# Out-of-shape soldiers a 'national threat'



## MikeL

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2013/07/20130729-081430.html


> Out-of-shape soldiers a 'national threat': Obesity expert
> 8:14 am, July 29th, 2013
> 
> CHRISTINE BOUTHILLIER | QMI AGENCY
> 
> MONTREAL - Obesity in the Canadian Forces is becoming a "national threat," an obesity expert warns.
> 
> Dr. Arya M. Sharma of the University of Alberta told QMI Agency that he has received warnings first-hand from military officials about out-of-shape soldiers.
> 
> A 2008 survey found that nearly one-quarter of Canadian soldiers had body mass indexes greater 30, the World Health Organization's obesity threshold.
> 
> "Their work makes it difficult to control their weight," said Dr. Sharma, chair in Obesity Research and Management at the Edmonton-based university.
> 
> "If they don't have enough time to eat, their lunch will be bigger. Stress or boredom can lead them to eat."
> 
> The Canadian Forces has invested in personal trainers while implementing weight-control guidelines to combat the problem.
> 
> "It's a concern within the chain of command," admits Daryl Allard, Canadian Forces director of fitness.
> 
> He said an obese soldier finds it much more difficult to pass physical tests.
> 
> The annual tests require soldiers to lift sandbags and run an obstacle course while carrying a load.
> 
> Any member who fails the test is given three additional attempts over a six-month period.
> 
> If the soldier fails again, they must submit to another test that assesses their ability to perform common tasks such as digging trenches, piling sandbags and carrying a stretcher.
> 
> It's very rare for a soldier to fail the simpler test but if they do, they might be discharged from the forces.
> 
> Soldiers train for an hour a day, five days a week during working hours.
> 
> To facilitate recruitment, the forces eliminated an enrolment test.
> 
> The test is now given only when a recruit is accepted into the Army and begins their training.
> 
> This change allows the forces "to recruit highly qualified specialists ... who might otherwise not be able to enrol because of their lack of fitness," Army spokeswoman Michele Tremblay said.
> 
> OBESITY IN THE WORKFORCE
> 
> Obese people are less likely to be hired or promoted
> They often have a lack motivation
> Stigma can cause overeating and inactivity
> Thin, sedentary people with poor eating habits can have poorer health than overweight people
> -- Source: Equilibre


----------



## JorgSlice

What they fail to mention is that BMI doesn't account for muscle mass, therefore this study is f-cking useless. Using BMI, weightlifters who are healthy and agile are considered obese.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

> A 2008 survey found that nearly one-quarter of Canadian soldiers had body mass indexes greater 30, the World Health Organization's obesity threshold.



I'll bet a percentage of that 1\4 percent are lean, very muscular soldiers with little fat on them.

So called experts that rely on BMI to classify people should not be considered experts, nor their opinions listened to.

The BMI is a farcical chart with no honest correlation to weight\ fitness.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'll bet a percentage of that 1\4 percent are lean, very muscular soldiers with little fat on them.
> 
> So called experts that rely on BMI to classify people should not be considered experts, nor their opinions listened to.
> 
> The BMI is a farcical chart with no honest correlation to weight\ fitness.



BMI is not totally useless but it does not take into account people with muscular/powerful builds.  I played rugby with a guy who was 6'0 and weighed 250lbs.  He could also run a lvl 11 on the beep test and could practically dead-lift a car.  He was considered obese by BMI standards but was actually a specimen.  He is also an fighter pilot now


----------



## MikeL

If the BMI was the sole source(as the article states) of saying 1/4 of the CF is obese, then the actual number is probably lower as a number of fit members are considered overweight on the BMI.  However, there are a number of overweight/obese/unfit pers currently serving in the CF, I highly doubt 1/4 of the CF falls into that, but many do.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/1000708_357340391059059_105137448_n.jpg


----------



## 421_434_226

Did we not already go through this BMI BS in the late 80s to early 90s, I seem to recall being listed as "obese" cause I'm a short ass, yes I am only 5'4" and I weighed around 175 lbs I also had a 32" waist and a 46" chest. I was really ticked off at the time 'cause I could do my pt of an 8km rucksack march 2 - 3 times a week and compete with a friend of mine to see who could do 50 pushups at the end of it first (support for 1 RCR), I was obese but the next guy in line was not obese 'cause he was 6' and 200 lbs with a beer belly and could barely do 5 pushups and hardly make it to the doughnut shop without puffing, right I was obese. Sorry rant off (gawd I hate the BMI people)


----------



## Edward Campbell

Just to chime in; I used to have to write a letter, annually, re: one of my people - a Navy PO1 who was a diver. He was reported, annually, as being above the BMI threshold (this was in the 1990s). Annually I got a report from the medical people saying he was obese; annually I wrote the letter demanding a re-evaluation; annually they tested him for body fat; and, also annually, they amended his records to state that he was fully fit for service.

The BMI is a handy tool for screening but it must be interpreted, and using it for this sort of "survey" is useless. But, as Dr. Sharma says, there are some obese soldiers and they do need help to get fit ... or get out. 

I note, also, that the CADPAT combat uniform, worn as garrison dress, hides a multitude of sins, including soldiers who are a bit too short for their weight.


----------



## 421_434_226

As stated here by others we could be doing much better in the physical department.


----------



## -rb

Gizmo 421 said:
			
		

> As stated here by others we could be doing much better in the physical department.



Exactly, now if only the CoC would start punishing those who fail to meet the weak 'standards' we have set in place ...lets start showing those who continue to fail the door... IMHO.

Cheers.


----------



## PMedMoe

yukon said:
			
		

> Exactly, now if only the CoC would start punishing those who fail to meet the weak 'standards' we have set in place ...lets start showing those who continue to fail the door... IMHO.
> 
> Cheers.



Oh, let's not limit that to just _physical_ standards.  Boot people who fail trades training and also those with discipline issues....


----------



## PuckChaser

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Boot people who fail trades training and also those with discipline issues....



Wouldn't we have to start failing people from the trades training first? I don't know about other trades, but I've seen a lot of people given 15 chances to pass PCs without a PRB, just so they don't need to do the paperwork to fail them.


----------



## Armymedic

North Americans, at large  , are significantly heavier than the world average.

BMI when applied properly is a very accurate tool in determining current health status and inferring future health status.

If you remember  that a BMI of 30=obese is a WHO standard, you will quickly realize that in the majority of the world, that figure is strikingly accurate.


----------



## The_Falcon

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I note, also, that the CADPAT combat uniform, worn as garrison dress, hides a multitude of sins, including soldiers who are a bit too short for their weight.



And the CADPAT OTW shirts leave nothing to the imagination, and it is quite frankly embarrassing to see all these individuals running around here on KAIA wearing those things, and proudly displaying well developed beer guts, and moobs.   It seems its more for the LCF than anything else, since none of the other nations here wear their OTW shirts 24/7.


----------



## Rifleman62

Is this not how we got rid of the PERI staff?

I was at 17 Wing in May and saw more than a few servicepeople who _looked_ well overweight. As a percentage of the total population of 17 Wing: miniscule.

I personally had trouble keeping my weight down my whole life. If I don't exercise regularly, my weight goes up. Currently walk 9 to 10 KM @ 1 1/2 hour, 5/6 times a week.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Is this not how we got rid of the PERI staff?
> 
> I was at 17 Wing in May and saw more than a few servicepeople who _looked_ well overweight. As a percentage of the total population of 17 Wing: miniscule.
> 
> I personally had trouble keeping my weight down my whole life. If I don't exercise regularly, my weight goes up. Currently walk 9 to 10 KM @ 1 1/2 hour, 5/6 times a week.



I don't remember you being fat back when...


----------



## medicineman

Where I work, BMI is used as a threshold of where someone gets surgery done - anyone with a BMI over 35 can't be operated on in certain hospitals in my RHA due to the risks inherant of being over weight and getting a general anaesthetic...and most people I see with BMI's over 30 are in fact FB's with no necks and ample guts, which are serious anaesthetic risks.  If I'm doing a medical on someone for the military and see a BMI pushing or over 30, I take a good look at what that 30 is - as I too have seen people that didn't read the fine print and failed take body composition into account.  Having said that, there are alot of people that, while having a muscluar build, do have a layer of Molson muscle over that build as well.

What the study also sort of touched on was that the chain of command has to be involved more by making PT a priority as opposed to the embuggerance a lot of folks make it out to be.  I've been (and still am) utterly amazed at how many low level supervisors take it upon themselves to decide the routine work that never goes away to be  "operational necessity" and who make PT a reward vice part of the work day, despite CO and CDS ORDER's requiring their subordinates to train at least 3 times a week on compnay time...and the leaders that let these people get away with disobeying those same orders.  I know PT is a personal responsibility, but it's also a work one - as a leader, you have to know what the lowest common denominator in your unit is and raise that to something operational.  Also, group PT gets you out there and learning about your folks, allows you to give them leadership challenges, burn off steam, etc, ad nauseum.  While I know I'm generally preaching to the choir here, there are still folks out there that feel the CF is a 9-5 job and PT is but a burden to their work/career advancement agendae.

Rant over.

MM


----------



## RectorCR

I've been working as a bouncer here in Halifax for a little while now and most of the guys who show their Navy ID's tend to be quite "plump".  
I've never worked in the navy so I'm not sure of the physical fitness required to do their job but it would seem like it isn't that high...at least in the ruck 30 km's with 50lbs on your back sort of way. Maybe they're more akin to the powerlifter sort of fit...or maybe they're just fat???


----------



## ballz

Well, if the new FORCE PT standard that we spent too much money and time coming up with is any indication, the CAF is not interested in raising the standard level of fitness within the organization...

And quite frankly, I'm so disenchanted by that new test that I can't even get worked up over what we should be doing versus what we are doing when it comes to fitness.

EDIT to add:



> Soldiers train for an hour a day, five days a week during working hours.



Clearly, there are some inaccuracies in this article...


----------



## Rifleman62

jollyjacktar: 





> I don't remember you being fat back when...



Not fat, but not skinny! In those days I was running at least an hour a day at the YMCA track across the street from work.


----------



## Cyrius007

It's clear BMI is not a perfect mesure, but it can give a warning.

A friend of mine just retired from a supply position and he told me they were re-issuing clothes to CF members much more often with bigger sizes than smaller ones...


----------



## MJP

Cyrius007 said:
			
		

> they were re-issuing clothes to CF members much more often with bigger sizes than smaller ones...



I call that getting old....


----------



## PMedMoe

And the fact that they changed the sizes when we got the CADPAT.  Waist sizes are in increments of 4 inches vs. 2 (E.g. 26", next size is 30").  So if someone is a 28, they now have to get a 30".  That could be misleading too.


----------



## Inquisitor

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Currently walk 9 to 10 KM @ 1 1/2 hour, 5/6 times a week.



I looked at that and thought "What????" 

I sincerely hope that I misread this 9 to 10 Km @ 1 1/2 What? surely not KM per hour?  If that was the case, I'm sure it isn't I understand their is a new inspirational movie out called "Turbo" ;D

The 9-10 km though good for you.


----------



## Monsoon

RectorCR said:
			
		

> I've been working as a bouncer here in Halifax for a little while now and most of the guys who show their _*Navy ID*_'s tend to be quite "plump".


Navy ID, hey? Must be something new.



> I've never worked in the navy so I'm not sure of the physical fitness required to do their job but it would seem like it isn't that high...at least in the ruck 30 km's with 50lbs on your back sort of way.


It's a cortisol-driven environment: lots of stress, lots of standing/waiting/staying alert, lots of deprivation of natural light and fresh air. Highly conducive to catabolism and central fat storage. It's physically demanding, but not in a way that makes you stronger or healthier.


----------



## Rifleman62

Inquisitor

The aim is to do 10 KM in 1 1/2 hours which is what I should have wrote.

I did have  a problem with the shrink moths getting at Mess Kit though.


----------



## Inquisitor

Sir, Glad to hear that I misunderstood.

I did not mean to offend, and will try to learn from this


----------



## jollyjacktar

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> jollyjacktar:
> Not fat, but not skinny! In those days I was running at least an hour a day at the YMCA track across the street from work.


That's true.  Not skinny, not fat.  Solid and fit comes to mind, as one would expect of a Rifleman.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

medicineman said:
			
		

> What the study also sort of touched on was that the chain of command has to be involved more by making PT a priority as opposed to the embuggerance a lot of folks make it out to be.  I've been (and still am) utterly amazed at how many low level supervisors take it upon themselves to decide the routine work that never goes away to be  "operational necessity" and who make PT a reward vice part of the work day, despite CO and CDS ORDER's requiring their subordinates to train at least 3 times a week on compnay time...and the leaders that let these people get away with disobeying those same orders.  I know PT is a personal responsibility, but it's also a work one - as a leader, you have to know what the lowest common denominator in your unit is and raise that to something operational.  Also, group PT gets you out there and learning about your folks, allows you to give them leadership challenges, burn off steam, etc, ad nauseum.  While I know I'm generally preaching to the choir here, there are still folks out there that feel the CF is a 9-5 job and PT is but a burden to their work/career advancement agendae.
> 
> Rant over.
> 
> MM



This.  

IMO, fitness is a leadership/command responsibility is it not?  So when Pte/OS Bloggins doesn't pass his/her PT test, how come only they are held to account and not their CofC from the CO on down?  The CDS Guidance to COs is pretty clear on PT and so is the DAOD.


----------



## ModlrMike

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> This.
> 
> IMO, fitness is a leadership/command responsibility is it not?  So when Pte/OS Bloggins doesn't pass his/her PT test, how come only they are held to account and not their CofC from the CO on down?  The CDS Guidance to COs is pretty clear on PT and so is the DAOD.




Exactly.

The comment in the article that "soldiers do one hour of PT every day" is essentially true in so much as it relates to brigade units. There's still plenty of other folks out there who don't get this PT time., and are told that they should do PT on their own time. What we need to do is inculcate a culture of fitness in the CF. A culture that starts at the top, but also starts from day 1 of a person's career and carries on until retirement.

I recollect doing predeployment training at a US base one tour and virtually every single soldier was doing PT first thing in the morning.


----------



## McG

As a step toward establishing a better culture of fitness, perhaps we should stop cutting PT time from courses as a way to compress training.  Anything longer than 7 consecutive days should be mandated to include fitness time.


----------



## captloadie

I fully agree that we need to instill a greater fitness culture in the military. That being said, I'm tired of hearing that there are no excuses why Pte/Cpl Bloggins can't be given time off for PT during company time. All my sections aren't manned to the point where they can have more than one or two at any given time off doing PT. Daily details need to get done, aircraft need to be refueled, and runways need to be kept open. I would love nothing more than to shut down three or four times a week for 90 minutes to get everyone their required PT, but someone needs to convince the Comd 1 Air Div to only fly missions after 9am.

It does go back to instilling that culture in members from the beginning and through their trades training so that when they are out on their own, and company time isn't always available, they will do it on their own time.


----------



## Halifax Tar

MCG said:
			
		

> As a step toward establishing a better culture of fitness, perhaps we should stop cutting PT time from courses as a way to compress training.  Anything longer than 7 consecutive days should be mandated to include fitness time.



Excellent point MCG!  I recently taught a QL5 Sup Tech Course and I was dismayed at the lack of PT times (2hrs a week).  It was explained to me the course had been compressed and PT time was sacrificed.  I know many of the students were dismayed as well.


----------



## PanaEng

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> And the CADPAT OTW shirts leave nothing to the imagination, and it is quite frankly embarrassing to see all these individuals running around here on KAIA wearing those things, and proudly displaying well developed beer guts, and moobs.   It seems its more for the LCF than anything else, since none of the other nations here wear their OTW shirts 24/7.


You mean like this:http://www.outofregs.com/index.php?page=archives&id=95


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Exactly.
> 
> The comment in the article that "soldiers do one hour of PT every day" is essentially true in so much as it relates to brigade units. There's still plenty of other folks out there who don't get this PT time., and are told that they should do PT on their own time. What we need to do is inculcate a culture of fitness in the CF. A culture that starts at the top, but also starts from day 1 of a person's career and carries on until retirement.
> 
> I recollect doing predeployment training at a US base one tour and virtually every single soldier was doing PT first thing in the morning.



This!  I am working in Kingston right now and I can tell you I and a select few others are the only ones that do PT at work.  No work is that important that you cannot have PT time be from 0800 to 1000 every morning.  When we are not at war, we should be making sure our bodies are fine tuned machines ready to do the business at a moments notice.  I do PT every morning and have had a few people give me funny looks and some funny comments but I will not bend and slide into the culture of the coffee slurping, cigarette smoking, desk surfer!


----------



## Infanteer

We need to move beyond "Well the CDS said" and "DAOD says this" and make real incentives.  The US Military scores the annual PT test.  Meet the minimum standard, and you get minimum points, max the test, you get max points.

PERs are moving to a simple system - pass FORCE and you get to go to a merit board, don't pass and you aren't looked at.  This isn't good enough.  We need a system where FORCE failures are put on the administrative track, FORCE minimums get 1 point on their PER and some graded score can allow members who surpass the standard to get 2 to a maximum of 5 points on the PER.  What's a better incentive to promote a fitness culture then having COs who enforce a standard having all their guys getting 4-5 points at merit boards while less dedicated units are getting 1-2?

Tie fitness to promotions, money and career advancement and you'll see a cultural shift in the CAF.


----------



## GAP

Do you not get into personalities doing the scoring then?


----------



## McG

GAP said:
			
		

> Do you not get into personalities doing the scoring then?


As long as the fitness points are based on measurable/quantifiable performance in a fitness test, there is no room for personalities to influence those points.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Infanteer said:
			
		

> We need to move beyond "Well the CDS said" and "DAOD says this" and make real incentives.  The US Military scores the annual PT test.  Meet the minimum standard, and you get minimum points, max the test, you get max points.
> 
> PERs are moving to a simple system - pass FORCE and you get to go to a merit board, don't pass and you aren't looked at.  This isn't good enough.  We need a system where FORCE failures are put on the administrative track, FORCE minimums get 1 point on their PER and some graded score can allow members who surpass the standard to get 2 to a maximum of 5 points on the PER.  What's a better incentive to promote a fitness culture then having COs who enforce a standard having all their guys getting 4-5 points at merit boards while less dedicated units are getting 1-2?
> 
> Tie fitness to promotions, money and career advancement and you'll see a cultural shift in the CAF.



Great suggestion, I actually find it kind of funny that fitness is not tied to our promotion schemes yet things which have very little impact on our ability to fight wars like French proficiency and having multiple graduate degrees gives a person big time points.  Education is definitely important, especially at the higher levels of the officer corps but should the ability to function in both languages be held at a higher importance then physical fitness?


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> ...the culture of the coffee slurping, cigarette smoking, desk surfer!


Why you gotta point me out like that?  And besides, my surf board has cool things like post-it notes, paperclips and a high spead stamp with my signature block on it.

All humour aside, PT and fitness in the CAF is something that I have noticed is slipping to a bad point.  I complete agree with your comments Drew that a fitness standard needs to be regularly maintained so that at a very short notice anyone can go and do the job.  The military as a culture needs to foster and develop a focus on PT, it's quite literally in our blood.


----------



## Monsoon

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Great suggestion, I actually find it kind of funny that fitness is not tied to our promotion schemes yet things which have very little impact on our ability to fight wars like French proficiency and having multiple graduate degrees gives a person big time points.  Education is definitely important, especially at the higher levels of the officer corps but should the ability to function in both languages be held at a higher importance then physical fitness?


How is promotion not tied to fitness? If you haven't passed the fit test, you can't get promoted. If you can't pass it after repeated attempts, you get released. They won't release you over a second language profile.


----------



## Rifleman62

RoyalDrew: 





> Great suggestion, I actually find it kind of funny that fitness is not tied to our promotion schemes yet things which have very little impact on our ability to fight wars like French proficiency and having multiple graduate degrees gives a person big time points.  Education is definitely important, especially at the higher levels of the officer corps but should the ability to function in both languages be held at a higher importance then physical fitness?



Heresy!!

Commonsense is not authorized.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> How is promotion not tied to fitness? If you haven't passed the fit test, you can't get promoted. If you can't pass it after repeated attempts, you get released. They won't release you over a second language profile.


The application and focus on PT across the CAF though is not balanced, and as stated above we as a military are doing a poor job of making sure standards are maintained and physical fitness in the general sense is slipping.  The FORCE program is a joke, plain and simple because the standard is not increasing but is in fact decreasing.


----------



## dapaterson

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> The application and focus on PT across the CAF though is not balanced, and as stated above we as a military are doing a poor job of making sure standards are maintained and physical fitness in the general sense is slipping.  The FORCE program is a joke, plain and simple because the standard is not increasing but is in fact decreasing.



How is it decreasing?  The BFT was well-known as a way for fat, out-of shape people to avoid the EXPRES test, and the EXPRES test bore no relationship to any military tasks.

FORCE, at least, has face validity - lifiting loads and running.  The standard is set to meet what experts from the three environments have defined as the required abilities for all CF members regardless of age, gender or trade.

FORCE is not intended as a fitness challenge, or a light infantry assault standard, or a super-commando-ninja preparation.

The current binary method of fitness - pass/fail; promotable/not promotable works fine.  If certain trades require higher fitness levels or scalable fitness levels they can work to establish that.

But at higher levels of leadership, fitness is important, but should not be a determinant for promotion.  Which is more important for a Bde commander: how much he or she can benchpress, or how well they can think, plan, and work with others?

(We should, of course, add extra PER points for driving a Harley...)


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dapaterson said:
			
		

> How is it decreasing?  The BFT was well-known as a way for fat, out-of shape people to avoid the EXPRES test, and the EXPRES test bore no relationship to any military tasks.
> 
> FORCE, at least, has face validity - lifiting loads and running.  The standard is set to meet what experts from the three environments have defined as the required abilities for all CF members regardless of age, gender or trade.
> 
> FORCE is not intended as a fitness challenge, or a light infantry assault standard, or a super-commando-ninja preparation.
> 
> The current binary method of fitness - pass/fail; promotable/not promotable works fine.  If certain trades require higher fitness levels or scalable fitness levels they can work to establish that.
> 
> But at higher levels of leadership, fitness is important, but should not be a determinant for promotion.  Which is more important for a Bde commander: how much he or she can benchpress, or how well they can think, plan, and work with others?
> 
> (We should, of course, add extra PER points for driving a Harley...)



Agree with part of what you are saying; however, we have allowed the lethargic, sedentary ways of staffer's to permeate down to the troops on the ground where this becomes a real problem.  Nobody expects the Bde Comd to be able to outruck and outrun Cpl Bloggins but setting the example is important for the soldiers.  Does a soldier give a rats ass if I can speak french or have a masters degree in basket-weaving?  I would argue he does not but what he does care about is knowing his boss is going to give'er just as much as he is.  

If we allow this sort of atitude to exist in our HQs and amongst our upper echelons then it will trickle down to the people that matter to the organizations the most: the soldiers.  This will have real operational implications on our force.  We need to raise the bar of fitness at all levels and that requires setting a standard.  The FORCE test is a good starting state but we need to take this and tie it to the promotion cycle and I am not talking a simple pass/fail.  We need incentive levels like some have suggested in this thread.

We owe this to our soldiers.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> The application and focus on PT across the CAF though is not balanced, and as stated above we as a military are doing a poor job of making sure standards are maintained and physical fitness in the general sense is slipping.  The FORCE program is a joke, plain and simple because the standard is not increasing but is in fact decreasing.



We do a poor job of enforcing standards not just in PT but in general.  I have a funny story about this.  Back in 2006 when I did my IAP/BOTC (BMOQ for everyone nowadays) my serial had a candidate join us for BOTC.  This was his second try on the course and he ended up failing again.  This guy was trying to become a SIG O but he was probably one of the thickest guys I have ever met.  The things he did were the stuff of legend and his antics are still brought up every so often whenever I meet people who know him.  He was a DEO while I was ROTP so after I finished the course I headed back to school while he sat around in PAT in St Jean.  

What do you know four years later after I finished university and all my training at the infantry school and am posted to Bn I run into this character yet again, only guess what?  He is still in the training system!  I later found out that he had eventually passed BMOQ, failed CAP a couple of times then passed, failed his SIG O Ph 3 then passed and was now on OJT in Petawawa waiting to do Phase 4.

Yes from 2006-2010 this guy was a DEO in the trg system who had failed courses multiple times and had shown zero leadership ability and still had not completed his trades training yet we decided that it was a good idea to keep him around.  I am still scratching my head at this  ???


----------



## dapaterson

I fully agree that we owe our soldiers quality leadership.  And we need to inculcate a culture of fitness.

PER points are one possible method to reinforce that; I know there is ongoing work to examine ways to introduce incentives into the FORCE evaluation.

But commanders have other tools as well - both carrots and sticks.  Carrot: Offer a day of short to anyone who beats all the CO's times on the FORCE test.  Stick: On a subordinate's PER, under leadership, note that only 2/3 of his pers passed the test on their first try.


----------



## Halifax Tar

I really don't think PER points are the way to go.  Simply raise the bar as a standard for everyone and let those who cant achieve it go through the counseling/administrative, remedial PT and then release process.  

When people see they wont be able to pay their mortgage because they lost sight of their wedding tackle they will eat less and move more very quickly. 

We already have a PER system that is broken because PT/Volunteerism/OPMEs/Secondary Duties ect have become the tipping point.  I think we can all give numerous examples of incompetence who reached leadership levels because the do everything but there actual paid profession well.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I fully agree that we owe our soldiers quality leadership.  And we need to inculcate a culture of fitness.
> 
> PER points are one possible method to reinforce that; I know there is ongoing work to examine ways to introduce incentives into the FORCE evaluation.
> 
> But commanders have other tools as well - both carrots and sticks.  Carrot: Offer a day of short to anyone who beats all the CO's times on the FORCE test.  Stick: On a subordinate's PER, under leadership, note that only 2/3 of his pers passed the test on their first try.



The only problem with this is it is not an organizational standard and is not applicable to the entire force.  I have seen this methodology work in specific units but it is leadership dependent.  The simple fact is, sometimes people need to be told what to do and need to know that their are consequences for not following through with an order.  Tying fitness to promotions would be a very easy way to achieve this.

On the topic of PERs, different corps write PERs differently.  For instance, I would not be allowed to write that on a persons PER in the infantry because a PER cannot have negative language in it at all.  If I wrote that it would be torn up and I would be ordered to re-draft.  I would be able to write this on a PDR but PDR's are not what are brought up in merit boards so this is a non-starter.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I really don't think PER points are the way to go.  Simply raise the bar as a standard for everyone and let those who cant achieve it go through the counseling/administrative, remedial PT and then release process.
> 
> When people see they wont be able to pay their mortgage because they lost sight of their wedding tackle they will eat less and move more very quickly.
> 
> We already have a PER system that is broken because PT/Volunteerism/OPMEs/Secondary Duties ect have become the tipping point.  I think we can all give numerous examples of incompetence who reached leadership levels because the do everything but there actual paid profession well.



Aye and since we now pay people very nice salaries we should expect more from them in their actual work.  When we paid people SFA to show up and do the business ok sure mediocrity had its place but now that we are paying people very nice wages with very good benefits their should be an expectation that we set the bar a little higher.  If I am a Captain making *80K* a year then I damn well better be fit to do my job.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I really don't think PER points are the way to go.  Simply raise the bar as a standard for everyone and let those who cant achieve it go through the counseling/administrative, remedial PT and then release process.
> 
> When people see they wont be able to pay their mortgage because they lost sight of their wedding tackle they will eat less and move more very quickly.
> 
> We already have a PER system that is broken because PT/Volunteerism/OPMEs/Secondary Duties ect have become the tipping point.  I think we can all give numerous examples of incompetence who reached leadership levels because the do everything but there actual paid profession well.



Points on PERs will result in making official a long standing policy.  Cpl x is moderately effective at his job, but can bench press a Buick and run an antelope into the ground.  Cpl y is technically spot on at his job, stays extra hours to ensure his equipment is good to go to the extent he can, but maybe can't crack off 250 one armed push ups, and is maybe in the rear of the pack on runs.   Who gets promoted?  I know what I saw...


----------



## Halifax Tar

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Points on PERs will result in making official a long standing policy.  Cpl x is moderately effective at his job, but can bench press a Buick and run an antelope into the ground.  Cpl y is technically spot on at his job, stays extra hours to ensure his equipment is good to go to the extent he can, but maybe can't crack off 250 one armed push ups, and is maybe in the rear of the pack on runs.   Who gets promoted?  I know what I saw...



I'm unsure of your point.  I feel like you echoing what I said but your anecdote is clouding your brevity and point.


----------



## Kat Stevens

How was I unclear?  Moderate at their job superfit gym monkeys got promoted, while hard working technically proficient but physically moderate troops got overlooked.  I spent 23 years on the floor, I know it happened.  If you award extra points for super fitness, you make that an official policy, instead of the old underhanded way it was done.  Troops will inevitably start worrying more about the gym than the shop floor.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> How was I unclear?  Moderate at their job superfit gym monkeys got promoted, while hard working technically proficient but physically moderate troops got overlooked.  I spent 23 years on the floor, I know it happened.  If you award extra points for super fitness, you make that an official policy, instead of the old underhanded way it was done.



Thank you for clarifying for me.  I fully agree with you.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

dapaterson said:
			
		

> How is it decreasing?  The BFT was well-known as a way for fat, out-of shape people to avoid the EXPRES test, and the EXPRES test bore no relationship to any military tasks.
> 
> FORCE, at least, has face validity - lifiting loads and running.  The standard is set to meet what experts from the three environments have defined as the required abilities for all CF members regardless of age, gender or trade.
> 
> FORCE is not intended as a fitness challenge, or a light infantry assault standard, or a super-commando-ninja preparation.
> 
> The current binary method of fitness - pass/fail; promotable/not promotable works fine.  If certain trades require higher fitness levels or scalable fitness levels they can work to establish that.
> 
> But at higher levels of leadership, fitness is important, but should not be a determinant for promotion.  Which is more important for a Bde commander: how much he or she can benchpress, or how well they can think, plan, and work with others?
> 
> (We should, of course, add extra PER points for driving a Harley...)


I agree with most of your points except for the questioning of the standard decreasing.  Within our unit I have seen a 58 year old individual that has not done regular PT for the last 15 years ace the FORCE test with no difficulty, but he would struggle on BFT's and definitely could not cut it in the field environment.  Granted this individuals trade is not field oriented, but how is it a true test of physical fitness when those personnel that are severely out of shape have the ability to pass the standind physical fitness requirement with no issues.  I know the flip side of the argument is that they did in fact pass the PT test so they can't be that out of shape, but when the standard is low enough is it a proper standard at all?



			
				RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Aye and since we now pay people very nice salaries we should expect more from them in their actual work.  When we paid people SFA to show up and do the business ok sure mediocrity had its place but now that we are paying people very nice wages with very good benefits their should be an expectation that we set the bar a little higher.  If I am a Captain making *80K* a year then I damn well better be fit to do my job.


I agree completely.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> How was I unclear?  Moderate at their job superfit gym monkeys got promoted, while hard working technically proficient but physically moderate troops got overlooked.  I spent 23 years on the floor, I know it happened.  If you award extra points for super fitness, you make that an official policy, instead of the old underhanded way it was done.  Troops will inevitably start worrying more about the gym than the shop floor.



This most definitely happens but how would you go about fixing it then Kat or should it be fixed at all?  I think we all agree to a point that their is a fitness problem in the CF but how do we go about changing the culture?  I personally think this needs to start at the very top of the organization with policy and orders that are achievable and enforceable but I am open to other ideas.


----------



## Kat Stevens

I'm too long away to have anything really useful to say.  When I joined the army, PT in the regiment was considered a necessary evil, and any viable job related reason not to do PT was readily accepted.  The accepted philosophy was that vehicles and equipment came first.  We still did the old 2X10 twice a year, but there was very little prep for it, usually told on a Monday that you were doing it on Thursday and Friday.  We did the annual PT test consisting of mile-and-a-half run, push ups, sit ups, and chinups, end of story.  I don't recall too many failures, but then I was a know nothing sprog sapper.  I went on an out of regiment posting to BOps for 3 years where pt was very much not encouraged, as there was always "real" work to be done.  I then went to 4 CER, and somewhere in my 3 extra-regimental years, PT became all important, to the point of my previous posts.  The logical thing, to my poor dumb corporals brain, is to raise the physical requirements across the board, but make the testing more performance focused, rather than gym rat centric.  Anyone can carry two sandbags... can you do it continuously for 30 minutes?  An hour?  Two?  outside of PT and testing, and those nasty flight swings at CABC, I've never done a chinup in my daily life as a soldier.


----------



## The_Falcon

PanaEng said:
			
		

> You mean like this:http://www.outofregs.com/index.php?page=archives&id=95



And?  I never said other nations don't have tubbies, or that they don't wear OTW shirts.  Those who do wear those shirts tend be in the middle of travelling, the majority of the Canadians I see here, work here, some in the same building as me.  And if I was so inclined I could post several pictures of the number of grossly overweight Canadians.  I have only seen 1 American here in 10 months that looked like that, and ironically they were also US Army (although they could have been Airforce since they share the same uniform overseas).  I have not seen a single out of shape Marine, during my time here.


----------



## McG

There are no chin-ups in the PT test. 

But, I would like to see some measure of endurance returned to the test, if only for land ops pers. I have previously described a FORCE test that could then launch straight into a BFT.


----------



## Kat Stevens

MCG said:
			
		

> There are no chin-ups in the PT test.
> 
> But, I would like to see some measure of endurance returned to the test, if only for land ops pers. I have previously described a FORCE test that could then launch straight into a BFT.



As I said, I've been out a long time.


----------



## McG

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> ... I could post several pictures of the number of grossly overweight Canadians.


A few of the recently returned R2 pers have told me that Fat Canadian jokes were popular amongst our coalition partners.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I'm with dapaterson on this one:

     1. First, make what is mandatory, now, work ~ everyone from the CDS through the tubby colonel on the staff down to the driver in the hanger passes the current authorized test once or twice a year,
         whatever the regulations say, or (s)he goes on supervised, mandatory remedial PT until (s)he can pass it. And make those remedial PT periods the same as mandatory medical appointments - things with very
         serious career consequences;

     2. Develop additional standards for selected occupations that are, clearly and demonstrably, related to operational requirements and impose those on members of those military occupations and, same as
         above, those who cannot pass do remedial, supervised PT until they can pass; but

     3. There are a couple of flies in the ointment:

          a. Unit level leadership must be actively involved, and it may have to be forced to be actively involved - one adverse PER for failing to _lead_, and adequate publicity about it, ought to be enough, _"pour
              encourager les autres,"_ and

          b. There needs to be command support to make sure PT is done ~ and that may, likely will, require resources which are not always there now: gyms and PTIs* come to mind.


_____
* One of the reasons I was able to have a pretty good unit PT programme over 30 years ago is that we were established with three PTIs: 1 X Sgt and 2 X Cpls. How many do units have now?


----------



## McG

None.  At best, it is a secondary duty.


----------



## Infanteer

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> * One of the reasons I was able to have a pretty good unit PT programme over 30 years ago is that we were established with three PTIs: 1 X Sgt and 2 X Cpls. How many do units have now?



None.  PTIs no longer exist and PSP Staff work at the base gym.  To be fair, our base PSP pers are proactive and have offered to come down to the unit lines during PT times.


----------



## Old EO Tech

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> How was I unclear?  Moderate at their job superfit gym monkeys got promoted, while hard working technically proficient but physically moderate troops got overlooked.  I spent 23 years on the floor, I know it happened.  If you award extra points for super fitness, you make that an official policy, instead of the old underhanded way it was done.  Troops will inevitably start worrying more about the gym than the shop floor.



I agree completely.  A Minimum fitness level is required for operational effectiveness, I think we all agree on that.  But linking fitness to promotions/career progression past the pass/fail, would be a mistake.  Not only would this further skew our PER system, there are those of us in the CSS world that can't do PT 5 times a week(or more) all the time because we have support dependancies that are critical to supporting our combat units.  So there are times that to support an upcoming Ex or course, we have to cut back on PT, and this is authorized by the CO.  This in no way effects our ability to pass the fitness standard being the BFT or FORCE, but if you put a sliding PT points scale on the PER system, you would be punishing CSS pers for doing their job to make their units operational.

As others have stated the solution, IMHO, is to simply aggressively enforce the existing system, once you fail to pass the PT standard.  Now the Medical-Admin system has been abused constantly as a block to get rid of people that there only medical condition is being out of shape :-/  And I state this being a 46 year old MWO with worn out knees, and a somewhat higher BMI than 26 years ago :-/  But I was seemingly effective physically as well doing my job for 3 months this spring on Ex in WX :-/

Yes we do need a higher level of overall fitness in the CF across the board, but we have to be careful how we encourage that change.  Maybe taking away environmental allowances when you fail the PT test would encourage people in operational units to stay fit.  If you can't pass the basic PT test you obviously can not deploy :-/


----------



## The_Falcon

A good start would also include reintroducing a PT for ALL personnel  immediately after writing their CFAT.  And then strictly adhering to a policy that says no further processing until the PT test is passed.  During my short time at CFRC Toronto, I saw that the second part is actually written that way in the recruiting handbook, but the CofC refused to adhere to that.  The basic attitude was they were all going to reserve units anyways so who cares if it takes them three (or more attempts) to pass the PT test by the skin of their teeth, and then subsequently showing up on course sometimes months later still out of shape (being a reservist, and having seen the effects of this I cared immensely).  

The 2 i/c of the Det didn't like it either, and when the Det CO went on his 30 day break over the summer, I planted the idea that one way to deal with our gigantic backlog of co-op applicants, was to actually enforce the recruiting directives, and halt processing files for PT failures.  He agreed, and it was happy days for at least a short while.


----------



## Infanteer

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> I agree completely.  A Minimum fitness level is required for operational effectiveness, I think we all agree on that.  But linking fitness to promotions/career progression past the pass/fail, would be a mistake.  Not only would this further skew our PER system, there are those of us in the CSS world that can't do PT 5 times a week(or more) all the time because we have support dependancies that are critical to supporting our combat units.  So there are times that to support an upcoming Ex or course, we have to cut back on PT, and this is authorized by the CO.  This in no way effects our ability to pass the fitness standard being the BFT or FORCE, but if you put a sliding PT points scale on the PER system, you would be punishing CSS pers for doing their job to make their units operational.



I call BS on this and it's a perfect example of the lack of fitness culture in our military - the ability to find any reason to put PT off.  I have many things to do during the ordinary PT time and am one of the busiest people in a front line unit.  What options do I have?  I come in at 0630 and do PT or I do it before going home for dinner.  When I was working with the USMC, the Marines were up, in formation, doing PT at 0600.  

It seems culturally ingrained that PT can only be done during the 0730-1000 block, and if its 0959, then it ain't getting done.  Flexible schedules and coming in before or after working those "support dependencies" are completely viable COAs.

If we keep finding excuses (and I've seen a lot here) then the yard stick just remains where it is.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I call BS on this and it's a perfect example of the lack of fitness culture in our military.  I have many things to do during the ordinary PT time and am probably the busiest person in a front line unit.  What options do I have?  I come in at 0630 and do PT or I do it before going home to dinner.  When I was working with the USMC, the Marines were up, in formation, doing PT at 0600.
> 
> It seems culturally ingrained that if it isn't during the 0730-1000 block, then it ain't PT time and you just can't get it done.  Flexible schedules and coming in before or after working those "support dependencies" are completely viable COAs.
> 
> If we keep finding excuses (and I've seen a lot here) then the yard stick just remains where it is.



Plus how many times do we cut guys loose at the units early and when was the last time I saw a unit work until 1630 in garrison?  Completely agree with this statement and the lack of a fitness culture.


----------



## Jarnhamar

How can we as a military push  a fitness culture when our recruits are exposed to warrior platoon and we constantly see service members fucking the  medical system with no ramifications. 

Terry fox run? Lol good luck with that suckers my 'bad knee' is acting up I'm going to the mir.


----------



## MJP

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> I agree completely.  A Minimum fitness level is required for operational effectiveness, I think we all agree on that.  But linking fitness to promotions/career progression past the pass/fail, would be a mistake.  Not only would this further skew our PER system, there are those of us in the CSS world that can't do PT 5 times a week(or more) all the time because we have support dependancies that are critical to supporting our combat units.  So there are times that to support an upcoming Ex or course, we have to cut back on PT, and this is authorized by the CO.  This in no way effects our ability to pass the fitness standard being the BFT or FORCE, but if you put a sliding PT points scale on the PER system, you would be punishing CSS pers for doing their job to make their units operational.



We are in the same unit albeit different Coys and disagree with you that PT needs to be cut back IOT to conduct our support dependencies.  The key mantra we keep repeating is that the tasks will always be there at the end of the day if we start them at 0730 or at 0900.  When I arrived last year as a Coy PT was sporadic at best.  Some command direction (and I firmly believe command buy in is the key) too the Pl leadership quickly saw it change to the entire Coy doing PT everyday.  Sections that need to be open early by Military members still opened on time but those pers that came in early did PT later in the day.  There are exceptions but they are rare.  It certainly takes some more planning than from what I can remember of my Cbt Arms das but it is doable.


----------



## Infanteer

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> How was I unclear?  Moderate at their job superfit gym monkeys got promoted, while hard working technically proficient but physically moderate troops got overlooked.  I spent 23 years on the floor, I know it happened.  If you award extra points for super fitness, you make that an official policy, instead of the old underhanded way it was done.  Troops will inevitably start worrying more about the gym than the shop floor.



You make it seem like one is either fit or competent.


----------



## Kat Stevens

No, I'm not, but thanks for the assumption, I just know what I lived.  I saw it, I was there.  Hockey players who refused leadership training occupying top spots on unit merit boards was another not unusual occurrence.  There were plenty of very fit, very competent guys who got promoted, and I never had a problem with them being rewarded for hard work.


----------



## Infanteer

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> There were plenty of very fit, very competent guys who got promoted, and I never had a problem with them being rewarded for hard work.



That's what we are talking about here - rewarding people for hard work.  A scale between 1-5 points for good physical fitness on the merit board goes quite well with the scale of 75-80 points that performance and potential get you.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Infanteer said:
			
		

> That's what we are talking about here - rewarding people for hard work.  A scale between 1-5 points for good physical fitness on the merit board goes quite well with the scale of 75-80 points that performance and potential get you.



As I've said repeatedly, I'm too long out of the game, all I can share is what I know and saw personally.  On that note, I guess I'll bow out of this one.


----------



## old fart

MCG said:
			
		

> A few of the recently returned R2 pers have told me that Fat Canadian jokes were popular amongst our coalition partners.



Nothing new there...during the Bosnian years...we were known as CAN FAT BAT....

Bas_terds... :warstory:


----------



## Armymedic

The new fitness standard, and how it relates to PER is sufficent for the requirements of the CAF.

If the force generating formations or the occupations themselves, feel they require a more stringent standard then they should feel free to implement them.

If troops do not wish to maintain a healthy lifestyle, they will pay in thier own price in the end.


----------



## Old EO Tech

MJP said:
			
		

> We are in the same unit albeit different Coys and disagree with you that PT needs to be cut back IOT to conduct our support dependencies.  The key mantra we keep repeating is that the tasks will always be there at the end of the day if we start them at 0730 or at 0900.  When I arrived last year as a Coy PT was sporadic at best.  Some command direction (and I firmly believe command buy in is the key) too the Pl leadership quickly saw it change to the entire Coy doing PT everyday.  Sections that need to be open early by Military members still opened on time but those pers that came in early did PT later in the day.  There are exceptions but they are rare.  It certainly takes some more planning than from what I can remember of my Cbt Arms das but it is doable.



MJP, your profile says you are at Svc Bn, if that is still true we are no longer at the same unit, I left in April for 1 VP and that is wear my opinion is based on.  And not to side track this thread to much, but Svc Bn would be well served if they put "production", what ever service that maybe for you, ahead of everything else.  Svc Bn has had a well deserved reputation in 1 CMBG at least(for the past 25 years), for not supporting the Bde because they are to busy doing everything else(including PT 4/5 days a week).  I think at least in some parts of Svc Bn this is starting to change after 3 different Comd teams running FSG's this spring, and seeing that support to the Bde is Svc Bn primary role, not it's secondary role :-/

My task is to keep 55 LAV's and 100-ish B Vehicles operational, and sometimes I do need to limit PT and even going on non career courses, and nice to do taskings, in order to accomplish this.  This is the reality in a high readiness Inf BG.  And in the end my troops all can still pass the BFT with no issues, we may not set any records, but we meet the standard, and most importantly we can more than meet the physical and mental demands of operations, which in the end is why we promote PT and have these standards.

Jon


----------



## Old EO Tech

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Plus how many times do we cut guys loose at the units early and when was the last time I saw a unit work until 1630 in garrison?  Completely agree with this statement and the lack of a fitness culture.



That may happen were you work, but no one in my Pl leaves early without a good reason.  Yes the Rifle Coys might be able to do that, but few in Adm Coy at my unit ever have that luxury.

Jon


----------



## Old EO Tech

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I call BS on this and it's a perfect example of the lack of fitness culture in our military - the ability to find any reason to put PT off.  I have many things to do during the ordinary PT time and am one of the busiest people in a front line unit.  What options do I have?  I come in at 0630 and do PT or I do it before going home for dinner.  When I was working with the USMC, the Marines were up, in formation, doing PT at 0600.
> 
> It seems culturally ingrained that PT can only be done during the 0730-1000 block, and if its 0959, then it ain't getting done.  Flexible schedules and coming in before or after working those "support dependencies" are completely viable COAs.
> 
> If we keep finding excuses (and I've seen a lot here) then the yard stick just remains where it is.



Sure I could have my Pl come in at 0600 and then slave away all day at there jobs, as the work still has to get done.  But I already have to manage moral after an entire spring basically whipping them to keep an aging fleet operational, were do you think moral would be if I made their days an hour and a half longer?

I am not advocating not doing PT, or lowering the standard.  I'm saying that sometimes there are legitimate reasons why it is not practical to do PT 5 days a week.  And this does not weaken the Bn's institutional support for PT, it's a reality of personnel and resource management.  And as I was stating it is a reason why we should not further incorporate fitness into the CFPAS more than as it is now as a P/F.

Jon


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Sure I could have my Pl come in at 0600 and then slave away all day at there jobs, as the work still has to get done.  But I already have to manage moral after an entire spring basically whipping them to keep an aging fleet operational, were do you think moral would be if I made their days an hour and a half longer?
> 
> I am not advocating not doing PT, or lowering the standard.  I'm saying that sometimes there are legitimate reasons why it is not practical to do PT 5 days a week.  And this does not weaken the Bn's institutional support for PT, it's a reality of personnel and resource management.  And as I was stating it is a reason why we should not further incorporate fitness into the CFPAS more than as it is now as a P/F.
> 
> Jon



I think what Infanteer was trying to say was fitness shouldn't be a suggestion, it should be an expectation.  If you have too much work to do during the day then find some time before or after work to get it done but not doing PT because you have "too much work to do" simply doesn't cut it.  We always tell soldiers that the minimum standard is there but they should be trying to achieve more yet when push comes to shove we are all so accepting of mediocrity.  By linking fitness to CFPAS you are giving people an incentive to want to be fit and this to me seems like a logical method to making people get serious about fitness.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over ad expecting different results.  We seem to be doing this an awful lot with our fitness in the CF.  I wonder if this is due to us not wanting to admit that we have a substantial portion of our organization that is overweight and out of shape?  Every time I walk around the NCR and I see some CF member walking around in size XXXXL combats I die a little on the inside.  It tarnishes the uniform and degrades our image as a professional military force.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I'm not sure how things are today, but _waaay back when_ a CO's performance was 'measured' against many things.

If one's unit finished very high or very low on the fitness matrix that fact _might_ make it on to a PER. If, on the other hand, one's unit got anything less than fully satisfactory mark on the annual MTI (Mechanical (including weapons), Telecommunications and Instruments) inspection it _would_ appear on the CO's PER. I can recall, as a NCO, junior officer, sub-unit OC and CO, the efforts we made to "pass" the MTI. My recollection of the efforts we put into fitness and sports, including tests, is that it was substantially less.

If that's still the case then I have no doubt that the troops, especially the supervisory NCOs, understand and weigh their priorities accordingly.


----------



## Infanteer

There is no longer a fitness matrix nor an annual MTI.  Officer promotion exams are gone too.  I think objective criteria was considered too mean.


----------



## Biggoals2bdone

I have always been of the opinion that work will always be there.  Yes we all have stuff to do during the day at our job, but really, if you cut an hour or 2 of work for PT, its not like the world will end.

Also, to be fair being that we are in the profession of arms, PT is PART OF OUR JOBS.

On the flip side I would like to see more dedication from higher ups to fitness.  To many times CofC is lazy and decides lets just do a run (because it requires little to no planning/work on their part), with no training goal/plan in mind.  So we end up doing just running all week.

With all the various options at our disposal (sports, crossfit, weight room, spin class, army fitness centre, structured/interesting run workouts, beach/pool workouts, etc) I am dissappointed with my leadership in that regard.

On another note, I totally agree that the good hockey players and runners get rewarded by leadership.  I had a CSM who would bring the coy together to talk about how so and so did on a marathon or 10k run or hockey tournament over the weekend, yet he NEVER did that for any other sport anyone did, which I found was insulting to the rest of us.

I honestly think if you dont pass the fitness test, you should be put on remedial PT, and also have a period of time where you get no courses or promotions aka your career is at a halt until you prove you are fit again.


As to the whole if you do better then your command you get reward, I'm not so big on that one, since for example i've had several people in my CofC who were competitive marathon/long distance runners, well i'm sorry but if CSM or OC is 6ft and 150lbs with a 4:20 km, and habitually runs 10km's in under 40mins, I know for sure i'm not going to beat him , just like if my CSM or OC was a competitive lifter I probably couldn't beat them.

its funny though how when colleagues or people higher ranking then me tell me to pick it up on the run (I run 5k in 25-26mins so i'm not terribly slow) and I shoot back at them i'll go your speed when you can come to the gym and lift what I lift, they glare at me and say that's not fair because i'm a big guy and I lift on my own time, its funny how they don't see how the very argument they are using applies to running.

In conclusion I agree to yes ENFORCING the rules as they are.

also I am one of those people who think it is important to have 2nd language profile.  There are a lot of french troops thrown into anglo units without any 2nd language training and its nice for them to be able to converse properly to their fullest with higher ups.


----------



## OldSolduer

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how things are today, but _waaay back when_ a CO's performance was 'measured' against many things.
> 
> If one's unit finished very high or very low on the fitness matrix that fact _might_ make it on to a PER. If, on the other hand, one's unit got anything less than fully satisfactory mark on the annual MTI (Mechanical (including weapons), Telecommunications and Instruments) inspection it _would_ appear on the CO's PER. I can recall, as a NCO, junior officer, sub-unit OC and CO, the efforts we made to "pass" the MTI. My recollection of the efforts we put into fitness and sports, including tests, is that it was substantially less.
> 
> If that's still the case then I have no doubt that the troops, especially the supervisory NCOs, understand and weigh their priorities accordingly.



I fondly - not -remember the days of the Bde Comd's Inspection where we scrubbed, polished, washed, sanded, painted etc and did drill for weeks on end to pass that blasted parade and inspection.
On CSM in the early 80s had all the troops, including PL WOs on laundry parade one night to ensure the troops laundered their uniforms to his standard.

Then came Jimmmmmy in 93.


----------



## McG

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> ... we should not further incorporate fitness into the CFPAS more than as it is now as a P/F.


In the military, as in professional sports, it is the ability to go beyond the minimum - achieving some extraordinary physical feat or outperforming that paragon on the other team - which is the deciding factor in victory.  In professional sports, defeat is unlikely to equate with death(s).  So if professional sports can recognize physical prowess in ascension of pers, surely the military should.

This is not to say that fitness should be disproportionately weighted, but we should be able to score it on a scale equivalent to every other bullet in the performance section, and we should be able to award that score based on empirical measurement from a common fitness test.


----------



## ModlrMike

We *should not* score fitness on a curve - to do so will only reward the gym rats. Pass/fail is sufficient for our needs. We have a defined standard, one that now represents the ability to complete common military tasks. 

IMO, the annual fitness test should be done in Apr for *everyone*, no exceptions; 100% testing of available personnel. If you fail, then there is an entire year for you to sort yourself out and you should be able to retest at any time during the subsequent year. If you need to go on course or are slated for promotion after you've failed, then you test again. No pass = no course / promotion until you pass. If you fail in Mar, then you're passed over for promotion and career action occurs. We should not make this any more complex than it needs to be. 

I understand that work will always be there, and that sometimes operational necessity will create seemingly insurmountable pressure to complete the work. That being said, there are ways to schedule one's troops to accomplish both work flow and PT. If the CoC demands that work is done to the exclusion of PT then they've clearly misunderstood the message.

If we accept that fitness is a condition of service then the quid-pro-quo is that we provide time during normal working hours. This should not mean that we extend the work day.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> We *should not* score fitness on a curve - to do so will only reward the gym rats. Pass/fail is sufficient for our needs. We have a defined standard, one that now represents the ability to complete common military tasks.
> 
> IMO, the annual fitness test should be done in Apr for *everyone*, no exceptions; 100% testing of available personnel. If you fail, then there is an entire year for you to sort yourself out and you should be able to retest at any time during the subsequent year. If you need to go on course or are slated for promotion after you've failed, then you test again. No pass = no course / promotion until you pass. If you fail in Mar, then you're passed over for promotion and career action occurs. We should not make this any more complex than it needs to be.
> 
> I understand that work will always be there, and that sometimes operational necessity will create seemingly insurmountable pressure to complete the work. That being said, there are ways to schedule one's troops to accomplish both work flow and PT. If the CoC demands that work is done to the exclusion of PT then they've clearly misunderstood the message.
> 
> If we accept that fitness is a condition of service then the quid-pro-quo is that we provide time during normal working hours. This should not mean that we extend the work day.



This is where I do not agree, if we limit ourselves to only achieving the minimum then we are always settling for less which is the completely wrong attitude in the profession of arms.  For the record I don't think anyone here is arguing for some uberninja test on the scale of an NFL combine.  All some of us are saying is that if we want to make fitness a priority in the CF then we need to start linking it with career progression and CFPAS.  

I think part of the problem is a lot of people do not actually understand how they receive the score they do on their PERs.  It is based on achieving certain key benchmarks at your present rank.  Performance at work still accounts for a substantial majority of the score but their are other things like French, professional development (i.e. career courses), education, etc... that give you points towards your final score.  So when you see that you are MOI on your PER only 75%-80% of that score is really based on your work performance, the other 25% is based on you hitting your career benchmarks.  What Infanteer proposed and what seems logical to me is taking fitness and incorporating it into that 25% and making it a scaled system so that people will compete for it.

Your argument that this will just allow gym rats to rise up is a fallacious argument.  If someone spends all their time in the gym they will still only add 5% to their potential score on their PER while they may very well have neglected their other areas now so it will balance itself out.


----------



## dapaterson

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.


----------



## Kat Stevens

I can see it now;

Bde Comd- WTF do you mean I only have one aev and six tanks available for for ex ANAL RAM???
CO Strats and 1CER-  Sorry sir,  but a least everyone got their PT in
Bde Comd-  Oh, we'll, good enough then, ex cancelled

 ;D


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dapaterson said:
			
		

> 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.



This I can agree with; however, I still don't think it excuses people from being unfit which is why I am agreeing with Infanteer that we need to incorporate fitness into CFPAS and incorporate it into that discretionary 25%.  I need to work extra hard to learn to speak french as an anglophone so I can earn my extra points so why shouldn't I be able to earn extra points for being very fit as well?  

If we do this, then the onus is on the member to get himself in shape as it is something that can help him get a few extra points to get promoted.  I often wouldn't have time to do PT during the day when I worked at the Bn and in my present job I sometimes don't have time to do it either, so what does that mean?  It means I come in early and do it or hit the gym after work.

It takes an hour of your day to stay in shape, along with some healthy eating and good lifestyle choices, an hour is not asking a heck of a lot.  



			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I can see it now;
> 
> Bde Comd- WTF do you mean I only have one aev and six tanks available for for ex ANAL RAM???
> CO Strats and 1CER-  Sorry sir,  but a least everyone got their PT in
> Bde Comd-  Oh, we'll, good enough then, ex cancelled
> 
> ;D



We could have a smoker instead


----------



## Infanteer

dapaterson said:
			
		

> 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.




I keep seeing this argument - if we have to do PT for 30-45 minutes, everything goes to crap.  It's just thrown out there.  I look at the ESR every day and have commanded CSS soldiers (including Maint Pl).  Busy? yes.  But the rifle companies can get just as busy during the week and they do have stuff to do in garrison.  The VOR is more a function of lack of parts - our ESR is largely "W/P".

Our unit CSS soldiers have no problems maintaining an active PT program while still doing their job, so I'm still not buying it.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I keep seeing this argument - if we have to do PT for 30-45 minutes, everything goes to crap.  It's just thrown out there.  I look at the ESR every day and have commanded CSS soldiers (including Maint Pl).  Busy? yes.  But the rifle companies can get just as busy during the week and they do have stuff to do in garrison.  The VOR is more a function of lack of parts - our ESR is largely "W/P".
> 
> Our unit CSS soldiers have no problems maintaining an active PT program while still doing their job, so I'm still not buying it.



Having spent a little bit of time with the Sigs and also with our CSS Coy I would echo this.  In all honesty, our CSS guys at 3 RCR were some of the fittest guys we had at the Bn and I am not BSing when I say that, these guys put a lot of the infanteers in the unit to shame.


----------



## Jarnhamar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> 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.



Great post.  Infantry guys can get away with sliding our early or doing PT twice a day. CSS guys are busy up until 1600hrs.

I'd rather see CSS guys get less PT if it means our vehicles and equipment are in better condition.  


When a soldier is unfit (okay let's call them unacceptably over weight) whether they do PT 3 times a week or 5 it won't make a difference. That's not enough to get someone in shape. Those people need healthier life styles including better eating habits, less bad habits, PT on their own time.


----------



## dapaterson

I think we're in violent agreement.

Generally, CSS soldiers can schedule and conduct PT like any others.  Sometimes, however, higher priorities will intrude.  (And hopefully, those higher priorities will come along with parts).


And OZ's point is bang on: PT is only part of the solution: healthier lifestyle is the foundation.  Diet Coke with a burger and fries isn't the solution - the burger and fries is the problem.


----------



## northernboy_24

According to some recent studies that diet coke is also a big problem, especially with the burger and fries. Since having the sweet taste without the calories tricks the body and causes it to hold onto all calories it can.  Look up metabolic disease, according to several studies drinking one can of pop a day (diet or regular) can result in increased insulin levels, fat deposits in the visceral tissues, high blood pressure etc etc.

But what do I know I am one of the ones with a BMI of over 30, after all someone who works out several times a week, bikes to and from work and manages my diet extremely carefully is part of the problem.  It doesn't matter I have a 32 inch waist, a lower percentage body fat and regularly works cardio and weights into my workouts (cough *crossfit* cough). Since eating healthy, working out and paying huge grocery bills isn't rewarded maybe I will resort to eating pre-frozen cheap food and burgers and fries.  That sounds a lot easier than making tandoori mahi mahi with stir-fried veggies and quinoa.

I tried to get unit PT around here and got laughed at and told "we do PT on our own" and PSP requires a minimum of  12-15 pers to run a unit PT class.  I guess I will stick to PT on my own time and dime and suppliment it with the occasional swim at the CF facilities.


----------



## Jarnhamar

If you're a regular force member working at a reserve unit or a reservist on a 3 year  contract then the reserve unit is supposed to provide you with a gym membership if no CF facility is available. I was on a year class B contract fought to get a gym membership and lost, which was ironic because the people on the 3 year contracts who were allowed to get a membership never used the gym (or really did PT).


----------



## northernboy_24

I have access to CF facilities I just choose to rarely use them and workout at a gym of my choice.  I am not complaining about spending money for the gym.  Far from it, I love my gym and the crazy people that go there.  I just despise the lack of people here that are willing to do unit PT.  I am not asking for them to do it daily but even once a week would be a fun time to do a circuit, go for a run, etc, I will even let them choose.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> MJP, your profile says you are at Svc Bn, if that is still true we are no longer at the same unit, I left in April for 1 VP and that is wear my opinion is based on.  And not to side track this thread to much, but Svc Bn would be well served if they put "production", what ever service that maybe for you, ahead of everything else.  Svc Bn has had a well deserved reputation in 1 CMBG at least(for the past 25 years), for not supporting the Bde because they are to busy doing everything else(including PT 4/5 days a week).  I think at least in some parts of Svc Bn this is starting to change after 3 different Comd teams running FSG's this spring, and seeing that support to the Bde is Svc Bn primary role, not it's secondary role :-/
> 
> My task is to keep 55 LAV's and 100-ish B Vehicles operational, and sometimes I do need to limit PT and even going on non career courses, and nice to do taskings, in order to accomplish this.  This is the reality in a high readiness Inf BG.  And in the end my troops all can still pass the BFT with no issues, we may not set any records, but we meet the standard, and most importantly we can more than meet the physical and mental demands of operations, which in the end is why we promote PT and have these standards.
> 
> Jon



What about "staggered" PT times?  I know it sounds stupid but is it really so different from a 'tactical feed' in the field?  I've seen those work so not everyone is off the def pos'n, etc etc at the same time.  

Stagger PT times as a sub-unit solution and have it run at the sub-unit level.  Adhere to the CDS words (the mantras of "PT on your own time" or "we are too busy to include it in the work day" are to be eliminated)  and the DAOD (1 hour sessions x 5 days a week unless operational reason mean "cannot").  

Find the "this is how we can make this work" solution; not the PERFECT one.  I sure don't ever remember making 'the plan' that was perfect, but I am sure I cooked off more than a few that 'worked'.

I think the 'change' will start with it being enforced from the top down to start.  

If physical fitness is a Leaderhsip issue institutionally speaking, than individually speaking I believe it is a 'discipline' issue.  So start with enforced, then move thru group --> habits --> self.  

But it has to start from the top, be enforced and 'lead by example' from the top.   :2c:


----------



## DrSize

First off, BMI is absolutely useless and I think anyone can agree on that.  If you are athletic with a decent amount of muscle mass the BMI will rate you as overweight or obese.  PT benchmarks are far more relevant to ones actual shape and truly how fit they are.

Secondly, having been posted to the NCR and having sat outside NDHQ many times to pick my wife up from work, I have seen the fitness level of the people there in their CFs and it is a very sad state.  Maybe 10% if that looked like they have seen the inside of a gym and ate a proper diet.

Next point, nutrition is far more essential than actual training.  That being said, anyone who has a belly or is overweight in a bad way has absolutely no f'n excuse to be an embarrassment to the uniform, and yes we are a joke due to the poor physical condition of the majority of our members.  Nutrition is 70% and Training is 30%.  People need to learn to eat one ingredient food (Chicken, Beef, Buffalo, Fish, Eggs, Turkey, Spinach, Asparagus, Kale, Berries etc).  Also our kitchens need to do a better job and have healthier options.  While I was away on a 3 month career course with the exception of getting hard boiled eggs in the morning there was absolutely 0 healthy options for lunch and supper and you look at the staff and they are all obese and don't have a clue how to eat properly.  I understand cooks are the lowest of the low but we need to recruit some healthy fit cooks that have the knowledge to come up with proper healthy meals without all the extra shit they put in.

So basically what I am getting at is the problem doesn't lie with the actual PT but with people not have the discipline to make smart choices when it comes to their health and fitness and waist line.  People need to take more pride in themselves and the uniform they put on and we truly need to start looking the part of a fit fighting force.  If someone has a high bodyfat % they need to take a hard look at themselves and maybe say yeah I don't need that doughnut, or maybe going to McDicks for lunch isn't the right thing to do, or lets not order that pizza tonight and BBQ some chicken breast instead to go over some spinach.  Instead of that late night snack or beer, have some eggs, it is not hard, it just takes some discipline.

The actual PT part is easy, if you don't have time at work and can't make time at work either wake up an hour early or train after work or in the evening.  Another solution is instead of going to McDicks for lunch....how about you train then, I am sure your supervisor would even give you 1.5 hours for it if you didn't have time first thing in the morning or at the end of the day.  There is no excuse to not be fit......period

I would like to see a system implemented to get rid of the out of shape.  If there BF % reaches a point that is too high they are put on C&P with 6 months to correct it and then release if they are unable too.  You would start to see people start watching their dirty habits and lifestyle choices a lot more closely and we would start to look like an actual fit military and start making time for PT.  Most people (civilian) work a regular work day (some 12 hours) and then go train after work.  It comes down to pride.

The CF Express Test was not good because it was gender and age specific which is not right.  The FORCE test is a step in the right direction.  I once had a Cpl who was in his 20s and couldn't pass the Express, his second failure I briefed my CoC on how we need to take adminstrative action and at the very least an IC so we could escalate to a RW if he continued to fail and then ultimately push for release.  I was not backed up and nothing, we need to start disciplining people for failing PT tests as it is unacceptable


----------



## Infanteer

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What about "staggered" PT times?



It's not stupid - it's perfectly sensible and I've done it before.  Like I said before, we need to get away from the idea that 0730-1000 is the only time we can give to PT.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Very good discussion, all.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> But it has to start from the top, be enforced and 'lead by example' from the top.   :2c:





			
				DrSize said:
			
		

> .... Another solution is instead of going to McDicks for lunch....how about you train then, I am sure your supervisor would even give you 1.5 hours for it if you didn't have time first thing in the morning or at the end of the day ....


Then again, not all that long ago, there were people working in the NCR, former greens (and already very fit) who moved into light blue, who almost had to file a redress in order to get time to work out/stay fit.  I know "anecdote" is not the singular of "data", but it sounds like PT time policy is far from uniform.

My second-hand :2c:


----------



## Old EO Tech

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how things are today, but _waaay back when_ a CO's performance was 'measured' against many things.
> 
> If one's unit finished very high or very low on the fitness matrix that fact _might_ make it on to a PER. If, on the other hand, one's unit got anything less than fully satisfactory mark on the annual MTI (Mechanical (including weapons), Telecommunications and Instruments) inspection it _would_ appear on the CO's PER. I can recall, as a NCO, junior officer, sub-unit OC and CO, the efforts we made to "pass" the MTI. My recollection of the efforts we put into fitness and sports, including tests, is that it was substantially less.
> 
> If that's still the case then I have no doubt that the troops, especially the supervisory NCOs, understand and weigh their priorities accordingly.



Staff inspections/Annual Technical Inspections are still part of LEMS doctrine, but in the past 20 years few Bde Comd have used these as the tools they are supposed to be.  So in the end the success of being a CO/OC is how your unit can perform the tasks the Bde Comd has given you, or in some cases like Op LENTUS tasks from the Area Comd.  And since OC/CO's only get 2 years to prove their merit, the rest of us get shoved into a continual cycle of high Op tempo, even if we are supposed to be in a reconstitution year.  But this is another topic :-/

And as to the old GOC inspections....completely useless as a measure of unit operational effectiveness :-/

Jon


----------



## Old EO Tech

dapaterson said:
			
		

> 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.



This is exactly the world that I live in and what my original post on PT and PER points was based on.  I'm in no way saying that PT and fitness is not important to every soldier or that we don't need a "fitness culture".  But for some us, especially in 1 CMBG, were the Bde Comd is very much aware of the Bde VOR, we sometimes have to make tough decisions.  And COA 1 doesn't happen until the VOR is critical and all local resources have been exhausted, aka everyone does nothing but production 10 hours a day, 7 days a week, which of course means you have already acted on COA 3 :-/   COA 2 is unlikely to an option when you are TF 1-13 or the Bde IRU.  So unless we all of a sudden buy all our new LVM Project vehicles that are under warranty, the VOR situation is going to get much worse before it starts getting better in 2017-2020.  And for us in RCEME/Logistics, balancing workload and PT(and everything else) is going to be an increasing challenge with a rusting out/crumbling fleet in the CA.

Jon


----------



## Old EO Tech

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I can see it now;
> 
> Bde Comd- WTF do you mean I only have one aev and six tanks available for for ex ANAL RAM???
> CO Strats and 1CER-  Sorry sir,  but a least everyone got their PT in
> Bde Comd-  Oh, we'll, good enough then, ex cancelled
> 
> ;D



Said no Bde Comd Ever


----------



## Old EO Tech

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I think what Infanteer was trying to say was fitness shouldn't be a suggestion, it should be an expectation.  If you have too much work to do during the day then find some time before or after work to get it done but not doing PT because you have "too much work to do" simply doesn't cut it.  We always tell soldiers that the minimum standard is there but they should be trying to achieve more yet when push comes to shove we are all so accepting of mediocrity.  By linking fitness to CFPAS you are giving people an incentive to want to be fit and this to me seems like a logical method to making people get serious about fitness.
> 
> The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over ad expecting different results.  We seem to be doing this an awful lot with our fitness in the CF.  I wonder if this is due to us not wanting to admit that we have a substantial portion of our organization that is overweight and out of shape?  Every time I walk around the NCR and I see some CF member walking around in size XXXXL combats I die a little on the inside.  It tarnishes the uniform and degrades our image as a professional military force.



And I would agree that fitness is an expectation.  And I am fine with telling my subordinates that if Pl/Coy/Unit PT is not good enough for them personally to meet there fitness needs then they need to work out on their own time.  But I am against using PER scoring to "encourage" this.  We already have an OL policy that gives PER points and punishes people that can't get language training because of unit Op Tempo, or lack of manning, we don't need to break the system more by adding a PT sliding PER scale.  And for who ever said that this would only add 5% to a PER, that is the world in a national merit board were a single point by 5 board members can mean the difference between being top 10 and being in the 30's.  5 % is a huge differentiator, just wait until the sliding scale for MWO/CWO SL kick in, you won't see any uni-lingual CWO and few MWO any more....

Jon


----------



## Old EO Tech

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I keep seeing this argument - if we have to do PT for 30-45 minutes, everything goes to crap.  It's just thrown out there.  I look at the ESR every day and have commanded CSS soldiers (including Maint Pl).  Busy? yes.  But the rifle companies can get just as busy during the week and they do have stuff to do in garrison.  The VOR is more a function of lack of parts - our ESR is largely "W/P".
> 
> Our unit CSS soldiers have no problems maintaining an active PT program while still doing their job, so I'm still not buying it.



I wish I had that luxury, my VOR/AFV Gun State is not all W/P, my CO had to send me an email to put in writing that he was ungrounding all vehicles overdue mandated inspections, so that we could deploy on Op LENTUS, to southern AB to help our fellow citizens in need.  I was already doing this for the 3 Ex's during the spring in WX, were the risk in a training area is lower of a vehicle fails.

Yes the Rifle/CS Coy's can get busy, but as stated if they cut back on trg to make PT happen it is not particularly visible.  The VOR state is on the CO/Bde Comd/Area Comd slides every week as it directly effects their operational capability.

And just for the record my Maint Pl is doing PT 5 days a week right now, but if I see that I can't meet the units goals for the summer training or fall Ex's, PT as well as everything else will be cut back.  And this is an authorized COA that is in the signed official Unit Maintenance Plan. I could enact it now and the threshold is a 20% VOR, and I'm at 50% after we re-grounded all the over due inspection vehicles after returning from High River.

Jon


----------



## UnwiseCritic

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over ad expecting different results.  We seem to be doing this an awful lot with our fitness in the CF.  I wonder if this is due to us not wanting to admit that we have a substantial portion of our organization that is overweight and out of shape?  Every time I walk around the NCR and I see some CF member walking around in size XXXXL combats I die a little on the inside.  It tarnishes the uniform and degrades our image as a professional military force.



I couldn't agree more

I won't touch on some points as a lot have been brought up already. But I think we could solve a lot of our problems by installing a fitness test at the recruiting center. And if someone can't meet the standards set show them the door or just defer them until they reach the fitness level. In truth I think it would hurt our recruiting numbers a lot. But hey if part time soldiers have to do it why not make the full time people do it. (The excuse they have is valid to a degree but I don't think it is a good enough excuse too exclude reg force members for the same test)

I also think they should get rid of the double standard. Men and women should have to do the exact same amount! That is true equality. (Being politically correct all the time is destroying our military)

As well as different trades should have to meet a different levels of fitness maybe group combat arms vs non-combat arms into two different levels of required fitness. Perhaps it's not "fair" but in all reality what is expected of an infanteer to a clerk physically is a lot different. So have different standards. Now would be the perfect time as all Im hearing on this site is how many applicants there are for engineers and infanteers.


----------



## UnwiseCritic

Also I think the excuse of "But I won't have enough time to do my work" seems legit at first glance. But I bet a bunch a fit mechanics get more done in the day than obese mechanics. You'll feel better and be able to maintain a higher work capacity.


----------



## MikeL

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> In truth I think it would hurt our recruiting numbers a lot. But hey if part time soldiers have to do it why not make the full time people do it. (The excuse they have is valid to a degree but I don't think it is a good enough excuse too exclude reg force members for the same test)



When Reg Force applicants had to do a PT test as part of the process, did it really hurt recruiting numbers that much?  When I got into the Reg Force the PT test during the recruiting process was still there, and a large number of applicants still got in.

I'm sure those who fail in the recruiting process get a bit of a reality check as well, and realize they need to start preparing for the military and work out(among other things). IMO, it is better to have those who are not fit, fail in the recruiting process instead of BMQ.  If the CF gets serious about instilling a culture of fitness, it should begin right from the start(recruiting process) and continue on from there.


----------



## UnwiseCritic

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> When Reg Force applicants had to do a PT test as part of the process, did it really hurt recruiting numbers that much?  From my limited scope of what I saw, there was still a large number of applicants getting in, and we all did a PT test before getting in.  If someone seriously wants to get into the Military, they will make the effort to exercise and meet the minimum standard at least.
> 
> 
> I'm sure those who fail in the recruiting process get a bit of a reality check as well, and realize they need to start preparing for the military and work out(among other things). IMO, it is better to have those who are not fit, fail in the recruiting process instead of BMQ.  If the CF gets serious about instilling a culture of fitness, it should begin right from the start(recruiting process) and continue on from there.



I completely agree, especially with your last sentence. But I'm not quite sure the CF wants too instill a fitness culture... From what I've heard the FORCE test is a step in the wrong direction. I only thought it would hurt recruiting numbers because why else would they have changed it. Or is my common sense getting the better of me?


----------



## daftandbarmy

I think I am outside the formal BMI margins and I still tend to like to climb mountains over 10,000ft in altitude, but I guess that doesn't count. 

Mt Shasta earlier this month: Groovin' at 14,179ft


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Ok, this thread has been getting a lot of feedback from different elements and trades which I can only view as a good thing as it broadens the discussion.  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.

I will agree with you on a point that the CFPAS system is most definitely not perfect and that is it necessarily right that something like French can hold a person back in career progression?  I don't necessarily think it is but if the CF believes this then should they not also place the same emphasis on fitness?  I don't necessarily see it as unfair.  That person simply took the time to make themselves a little bit more competitive by improving their fitness.  Our career progression isn't perfect by any means but that 25% that includes french, PD, education and should include fitness is the only objective portion of your PER score, everything else is totally subjective and dependent on how you are judged by your superiors at the merit boards.  Is fitness not something that should be judged objectively?  Is it right that 75% of a persons score on their PER is totally subjective? 

I think we need to answer a question and that question is:  Is the military failing to produce physically fit soldiers?  If the answer is yes then how do we correct this?  If you believe the answer to be yes then clearly our present system is not working and needs to be changed/amended/updated.  What changes would you make to the system?  If you think we are good enough as is then state your case as to why?

Some COAs I have noted:

dapaterson suggested getting leadership buy in and using the PER system.  This could work but it would require we convince our respective corps to use the PER system as it was originally intended.  

Another suggestion was more strict enforcement of the FORCE test; however, some have pointed out that the test is easier then the old tests and although "scientifically validated" and I use those terms loosely, I remain skeptical that it will actually improve the fitness of our forces.  

Another suggestion was to stamp this right out at the recruiting centers.  I personally like this one a lot as I am of the belief that if you don't start your career off fit you will never be fit as their is never enough time to play catch up.  

Finally Infanteer suggested we tie fitness to career progression with CFPAS.  I also like this COA as it would set in stone exactly what you need to do to get the maximum points and would foster competition.  It is simple and to the point and doesn't leave any grey areas.  

I am wondering about your thoughts on these and why they would or wouldn't work?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I think I am outside the formal BMI margins and I still tend to like to climb mountains over 10,000ft in altitude, but I guess that doesn't count.
> 
> Mt Shasta earlier this month: Groovin' at 14,179ft



At 5'11 195lbs I am also overweight by BMI, as someone said earlier BMI is pretty much a useless statistic when looking at a specific individual


----------



## kratz

[quote author=Eye In The Sky]
  
The PT or die mentaliy pissess me off as a CSS whenever this topic comes up.

Most of my comments have already been made by others, but EITS suggestion is one of the best I have seen that would work for many CSS positions. What most are advocating for is a cookie cutter solution that is not possible in a job with as many operational environments as we work in. Reading the desire to push for that "cookie cutter" solution is just as frustrating.[/quote]


----------



## Kat Stevens

I spent a goodly portion of my latter years in the army as an armoured engineer.  There was a ton of heavy lifting to be done, climbing up and down the vehicles all day long, and so on.  No, not every day was a strongman competition, but enough of them sure as hell were.  Our crews were 2 man, and more often than not crew comds were Sgt/MCpl, so in garrison it was a one man job to maintain those beasts.  The policy in 1 CER was that the driver was handed over to the techs if his C/S was on the floor, and they were on the floor a lot.  A few people here may have done Leopard maintenance in the past, but for those who haven't, let me tell you the last thing in the world you want to do after busting your bag all day standing on a concrete floor is to go to the gym and bust it some more.  You want to get your feet up and convince yourself you want to go back and do it again tomorrow. 

I know I said I was bowing out, mea culpa


----------



## kevincanada

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I spent a goodly portion of my latter years in the army as an armoured engineer.  There was a ton of heavy lifting to be done, climbing up and down the vehicles all day long, and so on.  No, not every day was a strongman competition, but enough of them sure as hell were.  Our crews were 2 man, and more often than not crew comds were Sgt/MCpl, so in garrison it was a one man job to maintain those beasts.  The policy in 1 CER was that the driver was handed over to the techs if his C/S was on the floor, and they were on the floor a lot.  A few people here may have done Leopard maintenance in the past, but for those who haven't, let me tell you the last thing in the world you want to do after busting your bag all day standing on a concrete floor is to go to the gym and bust it some more.  You want to get your feet up and convince yourself you want to go back and do it again tomorrow.



I have to agree with this. I'm on the road by 6am, at work for 7am, leave work at 3:30pm and home from 4:30 to 5:00pm.  I now have a few hours and do it all again tomorrow.  I have steel toe/plated boots on and hard hat.  I get home, toes, heels muscles on side of legs, knees, and shoulder muscles are all stiff, sore and once in a while a sharp pain.

I am on concrete all day.  My muscles are tight and very strong, now at a state of rest my breathing is slightly laboured, and I can tell my heart is working over time.  Before I took this job 2 months ago I was running 35k a week, plus hours of weight lifting weekly.  Now my Running is 5km to 10km a week and no weight lifting and always in a state of fatigue.  It takes 2 days to recover after a 5 day week.  By the time I'm rested it's Monday again.  I try to fit Cardio in on weekends.

Edit: I'm working in a high rise building, awaiting BMQ.


----------



## dapaterson

The FORCE test is validated as a test of the tasks every CF member must be able to perform.  Full stop.

Somewhere I have a copy of the matrix produced from the study, which illustrates the correlations between the elements of the FORCE test and the core tasks.  For what it is designed and intended to do, FORCE meets the remit and is validated.


----------



## Infanteer

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I think I am outside the formal BMI margins and I still tend to like to climb mountains over 10,000ft in altitude, but I guess that doesn't count.
> 
> Mt Shasta earlier this month: Groovin' at 14,179ft



Fatso....


----------



## GnyHwy

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> At 5'11 195lbs I am also overweight by BMI, as someone said earlier BMI is pretty much a useless statistic when looking at a specific individual



I'll also add, most professional athletes from the big 4 sports will fail BMI, miserably.  Most of those guys could also squeeze all of our heads like a zit too!

There is value to being a good runner, but if all you are doing is running to a fight where you'll get your head kicked in, then that is not much good either.


----------



## Edward Campbell

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> I'll also add, most professional athletes from the big 4 sports will fail BMI, miserably.  Most of those guys could also squeeze all of our heads like a zit too!
> 
> There is value to being a good runner, but if all you are doing is running to a fight where you'll get your head kicked in, then that is not much good either.




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


----------



## GnyHwy

Run down a _______ one of those cows vs. walk down and ________ 'em all!


----------



## GAP

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 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

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> 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

Nostix said:
			
		

> "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

DVC185 said:
			
		

> 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

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> 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

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> 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

cupper said:
			
		

> 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

DVC185 said:
			
		

> <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

dapaterson said:
			
		

> 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

cupper said:
			
		

> 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

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> 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

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> 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

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> 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


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Nostix said:
			
		

> _"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".
> 
> _


_

Can I ask where that quote is from?  I can say with absolute certainty it is contrary to the direction in the CDS Guidance to COs._


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Can I ask where that quote is from?  I can say with absolute certainty it is contrary to the direction in the _CDS Guidance to COs_.



I am fairly certain he hauled it out of his 4th point of contact ;D


----------



## DVC185

kratz said:
			
		

> _Unproductive comment snipped._


That's a shame you feel that way but that is my opinion based on experience. Don't lose sleep over it.

Perhaps you could offer something from your occupational or elemental point of view on the introduction and maintenance of a culture of fitness from recruitment to retirement.


----------



## OldSolduer

I may have said this already, my apologies if I have, but this is what I tell my troops:

You don't have to be JTF2 or CSOR fit. I expect you to be fit enough to pass (insert name of test here). We are a Class A organization and realistically we can't pay you to do PT, but it would be a benefit to you if you did some kind of PT on your own.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I may have said this already, my apologies if I have, but this is what I tell my troops:
> 
> You don't have to be JTF2 or CSOR fit. I expect you to be fit enough to pass (insert name of test here). We are a Class A organization and realistically we can't pay you to do PT, but it would be a benefit to you if you did some kind of PT on your own.



 :goodpost:

And that, Jim, is what everyone must do: make sure your people can pass the mandatory standard test.

If your organization needs different or higher standards, in addition to the CF wide mandatory one(s), then by all means train to them, but, as has been stated, there is a mandatory, validated, minimum standard for everyone.

The real problem is: are there enough, good enough, leaders to identify and help (including "help" right out of the CF) those who cannot or will not meet that minimum standard?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I am fairly certain he hauled it out of his 4th point of contact ;D



 :blotto:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Isn't the good Pt and being in top shape why we all joined ??? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD4xwK13lGk


----------



## Monsoon

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> 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.


I guess "anecdotal" is a kind of evidence, but I was thinking that an issue that the CF's senior leadership is directly seized with must have some quantifiable basis at an operational/strategic level: something like numbers of people who DAG red for fitness reasons, number of people re-patted for fitness-related injuries, etc.

I would guess that our operations are as likely to be compromised by people who lack a fighting attitude as by people who are physically unfit. The phrase "the work will always be there" to justify doing extra PT without extending the work day has certainly popped up in this thread a few times; it's a short hop from there to the folks who show up at 8:30, take an hour and a half lunch and skate out at 3. I don't see much difference between that attitude and someone who falls out of an attack exercise because they didn't do enough jogging. There's physical toughness and metal toughness: they're both important.


----------



## UnwiseCritic

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> I guess "anecdotal" is a kind of evidence, but I was thinking that an issue that the CF's senior leadership is directly seized with must have some quantifiable basis at an operational/strategic level: something like numbers of people who DAG red for fitness reasons, number of people re-patted for fitness-related injuries, etc.
> 
> I would guess that our operations are as likely to be compromised by people who lack a fighting attitude as by people who are physically unfit. The phrase "the work will always be there" to justify doing extra PT without extending the work day has certainly popped up in this thread a few times; *it's a short hop from there to the folks who show up at 8:30, take an hour and a half lunch and skate out at 3. I don't see much difference between that attitude and someone who falls out of an attack exercise because they didn't do enough jogging.* There's physical toughness and metal toughness: they're both important.



I find the two often over lap. True it's not always.

As for aiming to pass the test (minimum) that's not a bad thing. But when our tests get so easy to pass... It might hurt the organization. In reality the only thing I think that could bring back some of the old is a larger war... We have gotten good at looking out for the welfare of our men on the home front. With all these new hippy ideals, but there has to be some kind of balance. It might just be a little lop sided. But I don't know if we even all agree that the fitness of the CF is suffering.

 Stepping up our game as an institution and facilitating change that will cause physical and mental duress is not our specialty. And this thread just makes me frustrated as there are some valid points and genuine ideas. That will never be implemented. Anyways time for me to bow out because all we're doing now is :deadhorse:


----------



## Monsoon

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> I find the two often over lap. True it's not always.


I'll buy that. I just wonder at amount of time we spend working on the "fitness" end of the issue as compared to the other half.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> I'll buy that. I just wonder at amount of time we spend working on the "fitness" end of the issue as compared to the other half.



You know the old saying, "perception is reality" I can agree with what you are saying hamiltongs, part of the problem is not empowering our guys enough to "want" to do the things we want them to do.  Edward touched on this being about leadership and I think he is right.  Perhaps we need to stop looking at treating the symptom which is poor fitness and look more at treating the real problem which is a lack of motivation and mental drive.  Thoughts?


----------



## OldSolduer

Lets not forget that our soldiers must be mentally fit as well. They go hand in hand.

Unmotivated troops will perform PT poorly. Troops that are ridden like rented mules will perform poorly. Leaders who have neither the time nor inclination to come up with a PT program and depend on ruck marching and running will ultimately bore troops to death.

One of my OCs in 2 VP in 96-97, a fitness god himself, gave the leadership of the coy the tools and said "get on with it, in two weeks I lead PT". He did. He did not publicly whip those who were a bit slow. He praised the effort and said "lets see improvement next week" - and if that soldier improved, even marginally the OC praised him for it.

That is what we should strive for.


----------



## STJ_Kierstead

I agree with this method, I have not yet started the BMQ but i have been training with my gf and every time i improve my times or weights or cut a bit of weight [i have adjusted my eating habbits] - positive enforcement is much more tolerable than telling you your not doing good enough.

People need to strive to be the best they can, but everyone needs to realize it does not happen over night. It takes planning and training, and some people lack knowledge required on eating healthier, the benefits and how to change your body to be in better shape.

It is not easy for everyone but I believe it is possible for most.

No excuse for lazy, you gotta want it!


----------



## Jarnhamar

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> You know the old saying, "perception is reality" I can agree with what you are saying hamiltongs, part of the problem is not empowering our guys enough to "want" to do the things we want them to do.  Edward touched on this being about leadership and I think he is right.  Perhaps we need to stop looking at treating the symptom which is poor fitness and look more at treating the real problem which is a lack of motivation and mental drive.  Thoughts?



I'd like to see more "PT on your own" or PT held at the section level.
Set a PT standard and if someone doesn't meet the standard then their name gets added to a list of pers who do duty over stat holidays, leave blocks, maybe some weekends.   More base duties.  Don't send them away on fun taskings or courses.


I'm sure someone could be considered fairly unfit and still pass the FORCE test, is it fair to punish them for being unfit if they pass the test the CF accepted?


----------



## Kat Stevens

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I'd like to see more "PT on your own" or PT held at the section level.
> Set a PT standard and if someone doesn't meet the standard then their name gets added to a list of pers who do duty over stat holidays, leave blocks, maybe some weekends.   More base duties.  Don't send them away on fun taskings or courses.
> 
> 
> I'm sure someone could be considered fairly unfit and still pass the FORCE test, is it fair to punish them for being unfit if they pass the test the CF accepted?



That's called "punishment".  If your pre set arbitrary PT standard isn't met, unless it's carved in stone somewhere, it is just that, arbitrary and therefore a huge opening for a mountain of grievances to be filed.  You can't punish without there being an offence, and all you do is create a monster where once there was a mouse.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> That's called "punishment".  If your pre set arbitrary PT standard isn't met, unless it's carved in stone somewhere, it is just that, arbitrary and therefore a huge opening for a mountain of grievances to be filed.  You can't punish without there being an offence, and all you do is create a monster where once there was a mouse.



This is completely true and a total slippery slope if you go down this path.  I honestly think the best we can hope for is for our existing policies to be more stringently enforced.  Maybe if fitness is held to a greater importance at the beginning of someone's career i.e. recruiting stations and basic we can mitigate some problems later on?


----------



## ModlrMike

I see it as a symptom of the "do more with less" mindset we've developed over the years. Can't be done; something has to give. In most cases, that's been PT.


----------



## Kat Stevens

I'm sure the army has changed a lot since my departure, but it always seemed to me that, other than a few real enthusiasts, at the lower ranks PT was something to be endured, not enjoyed or embraced.  As guys moved off the concrete floor and into the air conditioned part of the building, PT became more and more important.  I knew plenty of guys who hated PT as Cpls, and by the time they were Sgts they loved it, maybe it was getting out from behind a desk for an hour, I dunno.  We had a CO, LCol let's call him Applesomethingsomething, who stood in front of a Sqn of heavy equipment and armoured engineer operators, and told us that PT was the toughest part of our day, it was all coasting to quitting time from there.  Huge disconnect between air conditioning and concrete there.


----------



## JorgSlice

I can definitely say that there have been more times on courses or at the unit where I have actually hated doing PT. Part of that was because you'd get this crazy fitness buff who beasts everyone regardless of level and then turns around and jacks you up for not being able to keep up to a 6-foot-5 triathlete running at full tilt when you're someone of short stature. Even though I have good fitness and every year I've finished in the higher end of the EXPRES test, part of that has to do with my day job but I still don't enjoy being killed for fitness.

The times I really have enjoyed PT are the occasions of circuit training with the PT SME of unit who is a level headed person, guides those struggling and offers positive reinforcement. That's when I actually gave a crap and WANTED to participate and do better. Then we'd have our little unit version of the Crossfit Games, a little friendly competition and I don't mind getting beasted, but not every day.


----------



## chrisf

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> We have gotten good at looking out for the welfare of our men on the home front. With all these new hippy ideals, but there has to be some kind of balance.



I realise this was a bit further back in the conversation, but just reading to catch up...

Just so we're perfectly clear, did you really just call taking care of the welfare of your troops and their families "hippy ideals"?


----------



## MilEME09

honestly, I stopped doing PT with my unit except for the odd time and just did it on my own. Cause every bloody time all they ever did was floor hockey, over and over again every time. I got nothing against floor hockey, but PT needs some variety if people are going to keep fit, I mean if say 1 VP ran 10km every morning for a year, their upper body strength probably would be the best at the end of the year.


----------



## Underway

The biggest problem with out of shape soldiers and sailors isn't just PT.  It's diet.  And smoking. But mainly diet. The latest research shows your weight is 90% genetic and 8% diet and 2% exercise.  

Now before everyone gets all bent out of shape about those numbers (which I'm sure vary somewhat for individuals) let me explain.  

Suppose your weight at steady state with moderate exercise and a semi health diet is 200lbs.  Of that you can go either way with exercise and diet.  220 - 180lbs is within the 10% variables of diet.  I know this because up until about a year ago I was 220.  With a good pt program I didn't lose any weight.  Sure I transfered some fat to muscle mass and went down a few pants sizes but the weight stayed.  I wasn't until I dropped my coke (acola) habit that I actually lost weight.  Modified my diet and made healthier choices.

And when I dropped weight my pt metrics took off like a rocket.  It's amazing when you are no longer carrying around 40lbs extra how much fitter you are.  Running, beep test, pushups, marches, general hard physical military stuff was not as difficult.  Hell standing around on a really hot day was easier.

At the end of the day we would have fitter soldiers if they all ate healthier and continued to do their normal jobs.  But how can you force them to eat better?  You can't.  All the exericse in the world will only give you a small advantage if you don't eat properly (and yes there are those freaks who are the exceptions but by an large you get my point). The best fitness plan is a good diet and exercise.

  The best you can do is provide information, leadership and a healthy conciouse work environment.  My last posting did that and as a group we helped each other achive fitness goals and made it a topic of conversation all the time.  30 people lost weight and many got exempt on the express where they never had before.  Others passed with better scores and we're not worried about the minimum.  We tested ourselves and posted results every month in a mass email.  We shared health/fitness articles in the table in the break room.  Everyone had to instruct group pt every once in a while and bring a creative new workout or their favorite one.  At the end of the day we made it part of the culture that fitness made you fit in.  It was part of the units esprit du corps.  If it wasn't unit pt we met in the morning at the gym before work, worked out as a group.  If fitness goals were not being met a person could be assigned a workout buddy to help them along.  If they were in danger of not passing then a senior person was assigned to ensure they were following their psp assigned workout.

And surprisingly the work got done, and we always had a shared interest/experience to talk/complain about.

 :2c:


----------



## Quirky

Underway said:
			
		

> The biggest problem with out of shape soldiers and sailors isn't just PT.  It's diet.  And smoking. But mainly diet.



This 100%. Another thing to add is alcohol consumption. You can do all the cardio or weight training you want, but if you go nuts on the weekend with booze you will still be fat. If you don't care how you look in uniform then go ahead and eat or drink whatever you want...most people on Wings don't seem to care.  :


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Quirky said:
			
		

> This 100%. Another thing to add is alcohol consumption. You can do all the cardio or weight training you want, but if you go nuts on the weekend with booze you will still be fat. If you don't care how you look in uniform then go ahead and eat or drink whatever you want...most people on Wings don't seem to care.  :



haha you gotta maintain a Reserve  ;D

Think of that beer gut as one less ration you have to eat a day


----------



## OldSolduer

While we're on the topic, how about those super fit in garrison types that need to eat every two hours or they wilt. Seen it. Not impressed. 

Field fitness and garrison fitness are different IMO. 

Doing 4-5 platoon attacks per day with patrolling at night demands a different mental attitude as well. We can't stop for Blogins the bodybuilder to eat every two hours.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> .... We can't stop for Blogins the bodybuilder to eat every two hours.


That's gonna disappoint some newbies in the recruiting threads, let me tell you.  >


----------



## Jarnhamar

Underway said:
			
		

> The latest research shows your weight is 90% genetic and 8% diet and 2% exercise.


----------



## Rheostatic

Doues anyone here have experience with the BFTA (Basic Fitness Training Assistant) course? Would having more NCOs with this qual make a difference in units with limited time for PT (particularly in the reserves)?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

>



AWESOME!!!!


----------



## Underway

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> While we're on the topic, how about those super fit in garrison types that need to eat every two hours or they wilt. Seen it. Not impressed.
> 
> Field fitness and garrison fitness are different IMO.
> 
> Doing 4-5 platoon attacks per day with patrolling at night demands a different mental attitude as well. We can't stop for Blogins the bodybuilder to eat every two hours.



You can and you should.  You should be constantly hydrating and eating during those exercises.  Either way it's better than stopping for Chubby Mcfatterson after 100m of a section attack, or just standing around in 36 degree heat.

   Give bloggins the scran from your IMP and tell him to cram his pie hole whenever he can.  He's probably bragging about how much he can press when he should be snacking anyways.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

Underway said:
			
		

> You can and you should.  You should be constantly hydrating and eating during those exercises.  Either way it's better than stopping for Chubby Mcfatterson after 100m of a section attack, or just standing around in 36 degree heat.
> 
> Give bloggins the scran from your IMP and tell him to cram his pie hole whenever he can.  He's probably bragging about how much he can press when he should be snacking anyways.


Huh?

I had a long lengthy post about what you should be doing in the field for proper hydration, caloric intake and teaching soldiers about proper water conservation while still ensuring they get what they need... but no, a facepalm about the above post is fitting instead.  :facepalm:


----------



## Jarnhamar

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> Huh?
> 
> I had a long lengthy post about what you should be doing in the field for proper hydration, caloric intake and teaching soldiers about proper water conservation while still ensuring they get what they need... but no, a facepalm about the above post is fitting instead.  :facepalm:



I disagree.  Stopping every 2 hours to eat also gives you a chance to check your text messages and facebook.


----------



## Underway

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> Huh?
> 
> I had a long lengthy post about what you should be doing in the field for proper hydration, caloric intake and teaching soldiers about proper water conservation while still ensuring they get what they need... but no, a facepalm about the above post is fitting instead.  :facepalm:



Sorry missed that one.  My point was that I'd rather have a powerlifter that has to eat all the time than a guy who's obese.   Next time I'll reference your post vice trying to post something to highlight the silliness of the idea that you don't have time to eat on an exercise as listed above.    ???


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> While we're on the topic, how about those super fit in garrison types that need to eat every two hours or they wilt. Seen it. Not impressed.
> 
> Field fitness and garrison fitness are different IMO.
> 
> Doing 4-5 platoon attacks per day with patrolling at night demands a different mental attitude as well. We can't stop for Blogins the bodybuilder to eat every two hours.



Completely agree Jim, their is fitness and then their is field fitness!  Look to how the Ghurka's for instance, or certain oreganizations like the FFL, Paras, etc... build their soldiers.  Lean and mean, that is what we should be aiming for!

I have read that one of the biggest difficulties people have when they join the FFL, especially Americans, is adjusting to the diet of a legionnaire which in the morning is usually a piece of bread and a cup of coffee.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Underway said:
			
		

> Sorry missed that one.  My point was that I'd rather have a powerlifter that has to eat all the time than a guy who's obese.



What is the difference between a soldier who _can't function_ due to lack of physical fitness and a soldier who _can't function_ due to not being able to constantly eat or consume their regime of supplements?


----------



## Kat Stevens

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Completely agree Jim, their is fitness and then their is field fitness!  Look to how the Ghurka's for instance, or certain oreganizations like the FFL, Paras, etc... build their soldiers.  Lean and mean, that is what we should be aiming for!
> 
> I have read that one of the biggest difficulties people have when they join the FFL, especially Americans, is adjusting to the diet of a legionnaire which in the morning is usually a piece of bread and a cup of coffee.



Don't forget the morning humiliation session for their appalling lack of French speaking ability, coupled with the first beating of the day.  all part of a well balanced FFL diet.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Don't forget the morning humiliation session for their appalling lack of French speaking ability, coupled with the first beating of the day.  all part of a well balanced FFL diet.



haha come now, even the FFL has moved away from beating their soldiers and also from taking criminals, criminal record = NOGO now in La Légion.  

Regardless, they do build a certain type of soldier that is finally-tuned to conduct expeditionary operations.  I am not saying we seek to emulate them but it speaks volumes to the French Army's ability when they are able to rout an enemy out of an entire country (Mali) with less than 2,000 maneuver troops.  Perhaps we could learn something from them?  Oui ou Non?


----------



## The Bread Guy

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> What is the difference between a soldier who _can't function_ due to lack of physical fitness and a soldier who _can't function_ due to not being able to constantly eat or consume their regime of supplements?


ZACKLY!


----------



## ModlrMike

Underway said:
			
		

> You can and you should.  You should be constantly hydrating and eating during those exercises.  Either way it's better than stopping for Chubby Mcfatterson after 100m of a section attack, or just standing around in 36 degree heat.
> 
> Give bloggins the scran from your IMP and tell him to cram his pie hole whenever he can.  He's probably bragging about how much he can press when he should be snacking anyways.



In rebuttal:

"Wispy, ectomorphic types of men excel in the conventional demonstrations of physical fitness, but the Falklands War of 1982 indicated that their generously covered colleagues are better at withstanding the hardships of campaigning." 
----- Military Experience in the Age of Reason - Christopher Duffy


----------



## Halifax Tar

After following this thread I have to wonder weather some members of this forum are more interested in the size of ones tunic and how soldier/sailors/airmen appear to look on a parade square than how they can actually function and complete the tasks given to them.

I worked for a SNCO recently who was, some would say obese.  But this man passed his PT test and his BFT.  Yet people still snickered and many times I had to "inform" others that he was fully able and capable and deserved the respect of a Sgt regardless of his tunic size. 

The last part of the sentence above is what really bothers me.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Rheostatic said:
			
		

> Doues anyone here have experience with the BFTA (Basic Fitness Training Assistant) course? Would having more NCOs with this qual make a difference in units with limited time for PT (particularly in the reserves)?



I completed the BFTA course a year ago.  Its a great course and I encourage anyone to take it.  Of course in order for you and your unit to truly get your "monies worth" out of that course your unit should then consider using your new found ability/qualification. 

I digress.  Great course.  There is a follow on, AFTA, as well if you are so inclined.


----------



## MikeL

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> After following this thread I have to wonder weather some members of this forum are more interested in the size of ones tunic and how soldier/sailors/airmen appear to look on a parade square than how they can actually function and complete the tasks given to them.



IMO as a member of the Canadian Forces you should be physically able to do your job(and pass PT tests), as well present a suitable military appearance as we represent the CAF.

A member doesn't need to look like a fitness model, but they shouldn't be look obese either.


----------



## cupper

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> A member doesn't need to look like a fitness model, but they shouldn't *appear to* be obese either.



FTFY.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Some like endurance, some like lifting


----------



## OldSolduer

Underway said:
			
		

> Sorry missed that one.  My point was that I'd rather have a powerlifter that has to eat all the time than a guy who's obese.   Next time I'll reference your post vice trying to post something to highlight the silliness of the idea that you don't have time to eat on an exercise as listed above.    ???


I take exception to this. 

We cannot stop in the middle of a patrol for Bloggins the BodyBuilder to eat his snack or after a platoon attack or whatever so he can scarf rations down. Not going to happen.
This is the Army, not day care.

I am all for physical fitness, and I in no way said there is not time to eat on ex. You might want to wind your neck in.


----------



## Quirky

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I take exception to this.
> 
> We cannot stop in the middle of a patrol for Bloggins the BodyBuilder to eat his snack or after a platoon attack or whatever so he can scarf rations down. Not going to happen.
> This is the Army, not day care.
> 
> I am all for physical fitness, and I in no way said there is not time to eat on ex. You might want to wind your neck in.



You mean you can't pack 10lbs of protein in your checked luggage on deployments?  



> Some like endurance, some like lifting



Question is, who would you rather have put on a uniform?


----------



## Sythen

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I take exception to this.
> 
> We cannot stop in the middle of a patrol for Bloggins the BodyBuilder to eat his snack or after a platoon attack or whatever so he can scarf rations down. Not going to happen.
> This is the Army, not day care.
> 
> I am all for physical fitness, and I in no way said there is not time to eat on ex. You might want to wind your neck in.



With all due respect, if someone can't put a protein bar or something similar in a pocket during a patrol then I dunno what to say. One guy in my section said it best when he said, 'A patrol is just a very long walk to find the perfect place to sit down.' There was so much downtime during a typical patrol it was unreal. Heck, even during the longer firefights we had downtime. Its not unrealistic to maintain a high calorie eating pattern just because you're a soldier.



> You mean you can't pack 10lbs of protein in your checked luggage on deployments?



Why can't you? You also get care packages and every other week, we'd send in a shopping list to our CQ. Since he was awesome, he would go to the PX and get us protein powder, and other things like that and we'd sign some sheet (forget what its called) but they'd just take the money off our pay. Mind you I only saw 5 or 6 COPs in theatre, but all of them had a decent bench and some free weights.

I know someone will say, 'Just because it happened that way in Afghanistan doesn't mean it will be that way in the next conflict!'. True enough. And if we're landing on China's shores or whatever other craziness might happen in the future, I guess the guy will lose some weight. Otherwise, there really isn't anything stopping a sufficiently motivated soldier from continuing more or less a decent weight training regime in theatre.


----------



## McG

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> After following this thread I have to wonder weather some members of this forum are more interested in the size of ones tunic and how soldier/sailors/airmen appear to look on a parade square than how they can actually function and complete the tasks given to them.


I think this is the counter argument used when one forgets we are an organization whoes job is war.  That means it is not good enough for Bloggins the vehicle tech to be just fit enough to do his job in Canada or on the FOB.  He needs to be fit enough for the day his truck takes an RPG to the engine and he must haul his injuried fireteam partner from the vehicle and then fight out of the ambush.  Same, fit enough to turn wrenches in the lower decks of a ship will not be good enough the day a YJ-12 drives home into a frigate.


----------



## Armymedic

Underway said:
			
		

> Sorry missed that one.  My point was that I'd rather have a powerlifter that has to eat all the time than a guy who's obese.



I understand what you are trying to say but....

Even with a BMI of 32 and some spare around the waist, I have yet to meet a power lifter that I can't out run or out ruck.  Not to mention, those types do not do well on selections in the CF. personally, I find people like that do it to look good, not for improved job performance.

Strong like bull, run like rock, does not work in our lines of work. You have to have a balanced fitness level. And the mental toughness to make it go far.


----------



## OldSolduer

Rider Pride said:
			
		

> I understand what you are trying to say but....
> 
> Even with a BMI of 32 and some spare around the waist, I have yet to meet a power lifter that I can't out run or out ruck.  Not to mention, those types do not do well on selections in the CF. personally, I find people like that do it to look good, not for improved job performance.
> 
> Strong like bull, run like rock, does not work in our lines of work. You have to have a balanced fitness level. And the mental toughness to make it go far.



Thank you. Good post .





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> I think this is the counter argument used when one forgets we are an organization whoes job is war.  That means it is not good enough for Bloggins the vehicle tech to be just fit enough to do his job in Canada or on the FOB.  He needs to be fit enough for the day his truck takes an RPG to the engine and he must haul his injuried fireteam partner from the vehicle and then fight out of the ambush.  Same, fit enough to turn wrenches in the lower decks of a ship will not be good enough the day a YJ-12 drives home into a frigate.



Bang on.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

Rider Pride said:
			
		

> Strong like bull, run like rock, does not work in our lines of work. You have to have a *balanced* fitness level. And the mental toughness to make it go far.



Agreed, balanced is the key word.  Everyone is different and I've met the 5'5" 160lbs Cpl that can push himself for days and carry tons of gear, and I've also met the 6'1" 210lbs Lt that can bench press a truck but can't keep up on a ruck march.  It's all about balance and as others have said the ability to do your job in whatever environment/situation you find yourself in.  Proper dress and deportment in your dress uniform is also important, but less so than the ability to perform in the field.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> Proper dress and deportment in your dress uniform is also important, but less so than the ability to perform in the field.


Heresy. 
Polished boots and a smartly turned out uniform will destroy the enemies will to fight  ;D


----------



## Kat Stevens

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Heresy.
> Polished boots and a smartly turned out uniform will destroy the enemies will to fight.



And in that spirit I start lobbying in Ottawa tomorrow for a return to shakos,  neck stocks and cross belts.  It was good enough to put the run on Napoleon, it's good enough for the Talibunnies.  Besides, I'll never have to wear them.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Heresy.
> Polished boots and a smartly turned out uniform will destroy the enemies will to fight  ;D


Touche salesman, touche.


----------



## Chernoble

Infanteer said:
			
		

> We need to move beyond "Well the CDS said" and "DAOD says this" and make real incentives.  The US Military scores the annual PT test.  Meet the minimum standard, and you get minimum points, max the test, you get max points.
> 
> PERs are moving to a simple system - pass FORCE and you get to go to a merit board, don't pass and you aren't looked at.  This isn't good enough.  We need a system where FORCE failures are put on the administrative track, FORCE minimums get 1 point on their PER and some graded score can allow members who surpass the standard to get 2 to a maximum of 5 points on the PER.  What's a better incentive to promote a fitness culture then having COs who enforce a standard having all their guys getting 4-5 points at merit boards while less dedicated units are getting 1-2?
> 
> Tie fitness to promotions, money and career advancement and you'll see a cultural shift in the CAF.



This is exactly how I feel.

Also:  Weight is not as well balanced with fitness as it is with food.  If people took the time to think about what they put into their bodies first, they wouldn't have to stress so much about how to get it out of their bodies with copious amounts of extra PT.


----------



## Biggoals2bdone

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I take exception to this.
> 
> We cannot stop in the middle of a patrol for Bloggins the BodyBuilder to eat his snack or after a platoon attack or whatever so he can scarf rations down. Not going to happen.
> This is the Army, not day care.
> 
> I am all for physical fitness, and I in no way said there is not time to eat on ex. You might want to wind your neck in.





			
				Rider Pride said:
			
		

> I understand what you are trying to say but....
> 
> Even with a BMI of 32 and some spare around the waist, I have yet to meet a power lifter that I can't out run or out ruck.  Not to mention, those types do not do well on selections in the CF. personally, I find people like that do it to look good, not for improved job performance.
> 
> Strong like bull, run like rock, does not work in our lines of work. You have to have a balanced fitness level. And the mental toughness to make it go far.





			
				Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> While we're on the topic, how about those super fit in garrison types that need to eat every two hours or they wilt. Seen it. Not impressed.
> 
> Field fitness and garrison fitness are different IMO.
> 
> Doing 4-5 platoon attacks per day with patrolling at night demands a different mental attitude as well. We can't stop for Blogins the bodybuilder to eat every two hours.





			
				Underway said:
			
		

> You can and you should.  You should be constantly hydrating and eating during those exercises.  Either way it's better than stopping for Chubby Mcfatterson after 100m of a section attack, or just standing around in 36 degree heat.
> 
> Give bloggins the scran from your IMP and tell him to cram his pie hole whenever he can.  He's probably bragging about how much he can press when he should be snacking anyways.





			
				Underway said:
			
		

> Sorry missed that one.  My point was that I'd rather have a powerlifter that has to eat all the time than a guy who's obese.   Next time I'll reference your post vice trying to post something to highlight the silliness of the idea that you don't have time to eat on an exercise as listed above.    ???



Point 1
We all can acknowledge there is a difference between field fitness and gym/garrison fitness, but at the same time, its been clearly pointed out by guys who've been there and done that, that there is plenty of time on patrols to throw something with calories in your mouth...hell as someone pointed out, if you can drink while on patrol (which you should be hydrating) then you can damn well chew a protein bar or something as well.

Point 2
Bodybuilder =/= Powerlifter.

stop using them interchangeably, they are apples and oranges.  Bodybuilders are all about size, definition, symmetry, Powerlifters are all about Performance aka being STRONG in squats, deadlifts and bench pressing (together all 3 carryover to A LOT) and then you have weightlifters who compete in the Snatch and Clean n Jerk.  To be fair though I think we would be hard pressed to see any REAL bodybuilders in the CF.  I mean i've read of 2 or 3 in the papers that were serving members who actually competed.  The rest are just guys who take probably to many supplements and rely on those instead of having proper nutrition.  Same goes for powerlifters and weightlifters...id be hard pressed to find more then 10-20 of each in the CF.  

I will point out that there are/have been plenty of powerlifters or olympic lifters (not many bodybuilders) that were/are in the military.  Usually these guys are not in the heavier weight classes though.
- Alex Viada (Marathoner/triathlete and powerlifter, bench presses 500+ RAW) 210-225'er
- Matt Kroczaleski (Cancer survivor, Pro powerlifter, NPC bodybuilder, and ex-Marine, 220lbs)
- Mike Tuchscherer (275'er with 900lbs raw squat, in the USAF, actually got in powerlifting through the AF when he joined the USAF academy powerlifting team)
To name a couple

Point 3

I honestly think the CF needs to put less emphasis on long distance running, if anything there should be more emphasis on sprints.  How many guys had to run 5-10km while deployed (and I don't mean for PT while out there) i mean for a tactical situation.  Odds are sprints, work capacity, strength (strength endurance, bodyweight strength and absolute strength) would be more valuable in those circumstances.

Point 4
I definitely think soldiers/sailors/airmen need to eat better, but this is not something we can enforce.


----------



## Cadwr

MrBlue said:
			
		

> Point 4
> I definitely think soldiers/sailors/airmen need to eat better, but this is not something we can enforce.



Why not?  We enforce such things as what you can wear, where you and your family will live, some standard of physical prowess, as well as such intangibles as ethics, attitude, character, etc...  Failure to meet or accept the standard on any of these is a potential ticket out the door.

So why not diet?  I don't see why a mandatory session with the CF H Svcs nutritionist couldn't go along with mandatory remedial PT.  They could ask to see your PT log and your food diary.

Edit - clarity


----------



## Kat Stevens

Holy crap, you're not breeding horses here, you're training and employing soldiers.  Just how much farther do you want to shove the big green machines snout up everyone's arses?  What next, mandatory Monday stool samples to ensure the proper mix of grass and grain?  Set a REALISTIC requirement, expect grown thinking men and women to adhere to it, and make them aware of the consequences if they fail to do so, end of.  Or we go full speed ahead with BLACKBRIAR and TREADSTONE, and crank the killbot factory up to maximum output.


----------



## OldSolduer

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Holy crap, you're not breeding horses here, you're training and employing soldiers.  Just how much farther do you want to shove the big green machines snout up everyone's arses?  What next, mandatory Monday stool samples to ensure the proper mix of grass and grain?  Set a REALISTIC requirement, expect grown thinking men and women to adhere to it, and make them aware of the consequences if they fail to do so, end of.  Or we go full speed ahead with BLACKBRIAR and TREADSTONE, and crank the killbot factory up to maximum output.



I think education, by Health Promotions, is a great thing. We cannot babysit troops nor should we.


----------



## Jarnhamar

MrBlue said:
			
		

> Point 4
> I definitely think soldiers/sailors/airmen need to eat better, but this is not something we can enforce.



The kitchen in Petawawa stopped serving poutine every day.


----------



## DAA

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> The kitchen in Petawawa stopped serving poutine every day.



Darn, I guess I can strike that kitchen off of my "You Gotta Eat Here" list of places to visit......


----------



## blacktriangle

The CAF needs less hand holding, not more... agree with everything said by Kat Stevens, Jim Seggie etc. 

We need to get out of the mentality of babysitting soldiers in every aspect of their life. Sometimes I feel people are expecting a form of uniformed welfare.


----------



## UnwiseCritic

I concur the army wants to tell us what to do, and the politicians want to think for us...


----------



## dapaterson

Spectrum said:
			
		

> The CAF needs less hand holding, not more... agree with everything said by Kat Stevens, Jim Seggie etc.
> 
> We need to get out of the mentality of babysitting soldiers in every aspect of their life. Sometimes I feel people are expecting a form of uniformed welfare.



We do need to ensure the institution practices what it preaches, and have CF issued meals be healthy.  Sticking soft drink and Jos Louis into box lunches does not align with "healthy eating".


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

MrBlue said:
			
		

> Point 1
> We all can acknowledge there is a difference between field fitness and gym/garrison fitness, but at the same time, its been clearly pointed out by guys who've been there and done that, that there is plenty of time on patrols to throw something with calories in your mouth...hell as someone pointed out, if you can drink while on patrol (which you should be hydrating) then you can damn well chew a protein bar or something as well.
> 
> Point 2
> Bodybuilder =/= Powerlifter.
> 
> stop using them interchangeably, they are apples and oranges.  Bodybuilders are all about size, definition, symmetry, Powerlifters are all about Performance aka being STRONG in squats, deadlifts and bench pressing (together all 3 carryover to A LOT) and then you have weightlifters who compete in the Snatch and Clean n Jerk.  To be fair though I think we would be hard pressed to see any REAL bodybuilders in the CF.  I mean i've read of 2 or 3 in the papers that were serving members who actually competed.  The rest are just guys who take probably to many supplements and rely on those instead of having proper nutrition.  Same goes for powerlifters and weightlifters...id be hard pressed to find more then 10-20 of each in the CF.
> 
> I will point out that there are/have been plenty of powerlifters or olympic lifters (not many bodybuilders) that were/are in the military.  Usually these guys are not in the heavier weight classes though.
> - Alex Viada (Marathoner/triathlete and powerlifter, bench presses 500+ RAW) 210-225'er
> - Matt Kroczaleski (Cancer survivor, Pro powerlifter, NPC bodybuilder, and ex-Marine, 220lbs)
> - Mike Tuchscherer (275'er with 900lbs raw squat, in the USAF, actually got in powerlifting through the AF when he joined the USAF academy powerlifting team)
> To name a couple
> 
> Point 3
> 
> I honestly think the CF needs to put less emphasis on long distance running, if anything there should be more emphasis on sprints.  How many guys had to run 5-10km while deployed (and I don't mean for PT while out there) i mean for a tactical situation.  Odds are sprints, work capacity, strength (strength endurance, bodyweight strength and absolute strength) would be more valuable in those circumstances.
> 
> Point 4
> I definitely think soldiers/sailors/airmen need to eat better, but this is not something we can enforce.



Point 1 - Jim has "been there and done that ..... and then some," so don't really know what your getting at.  I understand what Jim is saying and you are taking it out of context.  

Point 2 - Powerlifting can be useful but is of limited use if you do not combine it with some sort of cardiovascular fitness with a mix of aerobic/anerobic.  I am convinced that the best training a soldier can do is lots of walking with weight and running combined with bodyweight exercises and dynamic movements i.e. rope climbing, obstacle courses, picking heavy things up like tires, sledgehammer PT etc...

Point 3 - I don't think the CF needs to focus on anything, we need to focus on what soldiers do which at its core is march places with considerable weights with the end state of being able to move, shoot, communicate effectively.  I think we need to become a little more austere with our training.  We need to make 12 miler humps a standard component of our training.  We need to train guys to be self-sufficient and the less resources they consume (food, water, ammunition, fuel, etc) fighting the battle, the better off we will be.  The list really goes on and on, really the core component of this is taking soldiers out of their comfort zones.

Point 4 - I completely agree with you, I am personally in favour of getting rid of all shit food we serve at our messes, not serving garbage at lunches in our canteens, etc...


----------



## OldSolduer

When I was a Section Commander I was rarely allowed to conduct PT as a section. Instead, the Pl Comd got to conduct PT and it seemed to be "run run run".
Infantry Section Commanders need to be allowed some freedom to conduct some Section PT, for instance:

Cardiovascular - section attacks with kit are physically demanding  therefore activities such as "manmakers", wind sprints etc are necessary.

Having said this, they need firm direction, a plan and supersvision by the Chain of Command.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> When I was a Section Commander I was rarely allowed to conduct PT as a section. Instead, the Pl Comd got to conduct PT and it seemed to be "run run run".
> Infantry Section Commanders need to be allowed some freedom to conduct some Section PT, for instance:
> 
> Cardiovascular - section attacks with kit are physically demanding  therefore activities such as "manmakers", wind sprints etc are necessary.
> 
> Having said this, they need firm direction, a plan and supersvision by the Chain of Command.



Agree completely Jim, I also think we need to start focusing more on combining PT with soldier skills.  Give you an example from when I was a Pl Comd:  

Usually once a week I would run a PT session where I would try to involve some form of military skill(s) in the session.  It would be physically exerting but would be Sect Comd driven.

I used to run PT sessions every couple of weeks that would involve some form of IBTS trg at the Sect level.  During these every member of the Pl would have a patrol pack with a sandbag in it, we would run a few kilometers to an RV.  I wouldn't tell my soldiers what we would be doing but I would tell the Sect Comd to have a pen and paper on him and some kit with them (Panel markers, first aid kit, etc).  Upon arriving at our RV I would issue the Sect Comd with a set of frag orders with a quick scenario, mission, concepts of ops & coord instructions.  He would then be tasked with taking his Sect and executing the mission.

What these missions would entail:  I would usually pre-place a bunch of equipment at the RV.  For instance one mission/scenario I gave them would be something like this: "friendly forces have suffered a casualty, their is a tentative LZ located at XXXXX, you must get your casualty to XXXXX, mark and est an LZ and effectively EVAC the casualty".  The casualty would be a stretcher with 3x20L Jerry Cans taped to it and each Sect would have one of these improvised "casualties".  I would then turn it over to them and have them conduct their drills.  Sect Comd would be in charge of getting the casualty to a location I gave him and accomplishing all the tasks.  He would have to manage his soldiers as they moved the casualty so if guys were getting tired he would rotate them.  He also had a timing so he knew how much time he had to do it in, sometimes the distances for these events we did would be fairly long (4-5km to move a stretcher with a lot of weight on it).  I would jump in with a Sect and do the event with them under command of the Sect Comd.  

Once we got to the tentative LZ the Sect Comd would have to secure the LZ and I would have him backbrief me quickly on how he would do it.  All the soldiers would go through the drills as if it were the real thing (deploying panel markers, if I said it was night using a buzzsaw, etc).  We would then practice calling out the Nine-Liner.  Sometimes we would do it together and other times I would have the Sect Comd test his guys out on it.  Sometimes I would say the LZ is compromised chopper can't land here we have to get the casualty to a new spot and we would move it.

We managed to practice all these skills while also getting an incredibly good workout.  I actually got some of these ideas by watching the military channel believe it or not.  I think the point I am trying to make though is you can do PT that is a good workout and a lot of fun while simultaneously training your guys to do soldier stuff.  This sort of thing also empowers your Sect Comd's and allows them to actually get out and lead their men.  Oh and the guys really enjoy seeing the Pl Comd getting absolutely bagged carrying a stretcher and his 80lb sandbag patrol pack with them


----------



## UnwiseCritic

When I was at 3vp section pt was often the norm, if not the platoon varied it. Often letting privates lead a pt as long as it was approved. (privates with mods 1-5) We ran on Fridays whether it was as a company or platoon. With the odd run during the week. Crossfit has largely made itself part of 3VPs diet.


----------



## CombatDoc

Cadwr said:
			
		

> So why not diet?  I don't see why a mandatory session with the CF H Svcs nutritionist couldn't go along with mandatory remedial PT.  They could ask to see your PT log and your food diary.
> Edit - clarity


That's a great paternalistic idea - except it wouldn't work since it is based on self-reports. You'd be amazed at how many folks in our organization eat nothing but fruit, brussel sprouts and granola!  Not to mention that it is overly intrusive.


----------



## Nemo888

Diet is a large part of the work. Much more than I expected. Some of the messes serve deep fried crap and processed junk. Hard to make healthy choices. Pet was particularly bad. I'd advise getting some protein powder and All Greens to get some proper muscle gains. A gram of protein per pound of lean body mass and you will grow like a weed. Not eating bread helped me make some serious fitness gains too. Your mileage will vary.

But on the other hand learning to live off of crap is a good skill to have under many conditions.


----------



## Biggoals2bdone

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Point 2 - Powerlifting can be useful but is of limited use if you do not combine it with some sort of cardiovascular fitness with a mix of aerobic/anerobic.  I am convinced that the best training a soldier can do is lots of walking with weight and running combined with bodyweight exercises and dynamic movements i.e. rope climbing, obstacle courses, picking heavy things up like tires, sledgehammer PT etc...
> 
> Point 3 - I don't think the CF needs to focus on anything, we need to focus on what soldiers do which at its core is march places with considerable weights with the end state of being able to move, shoot, communicate effectively.  I think we need to become a little more austere with our training.  We need to make 12 miler humps a standard component of our training.  We need to train guys to be self-sufficient and the less resources they consume (food, water, ammunition, fuel, etc) fighting the battle, the better off we will be.  The list really goes on and on, really the core component of this is taking soldiers out of their comfort zones.
> 
> Point 4 - I completely agree with you, I am personally in favour of getting rid of all crap food we serve at our messes, not serving garbage at lunches in our canteens, etc...



Point 2 wasn't me espousing the greatness of powerlifting training for the military carryover.  I was just pointing out/correcting the usage, and to clear up that not all strong/powerlifters are useless soldiers.  I agree that powerlifting alone is not the best way of training for the military, BUT that being said many people have shown you can be strong (powerlifter level) AND also do marathons/triathlons if you're into that.  If we're talking strictly about PT that has carryover to the military I think it gets a little more complicated depending on what your trade and element are.  Army wise generally speaking long walks with weight, sprints, bodyweight movements and/or strength training for high reps. Playing devil's advocate though, the PT needs/requirements of an infanteer will be slightly different then an artilleryman, armoured and vehicle tech, in terms of day to day on the job needs. Agree on tire flips, sledgehammer, odd lifting, etc...

Point 3, you start off saying CF shouldn't focus on anything then say it should focus on X, slightly confused...the problem with your recommendation is doing a 12 mile hump (roughly 19km) would take far longer then authorised PT times.  Non combat arms units do not have the time for 3-4 hours PT in 1 day on a regular basis.  They are fighting to just keep their 1 hour a day. Even if they were allowed do you know how little work would get done, clothing stores would only be open for 2-3hrs a day, vehicles would be getting fixed very slowly, etc...

Point 4 Getting rid of crap food in the messes is about all we can do, but even that would be a huge step! what I meant by couldn't enforce, is that the MPs wouldn't be busting down doors because members aren't eating enough veggies.  The CF could not enforce any food restrictions when members are at home on their own time.  Which is good because we all have different dietary preferences (aka vegans, vegatarians, kosher, etc) I do think education as someone else pointed out would be a step in the right direction, since many people are nutrionally dumb.


----------



## upandatom

MrBlue said:
			
		

> Point 1
> We all can acknowledge there is a difference between field fitness and gym/garrison fitness, but at the same time, its been clearly pointed out by guys who've been there and done that, that there is plenty of time on patrols to throw something with calories in your mouth...hell as someone pointed out, if you can drink while on patrol (which you should be hydrating) then you can damn well chew a protein bar or something as well.
> 
> Point 2
> Bodybuilder =/= Powerlifter.
> 
> stop using them interchangeably, they are apples and oranges.  Bodybuilders are all about size, definition, symmetry, Powerlifters are all about Performance aka being STRONG in squats, deadlifts and bench pressing (together all 3 carryover to A LOT) and then you have weightlifters who compete in the Snatch and Clean n Jerk.  To be fair though I think we would be hard pressed to see any REAL bodybuilders in the CF.  I mean i've read of 2 or 3 in the papers that were serving members who actually competed.  The rest are just guys who take probably to many supplements and rely on those instead of having proper nutrition.  Same goes for powerlifters and weightlifters...id be hard pressed to find more then 10-20 of each in the CF.
> 
> I will point out that there are/have been plenty of powerlifters or olympic lifters (not many bodybuilders) that were/are in the military.  Usually these guys are not in the heavier weight classes though.
> - Alex Viada (Marathoner/triathlete and powerlifter, bench presses 500+ RAW) 210-225'er
> - Matt Kroczaleski (Cancer survivor, Pro powerlifter, NPC bodybuilder, and ex-Marine, 220lbs)
> - Mike Tuchscherer (275'er with 900lbs raw squat, in the USAF, actually got in powerlifting through the AF when he joined the USAF academy powerlifting team)
> To name a couple
> 
> Point 3
> 
> I honestly think the CF needs to put less emphasis on long distance running, if anything there should be more emphasis on sprints.  How many guys had to run 5-10km while deployed (and I don't mean for PT while out there) i mean for a tactical situation.  Odds are sprints, work capacity, strength (strength endurance, bodyweight strength and absolute strength) would be more valuable in those circumstances.
> 
> Point 4
> I definitely think soldiers/sailors/airmen need to eat better, but this is not something we can enforce.




I completely agree with point 3 and point 4. 
If you have STRONGER soldiers, and by strong I mean lifitng heavy, able to carry more, do more, those soldiers get fatigued at a far slower rate then a "runner" or someone with leader legs when doing the actual job of a soldier. 

Just completing a PLQ-A doing said section attacks, recces, stab ops, platoon attacks, defensive ops, the people that you could see that they lifted weights regularly were in far better mental and physical shape as the exercises went on (all walks of life, reg F, Res, Combat arms, CSS trades) .  Guess who were the ones that were packing/strapping that SF kit, Ammo boxes, water and food onto their rucks, small packs etc and carrying them in their hands along with their pers ex kit, not the runners. It was the people that lifted weights, did crossfit, something to increase their physical strength. Those people became the work horses and pack mules of their sections, doing 95% of the digging, 95% of the lifting/carrying. Furthermore, as the days went on and the runners that relied more and more on those fresh green veggies, that wide variety of fresh fruit, they started visiting shut'erdown.com, meanwhile those people that bodies were used to eating/consuming high amounts of meats, proteins, and calories etc continued to be able to power through with the food in the IMPS. It appeared that the Lifters bodies had much more endurance and a faster recovery rate when lifting and physical labour is involved, and where still able to think straight after they hallucinated that a tree was a transformer etc. 

This is not an anti running by any means, I understand the necessity for running, however I fully believe that we should have less emphasis on the running. It is an easy way out and less organization required for PT. Set up ccts, and I dont mean those 10lb black foam covered bar PSP  ccts, i mean an actualy lifting cct with benches plates etc. 

If I could remember the name of the article I had read several months ago, it had actually reviewed a study that weightlifters live longer, have healthier hearts. 

As for the food comment, have a look at canteens all across the military, (fat pills, choc bars, energy drinks, dried meats packed with sodium, chips pop and coffee) how often do you see fruits, good nuts (not the shit planters super sodium ones) etc. never. look at the messes, they do the best they can, however, money just isnt there.


----------



## medicineman

CombatDoc said:
			
		

> That's a great paternalistic idea - except it wouldn't work since it is based on self-reports. You'd be amazed at how many folks in our organization eat nothing but fruit, brussel sprouts and granola!  Not to mention that it is overly intrusive.



When I do home BP or blood sugar monitoring on my civvy patients, I just tell them to show me the raw data...because I've found that people will try to please you and give you that they think you want to see.  I no longer tell people what the "normals" are - they'll ask what things should be at so that they can put that number down with little variation.

Weight/size ratio (BMI for a lack of better terms) in general is a bigger issue than a lot of folks really get - especially to those that don't have to lift and carry some of these behemoths you see around.  Hollywood perceptions of what a soldier should look like and the reality in my mind are a lot different - soldiers should be fairly wiry, not honking huge bodybuilders.  Most US Marines I've dealt with were lean, wiry guys - the huge honking ones were usually the Force Recon or Special Ops guys.  Try getting someone like that out of a LAV or Coyote turret - you need to grease the cupola rings to get some of these folks out safely (for both yourself and them), or in the case of a sailor, getting them up out of the bowels of an engine room to the hangar deck...the people doing the rescuing are going to get injured as well as possibly injuring the rescuee even more.  

Everything in military medicine comes down to these basic questions - "Are you an actual/potential health risk to yourself?" and "Are you an actual/potential health risk to others?".  If the answer is yes to one or more, Houston, we have a problem...

As for the long boring runs, I read an interesting study that compared how the US, UK, Canada and Israel prepared soldiers aerobically in training...the first three used running as their base and the Israelis used progressive load bearing marching.  No surprise that running will increase your aerobic capacity faster, but often at the expense of injuries.  The load bearing walking increased the capacity at a modestly slower rate, with fewer injuries and was generally considered more functionally related to what the end state was required of someone as a soldier.  In all likelihood, some of the walking progressed to something faster, as you do need to be able to run quickly with gear...which is why the Army Fitness Test included a 400m dash as well as the 2.4km run in it (though bare assed of course).

MM


----------



## Cadwr

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Holy crap, you're not breeding horses here, you're training and employing soldiers.  Just how much farther do you want to shove the big green machines snout up everyone's arses?  What next, mandatory Monday stool samples to ensure the proper mix of grass and grain?  Set a REALISTIC requirement, expect grown thinking men and women to adhere to it, and make them aware of the consequences if they fail to do so, end of.  Or we go full speed ahead with BLACKBRIAR and TREADSTONE, and crank the killbot factory up to maximum output.



Yup, I'm with you.  I don't see a *need* for supervised PT any more than I see a *need* for supervised eating.  (That last one sounds so ridiculous when you actually say it.)

Unless you demonstrate that you are defficient in one of these areas.  

In which case, one of the standard "consequences" might be an appropriate engagement with someone who can help you determine how to overcome those defficiencies.  Whether that's a PT plan (supervised or not) or a healthy eating plan (an hour with the nutritionist - I am sure we employ these people for a reason?  And yes, they will ask you to write down everything you eat - and if you lie to them, then you have a character defficency compounding your health problems, and you'll find the door all the sooner.)

I see both as a potentially good option for helping soldiers to overcome a defficiency realted to healthy body weight.  At the very least, the latter ensures that they have the education required to make healthy choices.  

I never meant to insinuate that everyone needs to have their hands held - not at all.  Just that those who are falling behind should at least be given an opportunity to catch up, and one that addresses the entire scope of the defficiency, both nutrition and PT.  Once we are certain that they have those tools - well - these are grown men making what we are now certain are informed choices.  Bring on the rest of the consequences.

We are after all an institution that spends more than a few hours teaching grown men and women how to dress themselves - a few hours learning how to eat properly doesn't seem that far fetched, does it?    (Maybe I'm way off base.  It wouldn't be the first time.)


----------



## JorgSlice

I can see it now...

_Sergeant-Major marching up and down the meal hall...

"YOU DID NOT CHEW YOUR FOOD TO THE STANDARD OF 19.47 MANDIBULAR ROTATIONS!" _


----------



## UnwiseCritic

New plan

http://youtu.be/d76CwsWbV2E


----------



## The Bread Guy

In a related development ....





> In a surprising sign of the depth of Canada’s overweight epidemic, the National Defence Department says it has recently been paying for a dozen or so morbidly obese troops a year to undergo weight-loss operations at private surgery clinics.
> 
> Military personnel must have a body-mass index of at least 35 — 6 feet and 260 lbs., for instance — and suffer from a related illness like diabetes or hypertension to qualify for the service, which costs the Forces about $200,000 annually.
> 
> The military began funding the treatment about a decade ago, but the number of patients has picked up lately, with 12-13 receiving surgery in each of the last couple of years, said Maj. Nicole Meszaros, a spokeswoman for Canadian Forces health services.
> 
> She denied, though, that the trend indicates an inordinately poor level of fitness among Canada’s professional warriors, traditionally thought of as above-average physical specimens.
> 
> “It’s just a reflection of society today,” said Maj. Meszaros.
> 
> One outspoken observer of the military, however, said the fact numerous service people are obese enough to require surgery is a symptom of standards that have been allowed to slip because of problems with recruiting and retaining enough personnel.
> 
> “The military shouldn’t reflect the general population — there is supposed to be a certain amount of self discipline, never mind enforced discipline, that goes with the trade,” said Scott Taylor, editor of Esprit de Corps magazine.
> 
> “Some guy is getting medical treatment and surgery just because he’s fat … that just runs completely counter to the culture where you can and you will get up that rope, or whatever.” ....


National Post/Postmedia News, 18 Sept 13


----------

