# CF Members and time alloted for PT



## Halifax Tar

Good afternoon folks, 

I have searched for this but I find little that helps. Is there is a CFAO, QR&O, DAOD or somthing official that states how many hours per week a CF memeber can go to the gym. I was under the understanding that we were entitled to one hour a day equalling 5 hours a week. 

Is this just somthing I conjured up during a drunken stooper in Rota, Spain ? Or did something like this actually get placed in stone cold policy ?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## PuckChaser

I've never heard of a rule that says you have to be given PT time, just that you have to keep yourself in shape. If that means going to the gym on your own time, so be it. I'd be interested to see if there's something out there as well.


----------



## aesop081

There is a DAOD on physical fitness.


----------



## PuckChaser

[quote author=DAOD 5032-2 Physical Fitness]
Participation

CF members of the Regular Force and Primary Reserve shall participate in regular physical fitness training. COs are responsible to ensure that CF members are provided opportunities to conduct physical fitness activities during normal working hours when circumstances permit. When this is not feasible, CF members should conduct physical fitness activities outside normal working hours. As general guidance, physical fitness activities should be conducted in 60-minute sessions, a minimum of five times per week.
[/quote]

Just as I thought, not a free 1 hour a day. Only a guideline.


----------



## the 48th regulator

I beleive it is a _recommended _ timing, and really up to the Leadership to decided based on operational needs;

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/pub/hpfs-sscp/hpfs-sscp-eng.asp

Line of Operation 3 Regular Physical Activity
Regular physical activity is a term used to identify fitness as a lifestyle, vice a task. Experts in the field of physical fitness are consistent in their assessment that 60 minutes a day of accumulated light to moderate13 physical activity, or 20-30 minutes of vigorous physical activity every other day, is required to attain health benefits for the general population14. These general fitness guidelines are applicable for CF family members, civilian personnel of the defence team and retired CF members.

The CF, however, is a special population whose requirement to be operationally fit demands higher levels of physical fitness than its civilian counterpart. In general, and where possible, the CF definition of “regular physical fitness activity” encompasses the requirement to engage in physical fitness activity a minimum of one hour per day. However, all CF personnel need to engage in individual and/or unit fitness training and sports programs, in which the proper application of FITT (frequency, intensity, time, type) is evident, such that the unit is physically fit to deploy.



CANFORGEN 156/08 CDS 022/08 151834Z AUG 08
CF HEALTH AND PHYSICAL FITNESS STRATEGY
UNCLASSIFIED


REFS: A. CANFORGEN 198/05 
B. CANFORGEN 002/07 
C. CANFORGEN 042/08 
D. CF HEALTH AND PHYSICAL FITNESS STRATEGY 



FURTHER TO REFS A, B, AND C, I AM PROUD TO ANNOUNCE THE OFFICIAL LAUNCH OF THE CANADIAN FORCES HEALTH AND PHYSICAL FITNESS STRATEGY (REF D). THIS STRATEGY PROVIDES THE MOTIVATION, AWARENESS, SUPPORT AND ACCOUNTABILITY TO ENHANCE AND SUSTAIN A FIT AND HEALTHY FIGHTING FORCE. IT IS MY INTENT TO STRENGTHEN THE CULTURE OF HEALTH AND PHYSICAL FITNESS ACROSS THE CF 


MILITARY PERSONNEL MUST MAINTAIN THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF HEALTH AND PHYSICAL CONDITIONING THROUGHOUT THEIR CAREER TO PROVIDE THEM WITH THE STAMINA AND ENDURANCE TO SUCCESSFULLY PERFORM AMID PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY DEMANDING OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS. HEALTHY AND PHYSICALLY FIT SAILORS, SOLDIERS, AIRMEN AND AIRWOMEN ARE LESS PRONE TO FATIGUE AND INJURY AND ARE THEREFORE MORE EFFECTIVE IN CARRYING OUT THEIR CRITICAL MISSION TASKS 


IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CF TO DEVELOP AND SUSTAIN A STRONG, HEALTHY AND FIT CF. THIS BEGINS WITH LEADERS WHO ARE FULLY COMMITTED TO A QUOTE CULTURE OF HEALTH AND PHYSICAL FITNESS UNQUOTE, SETTING THE EXAMPLE FOR EVERYONE TO TAKE THEIR HEALTH SERIOUSLY AND CHOOSE A LIFESTYLE DEDICATED TO EATING WELL, ENGAGING IN REGULAR PHYSICAL FITNESS ACTIVITIES, MAINTAINING A HEALTHY WEIGHT AND LIVING ADDICTION FREE 


EFFECTIVE 01 APRIL 2008, SOME OF THE IMPACTS OF REF D INCLUDE: 


THE CHAIN OF COMMAND WILL PROVIDE THE TIME, RESOURCES AND PROGRAMS TO SUPPORT CF PERSONNEL TO ADOPT AND MAINTAIN A HEALTHY LIFESTYLE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS 


REGULAR, PRIMARY RESERVE, OUTCAN AND REMOTELY POSTED PERSONNEL WILL ALL COMPLETE ANNUAL FITNESS EVALUATIONS 


IAW REF C, POINTS WILL BE AWARDED FOR EXPRES TEST RESULTS AT MERIT BOARDS 


PSP FITNESS AND SPORTS STAFF WILL PROVIDE RESOURCES FOR SPECIALIZED AND REMEDIAL TRAINING 


CF PERSONNEL WILL BE PROVIDED THE NECESSARY TOOLS (STRESS MANAGEMENT, COPING SKILLS, AND BEHAVIOURAL COUNSELLING, ETC) TO MAINTAIN A HEALTHY AND ADDICTION-FREE LIFESTYLE 


INDIVIDUAL TRAINING AND EDUCATION RELATED TO HEALTH AND FITNESS WILL BE BETTER INTEGRATED INTO CF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 


COMMITMENT TO A LIFELONG HEALTHY LIFESTYLE WILL IMPROVE MORALE AND PERSONAL WELL-BEING, AND CONTRIBUTE TOWARD SUCCESS IN OPERATIONAL MISSIONS AND TASKS. THE CF WILL PROVIDE PROGRAMS AND SUPPORT TO ALL CF PERSONNEL AND THEIR FAMILIES TO FOSTER THEIR INTEREST AND MOTIVATION FOR MAINTAINING AND SUSTAINING A LONG-TERM COMMITMENT TO A PHYSICALLY FIT AND HEALTHY, ACTIVE LIFESTYLE 


MILITARY PERSONNEL MUST POSSESS THE HEALTH AND PHYSICAL FITNESS NEEDED TO FUNCTION IN COMPLEX AND DEMANDING ENVIRONMENTS AND THIS STRATEGY PAVES THE WAY TOWARDS GENERATING A FORCE THAT IS HEALTHY AND FIT TO FIGHT. I EXPECT YOUR SUPPORT AND COMMITMENT IN IMPLEMENTING THIS STRATEGY 


REF D IS AVAILABLE ONLINE AT HTTP://HR.OTTAWA-HULL.MIL.CA/DOCS/HRMIL-DOCS/PDF/CF(UNDERSCORE)HEALT H(UNDERSCORE)FITNESS(UNDERSCORE)E.PDF. HARD COPIES WILL SOON BE DISTRIBUTED ACROSS THE CF. ENQUIRIES REGARDING REF D MAY BE DIRECTED TO TRACEY WAIT, DMPSC 2-2, 613-995-5549, WAIT.HT(AT SIGN)FORCES.GC.CA 


SIGNED BY GEN WJ NATYNCZYK, CDS


----------



## dapaterson

So, five hours a week = 1/2 class A day per Reservist per week for fitness.  Or do we expect class A Reservists to do it on their own time, unpaid?


----------



## Haggis

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Just as I thought, not a free 1 hour a day. Only a guideline.



I'd say that it's more than a guideline.  This from the CDS Guidance to Commanding Officers:



> 2203.5 These fundamental concepts are supported by the following selection of fitness guidelines to establishing a culture of fitness:
> 
> a. *It is imperative that the requirement for fitness training at least five times a week is respected and applied*.  As Commanding Officers you will be in a position to facilitate this requirement for all your personnel.
> 
> b. Seek out every opportunity for CF members to include exercise in their work routines. The mantras of “fitness on your own time” or “we don’t have time for fitness” are to be eliminated.  Given what we know of the power of daily fitness to increase morale, reduce stress, and improve work performance, it is incumbent upon us to be innovative in our approach when a formal fitness routine is impractical.


----------



## aesop081

Haggis said:
			
		

> I'd say that it's more than a guideline.



Its a guideline. If it was anything more, my unit would have to cease most operations to meet it.


----------



## Rheostatic

> dapaterson:
> Or do we expect class A Reservists to do it on their own time, unpaid?


Yeah, pretty much.


----------



## Dissident

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Or do we expect class A Reservists to do it on their own time, unpaid?



Yes.

Why? Because as nice as it would be to get 26 days of pay to maintain the level of fitness I already do, it would crush the budget, and most likely bring forward all sorts of control measures to ensure people actually are training as prescribed.

What I thought was fantastic was the local partnership with gyms that gave us a free gym membership, just had to show ID. This is no longuer the case for class A reservists...


----------



## Halifax Tar

Hey guys thanks for the info! I will be able to use this! 

Always a wealth of information this site!


----------



## dapaterson

Dissident said:
			
		

> Yes.
> 
> Why? Because as nice as it would be to get 26 days of pay to maintain the level of fitness I already do, it would crush the budget, and most likely bring forward all sorts of control measures to ensure people actually are training as prescribed.



If the CF is serious about something, the CF should pay for it.  We find the money to pay for the Ceremonial Guard and other frills, but won't pay for fitness?  Screwed up priorities.  Either fitness is a priority, and people are to be given working time to pursue it (per CDS direction) or it's not.

Of course, I would be very supportive of restructuring the CF compensation system to get around this.  So, for example, introduce training bounties for the class A Reserves - maintain the standards and get $XXXX per year (for the Army, that would be IBTS complete + fitness).  And for the full-timers (Reg F and class B/C Reserves), a failure on your anual fitness test would cut your pay by $200/month (arbitrary figure) until you achieve the standard.  Failure to maintain readiness levels = other penalites on your pay.

Of course, many of our malingerers would object to such measures...


----------



## jwtg

Bearing mind that the CF shouldn't have the same obligation to provide daily fitness to people in the Reserves (who work a day a week approx.) as people that work there daily (hence daily fitness measures)....Not to belittle the Reserves, more to bear in mind that the CF can't tell a Reservists civilian employer to give them an hour of gym time a day!


----------



## PuckChaser

In Kingston the Cl A reservists get use of the KMCSC for free, and only need to buy an intersection sports card to play sports. I think a free gym membership is plenty compensation for these members.


----------



## chrisf

As it would be if all reservists had access to a CF gym...

Would be rather nice if they were willing to reimburse a certain value of gym member fees for members not within "x" kilometers of a CF run gym.


----------



## PuckChaser

I think that's an acceptable compromise as well, there are a lot of PRes units not close to a major base.


----------



## aesop081

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I think that's an acceptable compromise as well, there are a lot of PRes units not close to a major base.



How would that work with liability issues. If a class a member is at a gym, paid for by the CF, would he "on the clock" as far as coverage ?


----------



## Rheostatic

> CDN Aviator:
> How would that work with liability issues. If a class a member is at a gym, paid for by the CF, would he "on the clock" as far as coverage ?


The reserves have been assured that they are already "covered" during off-duty PT. How far that coverage extends, I don't know.


----------



## chrisf

Yes.

As he is already on the clock when participating in any other PT during Class A time.

In fact, as of late, we've been told that if we're injured in PT, on "company time" or not, we're to fill out CF 98s, as long as it's in a CF recognized fitness activity.


----------



## dapaterson

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> How would that work with liability issues. If a class a member is at a gym, paid for by the CF, would he "on the clock" as far as coverage ?



CBI 210.72 covers that possibility:



> 210.72(4) (Deemed Class “A” Service) Subject to paragraphs (7), (8), (9) and (10), an officer or non-commissioned member of the Reserve Force who suffers an injury, disease or illness while participating in a Commanding Officer approved CF Exercise Prescription (Expres), or Land Forces Command Physical Fitness Standard (LFCPFS) prescribed activity, as part of an authorized fitness program, is deemed to be on Class “A” Reserve Service for the sole purpose of compensation under this instruction.


----------



## aesop081

Thanks. I am unfamiliar with alot of aspects of reserve service, hence why i asked.


----------



## blacktriangle

When I was in the reserves, we were the forgotten Sqn out in the sticks. The nearest CF Gym was about 45 minutes in either direction. Most of us managed to keep in shape just fine...I was fitter that at point than I am now, and I live less than a kilometre from the gym here. Back then, I just bought a gym membership and went for runs outside...it worked well enough. I never asked to be compensated for it, as fitness is a part of the job.

At the same time, it would be nice for reservists to able to be do formed PT for a full parade night each week. If money was to be spent, I think it would be better spent on adding another parade night for each unit to soley dedicate to PT. That way at least you could tell who was showing up and doing it.

Now as for 5 hrs/week in the RegF...yeah right.

 I don't hold any vital position or have any real responsibility, and I don't think I have ever done PT for 5 hrs a week during work hours. It's sporadic at best...as such, I go to the gym on my own time at least 3x per week. If I was actually busy at work, and had a family to take care of on top of that, I could see it being hard to rack up anywhere close to an hour a day. I guess it really depends who your boss is, and what you do. 

It's not like you need to be a fitness god to be in the CF. As long as a CoC gives a member some time to do PT, and the member takes it upon themselves to bridge the gap during off hours, I don't see any excuse to not meet minimum standards.


----------



## chrisf

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I think that's an acceptable compromise as well, there are a lot of PRes units not close to a major base.



Not just the units. We've got a base with a reasonably equipped gym. But te've got members who live up to 100km from the unit.

As an extra kick to the junk, our local gym hours are basically an insult to the reserve members. Hours are 8-9 Monday to Friday, then 10-4 Saturday and Sunday.

Can't use it before members go to work/school in the morning during the week, can't use if the member happens to be working with the reserves on the weekend.


----------



## chrisf

Spectrum said:
			
		

> At the same time, it would be nice for reservists to able to be do formed PT for a full parade night each week. If money was to be spent, I think it would be better spent on adding another parade night for each unit to soley dedicate to PT. That way at least you could tell who was showing up and doing it.



Sorry, but that's a terrible idea. I don't know about other units, but we've got enough trouble getting people to show up for regular parade nights as is now, let alone if we were expecting them to show up for extra PT!!

I've made a compromise with my troops (Actually, troop, as in the sub-division of a squadron) any time i can/can get away with it... I always try to integrate PT into any garrison training... any day we're doing in garrison work, I make it clear to my troops the day before (So they bring gym gear) that if we get our work done early, we can got to to the gym at 14:30, so bring PT gear (Also with the provision that they WILL go to to the gym till 1600, or there'll be work found for them to do elsewhere). No one ever makes the mistake of "forgetting" their PT gear and calling my bluff on the finding work for them to do more than once.

I've also done things like squeeze in snow shoe PT, a run, different stuff like that in the morning with the blessing of the chain of command and the somewhat democratic agreement of the troop... along the lines of "ok, show up at 0730, we'll do PT till 0830, and we'll cut loose by 1530". Realistically, most garrison days, we're gone by or around 15:30 anyway, so from the chain of command's point of view, they're only loosing a half hour of work, but they're also getting the troop out for PT for an hour... so it all works out...

Any fun group PT you can do also does wonders for morale.


----------



## blacktriangle

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Sorry, but that's a terrible idea. I don't know about other units, but we've got enough trouble getting people to show up for regular parade nights as is now, let alone if we were expecting them to show up for extra PT!!
> 
> I've made a compromise with my troops (Actually, troop, as in the sub-division of a squadron) any time i can/can get away with it... I always try to integrate PT into any garrison training... any day we're doing in garrison work, I make it clear to my troops the day before (So they bring gym gear) that if we get our work done early, we can got to to the gym at 14:30, so bring PT gear (Also with the provision that they WILL go to to the gym till 1600, or there'll be work found for them to do elsewhere). No one ever makes the mistake of "forgetting" their PT gear and calling my bluff on the finding work for them to do more than once.
> 
> I've also done things like squeeze in snow shoe PT, a run, different stuff like that in the morning with the blessing of the chain of command and the somewhat democratic agreement of the troop... along the lines of "ok, show up at 0730, we'll do PT till 0830, and we'll cut loose by 1530". Realistically, most garrison days, we're gone by or around 15:30 anyway, so from the chain of command's point of view, they're only loosing a half hour of work, but they're also getting the troop out for PT for an hour... so it all works out...
> 
> Any fun group PT you can do also does wonders for morale.



I never said I was the king of great ideas, so thank you for your honesty.  ;D

With that said, I think it might depend on the unit. Where I was before, most people wanted work so I'm sure a majority of them would have showed up...but you are right, it can be hard to drag some guys even to routine training. That's the nature of the Cl A Res Svc beast though, as you well know. 

Agreed though...you can get a lot more out of "fun PT" in some cases. I find myself sweating pretty hard during a good game of floor hockey or soccer.


----------



## chrisf

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Agreed though...you can get a lot more out of "fun PT" in some cases. I find myself sweating pretty hard during a good game of floor hockey or soccer.



Managed to snag enough free passes to a local gym at one point, between a friend who worked there, and half the troop having memberships there, to take the troop out for spin class one day.

I intend to organize a snow shoe biathalon at some point this up coming training year...

It all takes a bit of extra effort, but PT can be squeezed in to a reserve schedule.

What would be fantastic is if say, COs were budgeted one full class A day per soldier per month per training year exclusively for PT... with the caveat that you have submit justification, so it doesn't just get wasted. 

Be that PT a unit hockey tournament, a day of map and compass, an afternoon of cross-fit, a day of digging trenches and filling sandbags, whatever.


----------



## prima6

My CO gives 1 hour per day plus travel time (walk over, change, shower after) for PT at the gym.  There are certain activities that this is not permitted to interfere with (flights, trainers), but generally the guys get more that enough time to go to the gym.  We also have an incentive program where you can earn up to 4 short days depending on your performance on the EXPRES (2 for an exemption, 2 more for also beating the CO).


----------



## aesop081

prima6 said:
			
		

> (2 for an exemption, 2 more for also beating the CO).



I like the sound of that.


----------



## blacktriangle

Prima, 

Sounds neat. Does your unit have that policy written into official orders that a person could get a hold of? I might use it as an example and suggest a similar idea here.


----------



## PuckChaser

prima6 said:
			
		

> We also have an incentive program where you can earn up to 4 short days depending on your performance on the EXPRES (2 for an exemption, 2 more for also beating the CO).



While we don't have short for Expres (Army unit has to do BFT), we usually have semi-annual 5km runs with the CO, and anyone finishing ahead of him gets a short day. Great concept, people who I don't consider in that great of shape cardio-wise put a lot of extra effort in for that short day. CO wasn't that slow either, finished 5km in just under 25 minutes.


----------



## ballz

That's a great incentive program. Kudos to any CO that does something like what's being mentioned here.


----------



## gcclarke

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Prima,
> 
> Sounds neat. Does your unit have that policy written into official orders that a person could get a hold of? I might use it as an example and suggest a similar idea here.



Here is an example outlined in HMCS Vancouver's Captain's Standing Orders:



> 6.	Short Leave.  Short leave is a measure I have available to reward personnel who deserve recognition for hard work, often outside of normal working hours.  I am the only authority for Short Leave.  The Divisional Chain of Command is to recommend occasions when Short Leave may be warranted for a member to me via a Personnel Request Form.  The exception to this is that one day of short shall be granted for members who achieve an “exempt” status on their CF EXPRES test, and it need only be annotated on the leave request form as such.



Not quite as generous as the example listed above, but hey, it still helps.


----------



## Sigger

Monetary costs aside, I would assume if an individual has gained employment with the Canadian Forces, regardless of component(or element), said individual would understand that a certain level of fitness would need to be achieved(and maintained). 
It's not what the CF can do for you, it's what you can do for the CF. To say "If the CF is serious about something, the CF should pay for it" in regards to personal fitness, is completely ridiculous(I do understand the notions for allotting some sort of financial compensation for Res mbr, and in part, agree). 

It boils down to this: If you are a soft body, hit the gym; It's your duty.


----------



## Container

Ibelieve the issue lies in the fact that the CF cannot get rid of the soft bodies without saying that it assisted them in maintaining their fitness (or developing it in the first place). Current society in Canada wont let you fire someone for being fat and useless unless you prove that you tried to help them un-fat.


----------



## Sigger

Sigh


----------



## Container

Id like to see the CF and emergency services exempt from this type of expectation. 

But we all know "that guy" who fails everything and stays in the CF. I have the same feelings about "that guy" as I do the one who can always weasel out of moving.


----------



## jwtg

The CF expects above average fitness from it's members.  It's members should take initiative (and have opportunity) to invest their time in above average fitness.

This includes (where possible) incentives and opportunities to encourage CF members to partake in PT during working hours.  RegF members make it their day to day activity to be in the CF, so the CF should assist in facilitating their PT in their day to day activities.  The CF should also take a strong and uniform stance on people failing to meet fitness standards.

ResF know that they're taking on extra military commitment beyond their day to day activites, and thus will have to pursue fitness beyond their day to day activities- subsidized gym memberships for ResF members not near a base/unit with a gym is a good idea- discipline for failing to meet fitness standards being the price one would pay for not making use of their access to fitness equipment.

Hell, why not create a P90X-like-CF-issue-at-home-workout DVD, and give that to people not near a gym.

EDIT to add: I'm not advocating P90X- I know some people really don't like it.  My point is there are plenty of ways to improve your fitness using at-home methods with little to no equipment, simply good technique and some guidance (which could be provided in the form of a DVD or viral video made accessible to CF members...) by CF or PSP staff.


----------



## Haggis

jwtg said:
			
		

> The CF expects above average fitness from it's members.


Really, now?  Have you seen the CF EXPRES *Minimum Physical Fitness Standard*?  It ain't that hard!!!



			
				jwtg said:
			
		

> This includes (where possible) incentives and opportunities to encourage CF members to partake in PT during working hours.  RegF members make it their day to day activity to be in the CF, so the CF should assist in facilitating their PT in their day to day activities.  The CF should also take a strong and uniform stance on people failing to meet fitness standards.



The incentive should be "keeipng my job".  Mechanisms for enforcement already exist in DAOD 5023-2 but are rarely used.


----------



## jwtg

Haggis said:
			
		

> Really, now?  Have you seen the CF EXPRES *Minimum Physical Fitness Standard*?  It ain't that hard!!!



I agree; however, 'hard' is relative.  I'm a 22 year old male.  I am at or near the highest EXPRES standards because of my age and gender- I train regularly in sports and fitness, and I have no trouble completing the EXPRES test.  I ran it with about 100 people a couple years ago, and about half the group failed because they were in average shape.  I think your expectations of the average human being may be a little high, because in this fast-food laden society, being it good shape is becoming a rarity and is certainly not 'average.'



			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> The incentive should be "keeipng my job".  Mechanisms for enforcement already exist in DAOD 5023-2 but are rarely used.



Your 2nd sentence addresses why your first is irrelevant.  People don't often lose their jobs for being out of shape in the CF, and rarely experience more than soft discipline.  I said the CF should take a *strong and uniform* stance.  Real discipline.  If the CF is going to say this is a priority, then they have to make it a priority and make real consequences for failing to meet the standards.


----------



## aesop081

jwtg said:
			
		

> It's members should take initiative (and have opportunity) to invest their time in above average fitness.



Sure i will invest my time........

I'm into work at 430am for pre-flight breif.......i land at 1830. I leave the hangar at 1900...........If i go to the gym right after, i might get home by 2015.

Nevermind the fact that i'm too tired to go to the gym after a flight like that, maybe i owe my family some time too. So i make up for it by going on days where i'm not flying or on the weekends. Do i go every weekend ? F**k no. All work and no play.........not freakin likely.

In the end, i dont go 5 days a week, every single week. Its just not going to happen.

I dont know if i could possibly invest more time.......



			
				jwtg said:
			
		

> If the CF is going to say this is a priority, then they have to make it a priority and make real consequences for failing to meet the standards.



The DAOD is clear on what is to be done and what the consequences are. I have seen them applied.


----------



## jwtg

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.

I'm saying the CF should ensure you have the opportunity to maintain an acceptable level of fitness.    

I said you SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, as in, an opportunity provided by the CF.  This is common sense- the CF expects something work related from you, they should provide the work-opportunity to achieve it.    I apologize if you thought I was assuming you already had said opportunity.

Please don't apply a microscope to one line of text when it is found in a body context-providing text.
I don't remember saying you should have to stay at work for 16 hours every day.


----------



## Sigger

I think there is a big difference between the Mbr who can pass the CF Expres just fine, but does not have time to do the suggested 5hrs/week workout and the Mbr who sweats brushing his/her teeth but complains he/she has to do PT on his/her own time.
There is no excuse for being a soft body in the CF.


----------



## jwtg

Sigger said:
			
		

> I think there is a big difference between the Mbr who can pass the CF Expres just fine, but does not have time to do the suggested 5hrs/week workout and the Mbr who sweats brushing his/her teeth but complains he/she has to do PT on his/her own time.
> There is no excuse for being a soft body in the CF.



Agreed.  If someone's work commitments eliminate the possibility of working out, then the CF needs to reevaluate they way some units operate.
That being said, not everybody needs 5 hours a week to maintain an acceptable level of fitness.  
When I said 'invest time into above average fitness' I didn't put a qualifier on what that time-frame is, and I'm not about to.  Whatever is required to ensure acceptable fitness is what I'm getting at- which may or may not be daily physical activity.  To guys like CDN Aviator- if you're staying in shape just fine without daily exercise, then my comments as to discipline and opportunities for fitness clearly need not apply.  You are the solution, not the problem.

The problem is soft bodies.


----------



## ballz

jwtg said:
			
		

> This is common sense- the CF expects something work related from you, they should provide the work-opportunity to achieve it.



A few people have said things like this, but I don't see how it is common sense to be honest. There are plenty of jobs in the civilian world that require you to be in good physica condition, many of them require you to be in better physical condition than a lot of jobs in the CF. No one in the civilian world goes to the gym on their boss's dime.

I'm grateful for opportunities to do PT or sports during working hours. I'm grateful to have a free gym membership. I don't feel entitled to it at all.


----------



## Haggis

jwtg said:
			
		

> I said the CF should take a *strong and uniform* stance.  Real discipline.  If the CF is going to say this is a priority, then they have to make it a priority and make real consequences for failing to meet the standards.



The DAOD is a strong and uniform stance.  There is ONE DAOD, and, hence, one standard, for Regular Force, Primary Reserve, Army Navy, Air Force, JAG, etc.etc. etc.

But, like many other standards, it is not uniformly applied in all relevant cases.  There are exceptions made and blind eyes turned.  We have to accept that there are *people* in the CF and *people* are the weak link in the application of any policy.  That's why I wrote the the incentive *should *  be "keeping my job".  I don't mean we need to fire people who won't stay fit (note I didn't say "can't" - that's a whole different kettle of fish). We have to do what's required to encorage them to stay/get fit by denying them jammy jobs, promotions, courses etc. until they meet the MINIMUM standard. The DAOD makes provisions to put members on RW and C&P which, effectively, stops their careers until the problem is fixed.

If they then fail to do so, then we go deeper into the DAOD for "motivation", up to and including release.

FYI I'm 50 years old with a two volume medical file and a PCAT.  I passed 4 BFTs last year and never failed to get less than exempt on an EXRES test.   It ain't that hard.


----------



## Sigger

ballz said:
			
		

> I'm grateful for opportunities to do PT or sports during working hours. I'm grateful to have a free gym membership. I don't feel entitled to it at all.


I completely agree. It is our responsibility to achieve the level of fitness the CF has set as standard. On our own time if need be.


----------



## jwtg

Haggis said:
			
		

> ...But, like many other standards, it is not uniformly applied in all relevant cases.


Then perhaps I should correct my language- the uniform standards should be uniformly applied. 



			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> FYI I'm 50 years old with a two volume medical file and a PCAT.  I passed 4 BFTs last year and never failed to get less than exempt on an EXRES test.   It ain't that hard.


Again, 'hard' is relative.  It ain't hard for you, or for me.  It is certainly more than I would expect of the average person on the street though, which would be the 'average' I was referring to when I implied the CF fitness standards were 'above-average.'


----------



## PuckChaser

jwtg said:
			
		

> I said the CF should take a *strong and uniform* stance.  Real discipline.  If the CF is going to say this is a priority, then they have to make it a priority and make real consequences for failing to meet the standards.



As CDN Aviator pointed out, the CF has made the standard and consequences. Its the Chain of Command who is responsible for enforcing that standard. I personally haven't seen the CF CWO out on any of my BFTs making sure everyone finishes within the allotted time. I've also had certain higher ranking members give me ackward looks when I'm evaluating the dig/casualty evac and fail someone for going over time, or even failing someone on a PWT2 shoot. Enforcement starts at the lowest level with junior leaders.


----------



## Sigger

jwtg said:
			
		

> Again, 'hard' is relative.


relative to what?
We are talking about fitness in the CF. 

jwtg, no need trying to defend yourself.. we know what you mean.


----------



## jwtg

'Hard,' would be relative to the person taking the test.  Nobody requires you to be able to pass the EXPRES with ease- just being able to pass it is what is required.  EXPRES being hard is ok (though obviously not ideal...exemption being the ideal) and Haggis' post was condescending to anyone who struggles with the EXPRES, yet toughs it out and passes.

Not everyone is as fit as he is.  Not everyone has to be.


----------



## Sigger

jwtg said:
			
		

> Not everyone is as fit as he is.  Not everyone has to be.



lol.. Im sure as hell not as fit as a 031 Chief!


----------



## ff149

Our trade (military firefighters) has its own DOAD regarding fitness and fitness testing (DOAD 4007-4). We are required to do 1 hour per shift. Does it always happen, no some shifts you are too busy or have your work out routine interrupted by a call. We have our own PT test also. Most fire halls are finally getting half decent gyms in them as we can't go to base gym (occasionally we do for floor hockey etc). We still have our share of people that have problems with the PT test but we seem to be heading in the right direction.


----------



## Chilme

It is important for us to remember that physical fitness is an individuals soldiers responsibility.  It is not a soldiers right, it is an expectation.   The CF is not some government funded program designed to make Canadians Fit.  It is an organization that takes mentally and physically capable Canadians and turns them into fighting men and women.  It is not some government funded "Biggest Loser" contest.

Granted, the CF has provided the funding for many high quality fitness and sports facilities, equipment, sports leagues, and staff to train/coach mbrs for FREE!!!   Lets not forget that many CF Pers have a local gym membership purchased for them if they are not in proximity of a CFB.  Not to mention paid time for many to do it.

Out there on Civi street the average Canadian has to PAY for gym memberships, professionally led training/personal training, to compete in organized sport, for their of fitness and/or sporting gear/equipment, and it is all conducted on one's OWN time.

In my mind the CF has a pretty good PT set up, often parallel to that of professional athletes.


----------



## gcclarke

Chilme said:
			
		

> It is important for us to remember that physical fitness is an individuals soldiers responsibility.  It is not a soldiers right, it is an expectation.   The CF is not some government funded program designed to make Canadians Fit.  It is an organization that takes mentally and physically capable Canadians and turns them into fighting men and women.  It is not some government funded "Biggest Loser" contest.
> 
> Granted, the CF has provided the funding for many high quality fitness and sports facilities, equipment, sports leagues, and staff to train/coach mbrs for FREE!!!   Lets not forget that many CF Pers have a local gym membership purchased for them if they are not in proximity of a CFB.  Not to mention paid time for many to do it.
> 
> Out there on Civi street the average Canadian has to PAY for gym memberships, professionally led training/personal training, to compete in organized sport, for their of fitness and/or sporting gear/equipment, and it is all conducted on one's OWN time.
> 
> In my mind the CF has a pretty good PT set up, often parallel to that of professional athletes.



And it is also important to note that it is the responsibility of a commanding officer to ensure that personnel are provided opportunity to work out. It is not soley the member's responsibility, it is a shared responsibility between the person and his or her chain of command. 



> CF members of the Regular Force and Primary Reserve shall participate in regular physical fitness training. COs are responsible to ensure that CF members are provided opportunities to conduct physical fitness activities during normal working hours when circumstances permit.  When this is not feasible, CF members should conduct physical fitness activities outside normal working hours. As general guidance, physical fitness activities should be conducted in 60-minute sessions, a minimum of five times per week.



That "when this is not feasible" clause does not in any way shape or form excuse a unit from *never * providing opportunity for physical fitness during the work day, or from affording just enough time to pay lip service to the notion of physical fitness. Should someone who has not been given enough opportunity to work out during the work day fail their EXPRES test, it is, in my humble opinion, as much of a failure of leadership as it is on the part of the member. The example that CDN Aviator posted above, if truely indicative of his average day, is a prime example, in my mind, of what not to do. 

And yes, I realize that most of this rant has a Reg Force bias, as of course a CO cannot ensure that someone who's only working for them a day or two a week has 5 1 hour blocks of time devoted to physical fitness.

But anyways, this is a hard and fast job requirement, and I see no reason why member should be routinely expected to work towards this job requirement on their personal time any more than I would expect them to go to the range and get qualified on the C7 on their personal time, or practice fire-fighting techniques on their personal time. 

Along these lines, I would like to point out the direction from one Gen W.J. Natynczyk in the latest version of the CDS's Guideance to Commanding Officers. Emphasis mine:


> 2203.1 Consistent leadership is fundamental to our being recognized as an organization that embraces a culture of fitness. The following are some fundamental concepts that I expect to see incorporated in all strategies to promote physical fitness in the CF:
> 
> a. Physical fitness is a leadership issue.
> b. Physical fitness is essential to the operational readiness of all CF personnel.
> c. Physical fitness should be promoted as part of a holistic approach to health and wellness in the CF.
> d. Strategic physical fitness initiatives must include three key ingredients to be successful: leadership, motivation, and facilitation.
> 
> 2203.2 Leadership: Provide fitness leadership at every level in your respective units. This must include leading by example, helping subordinates get fit, and enforcing fitness policies.
> 
> 2203.3 Motivation: Provide all your personnel with a very powerful incentive to achieve and maintain their physical fitness.  Focus on providing incentives that reward success instead of punishing failure.
> 
> 2203.4 Facilitation: Adapt your unit working environment to make it easier for all your members to make the daily choice of improving or maintaining their physical fitness.  Recognize that a variety of fitness training regimes can be employed to attain your unit’s fitness aims.
> 
> 2203.5 These fundamental concepts are supported by the following selection of fitness guidelines to establishing a culture of fitness:
> 
> a. It is imperative that the requirement for fitness training at least five times a week is respected and applied.  As Commanding Officers you will be in a position to facilitate this requirement for all your personnel.
> b. Seek out every opportunity for CF members to include exercise in their work routines. *The mantras of “fitness on your own time” or “we don’t have time for fitness” are to be eliminated. *  Given what we know of the power of daily fitness to increase morale, reduce stress, and improve work performance, it is incumbent upon us to be innovative in our approach when a formal fitness routine is impractical.
> c. Seek out every opportunity to promote and reward healthy physical activities and fitness practices.
> d. Commanding officers’ active involvement in fitness programs and their visible success on fitness evaluations is critical to convincing the CF member that physical fitness is a shared value in the organization.
> e. A group fitness programs approach is preferred.  Although the merits of individual programs are well known, where possible consider training as a group to derive the benefits of esprit de corps, control, and monitoring.
> f. A group/unit fitness evaluations approach is required.  Doing your evaluations as a group/unit has the potential to motivate higher levels of fitness achievement and reduce administration.
> g. Don’t focus the entire fitness programs on making the fitness standard but rather emphasize the additional health benefits of living a positive lifestyle. Simple adherence to a minimum physical fitness standard is only a building block in a systematic approach to effecting cultural change.
> h. Seek variety and progression in fitness training programs employing cross training where possible.
> i. Continuous education of staff, leadership and personnel on a healthy lifestyle and fitness practices as well as how to exercise safely is imperative. Consult with local PSP fitness staff for assistance.
> j. Do not turn a blind eye to obesity. Obesity is a valid indicator of current or developing health problems. We have solid evidence-based weight loss programs in the CF, the utilization of which will benefit both our operational readiness and the health of the CF member.
> k. Partner with the available professional organizations and capitalize on their programs.  The Canadian Forces Personnel Support Agency’s (CFPSA) Personnel Support Program (PSP) and the Directorate of Force Health Protection’s (DFHP) Strengthening the Forces program have specifically been put in to place to help service your fitness, health and wellness needs.


----------



## ballz

gcclarke said:
			
		

> But anyways, this is a hard and fast job requirement, and I see no reason why member should be routinely expected to work towards this job requirement on their personal time any more than I would expect them to go to the range and get qualified on the C7 on their personal time, or practice fire-fighting techniques on their personal time.



Well, we do get paid 24/7 right?

I mean don't get me wrong, I am not advocating against CO's doing all they can to ensure physical finess, I just think the more we push this childish (in my opinion it's childish and spoiled to think we are "owed" an hour a day to work out) "let us do it during our 40 hr work week then if it means so much to you" argument, the closer we get to doing mandatory unit PT from 7-8, and a 45 hr work week being the result.

And why I think that would be terrible is that it would be $#!++Y PT for somone that wants to strive to be in the best physical condition they can achieve, and very counterproductive to them. And it wouldn't be near good enough PT to justify this.


----------



## aesop081

gcclarke said:
			
		

> The example that CDN Aviator posted above, if truely indicative of his average day, is a prime example, in my mind, of what not to do.



First, it is not an average day but is fairly frequent. i dont fly like that 5 days a week but, some weeks, i end up doing it more than once or sometimes, not at all.

Second, you fail to understand when you say "what not to do". If the guidance is to spend 1 hour, 5 days a week doing physical fitness, the unit cannot adapt its operations, in any way, to allow ALL its members to follow guidance. Training flights controlled by the unit can be changed, operational flights dictated by operational commands cannot. The nature of the mission itself dictates what time takeoff and landing will be. There is nothing the unit CO can do about it and higher command cannot either.

No matter what is done, an entire crew, on any given day, will not be able to do its 1 hour. You can quote the CDS guidance all you want, it fails to meet reality.


----------



## aesop081

ballz said:
			
		

> Well, we do get paid 24/7 right?



No, we dont. if that was the case, i am grossly underpaid. I am, however, paid the same amount regardless of the time i actualy spend at work. That is not unlike many people on civvy street.

Being on salary vice hourly wage, is not unique to the military.


----------



## ballz

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> No, we dont. if that was the case, i am grossly underpaid. I am, however, paid the same amount regardless of the time i actualy spend at work. That is not unlike many people on civvy street.
> 
> Being on salary vice hourly wage, is not unique to the military.



No, but an accountant works on salary. His job is "x" files, done by "y" date. Whether he spends 12 hrs a day doing them, or 16 hrs, or 24 hrs, is irrelevant.

Not much different from some of the officers I've worked with from what I could tell. They weren't in the office from 8-4. Our job is "x + be in physical condition." It is not "x + 5 hrs a week," so I don't see why we're to be owed compensation for, or given time within an 8 hr work day, to obtain that "be in physical condition," just like we aren't really compensated for doing "x" job even if it takes us 60 hrs in one week.

Like I said, I'm grateful for the CF's stance on PT. I didn't expect when I applied that I would get to go to the gym in the middle of my workd day. If things can be improved, even awesomer. But like I said, I don't like the "you owe use the time because you expect it" argument, for stated reasons.


----------



## gcclarke

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> First, it is not an average day but is fairly frequent. i dont fly like that 5 days a week but, some weeks, i end up doing it more than once or sometimes, not at all.
> 
> Second, you fail to understand when you say "what not to do". If the guidance is to spend 1 hour, 5 days a week doing physical fitness, the unit cannot adapt its operations, in any way, to allow ALL its members to follow guidance. Training flights controlled by the unit can be changed, operational flights dictated by operational commands cannot. The nature of the mission itself dictates what time takeoff and landing will be. There is nothing the unit CO can do about it and higher command cannot either.
> 
> No matter what is done, an entire crew, on any given day, will not be able to do its 1 hour. You can quote the CDS guidance all you want, it fails to meet reality.



Granted, but the other crews can. If you're flying 1 - 2 times a week, I don't see a problem with only getting those 3-4 hours elsewhere in the week. If you're flying 4 times a week, and can only get a workout in once a week, then that's a problem. 

But it is definitely a problem when people are still being told when they work in an office, or in a ship alongside, or something else similar, that they can't go do any PT on the clock.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Well, we do get paid 24/7 right?
> 
> I mean don't get me wrong, I am not advocating against CO's doing all they can to ensure physical finess, I just think the more we push this childish (in my opinion it's childish and spoiled to think we are "owed" an hour a day to work out) "let us do it during our 40 hr work week then if it means so much to you" argument, the closer we get to doing mandatory unit PT from 7-8, and a 45 hr work week being the result.
> 
> And why I think that would be terrible is that it would be $#!++Y PT for somone that wants to strive to be in the best physical condition they can achieve, and very counterproductive to them. And it wouldn't be near good enough PT to justify this.



Yeah, this attitude pisses me off. We don't get paid 24/7. We get paid to do our assigned duties. I don't have assigned duties 24/7, if I did I would be dead because I wouldn't have slept in the last 6 years. These assigned duties sometimes entail longer hours, but they sure as heck should not on a continual basis. The more people assume that members will routinely (as in not for an urgent operational reason) work excessive amounts of overtime, their physical fitness, emotional well-being, and social lives be damned, the faster we will lose people once the economy isn't junk anymore.

In the CDS direction I posted, it specifically said to work physical fitness into our "work routines". AKA the regular hours during which one would typically be expected to be at work. I'm sorry if you feel this direction is childish. As for the slipperly slope of terrible group PT you mentioned, again, that's up to the unit to decide. I don't think that many would like to focus on that route, mainly for the reasons you mentioned.


----------



## blacktriangle

I still think we blow our PT standards out of proportion. Does it really take that much work to pass an express test?

It really shouldn't be that hard for anyone to meet the minimum standard in the CF. I can spend 0 hours a week doing PT and still attain or surpass that standard. I am not some naturally gifted athlete.  My father is 55 years old and can attain the standard for my age plus other things. I have had Pl WO's that smoke and drink themselves to death, and can still run level 10 or more on the beep test at age 40+.

At the same time, I do feel bad for some people that are overweight etc but very good at their trades. But what can you do?


----------



## Stoker

I was posted to a sea going unit for the last 15 years where we had very limited workout space or gear that had to serve 45 plus people . I found keeping fit a challenge at times,what do you in that case, especially when your posted to a unit that's at sea for sometimes over 150-160 days a year?
I agree that we have to maintain a standard of fittness but what do you when your denied the proper tools and time? I'm fortunate that i'm in a job now where I can take my one hour a day for PT and nobody is giving me any grief about it.


----------



## Chilme

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I was posted to a sea going unit for the last 15 years where we had very limited workout space or gear that had to serve 45 plus people . I found keeping fit a challenge at times,what do you in that case, especially when your posted to a unit that's at sea for sometimes over 150-160 days a year?
> I agree that we have to maintain a standard of fittness but what do you when your denied the proper tools and time? I'm fortunate that i'm in a job now where I can take my one hour a day for PT and nobody is giving me any grief about it.



I'm glad you mentioned this.  Obviously a common navy problem.  It just takes some creativity.  Consider the following:

Chin-up bar--> any railing, platform edge, top of door, overhead bar, etc. (chin-ups, pull-ups, leg raises, etc)
Edge of a bunk/bench-->tricep dips, step ups, knees up crunches, incline push-ups, etc
Open floor space (2' x your height) --> squats, lunges, push-ups, planks, calf raises, sit-up/crunches, hip abduction/adduction, glut bridges, squat press, single arm row, upright row, reverse crunch, and countless others.

If there is a will there is a way.


----------



## gcclarke

Spectrum said:
			
		

> I still think we blow our PT standards out of proportion. Does it really take that much work to pass an express test?
> 
> It really shouldn't be that hard for anyone to meet the minimum standard in the CF. I can spend 0 hours a week doing PT and still attain or surpass that standard. I am not some naturally gifted athlete.  My father is 55 years old and can attain the standard for my age plus other things. I have had Pl WO's that smoke and drink themselves to death, and can still run level 10 or more on the beep test at age 40+.
> 
> At the same time, I do feel bad for some people that are overweight etc but very good at their trades. But what can you do?



In what other aspect of our jobs would merely shooting for the minimum pass be acceptable? If you teach a course where the pass rate is 50% and everyone taking the course gets 50%, this is not a success. Or, to more accurately fit the topic at hand, if you teach a course where the pass rate is 50%, and you stop teaching after covering 50% of the course material, any failures on the course are surely not solely the fault of the student; the onus lies upon you to ensure that your people are set up for success. People should be shooting for exempt. If they might have been able to do so had they been given adequate time to work out but did not because they were not, that is their boss's fault, not theirs.


----------



## Pusser

ballz said:
			
		

> Well, we do get paid 24/7 right?
> 
> I mean don't get me wrong, I am not advocating against CO's doing all they can to ensure physical finess, I just think the more we push this childish (in my opinion it's childish and spoiled to think we are "owed" an hour a day to work out) "let us do it during our 40 hr work week then if it means so much to you" argument, the closer we get to doing mandatory unit PT from 7-8, and a 45 hr work week being the result.
> 
> And why I think that would be terrible is that it would be $#!++Y PT for somone that wants to strive to be in the best physical condition they can achieve, and very counterproductive to them. And it wouldn't be near good enough PT to justify this.



Sorry, I can't agree with this.  I don't think it's childish at all to expect that an organization that demands a certain level of fitness should provide us with the time and facilities to do this.  This does not necessarily lead to mandatory group PT sessions (which I agree are counterproductive).  The problems occur when leaders fail to understand their priorities and are prepared to sacrifice PT time for some (often arbitrary) deadline.



			
				Chilme said:
			
		

> I'm glad you mentioned this.  Obviously a common navy problem.  It just takes some creativity.  Consider the following:
> 
> Chin-up bar--> any railing, platform edge, top of door, overhead bar, etc. (chin-ups, pull-ups, leg raises, etc)
> Edge of a bunk/bench-->tricep dips, step ups, knees up crunches, incline push-ups, etc
> Open floor space (2' x your height) --> squats, lunges, push-ups, planks, calf raises, sit-up/crunches, hip abduction/adduction, glut bridges, squat press, single arm row, upright row, reverse crunch, and countless others.
> 
> If there is a will there is a way.



Many of these exercises are impractical at sea on a moving platform.  Many ships now have Bowflex machines, as well as treadmills, ellipticals and stationary bikes.  The biggest challenge is finding a place to put the machines.  This problem may go away with newer ships (perhaps built with dedicated gym space?), but for the moment, we stuff machines wherever we can find a free space.  Conditions are not always ideal.



			
				gcclarke said:
			
		

> In what other aspect of our jobs would merely shooting for the minimum pass be acceptable? If you teach a course where the pass rate is 50% and everyone taking the course gets 50%, this is not a success. Or, to more accurately fit the topic at hand, if you teach a course where the pass rate is 50%, and you stop teaching after covering 50% of the course material, any failures on the course are surely not solely the fault of the student; the onus lies upon you to ensure that your people are set up for success. People should be shooting for exempt. If they might have been able to do so had they been given adequate time to work out but did not because they were not, that is their boss's fault, not theirs.



The key to all of this is the CF's failure to build a culture of fitness.  Why do we run the crap out of people on basic training and then stop! (with the possible exception of the combat arms)?  If we had a culture of fitness, we wouldn't have this problem as everyone would exercise routinely and think of it as simply part of their job (i.e. the idea of NOT exercising regularly simply wouldn't occur to anyone).  Who knows, if we manage to create a culture of fitness, we might even be able to eliminate the negative reinforcement system of Expres testing (i.e. pass this test or suffer the consequences) we currently have.


----------



## Chilme

Pusser said:
			
		

> The key to all of this is the CF's failure to build a culture of fitness.  Why do we run the crap out of people on basic training and then stop! (with the possible exception of the combat arms)?  If we had a culture of fitness, we wouldn't have this problem as everyone would exercise routinely and think of it as simply part of their job (i.e. the idea of NOT exercising regularly simply wouldn't occur to anyone).  Who knows, if we manage to create a culture of fitness, we might even be able to eliminate the negative reinforcement system of Expres testing (i.e. pass this test or suffer the consequences) we currently have.



I think you hit the nail on the head here.


----------



## chrisf

Pusser said:
			
		

> The key to all of this is the CF's failure to build a culture of fitness.  Why do we run the crap out of people on basic training and then stop! (with the possible exception of the combat arms)?  If we had a culture of fitness, we wouldn't have this problem as everyone would exercise routinely and think of it as simply part of their job (i.e. the idea of NOT exercising regularly simply wouldn't occur to anyone).  Who knows, if we manage to create a culture of fitness, we might even be able to eliminate the negative reinforcement system of Expres testing (i.e. pass this test or suffer the consequences) we currently have.



Somthing else that's always driven me nuts about PT is that it's occasionally viewed as a punishment. Especially referring to building a PT culture...

Given the fitness state of MOST new recruits (At least the individuals I've taught), i've become absolutely livid from my lofty posistion as "that guy who gets stuck filling in for the course warrant when disapears for the day" any time PT is used as corrective action. I'm all for PT, the more challenging/interesting, the better, but any time it gets associated with anything negative, especially during training phases, you're loosing the battle.


----------



## Task

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Somthing else that's always driven me nuts about PT is that it's occasionally viewed as a punishment. Especially referring to building a PT culture...
> 
> Given the fitness state of MOST new recruits (At least the individuals I've taught), i've become absolutely livid from my lofty posistion as "that guy who gets stuck filling in for the course warrant when disapears for the day" any time PT is used as corrective action. I'm all for PT, the more challenging/interesting, the better, but any time it gets associated with anything negative, especially during training phases, you're loosing the battle.



Whole heartedly agree. Milpoints incoming.


----------



## Sigger

Pusser said:
			
		

> The key to all of this is the CF's failure to build a culture of fitness.


Interesting point.
However, from my experience I found the CF quite adept at cultivating a culture of fitness. Perhaps it could be narrowed even further to the respective CO?


----------



## gcclarke

Sigger said:
			
		

> Interesting point.
> However, from my experience I found the CF quite adept at cultivating a culture of fitness. Perhaps it could be narrowed even further to the respective CO?



I can say that it certainly hasn't been the case in any navy unit I've ever been posted to, ship or shore establishment alike.


----------



## Sigger

And I digress


----------



## Halifax Tar

gcclarke said:
			
		

> I can say that it certainly hasn't been the case in any navy unit I've ever been posted to, ship or shore establishment alike.



I know while I was posted to HMCS Toronto the command team did its most to enforce mandatory PT sessions 3 times a week. I also know with the amount of work and training that happens on a ship, while alongside, it simply wasn't possible to get even half the ships company out for this. Perhaps later in the day would have been better.

Priorities seem to be different among the elements. I know while I was in Pet we had PT every morning, but we spent the rest of the day sitting on a picnic table as well. Before some one gets in a tizzy I was an augmentee for 6 months in Pet. I'm sure its different if your posted there, but this is all I know of the army so far.


----------



## Pusser

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I know while I was posted to HMCS Toronto the command team did its most to enforce mandatory PT sessions 3 times a week. I also know with the amount of work and training that happens on a ship, while alongside, it simply wasn't possible to get even half the ships company out for this. Perhaps later in the day would have been better.



This is what I'm talking about as a failure to create a culture of fitness.  The Command Team encourages it and tries to fit it into the schedule, but that's not good enough.  As an organization, we have to adjust the schedule to the fit the requirements, not try to squeeze the requirements into the existing schedule.  In other words, if it now takes us four weeks to prepare a ship for a deployment, perhaps we should now take five weeks in order to work in an hour a day for PT?  Impossible you say?  Not at all.  It just requires a change in mindset.  Remember when we could accumulate leave?  We used to combine short work periods with leave periods (essentially meaning that the Engineering Department got no leave).  When we changed the rules on leave accumulation, we had to stop doing that.  Now we have dedicated leave periods, yet the sky didn't fall (despite those who swore it would) and we still manage to put ships to sea.  Frankly, unless the bad guys are coming over the horizon, many of our deadlines are arbitrary anyway.  We just need to change the mindset.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Pusser said:
			
		

> This is what I'm talking about as a failure to create a culture of fitness.  The Command Team encourages it and tries to fit it into the schedule, but that's not good enough.  As an organization, we have to adjust the schedule to the fit the requirements, not try to squeeze the requirements into the existing schedule.  In other words, if it now takes us four weeks to prepare a ship for a deployment, perhaps we should now take five weeks in order to work in an hour a day for PT?  Impossible you say?  Not at all.  It just requires a change in mindset.  Remember when we could accumulate leave?  We used to combine short work periods with leave periods (essentially meaning that the Engineering Department got no leave).  When we changed the rules on leave accumulation, we had to stop doing that.  Now we have dedicated leave periods, yet the sky didn't fall (despite those who swore it would) and we still manage to put ships to sea.  Frankly, unless the bad guys are coming over the horizon, many of our deadlines are arbitrary anyway.  We just need to change the mindset.



I totally agree with you in all respects but there is another factor in this equation that is not mentioned. The Navy is heavily civilian driven and I think this had led to Navy that is out of whack some what with the requirements of the CF when it comes to PT.

I know on the east coast the fleet seems to revolve around FMF and the whims of its union controlled/restrained pers. This may be harsh but anyone with time in a FMF will know exactly what I'm talking about.


----------



## Stoker

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I totally agree with you in all respects but there is another factor in this equation that is not mentioned. The Navy is heavily civilian driven and I think this had led to Navy that is out of whack some what with the requirements of the CF when it comes to PT.
> 
> I know on the east coast the fleet seems to revolve around FMF and the whims of its union controlled/restrained pers. This may be harsh but anyone with time in a FMF will know exactly what I'm talking about.



I know what your saying. I would even go further and say the union is out of control in that yard. Its bad enough that they are allowed in the dockyard gym.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I know what your saying. I would even go further and say the union is out of control in that yard. Its bad enough that they are allowed in the dockyard gym.



I actually have no problem with them in the gym. I do have a problem when one of my LS fails his PT test, I administer the IC with directed remedial PT 5 times a week for 12 weeks and the civi "supervisor" gets up in arms and I have to defend my action. Yet when it comes time to write PERs on this LS and I ask this supervisor in question for DIV Notes I get exactly as follows:

LS Bloggins works well with others
LS Bloggins smiles allot 

JUNK!!!!


----------



## Haggis

jwtg said:
			
		

> Haggis' post was condescending to anyone who struggles with the EXPRES, yet toughs it out and passes.



Condescending?  For the love of all that it precious!  It's the *MINIMUM freakin' standard*!!!

Injuries aside, any human being who puts forth even the _smallest of effort _ (after completing BMQ/BMOQ) to do PT should have any trouble maintaining the *MINIMUM * *PHYSICAL FITNESS STANDARD*!  (Yes, I'm yelling!!!).

It's a condition of service - a job requirement.  Just like keeping your will up to date, filling out your SOR.  I get pissed off at this topic because I've seen troops, senior NCMs and officers bitch and gripe about "not having time for PT.  Yet those same "warriors" will take 90 minute lunches, six smoke breaks a day and coffee breaks fore and afternoon.

I manage a 75 minute commute, an hour of PT, 7 hours of work (including lunch) and another 75 minute commute 5 days a week.  I still have time for my family, hobbies and some TV.  Sadly, I don't see too many of the "warriors" noted above doing the same thing - but then I generally avoid the smoking area....

The way I look at it is that I'm an Army CWO, expected to set and lead by example.  I'll be g*ddamned if I'm going to lead fit troops as a wrinkly, unpolished, unfit and unskilled fatbody.  Would you want your RSM/Coxn/SCWO suffering from dunlap's disease?  Would you want others to look at YOUR chief and say, "woah??  WTF???"  I'm the face of the NCO corps in my regiment, my corps of arms and my Army.  Since I'm ugly, I may as well be fit.

Now, if you still find that condescending, then I can't help you with that.


----------



## prima6

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Prima,
> 
> Sounds neat. Does your unit have that policy written into official orders that a person could get a hold of? I might use it as an example and suggest a similar idea here.



Yes, it's in the CO's Policy on Physical Fitness which is a published order.  I'll PM you.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Haggis said:
			
		

> Condescending?  For the love of all that it precious!  It's the *MINIMUM freakin' standard*!!!
> 
> Injuries aside, any human being who puts forth even the _smallest of effort _ (after completing BMQ/BMOQ) to do PT should have any trouble maintaining the *MINIMUM * *PHYSICAL FITNESS STANDARD*!  (Yes, I'm yelling!!!).
> 
> It's a condition of service - a job requirement.  Just like keeping your will up to date, filling out your SOR.  I get pissed off at this topic because I've seen troops, senior NCMs and officers bitch and gripe about "not having time for PT.  Yet those same "warriors" will take 90 minute lunches, six smoke breaks a day and coffee breaks fore and afternoon.
> 
> I manage a 75 minute commute, an hour of PT, 7 hours of work (including lunch) and another 75 minute commute 5 days a week.  I still have time for my family, hobbies and some TV.  Sadly, I don't see too many of the "warriors" noted above doing the same thing - but then I generally avoid the smoking area....
> 
> The way I look at it is that I'm an Army CWO, expected to set and lead by example.  I'll be g*ddamned if I'm going to lead fit troops as a wrinkly, unpolished, unfit and unskilled fatbody.  Would you want your RSM/Coxn/SCWO suffering from dunlap's disease?  Would you want others to look at YOUR chief and say, "woah??  WTF???"  I'm the face of the NCO corps in my regiment, my corps of arms and my Army.  Since I'm ugly, I may as well be fit.
> 
> Now, if you still find that condescending, then I can't help you with that.



And that is why we didn't correct *jwtg* about his comment 

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## jwtg

EDIT: Changed my mind.  Not worth the debate.


----------



## Sigger

recceguy said:
			
		

> And that is why we didn't correct *jwtg* about his comment
> 
> Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Sigger

jwtg said:
			
		

> EDIT: Changed my mind.  Not worth the debate.



Good choice.


----------



## jwtg

Yeah...when someone's profile is worth more than the content of their posts, there isn't much hope for a guy like me debating a CWO.

Nevermind that his words are dictionary-definition of condescending.
Sure, most people who have trouble probably fit into the category he described, and it is hard to feel sorry for them.
Next time I see someone who has a hard time staying in shape despite their best efforts (and yes, there are people who are not naturally inclined to physical fitness) busting their ass to pass the EXPRES test, I won't rub it in their faces that I think the minimum standards are easy to attain.  
I'll congratulate them on working harder than I ever have to just to meet those minimum standards- I'll leave the condescending remarks about their ease to guys like Haggis.


Yeah, you baited me and I bit.  I'm sure the condescending responses are incoming.


----------



## Container

I dont think anyone hear is disrespecting people who are busting their asses and having a hard time meeting the minimum. The problem, obviously, with those people is the lifestyle of waiting until two months before their PT assessment to hit the gym hard. That doesn't produce someone who has a fitness mindset, and for ten months of the year you have an unfit service person.

So I dont particularly care if they know the minimums are easy to attain. I do beleive they need to be that way though- at least moderately easy, because as CDN Aviator pointed out- not every position is conducive to, nor requires, a ridiculous level of fitness. Anyways.....im thinking about most of the guys I recall who always seemed like they had a hard time with their test and for most of the year you would never find them working out.


----------



## armyvern

jwtg said:
			
		

> Yeah...when someone's profile is worth more than the content of their posts, there isn't much hope for a guy like me debating a CWO.
> 
> Nevermind that his words are dictionary-definition of condescending.
> Sure, most people who have trouble probably fit into the category he described, and it is hard to feel sorry for them.
> Next time I see someone who has a hard time staying in shape despite their best efforts (and yes, there are people who are not naturally inclined to physical fitness) busting their ass to pass the EXPRES test, I won't rub it in their faces that I think the minimum standards are easy to attain.
> I'll congratulate them on working harder than I ever have to just to meet those minimum standards- I'll leave the condescending remarks about their ease to guys like Haggis.
> 
> 
> Yeah, you baited me and I bit.  I'm sure the condescending responses are incoming.



No one baited you; I actually agree with you that the average Canadian would find the XPress test hard these days. However, once one swears his oath and enters the CF, one is no longer expected to perform in an average manner. The CF's MINIMUM fitness standard is the CF XPress test --- and a mere hour a week of "approved time for PT" would result in one 'merely' passing it and many would achieve exempt status because they also tend to live healthy lifestyles without visiting their Unit canteen every break and lunch hour and stuffing thier faces with chips etc. 

If one can not manage to do that, then one should put their OWN extra effort into passing that test; they do get paid to do their jobs --- at the very minimum --- and passing that test _*is*_ one of those minimums. Don't like it? Don't let the front gate knock your ass on the way out.

He may be a CWO, but his post was exactly correct and exactly bang on; that is exactly why he is where he is and has achieved the rank he has. Funny that eh?


----------



## Halifax Tar

I think were all forgetting that no matter what fitness test the CF puts out we are always going to have to have a minimum standard. 

You have to have a bar from which to judge, a line in the sand if you will. 

And no matter where we set that bar the middle 1/3'd will only strive to accomplish the minimum.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

jwtg said:
			
		

> Yeah...when someone's profile is worth more than the content of their posts, there isn't much hope for a guy like me debating a CWO.
> 
> Nevermind that his words are dictionary-definition of condescending.
> Sure, most people who have trouble probably fit into the category he described, and it is hard to feel sorry for them.
> Next time I see someone who has a hard time staying in shape despite their best efforts (and yes, there are people who are not naturally inclined to physical fitness) busting their ass to pass the EXPRES test, I won't rub it in their faces that I think the minimum standards are easy to attain.
> I'll congratulate them on working harder than I ever have to just to meet those minimum standards- I'll leave the condescending remarks about their ease to guys like Haggis.
> 
> 
> Yeah, you baited me and I bit.  I'm sure the condescending responses are incoming.



The profile has nothing to do with it. You started the mud slinging. Expect to get some on yourself.

Before you cross the trolling line, as your last post is close to, I suggest you just take the advice and move on.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## PMedMoe

Okay.  Normally I stay out of these PT threads but I have to reply.  There probably are some people who struggle with PT tests, even the "minimum" standard of the CF ExPres test.  Personally, I struggle with the BFT and it matters not what kind of shape I am in.  The ExPres test, I have to say, is not difficult (at least for a female of my age, as I keep being reminded   :).  I haven't done serious PT for almost three years and still got an exempt on the ExPres.  The BFT is another matter for me.  It's difficult no matter what shape I'm in.    :-\


----------



## armyvern

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> The BFT is another matter for me.  It's difficult no matter what shape I'm in.    :-\



That's because you're 5 foot diddly squat and weigh a whopping 95 pounds (_bitch_); but you manage to pass it anyway carrying 1/2 your body weigh -- good on 'ya.


----------



## Pusser

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Okay.  Normally I stay out of these PT threads but I have to reply.  There probably are some people who struggle with PT tests, even the "minimum" standard of the CF ExPres test.  Personally, I struggle with the BFT and it matters not what kind of shape I am in.  The ExPres test, I have to say, is not difficult (at least for a female of my age, as I keep being reminded   :).  I haven't done serious PT for almost three years and still got an exempt on the ExPres.  The BFT is another matter for me.  It's difficult no matter what shape I'm in.    :-\



I have the opposite problem.  I cycle to and from work on a regular basis (13 km each way) at a pace that gets my heart rate into the target zone.  I also work out regularly with weights.  I am by no means a couch potato and I consider myself reasonably fit, yet I have difficulty with the Expres test and have even suffered the humiliation of failing it.  And yes, it is humiliating for a senior leader in the CF to fail a basic fitness test (at least it should be).  The problem is that the Expres Test is best suited for long-legged track stars.  Us short-legged rugby players have real difficulty with it.  I simply cannot move fast enough to get to the exempt level on the shuttle run.  I can carry weights big enough to crush the average marathoner for long distances, but I can't keep up with him at speed.

What I find frustrating though, is the intransigence of the testing regime that cannot differentiate between someone who has a bad day and someone who is genuinely unfit.  There is a huge difference between the guy who stumbles and trips during the run and the guy who falls down gasping and wheezing, yet the response is the same: come back in three months and do it again.  I even had one subordinate who had already achieved exempt on the run, yet because of a slight adjustment of his hand position during the push-ups, he failed the whole test!  Why could he not have simply started the push-ups again?

Another frustration is why is only the Army allowed to do the BFT on a regular basis?  If it truly is the ultimate fitness test (recognized by granting extra PER points for completion), why is it not open to everyone?  To me, the BFT is a walk in the park (and yes, I have actually had a chance to do it, so this is not speculation).

Frankly, the Expres Test sucks, yet were stuck with it.  I find it ironic that us big guys (short legs notwithstanding) are prone to do poorly on the Express Test, yet who are the ones that always end up carrying the @#$%! radio?


----------



## jwtg

Pusser said:
			
		

> ...The problem is that the Expres Test is best suited for long-legged track stars.  Us short-legged rugby players have real difficulty with it...


Backs: 1, Forwards: 0!  I assume you must have been a forward, based on your description of yourself. 
I'm not sure I entirely agree with your assessment of this part of the test- it is consisten with the physical requirements of a lot of different jobs- ie. policing, firefighting.  I guess the emphasis on cardio vs. resistance is what the 'experts' consider important.  Maybe you're right, though, and all of the jobs with similar physical standards should review their testing methods.



> I even had one subordinate who had already achieved exempt on the run, yet because of a slight adjustment of his hand position during the push-ups, he failed the whole test!  Why could he not have simply started the push-ups again?



This I agree with wholeheartedly.  I understand having to pass the test by meeting its requirements, and how allowing a liberal interpretation of the test standards could be problematic.  Someone adjusting their hands, tripping over a shoelace, or <insert possible fluke here> is very different than someone who is not capable of completing the fitness test.  Testers being allowed to exercise discretion would be a nice touch.


----------



## Stoker

jwtg said:
			
		

> This I agree with wholeheartedly.  I understand having to pass the test by meeting its requirements, and how allowing a liberal interpretation of the test standards could be problematic.  Someone adjusting their hands, tripping over a shoelace, or <insert possible fluke here> is very different than someone who is not capable of completing the fitness test.  Testers being allowed to exercise discretion would be a nice touch.



Some testers do exercise a little discreation, while others are very rigid. We had had a problem in the past with one of the PSP staff in Halifax especially in regards enforcement of the standards of pushups, some body types do not bode well with the exact standard and they fail because of it. If they had a different staff mbr who showed a little discreation and the mbr still did a decent pushup they would pass.
There was suppose to be navy specific test developed sort of like the BFT, I wondered what ever happened to it?


----------



## Occam

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> There was suppose to be navy specific test developed sort of like the BFT, I wondered what ever happened to it?



Boat races?   ;D

Watching very carefully to see who catches the reference...


----------



## jwtg

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Some testers do exercise a little discreation, while others are very rigid. We had had a problem in the past with one of the PSP staff in Halifax especially in regards enforcement of the standards of pushups, some body types do not bode well with the exact standard and they fail because of it. If they had a different staff mbr who showed a little discreation and the mbr still did a decent pushup they would pass.



I guess there lies the problem- the human factor.

If I'm not mistaken, the test requires pushups (as the current example we're discussing) to be done in rhythm (no rest pauses) from a bend of 90 deg. in the arm to a full extension.  Not extending far enough simply means the testee doesn't have that pushup count (we've all heard the 1...1...1...1..1...lower...lower...2....2...2....3...lower...) and I think that's fair enough.  Things that interrupt the rhythm, however (like the resetting of hands, or a real muscle cramp) are grounds for failure.

Common sense, to me at least, says that if someone screws up in a way that isn't indicative of an inability to perform the required task, they should be given another chance.

I'm not sure how common these kinds of problems occur...I would venture a guess that most of the pushup failures are because people don't fully extend or go all the way down and they end up doing 20-30 pushups and only having 5-10 of them count, etc.


----------



## Stoker

Occam said:
			
		

> Boat races?   ;D
> 
> Watching very carefully to see who catches the reference...



I wish. For a while there were research pers down on the ships seeing how we do business and collected heart rate data on people who were doing wup's and other activities. Apparently a test was suppose to come out that simulated things like casualty evacuation, moving a P250/submersible pump, cutting shoring that sort of thing that would do away with the express and make it more in line with what we actually do.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Pusser said:
			
		

> The problem is that the Expres Test is best suited for long-legged track stars.  Us short-legged rugby players have real difficulty with it.  I simply cannot move fast enough to get to the exempt level on the shuttle run.  I can carry weights big enough to crush the average marathoner for long distances, but I can't keep up with him at speed.



Brother I feel your pain...

Tighthead prop here for the Halifax Tars (see the name now ?) I can lift a 250lb-300lb man over my head at 10 repetitions, I can take 1600 kilos slamming down on my neck and shoulders at about 30mph and push it around but that shuttle run, although its never beaten me, is something I never look forward too. I laugh when I do the hand grip test.

I would much rather the BFT as I find is just a simple walk with some close friends... I guess I will get my wish this July lol CFJSR look out...


----------



## PuckChaser

Short and small rugby player should be able to do well on the Shuttle run as well. A lot of the test at the higher end is how fast you can stop and accelerate. Long-legged individuals such as myself take a couple strides to get up to speed, and even though we need less strides to get to the line we're not going as fast and may miss the time. A member of the forums here has a breakdown of the shuttles: http://canadianmilitaryandefence.blogspot.com/2011/01/20-meter-shuttle-run-20msr-breakdown.html Stage 7 is where you start moving below a 5 min/KM in speed, which is a pretty attainable standard to achieve. If you can run 5 km in 25 minutes, you should be able to get exempt on the shuttle run.


----------



## JMesh

Pusser said:
			
		

> I even had one subordinate who had already achieved exempt on the run, yet because of a slight adjustment of his hand position during the push-ups, he failed the whole test!



If this was 2010 or 2011, that shouldn't have happened (I can't speak with certainty prior to that). The Canadian Forces EXPRES Operations Manual, 4th edition states on page 38:
[quote author=Canadian Forces EXPRES Operations Manual, 4th edition, page 38, para 56.d.]In many cases, lack of compliance with protocol (e.g., arching back on a push-up, not going down far enough, moving hands farther apart) can be corrected verbally and simply results in push-ups that do not count. Such situations should not result in termination of the test unless it is evident that advantage is being gained.[/quote]

In this instance, the push-ups should have just not counted.

WRT the navy fitness test, the PSP website still shows it as under development (as it does for the air force specific test).However, I can't speak as to how long it has said that.

Edit to add: Link to Canadian Forces EXPRES Operations Manual, 4th edition


----------



## Pusser

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Short and small rugby player should be able to do well on the Shuttle run as well. A lot of the test at the higher end is how fast you can stop and accelerate. Long-legged individuals such as myself take a couple strides to get up to speed, and even though we need less strides to get to the line we're not going as fast and may miss the time. A member of the forums here has a breakdown of the shuttles: http://canadianmilitaryandefence.blogspot.com/2011/01/20-meter-shuttle-run-20msr-breakdown.html Stage 7 is where you start moving below a 5 min/KM in speed, which is a pretty attainable standard to achieve. If you can run 5 km in 25 minutes, you should be able to get exempt on the shuttle run.



I didn't say I was a short small rugby player.  I'm actually quite a large rugby player (as some of my unfortunate opponents have found out  ;D).  However, my legs are disproportionately shorter than my height would normally indicate (finding shirts to fit is a royal pain as the body and sleeves for my neck size are usually too short).  Thus, I have to run faster and take more steps to make the line in time, while my long legged-compatriots  don't have to work as hard.  If I could achieve Stage 7, I would be exempt (I've also been around awhile).  I have never achieved exempt on the shuttle run, but always did on the step test.  The strength tests are a bit of a joke for me.  The grip test plus minimum push-ups and sit-ups gives me an exempt score without hardly trying.  If it wasn't for the run, I'd be golden.  Give me a *ruck*  and let me go for a stroll and I'd be a very happy man indeed.


----------



## PuckChaser

Definitely didn't mean to single you out as the rugby player type, just seemed like an appropriate quote to jump in with.

I've seen Veh Mechs exempt the Expres with just the hand grip, so the standards can be broken with strength training in certain areas. I'm with you on the BFT aspect, I hate the Expres but actually enjoy doing the BFT. I'm a fairly skinny individual, but with 50lb pack and my FFO I can ruck up and go for days.


----------



## Pusser

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Definitely didn't mean to single you out as the rugby player type, just seemed like an appropriate quote to jump in with.
> 
> I've seen Veh Mechs exempt the Expres with just the hand grip, so the standards can be broken with strength training in certain areas. I'm with you on the BFT aspect, I hate the Expres but actually enjoy doing the BFT. I'm a fairly skinny individual, but with 50lb pack and my FFO I can ruck up and go for days.



Don't worry.  I didn't take it personally.  My point is that the Expres Test favours certain body types that I don't fit into and it frustrates me.


----------



## Chilme

It is unfortunate that the EXPRES test/20 MSR get such a bad reputation as a fitness evaluation.  The reality is that it is a very good general fitness test (It is not a specific test like the BFT).  Consider the following:

1)  The 20MSR is a measure of VO2 max.  VO2 max is the maximum amount of oxygen one can consume relative to their body.  In simple terms it is your aerobic capacity or aerobic potential.  A good analogy would be the compare VO2 to the Horse Power of an engine.  The higher the HP, the more work an engine can produce.  Similarly, the higher ones VO2 max is, the more physical work they can do.

2)  During the original studies conducted by _Leger et al_. back in the 80's showed that, with a large sample population, the 20MSR acheived 97% accuracy in predicting ones actual VO2 max.  Basically they compared the stage participants ran to, to their actual laboratory calculated VO2 max. This is a very strong correlation when compared to other test like the Step Test that only shows 68% accuracy in predicting VO2max.

3)  In May 2010 I personally validated this.  I conducted the 20MSR to max effort and it was determined that my VO2 max was 56.6 ml/kg/min.  One week later I had the opportunity to conduct a Laboratory VO2 max with a gas exchange monitor.  My VO@ max was determined to be 56.7ml/kg/min.  That is 99.8% accurate.  Pretty good test!

Do soldiers run back and forth 20m at a time on a daily basis? Probably not.  Are soldiers required to do work that involves an elevated/significant aerobic ability? ABSOLUTELY!


----------



## PMedMoe

Pusser said:
			
		

> My point is that the Expres Test favours certain body types that I don't fit into and it frustrates me.



I feel the same about the BFT.    :-\


----------



## Pusser

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I feel the same about the BFT.    :-\



Fair point.


----------



## ModlrMike

Chilme said:
			
		

> It is unfortunate that the EXPRES test/20 MSR get such a bad reputation as a fitness evaluation.



I think the problem with reputation has more to do with the "culture of minimums" that the EXPRES is associated with. When you're told you only have to get to level "x", the natural human tendency is to stop there. AS designed, the 20MSR, and the rest of the EXPRES is a test of maximal fitness, you're supposed to go until you're exhausted. Anything less is an invalid result. Even attaining exemption that is less than your maximal effort is invalid, because it is not a true reflection of your level of fitness.

Too many evaluators are focusing on the minimum, instead of what the evaluation is designed to assess. We need to start emphasizing the maximal part, not the minimum part. PSP staff have to stop telling people what they have to get to, and tell them to keep going until they need to stop.


----------



## dapaterson

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Too many evaluators are focusing on the minimum, instead of what the evaluation is designed to assess. We need to start emphasizing the maximal part, not the minimum part. PSP staff have to stop telling people what they have to get to, and tell them to keep going until they need to stop.



What, and abandon our culture of indifference, indolence and sloth?


----------



## Chilme

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I think the problem with reputation has more to do with the "culture of minimums" that the EXPRES is associated with. When you're told you only have to get to level "x", the natural human tendency is to stop there. AS designed, the 20MSR, and the rest of the EXPRES is a test of maximal fitness, you're supposed to go until you're exhausted. Anything less is an invalid result. Even attaining exemption that is less than your maximal effort is invalid, because it is not a true reflection of your level of fitness.
> 
> Too many evaluators are focusing on the minimum, instead of what the evaluation is designed to assess. We need to start emphasizing the maximal part, not the minimum part. PSP staff have to stop telling people what they have to get to, and tell them to keep going until they need to stop.



I would have to completely disagree with you.  Evaluators are mandated to inform test participants of the CF minimum standards based on age and sex (or for specialty tests).  Too not provide this information is a disservice.  If PSP staff told participants to "run as long as you can and we'll tell you if you passed after", there would be a lot of problems.  

The scripts provided to all PSP staff indicate that all components of the test are maximal efforts as well as information on incentive standards.  If individual soldiers decide to stop at the minimum level/give the minimum effort, that is a decision made by the soldier himself.  Not PSP staff.  There is a certain percentage of people who will always do the minimum amount of work.  You can't blame PSP for individual soldiers lack of motivation or internal drive.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I think were all forgetting that no matter what fitness test the CF puts out we are always going to have to have a minimum standard.
> 
> You have to have a bar from which to judge, a line in the sand if you will.
> 
> And no matter where we set that bar the middle 1/3'd will only strive to accomplish the minimum.



.....


----------



## Task

Chilme said:
			
		

> You can't blame PSP for individual soldiers lack of motivation or internal drive.



In part I can. Part of your job is fitness leadership, and motivating others is part of that. The initiative of the soldier can be blamed as well but as I said...

I remember this years test and the PSP staff telling me I only need x to pass. Take out "only" and the context and the message is starkly different.

The message must be consistent from the test, the environment and thru the chain. This is the minimum but you are expected to be a leader and push to your max.


----------



## ArmyRick

It was almost three years ago, we hammered a PAT soldier for doing the minimum to pass an express test. The direction from the CSM was to go for the highest score possible to see how fit a future infantry course would start out at. 

One soldier hit the exact minimal standard and walked off the 20mSR. It was one of the incidents that was placed on his initial counselling for his overall lackluster attitude. Did anybody else notice that paragraph in the CDS guidance to COs to NOT turn a blind eye to obesity?

I would like to see that one happen more often instead of the "I won't say anything because they might file a complaint..." mentality.

I am in no way in favour of returning to BMI system because it really screwed athletic people (I almost failed BMI back in the day when I was highly athletically active).


----------



## prima6

Chilme said:
			
		

> I would have to completely disagree with you.  Evaluators are mandated to inform test participants of the CF minimum standards based on age and sex (or for specialty tests).  Too not provide this information is a disservice.  If PSP staff told participants to "run as long as you can and we'll tell you if you passed after", there would be a lot of problems.
> 
> The scripts provided to all PSP staff indicate that all components of the test are maximal efforts as well as information on incentive standards.  If individual soldiers decide to stop at the minimum level/give the minimum effort, that is a decision made by the soldier himself.  Not PSP staff.  There is a certain percentage of people who will always do the minimum amount of work.  You can't blame PSP for individual soldiers lack of motivation or internal drive.



Agreed, the PSP have to provide the minimum and incentive level for the test.

The only motivator for performance on the EXPRES test for most people is either to make the pass or to meet the incentive level in order to have 2 years before having to do the test again.  A few are motivated for the incentive level for promotion purposes, personal pride or because they're supposed to try as hard as possible, but they seem to be the exception.  I'm rarely motivated to max out on the 20 MSR.  I hit my 10.5 and since I usually have training later that day pushing myself harder just hurts my performance.

Rick, yeah the BMI system is pretty stupid.  I'm just over 30 (obese) at around 8% bf right now.


----------



## Task

prima6 said:
			
		

> Agreed, the PSP have to provide the minimum and incentive level for the test.
> 
> The only motivator for performance on the EXPRES test for most people is either to make the pass or to meet the incentive level in order to have 2 years before having to do the test again.  A few are motivated for the incentive level for promotion purposes, personal pride or because they're supposed to try as hard as possible, but they seem to be the exception.  I'm rarely motivated to max out on the 20 MSR.  I hit my 10.5 and since I usually have training later that day pushing myself harder just hurts my performance.
> 
> Rick, yeah the BMI system is pretty stupid.  I'm just over 30 (obese) at around 8% bf right now.



It saddens me to say but I think you are correct in your assumptions. 

This is where the culture is wrong. If someone (not blaming you) as fit as you does not feel the pressure from the cultural environment to perform the best on the the test. Then how can we cure the lack of motivation in the general population (PT wise)?


I certainly have thought exactly the way you do about passing, knowing that I'll do a harder PT session later on my own. But the way I think now, is that pushing myself as hard as I can on the test, inspires those around me and I can do my hard workout tomorrow. 

If they are inspired then they will do the same. Maybe a bit over the top philanthropy but, it all boils down to being a leader.


----------



## Chilme

Task said:
			
		

> In part I can. Part of your job is fitness leadership, and motivating others is part of that. The initiative of the soldier can be blamed as well but as I said...
> 
> I remember this years test and the PSP staff telling me I only need x to pass. Take out "only" and the context and the message is starkly different.
> 
> The message must be consistent from the test, the environment and thru the chain. This is the minimum but you are expected to be a leader and push to your max.



Actually, during a test PSP fitness leadership goes out the window.  Fitness staff are instructed to be, and should be, impartial 3rd parties.  This conduct is consistent across all fitness evaluations whether it is with the CF or in any other realm.

Unfortunately, whether "only" is i the language or not, many will still only strive for the minimum.  Same with those who only go for incentive and stop when its not their max.  Its the nature of a 1 pt or 2 pts on the PER system.  There's no external reward for going further, and those who are externally motivated will stick to the preset numbers.

During unit PT, PT classes, and personal training should be the fitness leadership


----------



## Task

Chilme,

I understand the need for for impartial testing. IMO in this specific case, I think it is better served if the PSP were allowed to continue to motivate (for the annual Express test). My reasoning is again culture. The annual test results being skewed (by people scoring higher) does not affect the outcome, you will pass or you won't. It will however give a consistent message to every person who does the test.

Devils advocate to my own opinion: It will not work without a culture shift outside the PSP sphere of influence.


----------



## Chilme

Task,

You're right.  A culture does need to happen with a number of units.  Many units are already there.  This influence will have to come from a combination of the limited PSP sphere of influence, the leadership, and individual soldiers who are passionate about fitness.  However, this culture change should and could really only effectively occur during the 364 days, 22 hours the CF personnel are not conducting their annual evaluation.

Agree to disagree?


----------



## Task

Chilme said:
			
		

> Task,
> 
> You're right.  A culture does need to happen with a number of units.  Many units are already there.  This influence will have to come from a combination of the limited PSP sphere of influence, the leadership, and individual soldiers who are passionate about fitness.  However, this culture change should and could really only effectively occur during the 364 days, 22 hours the CF personnel are not conducting their annual evaluation.
> 
> Agree to disagree?



I think agree more than agreeing to disagree


----------

