# Interesting Article about Army Strength



## Jebus (23 Oct 2010)

http://startingstrength.com/articles/army_weak_long.pdf



> Is a 111 pound soldier really an effective member of an infantry squad? Can that soldier carry the average soldier when wounded on the battlefield?...My strong-but-fat Soldiers were great contributors in combat, and often they were the best performers both mounted and dismounted. They were more durable and more versatile. Our problems were with the skinny-fats and the sparrows; they couldn’t keep up on dismounted patrols under load, couldn’t kick in a door, couldn’t evacuate anybody over 140 lbs, and couldn’t intimidate an insurgent.


----------



## Task (23 Oct 2010)

That is an interesting point.

I was on an EX a while back and a friend of mine was an "unconscious wounded man" (he played dead weight very realistically). He weighed 240lbs + FFO. 

The situation we were in, I was to take him to the nearest cover (100M away) while others provided fire support. I am by no means weak, I am a solid 200lbs myself, but there was NO way I could fireman carry him (maybe the fireman carry isn't a great test after all  )... And when I dragged him I made it.... Maybe 25 Meters before I was exhausted. 

I can not imagine someone at >130lbs trying to carry him. That being said the argument could raise the bar until we can all carry the biggest guy in our unit. I would like to see USA empirical evidence after Iraq and Afg to see if weight was really an issue.


----------



## Greymatters (24 Oct 2010)

A good write up but we scrapped the BMI index in Canada years ago.  Not for all the right reasons, but it worked to most soldiers' benefit regardless.  Unless its been reinstated in the last few years and Ive not heard about it... 

Ref actual personal weight, its up to each trade to state the requirements, and up to the military as a whole to state the minimum requirements.  If a person can haul the minimum weight as per CF requirements, there's nothing to complain about.  Not everyone in the military can be 6'4" and 250 pounds of testosterone, and not everyone needs to be or should be.


----------



## Jebus (24 Oct 2010)

It's an American article, in case anyone was wondering.


----------



## Oh No a Canadian (24 Oct 2010)

> Is a 111 pound soldier really an effective member of an infantry squad?



There are 111 lb soldiers?


----------



## Nostix (24 Oct 2010)

Oh No a Canadian said:
			
		

> There are 111 lb soldiers?



Actually, this raises a question.

Is there any chance that the CF keeps records of statistics like this (And any chance they would release it to the public)? Data on non-identifiable vital statistics would actually be very interesting to see. How big IS the average soldier? What are the extremes? Do the members of the RCR really have larger heads than normal?  ;D

As someone who loved statistics and modelling, seeing a couple histograms of this kind of information would be really cool.


----------



## Task (24 Oct 2010)

Nostix said:
			
		

> Actually, this raises a question.
> 
> Is there any chance that the CF keeps records of statistics like this (And any chance they would release it to the public)? Data on non-identifiable vital statistics would actually be very interesting to see. How big IS the average soldier? What are the extremes? Do the members of the RCR really have larger heads than normal?  ;D
> 
> As someone who loved statistics and modelling, seeing a couple histograms of this kind of information would be really cool.



I am certain there is. Just in light of clothe the soldier. The manufacture of clothing to ensure x% of the military population is clothed with a Y% having to be custom made. I remember prior to CadPat teams had gone to Pet (likely other bases too) and measured groups of people from each unit.

Another place where the info could be kept would be the PSP. The department interested in developing the CF express test. Development of the shuttle run (results) were a  cross-section of the CF at the time of implementation.

What would be interesting to see is if they went back to development phase would the test base be different today?


----------



## desert_rat (24 Oct 2010)

Ever notice the average size of a battledress blouse, naval square rig, work dress or flight jacket from World War 2?...not exactly bodybuilder proportions, but somehow we managed to win


----------



## FDO (24 Oct 2010)

No one has looked at the other side of the coin. As one of the over 6ft and 200lb guys, I know I'd rather carry a 111lb solider than one my size. So lets get more "Soldier Light" on the field make it easier on  lot of us!!   ;D


----------



## PMedMoe (24 Oct 2010)

Task said:
			
		

> I remember prior to CadPat teams had gone to Pet (likely other bases too) and measured groups of people from each unit.



Obviously, a complete waste of time as (still) nothing fits properly.  And I was one of the people measured.   :


----------



## Task (24 Oct 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Obviously, a complete waste of time as (still) nothing fits properly.  And I was one of the people measured.   :



Lol, I was not one of the ones measured but when they changed the pant sizes I had a set that fit... Though shirts are still an issue for me, with my ape arms I can walk and scratch the bottom of my feet


----------



## dapaterson (25 Oct 2010)

desert_rat said:
			
		

> Ever notice the average size of a battledress blouse, naval square rig, work dress or flight jacket from World War 2?...not exactly bodybuilder proportions, but somehow we managed to win



Despite popular belief, it's not so much that we won as that the other side lost.


----------



## Danneskjold (26 Oct 2010)

The solution?

http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/technology/rtn08_exoskeleton/
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/hulc/

They might not make your uniform fit any better, but it sure would be sweet to have a mechanical weightlifter strapped to your back.


----------



## ArmyRick (27 Oct 2010)

I play around a bit with iron. I am not the strongest but I am not the weakest guy either.

1. The 111 lbs soldier are very far and few, this is the exception, not the rule
2. From spending 2+ years dealing with new infantry recruits, I would say our average modern Canadian male joining is between 165-185 LBS (eye balling it to be honest)

When it comes to cas evac, its not just strength, its also a skill and needs to be practiced (There are also some cool tricks for picking up a dead weight off the ground by yourself that I showed my guys and are not in any books). AT the end of runs and ruck marches, through in some casualty evacuations. Not the typical one guy stands, the other picks him up in a fire mans carry. Do it from a dead heap on the ground.

Thats my take. Good luck and cheers

Another tip, add heavy dead lifts into your routine, every soldier should be doing these IMO!!!


----------



## Biggoals2bdone (15 Nov 2010)

ArmyRick:i totaly disagree with your guestimate of the avg sizes/weights, considering I work in clothing, I KNOW/SEE the sizes of most of these cats, to be honest, infantry and armoured are on avg the smallest. I'm talking they avg 130-150 tops, the bigger and/or jacked guys tend to be in tech trades.  This isn't to say there aren't any BIG guys elsewhere.


----------



## bdave (16 Nov 2010)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> There are also some cool tricks for picking up a dead weight off the ground by yourself that I showed my guys and are not in any books.


Example?


----------



## ArmyRick (16 Nov 2010)

Sorry, I would have to show you in person. Its a bit of a hybrid BJJ/wrestling technique tweaked to pick someone up off the ground.

Infantry guys weighing 130 LBS? 150 LBS? Maybe the smaller guys. Yeah sure, walk around any infantry battalion these day dude. Seriously. I am an Infantryman and I know my own kind.


----------



## Pearlina (22 Nov 2010)

Anyone have any suggestions for a 100lbs soldier to help make things easier?  I used to be able to ruck marches without too much difficulty but it seems that I have started running into severe hip pain that is currently being investigated by the Physio department (starting a directed Pt program in the new year under RAFS to assist with this), just want some tips on what I can do to improve my strength so I can successfully complete the BFT, the casualty drag (currently cannot complete it with someone no smaller then 150lbs as the regs state) and would love to do the trench dig which I have also never completed.  Also what are people thoughts on tiny soldiers.


----------



## ArmyRick (22 Nov 2010)

Dude, seriously get through physio first and you should be going for medical re-eval to see how the progress is going. I tore my right meniscus 3 tears ago and the physio did not cure it, but it sure did help


----------



## Ascendant (27 Nov 2010)

Based on the recent discussion on P90X and that in general about Crossfit, I found this article very interesting, especially coming from the source it comes from. P90X and Crossfit, along with similar training protocols are addressed specifically.

The following is an abstract, if you will. You can follow the link to download the PDF, which is about 3-4 pages, I think.



> “The recent surge in the quest for a “well-rounded” and/or “functional” training program (and
> visible abs) has become the greatest inhibitor to effective training programming. The current trend
> in “fitness” training involves a complex array of what most perceive as balance of fitness parameters:
> strength, flexibility, skill specific, and high or low intensity endurance training. Becoming proficient
> ...



Links for the full article and a discussion thread on the article, with input from Mark Rippetoe, can be found here: http://startingstrength.com/index.php/site/adaptation_period_persistence_and_prioritization


----------



## Biggoals2bdone (27 Nov 2010)

I read it, got my hopes up with the title, thought FINALLY the CF is learning and going to implement more then just running for PT...BUT clued in fast it was US Army.

The conclusions the Majow draws are nothing new, the real question is will the military (ours and the americans) ever make organization wide changes that are to be permanently implemented?

such as: 
- a more well rounded PT test (for the CF)
- more relevant and/or well rounded PT, as well as actually having actual short and long term training/fitness plans and not just random PSP classes, thrown in with random CSM's/OC's/CO's PT.


Also makes me wonder why the CF doesn't give more points the better you do in every category above minimum pass like the US Army and USMC do (instead of just pass, fail, exempt), this in my opinion would foster/instill a good competitive nature which would also in turn help improve overall fitness levels of the entire CF.  

I'm not saying we need to go as far as having  height/weight restrictions like our southern neighbours do, but maybe there could be some kind of career/promotion repercussions in regards to obese mbrs, i'm not talking about the guys who could lose 10lbs...but the guy/gal who's gut is clearly vivible in CADPAT, and you can see rolls waddle when the move.  I'm not advocating BMI, if anything we could do caliper tests for fat %.  This combined with a more well rounded PT test(s) giving points for EACH category and adding it up for a final score, in my opinion would reward the fit troops, in the long run.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Nov 2010)

I'm pretty impressed with P90X. It might just be glorified circut training but it's working.


----------



## Franko (28 Nov 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm not required to listen to the mewings of disgruntled members that refuse to follow the rules. As far as riding you, it's what a moderator does when we have a problem. Eventually, if the offender doesn't straighten up, they get shown the door.



After further review, this thread is now opened again upon request by a member. 




Kratos has been banned for continued trolling and not co-operating with staff.

*The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## GAP (28 Nov 2010)

Just a little tidbit that kinda relates to this discussion.....................

What The USAF Learned From Iraq
by James Dunnigan November 25, 2010
Article Link

Over a third of U.S. Air Force (active and reserve) have taken the new PT (Physical Training), and the results are better than expected. As of September, only 17.5 percent failed the test. It was only four months ago that the air force began enforcing new physical fitness standards. Initially, a little over 20 percent failed.  The air force expected as many as 40 percent to flunk. Those who fail have 90 days to get ready for another try. An airman is subject to discharge if they fail two tests in a row, or four in 24 months. Each airman gets tested every six months, although tests are conducted every month so as not to overwhelm the testers, and the gyms. While 20 percent failed the new test, 40 percent scored 90 or over (on a 1-100 scale). A key factor in the higher failure rate was the use of civilian fitness specialists hired to conduct the tests, rather than local NCOs and officers. It was also noted that older airmen (especially officers) tended to get higher scores than the youngsters. There appears to be a generation gap here, with the those who came up before everyone had video games and Internet, were, and remain, in better physical shape. In any event, so far this year, gyms on air force bases have been mobbed, with a lot more people seen running outside or participating in sports. The troops got the message, and scores, and pass rates, have been going up each month.

A lot of this physical fitness mania has to do with too much food and not enough exercise. Overweight airmen are a growing problem. Some bases find that over 40 percent of their personnel are overweight. So the air force is changing menus in its dining halls, and what snacks are available in stores on base. More exercise programs are being created, and physical fitness standards are being enforced.

By service, the air force is the fattest (6.7 percent overweight) and the marines the thinnest (1.2 percent overweight.) Weight is more of a problem with older troops. Thus 6.6 percent those 40 or older are overweight, compared to only 1.6 percent of those under 20. As in the civilian world, women have a harder time with weight. Fifteen percent of military personnel are female, and 7.2 percent of them are currently overweight.

The military will discharge troops who are fat, although a fair amount of leeway is given. The military makes an effort to get chubby troops down to a safe weight. But each year, hundreds of overweight troops who fail to lose the pounds, are discharged from the service. For many of those who served in a combat zone, and dealt with the stress via food, they are just another casualty of war. A career dies, even if the soldier involved does not. Even before September 11, 2001, the air force brass were becoming alarmed at a weakening resolve, among their troops and commanders, to stay in shape. There has been an ongoing crackdown, and the new PT test is the latest result. The army and marines have always been more strict about staying in shape. But this time around, the air force and navy got religion as well. Both of these services have imposed more strict weight and physical fitness standards that must be met, otherwise you get discharged (fired).
More on link


----------



## Task (29 Nov 2010)

That is quite an interesting read. 

To our Air Force members who went to Afghanistan,

did you find similar results as the article (ie when put in an augmented role (EOD?) did you find that physical fitness was lacking {last 3 paragraphs in the article})? 

What was/is the Air Force mentality towards fitness while deployed there (is it different then at home)? If it is different at what level of leadership has it changed ie Personal, group, flight...etc.


----------



## Biggoals2bdone (30 Nov 2010)

Putting more emphasis on PT is good and all, but i'd be curious to know if its actual GOOD PT, or just same ol just shut up and RUN stuff.

ArmyRick: you can disagree with me all you want. I still know/see the sizes of troops...majority of the guys are wearing 36inch chest, with 40 being a strong 2nd...and dont stand taller then 5'10, maybe 130 was light, but I definitely wouldnt say the avg for infanteers is much over 165ish.  Like I said, I chose to agree to disagree with you, and respect that you have a different opinion.

Returning to the main topic, is has been rumoured for years that the Navy would be getting a different PT test, one that would take into account life aboard ship, any news on that?  I also think we should maybe test more often, or punt people for weighing 300lbs of blubber if they can't show a commitment to leaning out.

But again like I said, I think we need to revisit our fitness standards as well as our fitness tests, and possibly balance that out more (give the different modalities or types of fitness equal footing, as well as possibly diversifying the test slightly, just spitballing), as well as maybe looking at having a points system like the Americans have for your score, and how that would reflect on promotions and PERs/PDRs.


----------



## Task (30 Nov 2010)

Biggoals2bdone

I like the idea of a better point system for PER, though I do not know how the Americans incorporate their scores though.

I would like to see it on the PER under Performance with the same ratings  ie...Exceeded Standard...Mastered.


----------



## Biggoals2bdone (1 Dec 2010)

It depends which branch, they all have slight differences, but generally there is a minimum number of reps or time alotted for a set distance, and a specific amount of points dedicated to that result, and anything better or worse is given a different value in points. At the end the points are either all added up and counted that way as the result or they add the scores up and divide by the number of events to get the avg and THAT is the mbrs score.

US Army: 
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army/l/blfitm22to26.htm
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army/a/afpt.htm

US Air Force:
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/airforce/a/affitness.htm
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/airforce/l/blmalefitness.htm 

USMC:
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/marines/a/cft.htm
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/marines/l/blfitmale.htm
The marines have 2 tests now apparently.

US Navy:
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/navy/l/blweightmales.htm
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/navy/l/blfitmale25to29.htm


----------



## Task (1 Dec 2010)

But how do they incorporate it into their promotion system? 

The navy seems to have a big incentive, I wonder how effective it is:

 "Sailors who exceed their allowable body-fat are deemed "overweight." They are screened by medical personnel, and then entered into a mandatory weight-loss program. While in overweight status, sailors are ineligible for promotion, ineligible for many volunteer assignments and schools, and are no eligible to reenlist."


----------



## Biggoals2bdone (1 Dec 2010)

Generally speaking they have a few different things that factor in to the promotion equation/system, you get points for:
- Tours/deployments
- medals/awards
- FITREP (fitness report)
etc

Here are some examples I found:
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/blafprompoints.htm (USAF)
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/blmarineprompoint-2.htm(USMC, look at this one then the next one)
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/blmarineprompoint.htm (USMC)
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/navypromotions/a/navypromotion_5.htm (USN)
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/armypromotions/a/armypromotions_2.htm(US Army)

Seems mainly that they have maximum scores for a variety of things, and in the end ADD up all those scores and then just tabulate them against others.
Ex: 100 points max for fitness (your performance on the fitness test gave you a score of 1-100)
      100 points maximum for military courses/education
      100 points maximum for job performance
      100 points maximum for civilian education
      100 points maximum for TIS (using one of the formulas from the websites above)
      100 points maximum for TI rank (using one of the formulas from the websites above)
      Add all that up, and you have your promotion score, with a max of 600 in this case. The thing is you only compete for promotions against those in the same trade/MOS as you, which makes sense, because odds are guys at the pointy end would get tend to get more valour awards, as well as flashy courses (para, sniper-ninja, air assault, yes some cdns are being sent down to the states for this) which would stack the odds of the pointy ended troops getting promoted and not having any Snr NCO's in the Tech trades.


Keep in mind just like us they have ranks that are not competitve and only involve TI and quals.


----------



## Chilme (8 Jan 2011)

Given some of the comments here i would like to give some insight.

1)  Beginning in 2011 the CF will be implementing a new training method known as "Tactical Athlete Training" (Formerly given the name Combat Fitness Conditioning).  This training method has its routes in Crossfit, but has been adjusted to better suit the CF's needs.  This Feb. the first Train the train course will be held to qualify a number of PSP staff.  In March an Advanced Fitness Training Assistant (AFTA) course will be delivered to some CF members that qualifies them to teach Tactical Athlete Training.  There has already been 2 pilot user clinics conducted in Pet last November, with more planned.  Once the PSP Staff are trained, they will hold local 3 day user clinics.

2) Supplementary to the previous is the launching of Dfit.ca (http://www.dfit.ca/splash.htm) which will have a ton of info and post Workouts of the Day (WOD) much like Crossfit.com does.

3) The Research and Development section of PSP is currently re-evaluating the EXPRES program as it pertains to each element.  There is alot involved, so it will take time to get going.  At least you know something is being done.


----------



## ArmyRick (9 Jan 2011)

Thats encouraging to hear. At least the CF is constantly re-evaluating itself and finding a better way to do things (sort of like a OODA loop).


----------

