Standard, specifically it states, that the program is designed to bring a person to level 3 in the fitness check section which would accomplish that objective.  There is also a level 4 for the go getters.   Achieving the level 3 and 4 standard in ALL categories is no easy.  Also I find it quite puzzling you laud the JTF2 program but not this one, even though the JTF2 program is based on the AFM, and is basically a continuation of the AFM (its fitness checks start at AFM level 4). 

This forum is pretty unique in that people are expected to refrain from offering opinions and advice if they don't posses the "relevant" experience, knowledge, etc. in the topic at hand. 

Now to cut you some slack, the AFM was written prior to our major combat operations in Afghanistan, and that simply meeting the goal of preparing for the Army Fitness Standard, was insufficient for the troops on the ground engaged in those combat operations.   So they developed the Combat Fitness program, to address those concerns.  Is it better?  Some say yes, some say no, but those people usually have the actual field experience to make those judgements for themselves, and with anything fitness related that pertains to the individual person, any manual or pam, will inherently have shortcomings as they are invariably designed to have a broad scope to encompass as many people as possible.   It is incumbent on those individuals to seek out ways to address their own INDIVIDUAL shortcomings, instead of laying blame on a book.


----------



## Piotrowski (5 Feb 2016)

Hey guys

I'm trying to track down a hard copy of this manual as well. Any idea where I can get it?


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Mar 2016)

Piotrowski said:
			
		

> Hey guys
> 
> I'm trying to track down a hard copy of this manual as well. Any idea where I can get it?



When I approached PSP for hard copies they told me they had to order them in then when I bugged them again they told me hard copies are no longer being printed and you can either find someone who has one laying around or use the one online.


----------



## DAA (8 Mar 2016)

Here you go, the online version      

https://www.cfmws.com/en/AboutUs/PSP/DFIT/Fitness/Documents/Army%20fitness%20manual.pdf

Hope this is what you were looking for?


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Mar 2016)

Thanks!


----------



## RoughGalaxy (4 Jul 2016)

DAA said:
			
		

> Here you go, the online version
> 
> https://www.cfmws.com/en/AboutUs/PSP/DFIT/Fitness/Documents/Army%20fitness%20manual.pdf
> 
> Hope this is what you were looking for?




Is this link pinned somewhere? If not, it needs to be.


----------



## dangerboy (4 Jul 2016)

Today we received email traffic that the fitness manual is no longer valid, the website http://www.dfit.ca/ has replaced it.


----------



## RoughGalaxy (7 Jul 2016)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> Today we received email traffic that the fitness manual is no longer valid, the website http://www.dfit.ca/ has replaced it.



The recruiter I talked too said that dfit may be opening up to civilians (or at least civvies looking to enlist) is there any way for us to find out?


----------



## Jake138 (2 Aug 2016)

How about this, does this help anyone?

http://www.rhli.ca/recruiting/recruitingforms/fitnessresv_en.pdf

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## RedcapCrusader (3 Aug 2016)

The AFM is still a very useful and, in my personal opinion, better than what DFit had to offer. 

I haven't used DFit in a few years now however, and it may have improved. 

There are still digital copies readily available.


----------



## RoughGalaxy (9 Aug 2016)

Jake138 said:
			
		

> How about this, does this help anyone?
> 
> http://www.rhli.ca/recruiting/recruitingforms/fitnessresv_en.pdf
> 
> Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk





Hey thanks for this! This is a great document to give me an easy reference to what I'm going for. It's also nice that it mentions pull ups even though they aren't part of the initial assessment.


----------

