# National military physical-fitness test fails 1,000 people: report



## Armymedic (4 Nov 2007)

Report in today's Canoe News, (emphsis mine)

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/11/04/pf-4630590.html

National military physical-fitness test fails 1,000 people: report

By Dean Beeby, THE CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA - More than 1,000 military members flunked the first national physical fitness test the Canadian Forces have conducted in a decade, a newly released report shows. 

The failures are a fraction of the 47,000 enlisted men and women who passed the basic four-part test in 2006-07 under orders from Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of the defence staff. 

But the demographics of those unfit members point to potential problem areas, such as the navy where the flunk rate was significantly higher than that of the military as a whole. 

The report, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act, shows 286 sailors failed to make the grade. 

Most of those - 159 men and women - *were stationed at Canada's Pacific naval base in Esquimalt, B.C., for a failure rate of 4.6 per cent, or more than twice the national rate for all services. 

The East Coast base at Halifax, with 134 failures, recorded a flunk rate of 2.4 per cent by comparison, closer to the national rate of 2.2 per cent. * 
The detailed statistical report provides numbers only, without any analysis of the results. 

The tests, conducted through the year that ended March 31, consist of a so-called shuttle run, pushups, sit-ups and a handgrip strength section. 

Standards are based on age and gender, so a male under age 35 must do 19 pushups, for example, while a woman in the same age bracket must do nine. A male over 35 years of age must do 17 sit-ups, while his female counterpart must do 12. 

The 30-minute fitness test, in place since 1990, is designed to predict whether serving members can carry out five basic military tasks, including digging a trench and hauling a sandbag. 

A few professions in the military, including members of the JTF-2 special forces, are required to meet tougher fitness standards. And members who voluntarily demonstrate a higher level of fitness can be given an exemption from the following year's test. 

Hillier, a trim running enthusiast, launched a campaign in December 2005 to build a strong fitness culture in the forces and to do baseline testing of every member. National testing had lapsed in the mid-1990s. 

The new results suggest a relatively fit military, though almost 1,300 were excused from testing for medical reasons and another 15,000 remained untested for various reasons, including overseas postings. 

Among the somewhat poorer performers in the new report were master warrant officers, sometimes called the backbone of the army. Fifty-three of the 1,408 who were tested flunked, for a failure rate of 3.8 per cent, the highest of all the non-reserve ranks. 

None of the 80 officers in ranks higher than colonel flunked. Failure rates were somewhat higher among those over age 55, and women had a slightly higher failure rate than men. Members stuck pushing pencils at headquarters were also somewhat less fit. 

Army members were the most fit of all the three services, followed by the air force. 

"The failure rate is not a huge issue," said Marie Danais, the civilian who's in charge of physical fitness programs across the military. "It's not a big number." 

"I'm pretty sure Canadian Forces members are a lot fitter than the general population." 

If a member fails the fitness test, he or she has as many as four chances over 48 weeks to make the grade or face sanctions, including dismissal. But since 1998, only eight people have been released because they could not meet fitness standards, said spokesman Lieut. Desmond James. 

"We're in the military - we have to keep ourselves in shape." 

Danais said annual testing is only one element of fostering a fitness culture in the military. 

"We want to focus on people going into the gym," she said in an interview, adding the Canadian Forces aim to reduce failure rates for next year's report.


----------



## JBoyd (4 Nov 2007)

they have lowered the standards and people are still failing.. that is not good at all. 

i think they should abolish the ability to be excused from testing for a determined amount of time due to performance on a previous fitness test.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Nov 2007)

JBoyd said:
			
		

> i think they should abolish the ability to be excused from testing for a determined amount of time due to performance on a previous fitness test.



Are you saying that they should be ready to try again the next day?


----------



## Franko (4 Nov 2007)

JBoyd said:
			
		

> i think they should abolish the ability to be excused from testing for a determined amount of time due to performance on a previous fitness test.



Says the guy who isn't in.

Regards


----------



## blacktriangle (4 Nov 2007)

Well I contemplated going navy for my CT...but everyone in it I knew told me fitness would be a problem. I don't mean to be down on anyone, but the fitness standards are very fair (read low). Not everyone can run or ruck like certain trades and units...but the express test isn't moving a mountain...


----------



## Armymedic (4 Nov 2007)

JBoyd said:
			
		

> they have lowered the standards and people are still failing.. that is not good at all.
> 
> i think they should abolish the ability to be excused from testing for a determined amount of time due to performance on a previous fitness test.



They have not lowered the Express test standard. Not in the last 7 years. And,

The only way you are excused from doing the Express Test is if you make exempt level, which is a respectable level of fitness. Without that incentive, what, other than personal pride would make anyone want to max out on the test?


----------



## Sub_Guy (4 Nov 2007)

Having done the expres test in Esquimalt there are usually several people who fail every time I go to do mine. (there is something wrong when a 25 year old male can only do 7 push-ups, then beg for another shot because he knows he can get 19) 

Thank being said, the PSP staff at ESQ are push-up freaks, 18, 18, 18, 18..... I actually witnessed that she held the pen down as a gauge and his arm was not hitting the pen, hence the fail, he could not get a good 18 to 19 (which isn't saying much as hammering off 19 push ups isn't a big deal)

I am not saying they should ease off, but do they do that on other bases?  I know they didn't do it while I was in Halifax.

Something will be done, it has to be pretty embarrassing for the West Coast fleet to be singled out in such a disgraceful manner.

From now on every time someone from the west coast fleet has to piss, they will pump off 25 push-ups, 25 sit ups, and sprint up to the parking lot (far one over the hill), then back to dockyard.
For those in Naden, sprint up to the 7/11 then back again....  To make it a interesting some raw meat will be placed in backpacks and a pack of starving dogs will be sent after ya.


----------



## JBoyd (4 Nov 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Are you saying that they should be ready to try again the next day?



no, i am/was under the impression that meeting exempt levels means that personnel would not have to test again next year or next time they were required to. if this is not the case then i rescind my statement.

however if it is, to keep a high level of fitness in our military then no one should be exempt from yearly testing, or perhaps even shorter time frames. Now i know that some organizations that have fitness standards will test upon recruitment however will let that fitness standard slide through years of service, I for one feel that this should never happen. 

Yes i may not 'in'  yet, but that doesnt mean that I cant have opinions in the matters, I have applied and hope to do whatever I can to be accepted. 

I know the pushups and situp standards have been lowered over the years. I completely agree that there is something wrong with a 20 something male only being able to do 7 push ups, but is 19 really that much better? If i remember correctly it was once 35, is that number so outrageous? pushups are like running, if you can do 20 you can do 25, if you can do 25 you can do 30, and so on. Physical fitness in my mind takes a never quit attitude and an iron will, and those traits are what I feel is most important in an organization such as the Canadian Forces or any military organization for that matter.


----------



## Jaydub (4 Nov 2007)

Clearly, something needs to change. 

The general attitude towards fitness here is "Do it on your own time".  That's not a very good way to do business IMO.  PT needs to be done at the departmental or Unit level.  Time needs to be allotted, and there has to be programs in place.

I hear CFB Trenton has a pretty good program.  If other bases can make it work, why can't Esquimalt?


----------



## Infanteer (4 Nov 2007)

JBoyd said:
			
		

> Yes i may not 'in'  yet, but that doesnt mean that I cant have opinions in the matters, I have applied and hope to do whatever I can to be accepted.
> 
> I know the pushups and situp standards have been lowered over the years.



Yes, but nobody cares about your opinions when you have nothing to substantiate them - the CF Physical Fitness standards have not been lowered over the years; I know for a fact that they've been the same since I first did the test 7 years ago.

Keep the chatter down; your drowning out the signal with noise....


----------



## geo (4 Nov 2007)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> They have not lowered the Express test standard. Not in the last 7 years. And,
> 
> The only way you are excused from doing the Express Test is if you make exempt level, which is a respectable level of fitness. Without that incentive, what, other than personal pride would make anyone want to max out on the test?



I should point out that, for Cols & LCols in a command position AND all CWOs have to take the fitness - all the time, regardless of having achieved the exempt level...... Been there, done that & keeping on doing same.


----------



## geo (4 Nov 2007)

+1 Infanteer....
Have been in for a lot longer and the standard has been there..... forever.

BTW - the Shuttle-run (20 m beep test) is a standard in many places - UK, Australia, Canada....

JBoyd,
Note that at 53 AND as a CWO, I make a point of pacing myself AND coming in - up there, with the majority of the troops... That having been said, what'Ms your beef with the exempt level?  If you are sufficiently motivated to keep yourself fit then you will look after yourself regardless of the test.

Note that, while I am now stuck behind a desk, my employer (the CF) provides me with one hour per workday for PT - from my working hours.  It's up to the troops to make use of the tools that have been provided.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (4 Nov 2007)

In my unit we have not had section level/platoon PT since prior to august.
They leave that up to the soldier.However I do work out a few times a week,I think it would greatly help having morning PT again.We will cancel PT to come clean shovels lol.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Nov 2007)

I've never agreed that the Express Test is an indicator of the the soldier's capability. To many road runners can jog their asses off and do some push ups, but can't go a couple of klicks with a ruck, weapon and helmet. The Express is a bullshit test designed to let people that can't BFT get advanced. The Express does nothing but employ a bunch of civvies, and shows no results. Fire them all, ruck up and pass, or fail. My personal $00.02.

I'm also stuck,inherentley, to that idea, so I won't debate it, or change my mind. The BFT isn't that hard. If you can't do it, you shouldn't be in uniform.


----------



## JBoyd (5 Nov 2007)

Dont really have a beef persay with the exempt level, just personal opinion. I agree completely with recceguy, i may not have anything to substaniate my opinions but perhaps modifing the fitness standards to better reflect physical aptitude within the course of duty would be better overall. I know that they set up the fitness levels as a basis to reflect on a soldiers ability to do other things like dig a trench and ruck march, but does it really compare? I cannot answer that as you all have pointed out.

Not that it may pertain to the CF, but this is a general statement. Personally I believe that if a standard is set then it should be maintained by everyone underneath the umbrella, I don't personally believe in an exception rule. I know some organizations will allow certain employees to slide on certain standards as they may not necessarily pertain to the job that employee is employed for, However you should always make it a point to know the job of the man above you in the chain , and to teach your job to the man below you in the chain.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Nov 2007)

The CDS direction is "Soldier First", not your "skinny shorts and PSP" first. Soldiers don't shuttle run to beeps on a tape. They perform to enviromental standards, restrictions and enviroments. You ruck, hump, load ammo or dig holes. The days of sprinting back to Athens with a message from the front have been gone for centuries. Sadly, we still employ many that can only do the latter.


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Nov 2007)

I've always felt that we should be doing both the BFT and EXPRES every year. I've seen many troops who can't complete the BFT but meet the minimums on the EXPRES and plenty of  pers who can do the EXPRES but fail the BFT. As one measures strength and aerobic capacity and the other endurance, then it only makes sense to do both.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Nov 2007)

CSA 105 said:
			
		

> I assume that you wish to apply that standard equally to Regular Force, Reserve Force and those folk who are long term Class B workers at CBG HQs, NDHQ and the like, many of whom play many cards to avoid completing the Land Force Command Physical Fitness Standard for extended periods?
> 
> Before the flames start shooting from the collected masses, don't bother.  I know not all folks who fall into that job description are PT-avoiding slugs.  However, look honestly - everyone knows there are some out there who do that - mostly officers, Sr NCOs and Warrant Officers who are in "if we fire him no one else will apply for the job" jobs.
> 
> To get some view on your fairly fundamentalist interpretation of the principle, will your rule apply to people unable to do so due to injury, yet still wish to serve in uniform and can contribute to the CF?



Yes, I'd like to see everyone do it.


 _(Edited to lose the attitude)_


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Nov 2007)

CSA 105 said:
			
		

> I assume that you wish to apply that standard equally to Regular Force, Reserve Force and those folk who are long term Class B workers at CBG HQs, NDHQ and the like, many of whom play many cards to avoid completing the Land Force Command Physical Fitness Standard for extended periods?
> 
> Before the flames start shooting from the collected masses, don't bother.  I know not all folks who fall into that job description are PT-avoiding slugs.  However, look honestly - everyone knows there are some out there who do that - mostly officers, Sr NCOs and Warrant Officers who are in "if we fire him no one else will apply for the job" jobs.
> 
> To get some view on your fairly fundamentalist interpretation of the principle, will your rule apply to people unable to do so due to injury, yet still wish to serve in uniform and can contribute to the CF?


I shot before identifying  Absolutely, if someone ha been injured and can still contribute to us, keep them in uniform. However, If you've never been categorised, you perform to the basic standard.


----------



## Infanteer (5 Nov 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I've never agreed that the Express Test is an indicator of the the soldier's capability. To many road runners can jog their asses off and do some push ups, but can't go a couple of klicks with a ruck, weapon and helmet. The Express is a bullshit test designed to let people that can't BFT get advanced. The Express does nothing but employ a bunch of civvies, and shows no results. Fire them all, ruck up and pass, or fail. My personal $00.02.
> 
> I'm also stuck,inherentley, to that idea, so I won't debate it, or change my mind. The BFT isn't that hard. If you can't do it, you shouldn't be in uniform.



Funny, I've always found it the other way around; the BFT is mindless - putting on a relatively light load and just walking for 2 hours doesn't seem to be indicative of all around fitness, especially when I see people nearly collapsing when done or written off for a week due to their feet falling apart; how does that evaluate battle fitness when a soldier completes the march but subsequently becomes a casualty?  At least the CF Express Test demands some exertion and evaluates different aspects of physical fitness.  The standard may be low, but that doesn't prevent us from aiming as high as we can - in the combat arms the exemption level seems, more often than not, to be the standard we aim for.

I'm of two minds on the matter.

1)  A traditional fitness evaluation like the Express Test is valid for measuring general fitness.  The US Army uses something similar, but it's scoring system is different.  I like some of the ideas that the Crossfit guys are propagating with regards to the different elements of fitness.  The new Army Fitness Manual also touched on this with its fitness levels (1-4 + 5-7 for the JTF levels) for different activities.  Perhaps a reevaluation (if necessary) of the express test would change the testing parameters to take these factors into account.  As well, I like how the Mounties have "gateways" for their fitness standard - I believe the Brits may use this in some of their training as well.  You are expected to achieve a certain minimum to commence training, and are retested throughout qualification training with the expectation of showing improvement.  Perhaps we could incorporate this idea and move to elevating our minimum requirements a bit.

2)  I do think the ruckmarch represents a good Battle Fitness Standard.  I have two quibbles with it:

a.  It should include some other elements (not the ones currently included) - I'm thinking a shoot and/or some sort of obstacle course.  Battle fitness is more about simply walking from point A to point B, and demanding that the soldier do a variety of tasks with a combat load on seems reasonable.  These events should be scored - something like a Cooper's test - to provide us with a qualitative indicator of performance.  This score should be on PDR/PERs.

b.  I don't like the CLS' mandate (I think that is where it came from) that the BFT should be a team activity - lowest common denominator fitness.  If we are measuring a fitness level, it should be individual and, like the above point, scored based upon time to help foster competition and promote improvement.  Simply making it in 2h20 minutes each year to check the box doesn't seem to foster this.

As for JBoyd...I'm still hearing the static.


----------



## aesop081 (5 Nov 2007)

JBoyd said:
			
		

> Dont really have a beef persay with the exempt level, just personal opinion. I agree completely with recceguy, i may not have anything to substaniate my opinions but perhaps modifing the fitness standards to better reflect physical aptitude within the course of duty would be better overall. I know that they set up the fitness levels as a basis to reflect on a soldiers ability to do other things like dig a trench and ruck march, but does it really compare? I cannot answer that as you all have pointed out.
> 
> Not that it may pertain to the CF, but this is a general statement. Personally I believe that if a standard is set then it should be maintained by everyone underneath the umbrella, I don't personally believe in an exception rule. I know some organizations will allow certain employees to slide on certain standards as they may not necessarily pertain to the job that employee is employed for, However you should always make it a point to know the job of the man above you in the chain , and to teach your job to the man below you in the chain.



Thats more than enough out of you.......

Get some time in and get back to us


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (5 Nov 2007)

> I've never agreed that the Express Test is an indicator of the the soldier's capability. To many road runners can jog their asses off and do some push ups, but can't go a couple of klicks with a ruck, weapon and helmet. The Express is a bullshit test designed to let people that can't BFT get advanced. The Express does nothing but employ a bunch of civvies, and shows no results. Fire them all, ruck up and pass, or fail. My personal $00.02.
> 
> I'm also stuck,inherentley, to that idea, so I won't debate it, or change my mind. The BFT isn't that hard. If you can't do it, you shouldn't be in uniform.



I agree, the standard of an infantry soldier should be the 2X10 and good obsticale coarse and some range work, "bring it back", this express test crap is just that, crap. I've known runners who could run for miles with nothing on their backs, but once you weighed them down with a 60lb ruck, webbing, personal weapon and a few ammo boxes, they we're dead on their feet, let alone giving them a heavy weapon to carry, they just didn't have the stamina.  I've seen big guys on 2X10's, walk circles around these marathon runners after only a few miles into the test. After all a soldier doesn't go into battle in a pair of Adidas running shoes and shorts and a water bottle. 

I see nothing has changed, sad actually.

The media is having a hayday with this one.


----------



## armyvern (5 Nov 2007)

JBoyd said:
			
		

> they have lowered the standards and people are still failing.. that is not good at all.
> 
> i think they should abolish the ability to be excused from testing for a determined amount of time due to performance on a previous fitness test.



Here's the word (& ergo why people have told you to zip it) ...

A great number of those article-reported exemptions are from Land Forces.

We do the LFC fitness test (actually hump the ruck, carry the pers, do the digging) rather than as the article states:



> The 30-minute fitness test, in place since 1990, is designed to predict whether serving members can carry out five basic military tasks, including digging a trench and hauling a sandbag.



When we sucessfully complete the LFC testing, we receive an "exemption" standard on our annual PER (where they pulled the stats for the article from). Despite this "exemption" standard from next years testing -- we, in LFC, do this test each year. 

Here's a couple pics of my ass digging just a couple weeks ago. This spring, I'll be doing it again.


----------



## yak (5 Nov 2007)

This type of discussion always turns into a "the EXPRES test is meaningless" arguement.  However, wrt the original post saying that there are a lot of people failing it in Esquimalt, I have a couple points, in no particular order.

1) it's bloody hard to maintain, let alone build fitness while deployed on a ship.  Not impossible, but hard.  Especially when you're not in sheltered waters or calm seas (and not in some form of sonar quiet).

2) When it's an issue of getting a ship ready for sea, often the maintainer trades (can't speak for the others) have very little tolerance for time off.  I've seen that from both sides, as a subordinate who didn't get the time off and as a supervisor stuck between dismantled equipment, a 0800 sailing time the coming Monday, and subordinates who want to head off for PT during the work day.  Sadly, I've jammed those requests and I'd probably do it again.

3) I do my PT in the dockyard gym either in the morning before or in the afternoon after secure.  I've decided that I'd rather spend my own time instead of making my regular work more difficult by being absent during the day doing PT.  That probably contributes to the problem, which is to some extent, cultural in the Navy.  If I don't take time off for PT am I discouraging people from doing so?  Probably.  Am I setting the example that one should be using their own time for PT, not unit time?  Maybe.  I don't mean to.  If I have ability to let someone go for PT I do...but all too often I can't, else the work would not get done.

The Navy less fit than the rest?  Yes I think so.  It has improved vastly from ten or fifteen years ago though. 

And as far as the Expres test goes, it's a nice couple hours off the ship once a year.  There is apparently some scientific backing into its methods, but it doesn't appear to have much relation to real life, much less to the life of a military person (especially the combat arms, from most of the people I've talked to, or seen post here).  But the fact of the matter is that there are too many people who can't even pass Expres without talking about revising and changing the test into something more relevant (and presumably more difficult).  Sad but true.

Oh, as far as exemptions are concerned, if someone gets an exempt they are likely not the person whose fitness level needs monitoring.  Let it go, they are keeping themselves fit on their own.  The problem is the people for whom the walk across the brow is their daily workout, on the way to the port breezeway.

I finally had the pleasure of doing the BFT this spring, it wasn't bad.  I thought it would be more challenging, somehow.


----------



## armyvern (5 Nov 2007)

Agreed Yak.

At some Units, due to Op tempo, manning shortages etc etc -- it becomes more difficult to maintain and allow for a regimented PT schedule within working hours.

During my years with the Navy (in Halifax), we did have deciated Unit PT in the mornings; I'm not sure if that's still the case there though.

In Trenton, we also had dedicated Unit PT 3 mornings a week -- and a very good program at that. Of course, with the increase in the Op Tempo we saw an increasing number of personnel who had to be at their jobs instead -- because work requirements demanded it. If they weren't in an essential spot needed at their desk/wherever during that PT time, they _were_ at PT. Trenton also happens to be where I completed the only two CF Express tests of my career. I made it well into the 'exemption' standard each time (that shuttle run justs irritates me though  ) !! 

I'm interested to know whether you completed the whole Army Fitness Test or just the 13km BFT portion? Did you do the trench dig as well? I too, find the 13km march less challenging than it could be. Some people can hump rucks without difficulty -- others can't. By the same token -- some people can run their asses off while others, like me, .... just plod along. I'm no runner. I'd much rather hump my ruck 20km, than run 2. I try to stick to the pool for cardio -- nice 2400-3000m swims a few times a week work well for that too. As does circuit trg each Wednesday with aerobics during lunch.

If people want to maintain their fitness levels -- they'll make it happen.

Sadly, it would seem that the whole reason the CDS instituted his new policy was due to those who weren't maintaining their fitness levels for whatever reason -- and weren't about to 'make it happen' without being directed to do so.


----------



## yak (5 Nov 2007)

There's a digging portion to the test?!

Busted.  They don't do that on the left coast I'm told, just the fireman carry.  So it's way easy (although the 250 pounder was an issue, by the end).  I got my just desserts in Valcartier later in the spring.  Doing the BFT complete was a little more difficult, but adding strength tests were not really too bad, I'm normally deployed as the departmental forklift when stores arrives on the jetty anyway.  Certain body types lend themselves to that type of work.

But I'm not much of a runner.

Like most people I know a few who rejoice at any reason to miss a fitness test.  My favorite was "my blood pressure is so high, I haven't done the Express for five years!"  That guy has subsequently been released after being accomodated for several years.

How about BMI?  That didn't work for me - I'm a 30, maybe 31, there was no end to the trouble prior to the step test.  Had to see the MO a couple times before they finally canned that program.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Nov 2007)

Without defending some of the "heftier" members of the West Coast fleet, I too have to echo that the PSP staff at Esquimalt were absolute fanatics about form on pushups- your arms had to be exactly 90 degrees to the ground; you had to pause for just the right amount of time between pushups; your hands had to be exactly in the right spot in relation to your chest or it did not count.  Even I, a graduate of the CF Pushup Academy (Basic Para  )  thought that it was overly picky and missed the more general point about upper body strength vs contorting your body into a shape that it was not used to.


----------



## armyvern (5 Nov 2007)

yak said:
			
		

> There's a digging portion to the test?!
> 
> Busted.  ...
> 
> ...



There's a 6 minute max time limit on the dig. Your note above tells me you'd have no problem whipping my 2m4s time. 

Why can't you be deployed where I am when I need to set up and locate a warehouse in some austere location??


----------



## geo (5 Nov 2007)

As indicated earlier, iln LFQA, we are provided 1 hr per day for PPT during working hours.
 - We are required to participate 3 to 4 days per week
 - Fri: Team sports - All area HQ personnel
 - One branch activity per week - again - team sports
 - Two individual PT sessions per week...

Last spring, I was with one group that did the BFT.  Out of 90 people who started, 87 completed.
Of those who failed, 1 was due to dehydration, 1 was due to a "blown" ankle and the last was due to a cardiac rythm problem.....
As of last Friday, 2 of said 3 completed their BFT with no difficulty.

Does the BFT mean you are "combat ready"?... of course not.  That's what we have the IBTS for.


----------



## yak (5 Nov 2007)

PSP folks in Wpg were pretty touchy a few years back for push ups too, to the point of holding a ruler under your chest for some people.  I've also had that in Esq, but not so much.  It comes down to personality of the tester.  If you're having trouble doing your minimums you seem to get more attention, if the person blasts through 40 or more in decent form and they don't say much.   

While I was working RSS a few years ago I was appalled at the number of reservists who failed Expres, and more often than not it was situps, not pushups (but there were a fair number for that).  I thought it was such a shame that a person that young could not do basic exercises, and had such a poor overall level of fitness.  A couple of the people I'm thinking about didn't even actually look that out of shape, but they were very, very soft, apparently.  Beyond the service implications I find it just sad that such a low level of fitness is normal to some people.  I take for granted a certain level of physical ability, I suppose I should not.

Can you imagine not being able to do situps?  No core strength, and my back hurts just thinking about it.  It also hurts thinking about not being posted to Vern's warehouse, thank you very much.  I didn't say I liked it  .


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (5 Nov 2007)

For Mr Boyd, the people who get the Exempt level are not the people you need to worry about.  They get that level out of pride, not to get out of doing the test next year.  The article you are reading is based on an access to information request and needs some context and analysis. I've done the Express Test once, and to be honest I think that it does provide a good indication of fitness and it is rather simple to conduct.  The BFT has always seemd to be more about having your feet in good shape and then tuning out for two hours or so.

Regarding the US Army Annual Personal Fitness Test it has been ten years since I took it down there.  The 2 Mile run, pushups and situps was also a relatively easy test to conduct and gave a fairly good indication of fitness level.  What I really admired about the US Army's personal fitness standard, however, was how they enforced it.  If you failed you got one warning and a retest.  Fail it again and you were out.  That one warning was your one warning for your career.  I'm not sure how it is enforced today, and to be fair the mid-90s were a period of massive personnel cuts in the US Army so the fitness test may have been a simple way to cull the herd.   Still, I liked how they had a policy and enforced it.  It seems that we are now beginning to enforce our policies up here, and that is a good thing.


----------



## Haggis (5 Nov 2007)

Jaydub said:
			
		

> Clearly, something needs to change.
> 
> The general attitude towards fitness here is "Do it on your own time".  That's not a very good way to do business IMO.  PT needs to be done at the departmental or Unit level.  Time needs to be allotted, and there has to be programs in place.



Things are changing.  Any CO/civilian manager who is slavishly sticking to the "do it on your own time" approach to PT must read chapter 22 of the CDS's Guidance to Commanding Officers, with specific emphasis on paragraph 2203.


----------



## geo (5 Nov 2007)

From a leaders's perspective.... imagine:
- you tell all your staff that they have to do their PT on their own time.  At the same time, you load em up with work so that they can't practicaly hit the gym, unless super motivated  AND THEN
come annual fitness time, almost everyone tanks and fails the fitness test...

So the supervisor starts going thru the remedial process; initial, written warnings followed by C&P all the while, following a remedial PT program hatched by the PSP guys... so fitness levels tank AND productivity in the department tanks as well.....

Does note bode well for said supervisor's PER 

Better for him to encourage PT.  Staff will be in a better position to get their work on time.

But that's just me


----------



## Haggis (5 Nov 2007)

As an NDHQ staff weenie, I have seen the detrimental effects of HQ life on fitness.  Too many times the CF member is working for a civilian (as am I) who only sees an hour of productivity walking out the door when a member goes for PT. The civilian insists that fitness is an *employee's* personal responsibility and therefore fitness should be maintained on personal time.

For that reason I heartily cheer the CDS's 2007 Direction to Commanding Officers, particularly paragraph 2203.5 which states (in part) that "the mantra of 'PT on your own time' is to be eliminated".

Even so, there are many in HQs of all levels that use this as an excuse to not even attempt to do PT.  They are the ones who should be targeted.  Leave those alone who at least make the effort.


----------



## COBRA-6 (5 Nov 2007)

And remember the CF EXPRES test is the BARE MINIMUM, not the standard to shoot for! Ditto for the BFT...

I would hope that with the combat experience that the Army and CF are gaining in Afghanistan the requirement for a higher level of fitness would be recognized and the stadard raised in the near future...


----------



## X-mo-1979 (5 Nov 2007)

Too bad my boss doesnt read this stuff.Although PT really does need to be done on our own time as well,I agree that alot of time we are sent home after a 12 hour day to do our uniforms,eat supper,and go to the gym for an hour.Which in turn ends up leaving no time with family at all except for the weekends.Sometimes it just doesnt seem worth while wasting my time when the army makes it as difficult as possiable.

Now add in a couple nights when you have work you need to take home as well....and pt goes out the window.

What really pain's me is the amount of sitting around we do in a run of a day,or useless stuff better known as make work projects.There is no reason we cannot have pt once a day.From my view anyway.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Nov 2007)

Random observation:

Way back when, the BFT was the "2 X 10". The first day you marched 10 miles (@ 16 km), then you had to drop the ruck, scale a 6' wall, jump a 6' trench (sometimes just marked out by minetape is a real trench or ditch was not handy), and THEN did a 100m fireman's carry with someone of similar weight. All these evolutions were done wearing webbing and carrying a rifle.

The second day, you did this all over again; although the second march was in light order (webbing only).

Part of the problem is there really is no standardization except for the Expres test; where do you say the Cooper Test is more valid than digging several cubic metres of gravel out of a plywood box?

Do we really have the time and resources to get and maintain a high level of fitness for 100% of CF members? Do we need every clerk and Sup Tech to be able to leap over their desk and engage in combat at any time, or is it more sensible to build up fitness during the work up training? (this is a rhetorical question, BTW)


----------



## medaid (5 Nov 2007)

Ruck or die. Regardless of element and trade. True that a Navy pers will probably never ever have to ruck or dig shell scrapes, but one standard for all. Thaks the Army me talking though.


----------



## COBRA-6 (5 Nov 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Do we really have the time and resources to get and maintain a high level of fitness for 100% of CF members? Do we need every clerk and Sup Tech to be able to leap over their desk and engage in combat at any time, or is it more sensible to build up fitness during the work up training? (this is a rhetorical question, BTW)



Ahh, but what if there is no time for work-up training? Not all of life's events fit within the Army Managed Readiness Plan


----------



## GAP (5 Nov 2007)

As someone who, by the very nature of their MOS, was a REMF in a combat zone (for those times when we couldn't get outside the wire on other pretenses), being fit, no matter what, served its'  purpose. 

Running to the wire for and during attacks, digging foxholes, carrying ammo, etc....it all came into play....neither I, or any of us said, "Well, that's for the grunts"....everybody is a grunt first, something else second.

Strange how stuff like that always happens when you least expect it.... :


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Nov 2007)

Surely, there is a Crossfit solution to this?


----------



## Greymatters (5 Nov 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Ruck or die. Regardless of element and trade. True that a Navy pers will probably never ever have to ruck or dig shell scrapes, but one standard for all. Thaks the Army me talking though.



Always believed that myself.  As for the navy, even the navy guys have to make port somewhere.  

Cheers to the 2007 doctrine and Hilliers direction to enhance physical training.  But this is a line for further comment:

_"The new results suggest a relatively fit military, though almost 1,300 were excused from testing for medical reasons and another 15,000 remained untested for various reasons, including overseas postings."_

15,000 remained untested???  Isnt that about 20-25% of the forces?  I'd be interested to hear what excuses they had 'for various reasons', not everybody is away overseas...


----------



## 284_226 (5 Nov 2007)

I'm surprised nobody picked up on this yet:



			
				St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> OTTAWA - More than 1,000 military members flunked the first national physical fitness test the Canadian Forces have conducted in a decade, a newly released report shows.
> [...]
> The report, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act, shows 286 sailors failed to make the grade.



This is what happens when a news outlet gets a hold of a report without knowing the full picture.

The first national fitness test in a decade?  Scandalous!   ;D


----------



## Infanteer (5 Nov 2007)

yak said:
			
		

> it's bloody hard to maintain, let alone build fitness while deployed on a ship.  Not impossible, but hard.



The same holds true for soldiers on operations; especially ones who spend weeks outside of the wire.  Is there no time between ships cruises for Navy pers to do PT (honest question)? 



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'm interested to know whether you completed the whole Army Fitness Test or just the 13km BFT portion? Did you do the trench dig as well?



In my almost 6 years in Infantry units (Reg and Res) I've never done the trench dig.  It's always been the 13km ruck and the fireman carry.

As for the PSP push-up Nazis, +1 to that.  Is there really a difference in upper body strength when a guy is an inch off and doesn't get 'em counted?


----------



## medaid (5 Nov 2007)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Always believed that myself.  As for the navy, even the navy guys have to make port somewhere.



Damn right! But I had another officer, who had the gull to tell me that no one should really expect him to take out his sidearm and fire it, so proficiency really isn't that critical! But that's for another thread all together.


----------



## COBRA-6 (5 Nov 2007)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> In my almost 6 years in Infantry units (Reg and Res) I've never done the trench dig.  It's always been the 13km ruck and the fireman carry.



+1, I did my first trench dig this fall... (for a fitness test   ) 



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Surely, there is a Crossfit solution to this?



Of course there is!  ;D Combat Fitness Program 



> What Is the Combat Fitness Program?
> 
> The Combat Fitness Program (CFP) has been developed in response to Chief of the Defence Staff guidance on the requirement for CF members to be more physically fit than ever based on the current operational environment. This Land Force Command program provides a progression from the “Fit to Fight” Army Fitness Program described in the first six chapters of this manual by providing a more functional and intense physical fitness program option.  The CFP derived its origins from the CrossFit ® training method  which has been adapted here to meet the special needs of the Canadian Army, by incorporating many of the widely accepted general principles of fitness training taught in the Canadian Forces.    Understanding Canadian Forces fitness fundamentals as well as the background of the CrossFit ® program will help to better appreciate the Combat Fitness Program’s blended design.
> 
> ...


----------



## blacktriangle (5 Nov 2007)

More then anything I hate getting injured due to training on my own time as a reservist...with goals of improvement.

Yet, those that dont do anything outside parade nights are allowed to coast by even as bags of shit


----------



## geo (5 Nov 2007)

Popnfresh... that is a sticking point at the moment.  Lots of paper flying trying to deal with that very subject.

Prior to doing any training for the service - whether organised or individual training - get your physical activity approved by your CO.
If you have a civy job,  get hurt on your own time while working out for your reservist fitness, you are elegible, if all else fails, for provincial workman's compensation.  Small potatoes if you are a student but a fair bit of change if you have a civy job.... also - workman's comp payhments are non taxable.


----------



## Sub_Guy (5 Nov 2007)

While sitting at anchor in East Timor one could see the Kiwi's doing circuit training on their flight deck, it was mandatory for them.

There is no reason why the Navy can't incorporate some sort of fitness program at sea (mandatory, not voluntary)  Other than the obvious reason of rough seas.


Perhaps they can take some of the 3 hours of cleaning they do in a day and shift some time into fitness.


----------



## geo (5 Nov 2007)

Have seen ships company doing laps on the flight deck in Canada.
Is it prevalent?.... probably not but, it can easily be done.... if they want it!


----------



## Sub_Guy (5 Nov 2007)

From my personal experience I would say a good portion of the ships company does some sort of PT while on ship/ashore, I feel that a mandatory PT regime would get that 4.6 who fail to the accepted CF level...


----------



## regulator12 (5 Nov 2007)

The fitness standards in our military are really low its kinda of pathetic that people can not pass a basic fitness test, the beep test is easy to pass its barely a run at the passing level and the bft is just a boring 2 hour walk. People should take more pride in being in the military and workout on there own and maintain fitness at all times so when you do go on operation or long training you got a good level of fitness to carry you through to the end. We should start having remedial PT sessions for people who fail there pt tests, just my two cents.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (5 Nov 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> If you have a civy job,  get hurt on your own time while working out for your reservist fitness, you are elegible, if all else fails, for provincial workman's compensation.  Small potatoes if you are a student but a fair bit of change if you have a civy job.... also - workman's comp payhments are non taxable.



Worker's Compensation would not cover someone for an injury that was not related to his job, plus his civilian employer would have to have coverage.

From the Ontario WSIB  (all the provinces have similiar rules)


> To be eligible for WSIB insurance benefits, you must: Have a worker-employer relationship with *an employer covered by the WSIB*
> Have an *injury or illness directly related to your work*.
> Promptly file a claim with the WSIB
> Provide all relevant information requested by the WSIB to help us determine your benefits.
> Consent to the release of functional abilities information to your employer by the health care professional treating you.


----------



## JBoyd (5 Nov 2007)

I know here in BC, Workers Comp changed their name to WorkSafe. Why? because they don't compensate anymore. well they do, but they will do anything they can to try and not give you money.


----------



## geo (5 Nov 2007)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Worker's Compensation would not cover someone for an injury that was not related to his job, plus his civilian employer would have to have coverage.
> 
> From the Ontario WSIB  (all the provinces have similiar rules)


Well, I work in LFQA and, though the CF does not pay premiums, the CSST can and will treat claims for reservists & CIC who are injured in service related injuries but who, for one reason or another, are not covered by the Reserve Indemnity program.... they pay the individual and bill the Government of Canada for the cost PLUS 20% service fee.

If you have a written directive from your CO that you must do something - even on your own time, then it is, service related... not my interpretation - but that's how they interpret it.

WRT the civy employer... as I said, not 100% true.  so long as you are a reservist then the Gov't of Canada is on the hook....for both


----------



## X-mo-1979 (5 Nov 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> If you have a written directive from your CO that you must do something - even on your own time, then it is, service related... not my interpretation - but that's how they interpret it.



So why dont all CO's of reserve units write up mass letters stating the members must do PT on their own time to maintain a form of physical fitness?Wouldnt that cover everyone.
Its been a while for me....


----------



## Armymedic (5 Nov 2007)

I am not anti-Reservist, but this is a primarily a Reg F issue. Guys and girls who are supposed to meet the minimum fitness standards are not. As it stands, if you do not pass, you can not get promoted...

Do we(the CF we) need to have more options;

-recorded warnings and C&P,
-denial of career courses in addition to the loss of ability to be merited for promotion,
-madatory 1 hr supplemental pt for the next yr....

what more? 

As for the navy pers not having room...you can do a crossfit style workout in a closet with a chinup bar, a mat, a skip rope, and a few dumbells. Not having facilities is not an excuse.

As for pers not having time...the CDS' direction is pretty clear...perhaps you need to add an hour onto the workday to fit it in.


----------



## geo (5 Nov 2007)

Many COs do just that.  Include a statement in it's annual training directive to that effect - there for everyone to see.

Note that many in the gov't don't like the idea of paying the additional 20% fee but "what the hell".

Each province has it's own labour laws and workman's comp... some are more generous than others.  Some are downright stingy... 

Let's face it, a reservist who has a full time job elsewhere - gets hurt while training, is entitled to be compensated to his regular earnings AND his part time reserve salary if laid up for a while.  If he was out on Ex then there shouldn't be a problem with getting covered by the Military system BUT, if he is doing his PT on his own time, then the Military system still has a huge problem dealing with it.

It sucks, but there you have it.


----------



## Loachman (5 Nov 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Ruck or die. Regardless of element and trade. True that a Navy pers will probably never ever have to ruck or dig shell scrapes, but one standard for all.



And where does that silliness end?

A goodly portion of the CF is not even issued rucksacks or any other loadbearing equipment. Should every single member be issued it? How much does that cost?

And if it's "one (fitness) standard for all", then it should be "one (medical) standard for all". I nominate Pilot medical standards. That should knock a bunch of you out. Of course, aircrew (equivalent) selection will add a week to the recruiting process, there'll be a little extra cost for all of the extra medicals and eye exams etcetera, and we're a little short of doctors to do it all, but hey...

How about "one (educational) standard for all" as well? Nobody at all gets in without a degree.

There are different elements, components, units, and trades for reasons. A CF-wide cookie-cutter approach does not work, for anything. What is necessary for one is irrelevant for another, and a time-waster.

The EXPRES test is a reasonable pan-CF measurement. BFT only applies to those who carry or may carry their houses on their backs.


----------



## Greymatters (5 Nov 2007)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> So why dont all CO's of reserve units write up mass letters stating the members must do PT on their own time to maintain a form of physical fitness?Wouldnt that cover everyone.  Its been a while for me....



There was a push for regular force soldiers to get this done back in the 2000-2003 period (cant remember exactly when).  Everyone in our unit had to write up a letter saying what sports we played or activities we engaged in as part of our exercise programs, and it covered us if we were injured outside of work hours or doing PT 'on our own time'.  Im surprised so few other units seem to do it, and as GEO implied, it shouldnt be a practice that surprises anyone.  Its something that every Sergeant and WO should be making sure gets done.


----------



## pbi (5 Nov 2007)

I get tired of this endless business about Res fitness. My hunch is that alot of the agony comes from older Res soldiers, who wouldn't do anything about their own fitness no matter if they were in the Res or not.  There are  Res soldiers out there who do stay fit, because they make fitness part of their personal civilian, off-duty lifestyle on their own time. They don't look to the Army to do it for them, or to pay them, or go looking for special compensation if they slip and fall while jogging, any more than a bus driver, police officer, toaster repairman or librarian does. They like being fit. Except for us lucky people in the RegF who get time and resources assigned to us to get and stay fit, almost everybody else in the world has to get fit on their own. How the hell does a volunteer firefighter stay fit? If people with demanding civilian jobs can stay fit --in fact I'll bet you'll find that the fittest civvies are often the ones with the most demanding jobs-- then a Res soldier can do it  too.  To me, it isn't about being fit just to please the Army Reserve. It's about being fit as a human being. 

Cheers


----------



## geo (5 Nov 2007)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> I am not anti-Reservist, but this is a primarily a Reg F issue. Guys and girls who are supposed to meet the minimum fitness standards are not. As it stands, if you do not pass, you can not get promoted...
> 
> Do we(the CF we) need to have more options;
> 
> ...



StMMT
When that fella would fail his express test for the 1st time, he gets his initial warning that he's got to get his act together.
When that same fella fails his express test for the 2nd time, he:
- gets a medical to determine his health condition
- gets a PT program from PSP for him to follow
- In our shop, I also keep tabs on those who tanked - ensure that they are going to the gym and participating in sports activities.  If they aren't participating, then they better have a temp med category to explain why the hell not...


----------



## geo (5 Nov 2007)

pbi said:
			
		

> I get tired of this endless business about Res fitness. My hunch is that alot of the agony comes from older Res soldiers, who wouldn't do anything about their own fitness no matter if they were in the Res or not.  There are  Res soldiers out there who do stay fit, because they make fitness part of their personal civilian, off-duty lifestyle on their own time. They don't look to the Army to do it for them, or to pay them, or go looking for special compensation if they slip and fall while jogging, any more than a bus driver, police officer, toaster repairman or librarian does. They like being fit. Except for us lucky people in the RegF who get time and resources assigned to us to get and stay fit, almost everybody else in the world has to get fit on their own. How the hell does a volunteer firefighter stay fit? If people with demanding civilian jobs can stay fit --in fact I'll bet you'll find that the fittest civvies are often the ones with the most demanding jobs-- then a Res soldier can do it  too.  To me, it isn't about being fit just to please the Army Reserve. It's about being fit as a human being.
> 
> Cheers


The people who do not get fit in the Reserves are
- people who have gotten themselves into a lifestyle crash.  All work, no play & just too effing tired at the end of the day (forget the fact that doing PT will in fact enegrize you)

And this is pert much the same kind of people who crash and burn in the regular force.

This is not a Reserve force issue
This is not a Regular force issue
This is a total force, lifestyle issue.

Remember that, most reserve areas have not pushed for any form of fitness test for like..... 30 some years.
Now that the CDS and CLS have mandated PSP to get the job done and include reservists in the annual fitness evaluation, it'll take a while to get everyone going in the same direction BUT I have confidence that it'll get done.


----------



## blacktriangle (5 Nov 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> The people who do not get fit in the Reserves are
> - people who have gotten themselves into a lifestyle crash.  All work, no play & just too effing tired at the end of the day (forget the fact that doing PT will in fact enegrize you)
> 
> And this is pert much the same kind of people who crash and burn in the regular force.
> ...




Reservists at my unit are under directive to do a BFT soon, and we have been working towards it gradually. We also did an express test, and it certainly highlighted some of the fitness issues to me...

I, as a reservist, do not seek to be paid to do PT or anything like that, it's just annoying when I am getting injuries from running/rucking which may hinder my entire career, and yet Pte/Cpl/Sgt bigmac are in terrible shape, but are allowed to serve as they have never trained hard enough to really get hurt.  I have never heard about the fact that I can be covered, but considering the year it took get decent boots ( I had to buy them myself too) I'm not confident the army really gives a crap how healthy and in shape I am...


----------



## Armymedic (5 Nov 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> StMMT
> When that fella would fail his express test for the 1st time, he gets his initial warning that he's got to get his act together.
> When that same fella fails his express test for the 2nd time, he:
> - gets a medical to determine his health condition
> ...



Ack, but my point:
If this mbr fails again (3rd time), what is your COA? And why are we giving them 3 chances to pass the minimum fitness level?


----------



## Armymedic (5 Nov 2007)

People,

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE CF EXPRESS TEST AS A COMMON MINIMUM LEVEL OF FITNESS, for all genders and ages.

When it comes down to brass tacks, it does not matter if your standard is BFT, Para, JTF Coopers test.....the basic, minimum standard for the CF (like it or not) is the Express test.....

So why the $%#@ is people who are getting paid good money to be in our CF not meeting a major obligation of our employment?


----------



## medaid (5 Nov 2007)

Popnfresh, maybe you're earning to much money, because I would love for the Navy to pay me for my pt time ;D


----------



## armyvern (6 Nov 2007)

popnfresh said:
			
		

> I have never heard about the fact that I can be covered, but considering the year it took get decent boots ( I had to buy them myself too) I'm not confident the army really gives a crap how healthy and in shape I am...



Oh for fuck sakes.

What the hell do boots have to do with it?

This post tells me that:

1) You're probably A Class; and

2) It's not just the Army, the same happens in the Navy and the AF too re boots for A Class pers. It's a Treasury Board matter; has something to do with those civilian doctors that you see and the fact that, very rarely, do A Class pers actually bring in copies of their med records from those civ doctors to notify their CoC that there may be a change in medical category (especially if that category is going down  ) -- as required by regulation.

Now, back on topic.


----------



## blacktriangle (6 Nov 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Oh for frig sakes.
> 
> What the hell do boots have to do with it?
> 
> ...



Vern,

Ack. 

It's a rant, i know. On topic, I'm just trying to get my point across that not all res people are out of shape, and many of us do aspire to improve on our own time. I'm sure it's happened to many before me, but it's discouraging when a person can ruck or run their brains out, and no one cares one bit at the end of the day...its all about keeping the status quo so that certain people aren't embarrased. I've seen to much of lowering the standard to meet the soldier, instead of the other way around, and am sure that we are all weaker for that. 

BTW, yes, I'm Class A in the midst of CT.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (6 Nov 2007)

> -recorded warnings and C&P,
> -denial of career courses in addition to the loss of ability to be merited for promotion,
> -madatory 1 hr supplemental pt for the next yr....



This may outdate many on this board, but many infanteers who served with the infantry battalions in the 70s 80's and early 90's will know what happened to people who failed the annual fitness test which happened to be the 2X10 battle test. We also had to do the express test when it came out in 90. If any one here served with 3RCR during the "Col Jimmy Cox" (Now General Cox) days in Winnipeg and Cyprus during the 80's know full well what in shape meant. No excuses, a soldier had to be fit, and Jimmy had the last two words for the slackers. Bye, Bye.

 The people who failed we're placed on remedial PT for how ever long it took to get them in shape, not only did they do daily PT in the morning with their respective platoons or companies, they also reported to the BOS at 17:30 hours daily, to be taken out for remedial PT. This went on until the soldier(s) was deemed fit by the company Sgt Major or the RSM. They then went on and did the 2X10 again, If they failed the second time they we're given a "recorded warning & C&P" and did the hatless dance in front of the Coy commander. If after the 3rd attempt they failed, they we're kept on remedial PT until they passed the test. Most passed on the second attempt. The ones who didn't we're often released. This was done for every trade in the battalion, EME, Clerks, Med'A's, QM's, etc. No exceptions.

There is no excuse for any "regular force" land based soldier who fails a simple fitness test standard. Someone mentioned clerks and what not, even these people should be able to pass the test. You want to be in the full time army, get in shape! Unless your on a temp medical category there's no excuse. If your exempt because of a permanent category, you shouldn't be in the military at all.

Fitness should be a top priority now that we're actually fighting a war.


----------



## geo (6 Nov 2007)

My only point is that, if the leadership failed to ensure it's personnel did get PT tested, then don't expect to turn things around on a dime

I believe the CDS & CLS were quite clear on their vision of where the army & the CF are going.  Reservists & regs are getting a handle on things & if they cannot, then there is a good chance that a career change is in the cards sometime soon.


----------



## Harris (6 Nov 2007)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> There was a push for regular force soldiers to get this done back in the 2000-2003 period (cant remember exactly when).  Everyone in our unit had to write up a letter saying what sports we played or activities we engaged in as part of our exercise programs, and it covered us if we were injured outside of work hours or doing PT 'on our own time'.  Im surprised so few other units seem to do it, and as GEO implied, it shouldnt be a practice that surprises anyone.  Its something that every Sergeant and WO should be making sure gets done.



My last CO tried to do just that, however the JAG said that he couldn't as we (Class A) folks were NOT covered when doing PT on our own time.  So it appears this "issue" is a location one.  Some parts of the county are/think they are covered and some parts aren't/don't think they are covered.  I personally would love to know which one it really is Canada wide.

While I agree with the majority of the information posted above but I have to say that it bothers me that I'm expected to be fit on my own time and own dime, yet the full time guys get a paid hour every day to get/stay fit.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Nov 2007)

Harris said:
			
		

> While I agree with the majority of the information posted above but I have to say that it bothers me that I'm expected to be fit on my own time and own dime, yet the full time guys get a paid hour every day to get/stay fit.



And us full-time guys are required to show up, at any time, 24/7 wether we like it or not.  This is not a slag against reservists but reg and res have their own set of benefits


----------



## COBRA-6 (6 Nov 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> This is not a slag against reservists but reg and res have their own set of benefits



Does that mean that reservists only have to meet 85% of the Reg F PT standard?  ;D


----------



## geo (6 Nov 2007)

Harris,
I will poke around a little bit.  I have a sneaking feeling that, if Quebec's CSST does look after Class A servicemen who were injured (service related injury based on your COs order to do PT on your own time) then NSs Worknam's comp - or whatever it's called, should provide some protection & compensation VS what your JAG has said about the CFs ability to compensate.

It will take me a couple of days to verify -  BBL


----------



## Sub_Guy (6 Nov 2007)

I like bacon (I mean other than HDTV and Erotic entertainment is there anything better?) just as much as the next guy, but this thread has turned into a RES vs REG fitness blab!

If you wear the uniform you should be able to pass the test.  Its not a hard test.  Jeez, just show up and do it!  (Be sure to get your smoke and coffee down range before you start!)

The beep test stinks, I don't like it, but I think it has something to do with the tone of the voice on the tape.
But come on 19 push-ups, 19 sit-ups  - those are a gift!

Perhaps someone should notify the media outlets that this test has been around for a while, and that last year was not the first time that we were tested for fitness.
I am no "Mr. Lean" and by no means fit into a speedo nicely (anglo), but I can pass the expres test, it is sickening to think that there people who find that test a challenge.  Its embarrassing that the media got a hold of the story and ran with it, good thing it only lasted a couple of days.  

I am just waiting for Taliban Jack and Mr. Staples to throw in their bit..


----------



## dapaterson (6 Nov 2007)

The Army as a whole does not take Reserve force fitness seriously.  There are garrison locations with Reg F personnel which exist solely to support part-time Reserve soldiers.  They lock the doors and bar part-time reservists from using their fitness facilities.  Or, in one case, have the gall to charge part-time soldiers money for the privilege of using the equipment provided by the crown.

You want fit reservists?  Fine.  All CF gyms must be made available to Reservists.  No ifs, ands, or buts.  And the CF must agree to pay the part-time member's civilian wages or military pay, whichever is greater, if they get injured and are unable to work.

If we do tell reservists to get fit on their own time, the same rule should apply to the Reg F.  No more HQs letting people claim an hour a day for PT - they can do it like everyone else, on their own time.


Finally, there need to be sanctions for failure - both Reg and Res.  Hands up if you know someone who's had temp med cats or other reasons not to do Express or BFT that recur year after year.  Time to prune the deadwood, in both the Reg F and the Res F.


----------



## Sub_Guy (6 Nov 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You want fit reservists?  Fine.  All CF gyms must be made available to Reservists.  No ifs, ands, or buts.  And the CF must agree to pay the part-time member's civilian wages or military pay, whichever is greater, if they get injured and are unable to work.
> 
> If we do tell reservists to get fit on their own time, the same rule should apply to the Reg F.  No more HQs letting people claim an hour a day for PT - they can do it like everyone else, on their own time.



All CF gyms are available to reservists!   I know I was shocked too, letting those part-time guys in there!  For Res units where there is no Reg force base near by they should have some sort of agreement with a local fitness company (443 Sqn in ESQ has a similar arrangement with a gym in Sidney).  


Fine if the same rules apply to Regs and Res, I would like to tear up my contract and as soon as I don't like something I can stand up and leave.   

Reg force PT is good, Unit PT is better it builds cohesion and morale, perhaps if the Res members want the same they can take that extra step and commit full time!  (ps We have great gyms)


----------



## dapaterson (6 Nov 2007)

Dolphin Hunter:

All gyms available to Reservists?  Hardly.  Try to use the one in London if you're a part-time Reservist.  Or ask the class A Reservists in the Dennison Armouries about the sign on the exercise room door "Class A reservists must pay to use the facilities".  Though I believe that one has disappeared - don't know if it was taken down due to a policy change, or torn down due to disgust, though.

On both sides of the Reg/Res divide there is still a sense of us and them (though much less pronounced than in the past).


Offtopic:  re: the "tear up my contract and leave" comment - how many Reg Force folks do you know who have threatened the career manager with just that to avoid a posting?


----------



## geo (6 Nov 2007)

Hmmm... this thread isn't supposed to be a Res VS Reg bashing sesson.
Regs say that it is an individual responsibility & reservists should do it on their own time and on their own nickle.  If they get hurt, too bad so sad... but, they seem to forget that, even if they themselves get injured on PT, they will continue to receive their paycheck every 15 days unitl they are fit to return to work.

Reservists on Class B are treated in a similar manner as the Regs.  You get hurt, you continue to get paid till you get better BUT if you are unfit at contract renewal time, you are unceremoniously dumped (unfit to meet job requirements) and put on Reserve Invalidity Indemnity (RII)- till you are fit to work.  If there is work at that time, all fine and good, welcome back OR ciao, have fun with UI.

Reservists on class A are not treated in a similar manner as the Regs.  You get hurt while doing PT on your own time, you will not receive RII, you are on your own unless you file a workman's comp claim.  I know it works in Alberta  and it works in Quebec... I will be ckecking it out for other provinces...


----------



## Greymatters (6 Nov 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I can see the pushups ........i do *push* buttons and handle sonobouys.  But i wonder, how does walking for 2 hours and 26 minutes prove that i am fit to fight considering what i do ?



True, its not applicable to all trades/occupations.  It certainly wasnt appropriate to mine, although we still did it when working with Army units.  The only justification I can think of for you is if the Auroras got sent on another mission similiar to the Balkan Sea monitoring of 1993-1994.  In case of crashing behind enemy lines and all that stuff... 

Hmmm...  or, how many laps of the Aurora would be appropriate?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Nov 2007)

The subsidised gym memberships down here are only for RSS and Cl B bumbles. Cl A pers are not allowed to use them.


----------



## armyvern (6 Nov 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The subsidised gym memberships down here are only for RSS and Cl B bumbles. Cl A pers are not allowed to use them.



That's correct and is IAW national policy.

In PEI, I contracted the gym memberships for

Reg Force personnel posted to:
3 ASG Gagetown Detachment in Charlottetown; 
Civi U (Holland College & UPEI) personnel;
Veterans Affairs & other Gov Depts; 
the Recruiting Center, and 
those posted in RSS positions.

The only ResF members I contracted for were Class B; Class A being not entitled to them.


----------



## Inch (6 Nov 2007)

Call me crazy, but why should a guy (or girl) that only puts in 12-20 hours a month be entitled to a membership where they would spend more time at the gym than they do in uniform?

As for the battle fitness test, how is humping a ruck for 13km an accurate indicator of fitness or even valuable training to Sea King aircrew attach posted to a ship? I haven't even seen a ruck since basic training, in fact, they took mine away from me when I was posted out of St Jean. Expres test is fine by me.


----------



## GAP (6 Nov 2007)

Inch said:
			
		

> Call me crazy, but why should a guy (or girl) that only puts in 12-20 hours a month be entitled to a membership where they would spend more time at the gym than they do in uniform?
> 
> As for the battle fitness test, how is *humping a ruck for 13km an accurate indicator of fitness or even valuable training to Sea King aircrew *  attach posted to a ship? I haven't even seen a ruck since basic training, in fact, they took mine away from me when I was posted out of St Jean. Expres test is fine by me.



Gee.....you mean they don't walk on water after their god machine stops?   (couldn't resist  ;D )


----------



## X-mo-1979 (6 Nov 2007)

People who vote ruck are usually the lazy people who can't run,have poor cardio,and are in poor physical shape from my small amount of TI.I usually hear it from the broken guys saying I hate running but I can ruck forever.usually they cannot.If you can run/jog/sprint 13 km you can easily put on a ruck and walk it.The express test tests vo2 max,what does the 13km test?your walkability?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Nov 2007)

Inch said:
			
		

> Call me crazy, but why should a guy (or girl) that only puts in 12-20 hours a month be entitled to a membership where they would spend more time at the gym than they do in uniform?



Ours do quite a bit more than that. The average of your 12-20 is about a normal week. One of 4 weeks, then there's the weekend ex, at least once a month. So yeah, quite a bit more than 12-20. The key word was also 'subsidised'. And call me crazy, but why would we procure subsidised memberships for people that have a modern weight/ excersize room, large empty drill floor, sports equipment and showers available in the armouries? A new facility, BTW. But I see your point.    Heaven forbid that we try to even things out, even a little bit. Let's keep those ungrateful Cl As where they belong eh?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Nov 2007)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> People who vote ruck are usually the lazy people who can't run,have poor cardio,and are in poor physical shape from my small amount of TI.I usually hear it from the broken guys saying I hate running but I can ruck forever.usually they cannot.If you can run/jog/sprint 13 km you can easily put on a ruck and walk it.The express test tests vo2 max,what does the 13km test?your walkability?



Put the big, broad brush away. Unless you can substantiate your opinion with verifiable stats, it's just that, an opinion. And you know what they say about those don't you.


----------



## armyvern (6 Nov 2007)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> People who vote ruck are usually the lazy people who can't run,have poor cardio,and are in poor physical shape from my small amount of TI.I usually hear it from the broken guys saying I hate running but I can ruck forever.usually they cannot.If you can run/jog/sprint 13 km you can easily put on a ruck and walk it.The express test tests vo2 max,what does the 13km test?your walkability?



Yep, not a lot of time in.

Here you go ... different muscle groups used for running than from humping the ruck. Most "broken" guys are on chits and aren't allowed to hump a ruck (but somer of them are still allowed to do the Expres test). BTW ... one of our speediest/cardio "runners"  ... just failed his 13km.    Looked good on him too after his bitching about those who aren't 6'2" beanpoles like him and their lack of running-like-the-wind ability.

Think that being able to run is the only indicator of cardio fitness? Holy crap over. Different muscle group used to run than from swimming too.

It's like I tell my husband (who runs faster than I -- although when we hit the 10km run circuit my ass will run every step ... just slower than he) ...

I don't give a shit how fast you can run; I beat your butt on the ranges every year ... and my bullet WILL catch up with you.  

BTW, despite his ability to run, he's dying like a dawg on the edge of the pool trying to catch his breath after a mere 4 or 5 lengths.   :


----------



## fbr2o75 (6 Nov 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Ours do quite a bit more than that. The average of your 12-20 is about a normal week. One of 4 weeks, then there's the weekend ex, at least once a month. So yeah, quite a bit more than 12-20. The key word was also 'subsidised'. And call me crazy, but why would we procure subsidised memberships for people that have a modern weight/ excersize room, large empty drill floor, sports equipment and showers available in the armouries? A new facility, BTW. But I see your point.    Heaven forbid that we try to even things out, even a little bit. Let's keep those ungrateful Cl As where they belong eh?




Lets not forget that the majority of Class A resevists also hold down full time jobs. It was always a pet peeve of mine when I would here "well you only work a couple of nites a month"


Mod edit to fix quote box


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Nov 2007)

fbr2o75 said:
			
		

> recceguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## X-mo-1979 (6 Nov 2007)

But serious question what does the 13km prove?You can hump a rucksack.Express test does vo2 max.Maybe i painted broad strokes lol.But what does a 13km march prove?
And no I find the 13km easy and find pushing myself as high a level as I can on express more of a challenge.im not the guy who steps off at beep 8 lol


----------



## aesop081 (6 Nov 2007)

fbr2o75 said:
			
		

> Lets not forget that the majority of Class A resevists also hold down full time jobs. It was always a pet peeve of mine when I would here "well you only work a couple of nites a month"



Well wopty freakin doo.......You should see my work schedule these days. I'll take your civy job plus class A work as it would mean less time at work. And i wouldnt have to worry about being posted or going on exercise when i dont feel like it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Nov 2007)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> But serious question what does the 13km prove?You can hump a rucksack.Express test does vo2 max.Maybe i painted broad strokes lol.But what does a 13km march prove?
> And no I find the 13km easy and find pushing myself as high a level as I can on express more of a challenge.im not the guy who steps off at beep 8 lol












 You da man!!! ;D


----------



## X-mo-1979 (6 Nov 2007)

Thanks!cool dancing guy lol!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Nov 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Well wopty freakin doo.......You should see my work schedule these days. I'll take your civy job plus class A work as it would mean less time at work.



Hey, hey. You're the one that wanted the spiffy uniform, ride and girls! Ya can't have it both ways!  ;D


----------



## armyvern (6 Nov 2007)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> But serious question what does the 13km prove?You can hump a rucksack.Express test does vo2 max.Maybe i painted broad strokes lol.But what does a 13km march prove?
> And no I find the 13km easy and find pushing myself as high a level as I can on express more of a challenge.im not the guy who steps off at beep 8 lol



No offense, but I thought "what the hell does the fact that a chick my age needs only to reach level 4.5 to be exempt, do 9 push-ups, do 11 sit-ups, and squeeze 50lb combined (both hands total) on the grip test prove?"

Not that I stopped at level 5 mind you (I went well over that) ... it just really made me think ... and not good thoughts.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Nov 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Hey, hey. You're the one that wanted the spiffy uniform, ride and girls! Ya can't have it both ways!  ;D



 :rofl:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Nov 2007)

Haven't I read this thread but with different dates oh, say, at least a half dozen times?

Holy Bat Man F@&*,..... everyone stop whining and stay fit for the best reason of all,...yourself.


----------



## AJC (6 Nov 2007)

Vern's right, different tests, test different things. CF Expres is a good baseline of basic get off the couch fitness. The BFT complete does not test "walkability" It tests basic combat fitness as it is intended. As was discovered in the Balkans, some mbrs Reg/Res, outside of the Inf Bns were not able to carry their rucks across the street and god forbid there was a casualty to evacuate. There is a Pass level, this means nothing lower but feel free to do more or better. Think of it as a min safety rating.

Ref the never ending A Class arguement. Fitness level must be met, no question. The solution is easy, like the National Guard, members should be provided full health and dental, and access to PSP / Base Fitness facilities. Don't meet the commitment to be fit, fired - no benefits. 

Ref the hour for PT a day, still not enough but its fair. A Class mbrs will have to find the time on their own, I always sometimes did. 

What boggles my mind is the variety of very large members that are out there. I am no longer slim and dashing, but there are some, and we all see them, and some are even in our component/trade/unit, that have been obese for more than one reporting period.
The issue of older SrNCO's (MWO's) have a high fail rate. Being older and broken will do that. Maybe the Brits had this in mind when they developed their 21 Year rule.

And yes I have passed both tests this calender year. 42, not quite dead yet.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (6 Nov 2007)

Wouldnt it be easier to just not expect our militia to be in shape?Volunteer search and rescue is just that.Volunteer.They don't do strenious courses or such but can be called upon to do tasks within a "regular" SAR tech search.
I know a few volunteer sar techs who are old and not quite in good shape but they plug a gap in the sartech world and help out a lot when needed.Maybe we should just stop expecting our reservist to match the rest of the army and give them other tasks that free up regular force guys to deploy.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Nov 2007)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Wouldnt it be easier to just not expect our militia to be in shape?Volunteer search and rescue is just that.Volunteer.They don't do strenious courses or such but can be called upon to do tasks within a "regular" SAR tech search.
> I know a few volunteer sar techs who are old and not quite in good shape but they plug a gap in the sartech world and help out a lot when needed.Maybe we should just stop expecting our reservist to match the rest of the army and give them other tasks that free up regular force guys to deploy.



I got a better idea.....

The GoC should give Reservists job protection.

Once thats done......institute reserve terms of service obligating members to show up for unit training, career courses, unit PT, etc....

That way they get all the benefits the regs do and all the liabilities and obligations that go with it


----------



## Inch (6 Nov 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Ours do quite a bit more than that. The average of your 12-20 is about a normal week. One of 4 weeks, then there's the weekend ex, at least once a month. So yeah, quite a bit more than 12-20. The key word was also 'subsidised'. And call me crazy, but why would we procure subsidised memberships for people that have a modern weight/ excersize room, large empty drill floor, sports equipment and showers available in the armouries? A new facility, BTW. But I see your point.    Heaven forbid that we try to even things out, even a little bit. Let's keep those ungrateful Cl As where they belong eh?



Sorry dude, I'm calling BS on 12-20 hrs a week from a class A. Our Class A's on Sqn only get max 15 days a month, so don't try to tell me that your average Class A type puts in that much time in a uniform. I was a reservist once upon a time and as a student I would have loved to be getting 2 or three days pay a week. I had to settle for the Thurs evening half days and a couple weekends a month.

My point was if a guy is spending an hour a day in the gym and only going out to one training evening a week, how do you figure that it's worth paying for his gym membership? Use unit funds to put in a gym if that's what they want, but in no way should they be getting YMCA memberships.

You want to even it out, put in the stupid random hours that we all do and 16 plus hour days more often than a weekend or two every month. The postings every 4 years, random scheduling and work hours, obligation to deploy, etc equals out to gym memberships and a few other perks IMO.  If you don't want to put in the time, that's your call and I don't look down on you for it, just don't expect the same benefit package.

Just my opinion though, take it or leave it.



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I got a better idea.....
> 
> The GoC should give Reservists job protection.
> 
> ...



Damn, you typed that as I typed mine. Bang on.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (6 Nov 2007)

But the reservist hold down civilian jobs as well,so how do we expect them to parade ever certain night and get career courses.I say let them fill spots like driving positions and desk jobs.
How many RCMP auxillery have physical testing?
The reserves are just that an auxillery,that we have been using more and more.They are the civilian soldier,and if we expect them to commit to reserve terms of service obligating members to show up for unit training, career courses, unit PT, etc.... they are no longer civilians which they have chosen to be are they?


----------



## geo (6 Nov 2007)

x-mo-1979
they also do it at 85% of the reg's salary.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Nov 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> x-mo-1979
> they also do it at 85% of the reg's salary.



They dont have the same liabilities so why should they get the same pay ?


----------



## medaid (6 Nov 2007)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> How many RCMP Auxiliary have physical testing?



I did. I did the PARE as part of my training. IMO everyone who is an Auxiliary should be PAREd and they should be PAREd every year just like their Regular Member counterparts. I will not have an unfit Auxiliary back me up, because when sh^t hits the fenders, that Auxiliary had better be fit and have their crap together.

Same goes for PRes members. FIT.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (6 Nov 2007)

I wonder if the report also focused on reserve units?Or just full time reservist working ?I would like to see those stats.

As for they pay,Civi SAR's get gas reinbursed in their boats and thats pretty well it.They do it to serve the public.And to say they don't deploy to dangerous places like reservist do I suggest look up a story (believe ctv)where a Auxillery SAR died last week on the east coast.Out doing an exercise in which he was only given per km gas.
Im a little lost on the reserve fitness.So many seem to be against it,or want every benifit the regular army has.Why dont they just serve their country for 85 percent and be expected to do a little less...that is why they are paid less right?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Nov 2007)

LOCKED!

Folks, stop chasing your friggin' tails and go chew on a bone or something.

Bruce


----------



## Harris (6 Nov 2007)

Inch said:
			
		

> Call me crazy, but why should a guy (or girl) that only puts in 12-20 hours a month be entitled to a membership where they would spend more time at the gym than they do in uniform?



I'm not sure what Res Units your familar with, but I assure you the majority of my soldiers put in far more than 12-20 hours a month.  As an example one of my average Sect Comds will be expected to work in Nov 5 Thur trg ni, 2 Tue ni preparing lectures for the Thur if needed, Unit PD day, Remberance Day (Though not considered trg per se, some are tasked as Guards, speak at dinners etc...), Domestic Operations Weekend, Unit Weekend for a total of 6 full days and 10 half days.  That's a little more than 12-20 hours.

(Sorry, didn't realize it was locked until I went to check my post)


----------

