# New CF Fitness Policies Coming



## buzgo (23 Dec 2005)

Someone emailed this to me today:



> UNCLAS CDS 104/05  canforgen 198/05
> SUBJECT:  CDS DIRECTION FOR PHYSICAL FITNESS
> 1.  AS YOU ARE NOW ALL AWARE, CF TRANSFORMATION WILL MAKE THE CF
> MORE RESPONSIVE BY ENHANCING OUR ABILITY TO ACT QUICKLY IN THE EVENT
> ...



I don't have a link as it was an email but it is out on the DIN. It looks like 2006 will be an interesting year.


----------



## Haggis (23 Dec 2005)

So, in a nutshell, the CDS is directing that existing policies be followed; that exisiting standards be applied; that exisitng sanctions be used against those who fail to meet the standard.  And this only applies to Reg F and full time Res F members.

So, what's the "new" part?


----------



## buzgo (23 Dec 2005)

This part is new, isn't it?



> A NEW DAOD TO
> REPLACE THE CFAO S AND CANFORGEN S ON PROMOTION POLICY WILL ADD
> CERTIFICATION OF PHYSICAL FITNESS AS A CONDITION FOR PROMOTION


----------



## Haggis (23 Dec 2005)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> This part is new, isn't it?



I'll buy that.  And it's about time, too.


----------



## GO!!! (24 Dec 2005)

Haggis said:
			
		

> So, in a nutshell, the CDS is directing that existing policies be followed; that exisiting standards be applied; that exisitng sanctions be used against those who fail to meet the standard.Â  And this only applies to Reg F and full time Res F members.



So why can't our citizen soldiers be held to the same standards ?- the Reserves want the same kit, the same courses, the same opportunities to deploy, so why can't they be held to the same standards of fitness?


----------



## geo (24 Dec 2005)

GO!!!
in part, it is an issue of CF sanctioned Phys Ed and what happens if you injure yourself while doing said PE.
Reg & FT Res are provided with PT facilities and PERI staff.

The Reg & FT Res are paid while they are doing their PT and paid if they get hurt during sanctioned PT periods. 

As things stand, the Cl A reservist is only paid while undergoing unit training and not at any other time in the week. If he gets hurt and is unable to go to work the next day... who is going to look after him?... no pay sheet was signed so he is not protected by the CF and no possibility for compensation.


So,,, same kit, same courses, same deployment, same oportunities, same compensation?


----------



## KevinB (24 Dec 2005)

Fine, sign them in give them a PT test if they fail send them home.


----------



## COBRA-6 (24 Dec 2005)

geo said:
			
		

> GO!!!
> in part, it is an issue of CF sanctioned Phys Ed and what happens if you injure yourself while doing said PE.
> Reg & FT Res are provided with PT facilities and PERI staff.
> 
> ...



I think we as reservists use this as an excuse. Doing PT on your own time is not so inherently dangerous that it should be an issue. I could trip and fall walking down the sidewalk and no one would compensate me, but I still risk leaving my house on a daily basis.   

I'm willing to bet most reservists participate in far more hazardous activities than PT on a regular basis, such as contact sports, skiing, snowboarding, drunken bar fights, etc etc...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Dec 2005)

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> I think we as reservists use this as an excuse. Doing PT on your own time is not so inherently dangerous that it should be an issue. I could trip and fall walking down the sidewalk and no one would compensate me, but I still risk leaving my house on a daily basis.Â  Â
> 
> I'm willing to bet most reservists participate in far more hazardous activities than PT on a regular basis, such as contact sports, skiing, snowboarding, drunken bar fights, etc etc...



We've seen plenty here that Unit PT doesn't do it for most. However, if your Reg or on B or C and you injure yourself walking down your sidewalk to do your makeup PT, your covered and compensated. Cl A's aren't. Bottom line is you can't force them to participate in something where they may get injured and not compensated.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (24 Dec 2005)

Maybe we should look beyond the "are you getting paid or not" question with regard to pension/compensation coverage for Class A reserves.  I am covered for what ever I have put on my Expres test form, whether I am on duty or not.  Now don't raise the 24/7 thing because, realistically you are aren't on duty 24/7.  In my last job I was prohibited from drinking alcohol while on duty.  If 24/7 applied that would have been 8 dry years.

I am subject to the NDA 24/7 and that is what seperates Reg/Cl B/C from Cl A.

So the solution is to carry out an Expres test questionaire on all Cl A pers, and if they are injured while conducting PT IAW with that program they are covered.  Why does DND have to pay someone in order to provide compensation coverage?  Seems a bit backwards to me.

D


----------



## buzgo (24 Dec 2005)

I'm not sure that you are covered by what you put on the EXPRES form anymore - if it falls outside of what is on the form for an exercise prescription. 

If you are participating in sports or activities that aren't on the form you are supposed to get the CO's permission to do them. If you don't get permission then you are not covered in case of injury. 

So if you hurt yourself walking at 'level 3' then you are good to go, but if you hurt yourself rapelling during an adventure race without having permission - good luck with veteran's affairs.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (24 Dec 2005)

PSP has a list of what is permitted and shouldn't put down anything that isn't.  They should also ask you what level you exercise at and help you in putting down the correct level.  Therefore anything you put down on the form should be part of the prescription, no problem.
Team sports are now on longer on the form other than cross country skiing.  I assume that if you have listed X-country as part of your exercise and get hurt during a biathalon relay you would be covered.
Getting hurt on your own time was always troublesome.  You have to prove that the event was in the interest of the service.  No change there.


----------



## NCRCrow (24 Dec 2005)

Forum:

It seems the emphasis of the new DAOD replacing CFAO 50-1 (from 1987) is the adminsitration of a failure and the recourse the unit has to rectify it. (Verbal, RW, CP etc)

But we all know a Medical chit stalls or stops the process.

The only bottleneck the Navy seems to have is the PLQ, where u need a valid passed EXPRES to start. I am not sure about the other elements. 

Its about time we shake our image as roly poly Canadians who eat too much and watch movies. 
The Navy is the worst for abiding by the EXPRES Test but never ever promoting PT for its sailors.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Dec 2005)

PLQ candidates in LFCA require a valid EXPRES or BFT also, prior to course.


----------



## Dog (24 Dec 2005)

Is it possible that this is in response to some of the appearance of some of the younger crowd who work at NDHQ and wear pants with enough fabric to sail the HMCS Toronto on wind power? You know, the people who should be in shape, but aren't. The people who everyone else see's when they are waiting for the bus, and secretly wonder how the **** that person can be in the army, and why those people are wearing 2 acres of CADPAT? I can't see this being applied to senior officers that ride a desk all day. Or is this being directed at the NCM's out there in the field, or in garrison?

I'm just trying to figure out if this is applicable to me.


----------



## Haggis (24 Dec 2005)

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> Doing PT on your own time is not so inherently dangerous that it should be an issue.



It is, if you've previously defined "PT" as *P*ilsner and *T*ortillas.  Look back to the '93'ish Warrior Program. several members, both Res F and Reg F suffered serious injury (including at least one career ending heart attack) attempting to meet the standard.



			
				Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> I'm willing to bet most reservists participate in far more hazardous activities than PT on a regular basis



Like life?

The problem is that the P Res is not funded to provide any meaningful, progressive PT for it's part time members.  There is rarely, if ever, enough time or money to meet the training requirements already laid down by higher.  Look at any Reserve unit business plan to see the lists of "non-deliverables" that unit COs have neither the time or money to make good on.

HOWEVER, the new requirement for a fitness certification before promotion is a wonderful idea and should be applied to the Class A world as well.  Furthermore, a fitness certification shopuld be a prerequisite for a Class A reservist to occupy any leadership positions on major exercises.

Why?

Because there's nothing more demoralizing than doing personal PT all year long and then being "led" on an FTX by a red-faced, wheezing senior member with a huge shytelocker hanging out below his Tac Vest.


----------



## Armymedic (24 Dec 2005)

There isn't a new standard, but now there is accountability by the CO's to higher to ensure all members of the unit have been fitness tested.



> B.  COMMANDING OFFICERS WILL ENSURE THE FITNESS STATUS OF THEIR CF
> PERSONNEL IS ENTERED INTO THE FITNESS PANEL OF THE HRMS NLT
> 30 APR 06.  BY 15 MAY 06, A CONSOLIDATED REPORT WILL BE PROVIDED TO
> ADM(HR MIL), WHO WILL INFORM AFC.



There is still no change to the min standard.


----------



## GO!!! (24 Dec 2005)

To me, this whole argument against reserve fitness seems to be a bit of a non issue.

If you were to apply to any uniformed service (LE, Border Serv, CF, DCorr etc) and fail due to the physical requirements, would that department pay or compensate you while you tried to get yourself in shape, so that you could re-apply?

If you want to wear the uniform, don't be a FPOS, or you will be fired. The benefit is that you get to keep your part - time employment, and the associated benefits. 

Treat PT just like haircuts and well turned out combats - the CF does'nt pay for reservists haircuts - but they are still expected to have them - and no one will be able to claim a pension based on an injury sustained while going to get a haircut.


----------



## Haggis (24 Dec 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> To me, this whole argument against reserve fitness seems to be a bit of a non issue.



The argument is not _against_ Reserve fitness.  On the contrary, many Reservists would like to see existing standards applied to them as well.  One Army - One Standard.  The issue is about liability of the CF when imposing a standard without compensation for the consequence of meeting that standard.  What is needed is protection _similar_ to the Reg F (or Class B/C) for part timers who are injured training on their own time.  In many cases that injury means time off work with no military or civilian pay and out-of-pocket medical expenses not covered by the CF because it happened when s/he was not on duty (i.e. not "signed in").  



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> If you were to apply to any uniformed service (LE, Border Serv, CF, DCorr etc) and fail due to the physical requirements, would that department pay or compensate you while you tried to get yourself in shape, so that you could re-apply?



No, and nor do we.  Applicants must meet the standard out of their own time and pocket. Once in, though, the agencies you mentioned (including the full-time CF) make it a condition of employment to maintain that fitness and they compensate their members for it. 



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> If you want to wear the uniform, don't be a FPOS, or you will be fired.


You mean like "One Army - One Standard"?  What a novel idea!!!  Oh, but look around before you start firing only Reservists.  There's FPOS everywhere, in every trade  and environment and every component.  Look back at the posts by "Dog" and Hfxcrow" for examples. 





			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> Treat PT just like haircuts and well turned out combats - the CF does'nt pay for reservists haircuts - but they are still expected to have them - and no one will be able to claim a pension based on an injury sustained while going to get a haircut.



Unusual analogy, but you are comparing apples and oranges.  Sure, nobody will claim a pension becasue of a haircut.  But nobody's going on a CRB because of a haircut, either.  Nobody will miss work because of overexertion in a barbershop.  

Unlike low physical fitness  it doesn't take several weeks of hard work and discipline to restore a person's dress and deportment to acceptable standards (with the exception of some Air Force officers).


----------



## GO!!! (24 Dec 2005)

Haggis said:
			
		

> No, and nor do we.  Applicants must meet the standard out of their own time and pocket. Once in, though, the agencies you mentioned (including the full-time CF) make it a condition of employment to maintain that fitness and they compensate their members for it.
> You mean like "One Army - One Standard"?  What a novel idea!!!  Oh, but look around before you start firing only Reservists.  There's FPOS everywhere, in every trade  and environment and every component.  Look back at the posts by "Dog" and Hfxcrow" for examples.



All the militia units I am familiar with have agreements with local gyms/health clubs for free or heavily discounted membership - it is not out of pocket. Additionally, the express test, coopers test and others require little more than a chin up bar to train for, so you don't need a gym to stay in good shape.

I agree strongly with the application of the PT standards to the pathetic in the reg force as well - but they are not claiming that they are not paid to work out (most of them go sobbing to the MIR to avoid testing or PT)



> Unusual analogy, but you are comparing apples and oranges.  Sure, nobody will claim a pension becasue of a haircut.  But nobody's going on a CRB because of a haircut, either.  Nobody will miss work because of overexertion in a barbershop.
> 
> Unlike low physical fitness  it doesn't take several weeks of hard work and discipline to restore a person's dress and deportment to acceptable standards (with the exception of some Air Force officers).



I've seen guys charged for haircuts - and charges are usually considered when speaking of a members career.

I believe that we are selling our reservists short by making excuses to keep them from Reg force standards. If you want to be paid as a reg force soldier, get the benefits of a reg f soldier, and go on all of the deployments and courses of a reg f soldier - become one! If you CHOOSE not to join the reg f, you CHOOSE to forgo all of the above, and you CHOOSE a life of a reservist - none of this is being imposed upon you.

Regardless of your choice, there are standards to be met, and they should be applied equally. Should you choose not to meet them, see ya!

There is a post elsewhere in army.ca to the effect of the DND not being a "smorgasboard of benefits" for reservists and reg f alike. If you choose to be a reservist, you choose to be in shape without any compensation, but you are not subject to things like bug outs, last minute taskings, postings to shitty places and the like. So there's some give and take.

IOW, you forgo certain benefits in concert with the downsides of reg f life.


----------



## Haggis (24 Dec 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> All the militia units I am familiar with have agreements with local gyms/health clubs for free or heavily discounted membership - it is not out of pocket.


Then those are lucky units.  Unfortunately that's not true everywhere. But in the post I replied to, you were referring to "applicants": 


			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> If you were to apply to any uniformed service (LE, Border Serv, CF, DCorr etc) and fail due to the physical requirements, would that department pay or compensate you while you tried to get yourself in shape, so that you could re-apply?



I feel that under NO circumstances should *applicants* be given access to CF owned or funded facilities until they are hired.  That is definitely a perk.



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> I agree strongly with the application of the PT standards to the pathetic in the reg force as well - but they are not claiming that they are not paid to work out (most of them go sobbing to the MIR to avoid testing or PT)



Reservists aren't asking to be paid while doing PT on their own. Nor should they.  What they are asking for is _loss of earnings and pension_ coverage if they get injured doing PT on their own and are unable to do either Army or Civvy work.  (However, paying them would be quite a draw... and a heckuva big chunk out of our new $13B budget)  I would say that a part time Reservist who is paid to do PT who fails the PT test, would owe the Army a few bucks.  But, hey, where I work full time CF members are given 1 hour/day for PT and some still fail the PT test. 



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> I've seen guys charged for haircuts - and charges are usually considered when speaking of a members career.



And I've charged guys for haircuts.  It's a minor offence. The career implications are not the same.  Find me the "haircut" checkbox on the PER form.  Apples and oranges again.



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> I believe that we are selling our reservists short by making excuses to keep them from Reg force standards.


Agreed.  One Army - One Standard, in all respects.



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> Regardless of your choice, there are standards to be met, and they should be applied equally. Should you choose not to meet them, see ya!


Agreed again.

GO!!!, it's been a  blast, but it's Christmas Eve.  I'm going to forget about PT and PT standards for the next 36 hours.

Have a safe and Merry Christmas.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Dec 2005)

It's obvious that this issue, like so many others for Reservists, needs to be addressed with a contract.  The notion of the pay sheet should have been abandoned with the myth of the "Citizen Soldier" saving the day; Reservists need to be "fully professional on a part-time basis".


----------



## Hansol (24 Dec 2005)

This is rediculous. If you get so seriously injured while attempting a pushup, and you can no longer function in the military or civilian world, you have bigger issues than who to blame....


----------



## Infanteer (24 Dec 2005)

Hansol said:
			
		

> This is rediculous. If you get so seriously injured while attempting a pushup, and you can no longer function in the military or civilian world, you have bigger issues than who to blame....



Well, I don't think they are worried about that.  As said before, it was "one Army, one Standard".  If a Reg and a Reservist are nailed by cars while attempting to meet the same standard, there is going to be a different set of consequences for either of them when you compare a contracted soldier to a pay-sheet soldier.

Of course, a reservist contract demands that they show up, which may not appeal to lots of them - hey, maybe it's a good thing then; it'll sure get rid of alot of Reservist chaff who don't want to sign on the dotted line.


----------



## GO!!! (24 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Of course, a reservist contract demands that they show up, which may not appeal to lots of them - hey, maybe it's a good thing then; it'll sure get rid of alot of Reservist chaff who don't want to sign on the dotted line.



Lots of reg f chaff too!

Oh I can't wait to see the reactions of a few of the heavies when they are ordered to be in shape! This is gonna be great!

Merry Christmas!


----------



## KevinB (25 Dec 2005)

Haggis said:
			
		

> It is, if you've previously defined "PT" as *P*ilsner and *T*ortillas.  Look back to the '93'ish Warrior Program. several members, both Res F and Reg F suffered serious injury (including at least one career ending heart attack) attempting to meet the standard.



 - a 3.2km run with rifle, webbing and cbt boots - should be easy enough for anyone in uniform to complete.  I did it then as a reservist and the next year as a regular -- 
Gen Vernons Warrior Test was an attempt to bring the non SSF part of the Army into fitness and competancey.




> HOWEVER, the new requirement for a fitness certification before promotion is a wonderful idea and should be applied to the Class A world as well.  Furthermore, a fitness certification shopuld be a prerequisite for a Class A reservist to occupy any leadership positions on major exercises.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because there's nothing more demoralizing than doing personal PT all year long and then being "led" on an FTX by a red-faced, wheezing senior member with a huge shytelocker hanging out below his Tac Vest.



True -- but that happens in the Regs occassionally too.


----------



## chrisf (25 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> It's obvious that this issue, like so many others for Reservists, needs to be addressed with a contract.  The notion of the pay sheet should have been abandoned with the myth of the "Citizen Soldier" saving the day; Reservists need to be "fully professional on a part-time basis".



I'm not entirely sure how you'd go about contracting a class A reservist, given that none of us work the same amount, and it's entirely possible, indeed normal, for me not to know when I'm working until a week, even 24 hours, in advance...

On the subject of PT, I don't think, on the surface, it's fair to compare the fitness of a class A reservist to a reg force member, but on the other hand, as somone pointed out, there are still reg force members who fail their PT tests despite being adequate time to work out, and I know myself, as a class A reservist, it's not that hard to find time to work out, despite other commitments.

Seems to me, the simplest solution, is to insure reservists when working out at DND facilities, or approved alternate facilities. Not a perfect solution, but a simple solution.


----------



## The_Falcon (25 Dec 2005)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> I'm not entirely sure how you'd go about contracting a class A reservist, given that none of us work the same amount, and it's entirely possible, indeed normal, for me not to know when I'm working until a week, even 24 hours, in advance...



You put them on a contract the same way American Reservists and Guardsmen are on a contract.  Some other factors would need to happen as well, but it is possible.  We just need politicos with the intestinal fortitude to make it happen.


----------



## chrisf (25 Dec 2005)

You'll have to enlighten me, as I'm not familiar with it, how are American reservists on contract?


----------



## Infanteer (25 Dec 2005)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> You'll have to enlighten me, as I'm not familiar with it, how are American reservists on contract?



I can't give you the details because I don't know them, but I'm certain some US Reservists here will fill us in.  They do sign contracts that require that they show up for Parade days (although they don't have weekly parades - just one weekend a month) and summer concentrations.

A contract for the Reserves is needed.  It can help:

-  Steady out the brutal rate of personnel overturn (guys getting BMQ and then just quitting - I'd be interested to see how many Reservists units lose in the first year of service)

-  Facilitate Reg-to-Reserve transfers (A big problem for anybody who's tried the CT game)

-  Make it easier to lock a pension for reservists down; guys who serve 25 years in uniform at a part-time level deserve something.

-  Provide for a proper system of job protection and a more systematic way of building bridges with employers.

-  Cover difficult "gray areas" like the Physical Fitness one being discussed here.

-  Ease Army planning for integration of Reserves into training; if you have hard numbers, you can plan courses and exercises; if you consistently have a platoons worth of guys cutting out "'cause of final exams", there is a big problem in getting beyond individual training.  If the Army is guaranteed X reservists, it should be capable of guaranteeing Y in training.

Just my opinion, but I think this is one of the best ways to fix the broken reserve system.


----------



## ZipperHead (25 Dec 2005)

Far be it from me to take the sides of the Reserve world (don't tell anyone..... they might think I've gone soft  :'( ), but I think the priority needs to get the Reg Force, and then the Class B & C (which I really don't understand (the difference between B&C, anyway), but I'll pretend I do) into fighting shape. And before "we" (the Reg F) start huffing and puffing about the out of shape Reservists, we need to get our own house in order. Sure, I have seen some pudgy Reserve types floating around, and yes, the average civvy (and a lot of Reg Force even) can't tell the difference between them and a "normal" soldier, there are far too many Reg F porkers floating around, and unfit thin people for that matter. There is too much emphasis on appearance, and not on overall fitness. But, generally a fatty is in worse shape than a bone-rack, but not always. 

I was hoping from the title of this thread that the day I dreamed of was soon coming: a hard-core fitness policy that would transform us into what we should be (every soldier a fit to fight soldier), rather than the embarrasment that we have become. I think it could be construed as a shot across the bow of the ships, so to speak, of CO's who haven't been enforcing the policy for fear of losing their "special" people. You know, the one's that everybody says: "You know, they aren't much to look at, but boy are they one heck of a (choose one): pilot/clerk/cook/crewman/FCS tech/Sup Tech/AVN tech/etc,etc)!!" Which can be taken that if you are fit, you aren't much of a pilot/clerk/cook/crewman/etc. Or just because you aren't fit you are the greatest, etc, etc. Face it: it's just an excuse for people to be lazy, and by extension, fat and out of shape.

I have been harping to people for the last year that they have to be ready for when the bar is raised from it's pathetically low level (which a chihuahua with a bad hip, bad knees, and a mini-CADPAT doggy-rucksack full of Kibbles & Bits, could hop over). I will giggle with glee when the first people get the administrative actions taken against them, and start to blow fish-kisses because "I wasn't ready for the NEW standard!!!! But I did sooooo well on the old standard, with that super-duper hard 13km march, and that super-heavy ruck-sack!!! I passed it with 33 seconds to spare!!! On a nice day!!!! With no full mags!!! Or actual warfighting equipment on top of the one set of combats, a pair of lacy underwear, and oh yeah!!! my scarf!!!!!! That was hell, I tell's ya!!!" But that's just because I'm a prick, and actually take the allotted time (and then some) to do my DUTY, and maintain a decent level of fitness. The 1.5 hr lunch hours that it seems most people get, plus all the admin time, and the evenings and weekends, and the regularly scheduled PT (1+ hrs a day) just ISN'T enough!!!!

OK, I've depleted my sarcasm reserves..... time to top up with turkey!!!

Al


----------



## UberCree (26 Dec 2005)

This is a major milestone in the CF in my opinion and was a long time comming.  This may be THE most important step towards making the military more combat ready.


----------



## geo (27 Dec 2005)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> which I really don't understand (the difference between B&C, anyway
> Al


Class C VS Class B?
Paid 100% of salary VS paid 85% of salary.........


----------



## pbi (28 Dec 2005)

He's basically telling us to do our duty by being fit, and reminding us a) why; and b) that there are consequences to failure.  Might seem like motherhood, but it's something that has been neglected for far too long. I agree in particular with his guidance that it isn't just about PT testing. It's about fostering a mentality in the CF that nobody, regardless of uniform colour, MOC or component, lets themselves become overweight, out of shape embarassments. It's about lifestyle, not spinelessly blaming the CF for putting out nice food that makes undisciplined gobblers fat, or whining about doing PT on your own time. That change of mindset, IMHO, is the real objective.

Cheers


----------



## NCRCrow (28 Dec 2005)

PBI:
Agree, with u totally. On the CF doing a "lifestyle change". I would like to see more incentive or emphasis placed on a Exempt score vice one point (on PERS). Or a failure would automatically mean a developing PER. How can u lead and order your troops to follow orders (CFAO 50-1 etc) when you cannot. It sets a bad leadership example and is very hypocritical. I have given people developing PER's (who with a simple EXPRES test would have had a superior or higher) who have failed the EXPRES or have not done it and the **** came down on me from above. 

But I proved a point...that directives are to be followed at every level regardless.

The Navy asks for one hour of PT a year for the EXPRES, ntm to ask for the salaries and benefits we enjoy.

In Halifax we have 3 state of the art facilities, plus 2 rinks and two pools. Every ship has space allocated only for PT gear.

The excuses are running out..except if u are on a medical chit and I am no doctor.

Crow...(still bloated from Christmas Turkey)


----------



## GO!!! (28 Dec 2005)

I think the proof of the success of this will be in the proverbial pudding.

These rules have been in place for a long time, and they have been disregarded for a long time too.

They will only be successful if the rules are followed at the lowest levels ("Sorry Craftsman Bloggins, you are a great FCS tech, but you are also 300lbs - no promotion") Will the grievance board side with the Sgt.? or the Pte? 

Even worse - who will order our esteemed Colonels into the gym, and refuse to promote them if they are too pudgy? I can't see a Bde Commander's career progression being hampered by a little thing like fitness - this problem is far too advanced for that.

*I'll believe in this system when I see a Col. removed for failing to get into shape, until then, it's just talk, and talk is cheap.*


----------



## Bert (28 Dec 2005)

GO!!!

From the CDS new directives, the only difference between what we have now and what is stated is
the requirement for the candidate to have passed the PT test before promotion.  I can't see
how failing the test is good for one's career.  So whats different really then?  Is there objective
information the CF massively promotes members who in the same year failed PT tests?

Theres alot of perceptions of what a "fat" member is.  What's overweight or too pudgy in terms of
a CF medical or fitness standard or your standard?  This is nothing but slagging people for the sake of it
until you define it.

Like PBI wrote, the CF is better to create a more healthier lifestlye and perhaps further by improving 
collective PT and setting an objective standard for body fat percentage taking the US Marines and US 
Army as examples.  However even in comparasion of US miliary branches (as examples), PT standards 
are not the same.


----------



## ZipperHead (28 Dec 2005)

> I'll believe in this system when I see a Col. removed for failing to get into shape, until then, it's just talk, and talk is cheap.



I agree 100%. This type of thing sounds good, and somebody always gets Mastered in the _Leading Change_ bubble for thinking of policies, or making noises that sound like following them, but until somebody higher up in the food chain gets stopped in their tracks (careerwise), how can it be enforced lower down?!?!?!

Here's an example (nothing to do with fitness) of something I saw not too long ago that might ring true with our audience: People were getting behind in their payments to our School canteen, and the canteen pers dutifully kept track of how much was owed, over how long a period, etc. The lists were sent out to the Sqn's, and the "threat" kept coming down to "pay, or else!!!". Well, because it hadn't been enforced for so long, people disregarded the "or else" part, and took their sweet time paying. Once upon a time at the Armour School, if you were 25 cents owing to the canteen so many days after a pay-day, you were cut off from getting credit for 6 months, and then had to write a memo requesting permission to be allowed the PRIVILEDGE of receiving credit. Any, one time "they" threatened to withhold leave passes if the canteen debt wasn't paid. Yet another hollow threat that came and went. Then it was decided that they were going to get SERIOUS, and if individuals didn't pay, administrative actions were going to be taken. Sounded good and scary, but when one was to peruse the list, there were more than a few Sgt's, WO's, Capt's, Maj's, etc on the "hit list", and were they REALLY going to put a Capt or WO on C&P or Verbal Warning for not paying for the bag of chips they bought 4 months ago, but hadn't bothered paying for since? (I am simplifying it a great deal: there was a substantial amount of money owed by a great number of people (for clothing, accoutrements, etc), and a canteen can't order stock when it's in the red. But people got tired of the huffing and puffing, so they tuned out and shrugged their shoulders, and treated it like an interest free loan). Long story short, there were no career implications/administrative actions taken, IMO because of the large numbers of pers in leadership positions who were just as negligent as the infamous Cpl Bloggins, and "they" wouldn't punish their own, would they?!?!? I think we know the answer to that one......

I will be watching this one with great interest to see how tough "they" are on this. When a Major or WO isn't promoted because of not completing the fitness standard, and are made an example of, and not just shuffled off to die somewhere, I will believe. Until then, I think I may have to file it under "Hollow Threat", and watch and shoot......

Al


----------



## buzgo (28 Dec 2005)

Did anyone else hear that there was a 60% failure rate for EXPRES tests in Ottawa?


----------



## BKells (29 Dec 2005)

7 of us did it on our PLQ a week ago. All passed, all PRes Class A.

The funny part was about 4 meatheads wern't allowed to do the test because their heart rate was too high. (ephedrine and smoking/drinking coffee all day).

Edit: we're Ottawa area.


----------



## Rescue Randy (29 Dec 2005)

I understand the scepticism when it comes to fair and equitable enforcement across the ranks, but it does happen - there was a cleanup of the EXPRES system at Comox in 2002, to get full compliance, and a Major was put on RW.  He subsequently passed the test after a period of fitness training.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (29 Dec 2005)

When on a SUE with the marines in Fort Sill Oklahoma, I liked the fact that every morning all ranks were out for a run, unit pennant in hand. It ensures that all ranks are fit and gives the lowliest private the added confidence in the fitness of the people that would be watching his back on the battlefield.

 It would seem that too often in the CF, higher ranks are using "class preparation" as an excuse to opt out of PT. A bit of time management the night prior would ensure everyone could participate in PT.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Dec 2005)

BKells said:
			
		

> 7 of us did it on our PLQ a week ago. All passed, all PRes Class A.
> 
> The funny part was about 4 meatheads wern't allowed to do the test because their heart rate was too high. (ephedrine and smoking/drinking coffee all day).
> Edit: we're Ottawa area.




You're on your plq after only 1 year in?


----------



## GO!!! (29 Dec 2005)

Bert said:
			
		

> Is there objective information the CF massively promotes members who in the same year failed PT tests?


Yes, because all the information from the boards is made available to the public, along with pers files, medical records etc.  :

If you can't see that we, as a military are out of shape, you have your head in the sand.



> Theres alot of perceptions of what a "fat" member is.  What's overweight or too pudgy in terms of
> a CF medical or fitness standard or your standard?  This is nothing but slagging people for the sake of it
> until you define it.


Yes, I know, some people are "fat fit" and you know a guy with a gut who can run a 4:45 mile and do a hundred chinups blah blah blah.

I've seen the Col. in Trenton who sits on two chairs, and the men who wear maternity wear - those guys passed the beep test? Please. I'm guessing you're worried about these new policies, and are thus concerned about the definition.



> Like PBI wrote, the CF is better to create a more healthier lifestlye and perhaps further by improving
> collective PT and setting an objective standard for body fat percentage taking the US Marines and US
> Army as examples.  However even in comparasion of US miliary branches (as examples), PT standards
> are not the same.


And that is the problem. Our standards are pitifully low, if you can still pass them at 45 years of age and 50lbs overweight.  When the standards are tightened up, and applied with max aggression, it will be impossible to be in the military and disgrace the uniform with a lack of fitness.


----------



## Bert (29 Dec 2005)

Im not saying your wrong Go!!!.  Its just statements like the above don't reflect objective information.  If we are out of
shape as a military, then whats your criteria of whats in shape.  If theres a Col who sits on two chairs in Trenton, 
then is it common for all Cols or a special issue with this one Col?  Can you run a 4.45 min mile and do a hundred chinups?
The current standard may be too lax if a 45 year old 50 lbs overweight can pass, however the CF has a standard.  
According to the CF, they are fit enough if they pass the test.  Should the standard be increased? Perhaps. The CF does 
not have a body fat standard.  If you think members are fat, whats your objective standard; 8% too fat, 10% too fat, 
15%, too fat, 25 % too fat, 40% to fat??  If the average member is fat, why and how do we fix it?  My point is to 
separate the subjective and objective as threads like this become a broken record of sorts.

I'm not in total disagreement GO!!!, I think the CF and the members can go alot further in respect to fitness, BMI reduction
and standardizing programs throughout the CF rather than focusing on deployable units.  The transformation occuring
in the air force has improved PT programs, made members more aware of standards, and a majority are training for
deployed ops.   As others have stated, our tempo of operations has increased substancially over the recent years.


----------



## ZipperHead (29 Dec 2005)

I think that when I (and others whom I won't name, but if they want to agree, feel free) say "fat", it is a generalization that there are too many unfit pers in the CF, and yes Virginia, the majority are as fat as Santa Claus, and are not Tiny Tim (how's that for working in a Xmas reference (4 days too late)!?!?!). 

BMI testing went out years ago, and I don't think that I was ever in the sub-25 range (except maybe at the end of Basic Trg). That's not to say I wasn't fit, but my body type prevents me from being that light/thin/whatever. But I think it is fair to say that the aforementioned Col who takes up 2 chairs, or the maternity wearing male "soldiers" have great difficulty in meeting the standard, if they actually realistically pass it, that is. 

Arguing that we should get everyone to meet the standard we have is noble, but guess what??? They should already be meeting it. If we wait for every sorry-assed POS to FINALLY get to the low standard we have, my grandchildren will be ready for retirement (my oldest child is 7, so do the math). I think that a new, battle-standards ready standard should be adopted, implemented, and then a reasonable (I would argue no more than 6 months, otherwise "reasonable" becomes 5 years or more) period to get people there, and then BOOM!!!! the hammer falls on those that can't make it.

This isn't about pointing fingers at people, calling them fat, having them sulk and cry that somebody called them fat, and "boo-hoo, woe is me". This is about creating a military culture of fitness (USMC, US Army-style), not excuses and low standards for the sake of including everyone so that they feel good about themselves. 

The new Fitness manual, with it's testing programs, and workouts is a good start, as it gets away from simply running 5 days a week, or just bench pressing 200lbs, 6 times. If more people were to use the testing as an objective way of looking at what they have to work on, and then work on all those elements (rather than just the one's that they did well on, which usually seems to be the case, as people don't like practicing their weaknesses, only their strengths), we would have a military full of fit, confident pers, not MIR Commando's, using lame-ass excuses to cover their inadequacies.

Al


----------



## Armymedic (29 Dec 2005)

We had a medic SSGT and PA (Capt) from the US Army medical service come up for a briefing to 2 Fd Amb in early Dec.

While sitting in the Mess afterward, the SSGT told us about the enforcement of the US Army standard by the new Army Chief (thier Army CWO).

He had a Command Sgt Maj (CSM) conference in Washington. The first day, all the CSMs were to report in PT gear. After a short speach by the Army Chief, all CSMs underwent the PT test. The PT test was filmed. Those who failed were stripped of thier appointment (I don't recall exactly how many failed, but it was more then 2.)

Now thats how you set a standard. You think they take thier fitness testing seriously?


----------



## ZipperHead (29 Dec 2005)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> We had a medic SSGT and PA (Capt) from the US Army medical service come up for a briefing to 2 Fd Amb in early Dec.
> 
> While sitting in the Mess afterward, the SSGT told us about the enforcement of the US Army standard by the new Army Chief (thier Army CWO).
> 
> ...



Now that's what I'm talkin' about!!!! 

When it comes down to it (as somebody has already mentioned) it is a leadership issue. Nothing more, nothing less. How seriously do you think a young soldier takes a big sack of pooh, whether they are wearing a crown, 2 hooks, a full braid, a thin bar, whatever??? First impressions last a lifetime. And falling back on "Well, I _used_ to be in shape when I was 25..." doesn't mean jack-squat.

You should forward your post to the CDS, Ash. Maybe that would get him riled up (or maybe that is what he has planned..... I would love to be there holding the video camera .... might need a wide angle lens for some of the larger lads > )

Al

Al


----------



## Spr.Earl (29 Dec 2005)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> This part is new, isn't it?


Just like it was in the past.


----------



## Haggis (30 Dec 2005)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> When it comes down to it (as somebody has already mentioned) it is a leadership issue. Nothing more, nothing less. How seriously do you think a young soldier takes a big sack of pooh.



I've said it before...

...there's nothing more demoralizing than doing personal PT all year long and then being "led" on an FTX by a red-faced, wheezing senior member with a huge shytelocker hanging out below his Tac Vest.

Those who need this kick in the keester know who they are.  And when I go back to work I'll bet the gym will be packed... PACKED I tell ya, right up until 31 March.  Then, unless something drastic is seen to happen to those who don't/won't measure up, the status quo will return.

If people put as much effort into doing PT as they did in finding ways to avoid it, we'd be a LOT fitter Forces.


----------



## KevinB (30 Dec 2005)

The problem is a LOT of CF members dont think that they shoudl be held to the same standard as the Light Inf.  They view that the idea of them trooping in the mountain of Kandahar is ridiculous and thus they feel comfortable with the idea of gulping down 2-3 XL Triple Triples a day and a few fat pills w/o any PT to wokr it off is acceptable.

We need to go back to a REAL PT standard - one that involves a REAL gut check - and yet is also realistic.

IMHO Their has to be both a cardio inclusion - and some sort of fighting skill involved (shooting - falling plate)
 When we used to do the Ruck one day and then the 16km webbing shuffle with 10" wall and falling plate shoot at least there was something, and we also had the PT400 as well as a biannual test in the unit.

A 13km walk with 35lbs is a farce for a Warrior culture -- people need to either 1) Get the F*ck out or 2) Accept the CF is the profession of warrior and saddle up to the bar.

True not everyone is a Paratrooper, - but there will come a day very shortly (IMHO) that the CF is goign to pay very heavily for the laxity in standards for so long.


----------



## Armymedic (30 Dec 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> IMHO Their has to be both a cardio inclusion - and some sort of fighting skill involved (shooting - falling plate)
> When we used to do the Ruck one day and then the 16km webbing shuffle with 10" wall and falling plate shoot at least there was something, and we also had the PT400 as well as a biannual test in the unit.



If the PT400 is similar to the Cooper's test, then I agree.

How's this: You must pass minimun PT standard, either BFT or Express Test yearly. Then once in the 12 month period you must do Coopers Test. Your score is ratio'd by age/sex to a maximum of 5.0 for fitness. This score (neutralised to remove sex age info) is then included onto PER to be included into your promotion merit score.

We get an additional 2 points for bilingualism. Why not give incentive for fitness?


----------



## KevinB (30 Dec 2005)

The PT400 was the Coopers without the BenchPress.

 I agree with your testing idea 100% -- but I'd include a PER bonus for shooting too, and make the ruck a 29km with 50lb ruck PLUS Fighting and Dying gear - thats a gut check.

Bring back the Gen Waters March...


----------



## Haggis (30 Dec 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> The problem is a LOT of CF members dont think that they should be held to the same standard as the Light Inf.



Nor should they be.  But there IS a standard, low as it is, and that's where we need to be on 31 Mar 06.



			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> We need to go back to a REAL PT standard - one that involves a REAL gut check - and yet is also realistic.



I think that if the current standard is stridently enforced, lots of folks are in for a rude wake-up.  From there... who knows???.



			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> A 13km walk with 35lbs is a farce for a Warrior culture



It's 52.5 lbs and it is a farce.  We're not a Warrior culture.... yet.



			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> True not everyone is a Paratrooper, - but there will come a day very shortly (IMHO) that the CF is going to pay very heavily for the laxity in standards for so long.



We already do. We pay for it in extra sick days, in poor public image and perception (remember the "Fat Troops on the Street" thread?), in increased injuries.  But mostly we pay for it in the increased staff effort wasted on having to produce documents like this CANFORGEN.  In making the leadership effort to ensure that our soldiers, sailors and air personnel actually get out and do what they should have been doing all along.

I, for one, have a lot better things to do with my time than chase people that shouldn't need to be chased.  As I said above: 
If people put as much effort into doing PT as they did in finding ways to avoid it, we'd be a LOT fitter Forces.


----------



## ZipperHead (30 Dec 2005)

I really like KevinB's idea: a kick-ass ruck-marck and THEN a must pass rifle shoot (in other words, the good old March and Shoot, which the last time I'd done/heard of was on my CLC in '92 at the PPCLI Battle School). That would sort the wheat from the chafe, alright. 

We really need to focus on being warriors, not civvies in CADPAT. Something that is definitely missing in our culture in the CF is TRAINING. We do these PT tests, PWT's, and other tests, PRAYING that everyone will pass, and if they don't we pull out the 5.56mm pencil, or say "well, he/she was CLOSE to the 2hr26min20sec mark, so let's pass them.....". If we TRAINED people (not just in Basic, or DP time) all the time, and said fuq the paper battles, O Gps, mess dinners, coffee breaks, sports afternoons,etc (things that we cling to because they are "traditions", but not realizing we have lost the real tradition of honest soldiering), we wouldn't have to be pissed off (at the shit-pumps) all the time; we would actually have the majority of the people at a high standard, just because they were trained to be there. Some would slip through the cracks, but then THEIR feet need to be held to the fire to improve, or be gone.

This all (everything we have been advocating) takes a lot of WORK and effort, and that is what scares everyone off: it costs money, it breaks our cozy work schedules, it requires thought and innovation, so the status quo rules supreme, and then it becomes the next guys problem. I'm hoping that the buck stops at Gen Hillier, and he starts kicking some severe asses, and that will allow the leadership down the chain to really start doing the same (without the frustration of watching Tubby McTubby beat the rap with a Human Rights challenge).

Hopefully we can all fight the good fight, and see the results.

Al


----------



## Gunner (30 Dec 2005)

0730-0900 hrs - Mandatory CF PT.


----------



## ZipperHead (30 Dec 2005)

Gunner said:
			
		

> 0730-0900 hrs - Mandatory CF PT.



This is part of the problem: Ever been to the gym at 0730 (or 0800) hrs??!?!?! Everyone and their dog is there, and every piece of equipment is three people deep waiting. And how about the medics? Sick parade must carry on.... And the cooks, who have been up since 0330hrs..... or the training staff on courses..... One size does NOT fit all. However, saying 90 mins of PT per day, per soldier, would work, if........

There needs to be a move AWAY from the traditional, and into the innovative. Have units stagger off the gym timings so that it isn't a dog's breakfast at the gym, or running trail, or pool, or whatever. That would require forethought, but they are able to do it for ice-timings at the rink, so why not for the other facilities??? Myself and others have argued for this type of change at the Regt, and here at the School, but we are always met with the typical: "What about the CO's/OC's/Canteen Queen's O Gp??" "Don't you know Sr NCO coffee break is at that time?!?!?!?" "I've NEVER done PT at 0930hrs, and I am not about to start after 10/15/20/100 yrs in.....". Some things will never change.

As it is, the fit get fitter, and the fat get fatter......

Al


----------



## Gunner (30 Dec 2005)

> This is part of the problem: Ever been to the gym at 0730 (or 0800) hrs??!?!?! Everyone and their dog is there, and every piece of equipment is three people deep waiting. And how about the medics? Sick parade must carry on.... And the cooks, who have been up since 0330hrs..... or the training staff on courses..... One size does NOT fit all. However, saying 90 mins of PT per day, per soldier, would work, if........



All PT doesn't have to be in the gym...  

As far as medics, cooks, training staff, etc, change the way we do business.  Sick parade can be at 0900 hrs instead of 0730 hrs.  You will never get the 100% solution but isn't 90% better than what we currently have.  



> As it is, the fit get fitter, and the fat get fatter......



You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink....


----------



## Armymedic (30 Dec 2005)

Gunner said:
			
		

> As far as medics, cooks, training staff, etc, change the way we do business.  Sick parade can be at 0900 hrs instead of 0730 hrs.


That will mean I am not as busy because half the people we see is because they are not fit (mentally or physically) to do PT at 0730.

BTW, my UMS locks its door at 1400, and we do PT until 1530, or longer if I so desire. (work hours are 0700-1530) It takes another level of motivation to go and give it all in an end of the day workout, esp in the summer.


----------



## GO!!! (31 Dec 2005)

I like the earlier thought on fitness testing the SNCOs and firing the ones that failed - because quite frankly, I've had it hearing "this is how we did it back in * ***" from "leaders" who have been in staff jobs for the last five years and conspicuously absent in the ranks of the "cooper's test gold standard" t-shirt wearers.

There is no such thing as bad soldiers - only bad officers.

There is also a great deal to be said for the "Warrior Culture" that the Marines have exemplified in all of my experiences with them. Too many CF soldiers seem convinced that they are a technician first, and a rifleman when they have to be - and too many leaders seem willing to overlook that person's riding out the BFT in the back of the box amb - there is more than enough blame to go around here - but the fix has to start at the top. 

I would simply demand a minimum score of 50 on the coopers test, and a minimum of 5pts /yearly/6 months improvement as a condition for promotion, courses etc. (with the obvious exceptions for injuries etc). Violations start with a written warning and progress from there.

The idea of a system adjusted for sex/age is foolish. Do sex or age count at the merit boards? At the pay scales (other than for seniority)?
For leave considerations? Of course not. One standard. Pass or Fail, none of this BS that women are weaker, or that old men can't soldier as hard any more, that is paternalistic and fosters the victim mentality that we currently suffer from. 

Think if we had an entire platoon of 45 year old women - it could happen with our employment laws - who are exempt from half of the tests and only have to do half of the rest - who would carry the SF kit/84/C6/trauma kit? would it be left behind in the hopes that the enemy would "consider their age and sex" before ambushing them?


----------



## rhino18 (31 Dec 2005)

To all, 


On this topic. I don't believe we need to re-invent the wheel.  It must be the responsibility of each soldier to be in the best shape that they can be at all times.  That said, for some reason, this topics always seem to digress to reserves on one side and regs on another.  The new policies will simply give the units more teeth to employ counselling procedures on those that fail to meet the standard.

At the end of the day if you're an unfit soldier you risk your life and your fire team partners.  And, if you're a leader it your section or platoon.  So,  Get off the computer and go for a RUN.....

PS.. if you're Class A look both ways before cross the street.

Thus endth the rant.


----------



## c_canuk (1 Jan 2006)

I think the PERI trade needs to be brought back, as a PRes I've seen bad group PT, either it's too light for me and I loose fitness cause we are going at the pace of the slowest person, or we go at the pace of the fastest person and our fitness cannot develop further becase we don't give our bodies enough time to recover.

Good PT should push you to the limits, then give you time to recover and adapt to the new level of demand.

on my PLQ this summer we ran every day, we never did anything other than a weekly ruck march... I lost 20 lbs of muscle  in my arms and chest, and my mile time decreased, because of lack of rest time for muscle to recover and rebuild, and actual sleep. All that PT that our instructers thought was making us hard was counter productive. Had there been a qualified PERI Staff around to supervise and advise maybe this would not have been the case.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Jan 2006)

c_canuk 

Obviously, from your statements, you had unqualified Instructors on your course.  PSP regularly trains Unit NCOs in how to conduct PT.  For the most part they are professionals in the Physical Training Field.  As a Reservist, you haven't had the exposure to these 'facilities', but at the same time, your problems with your PT on Course, are also partially your own problem.  You can supplement the PT, that you felt you were lacking, by doing extra training after hours.  It is after all, your call.


----------



## NCRCrow (1 Jan 2006)

The PERI's trade was axed for a reason. 

I love PSP and the freshness and dedication they exude. They are awesome here in Halifax.

The PERI dynasty is over and I hope it stays that way.

Crow
(UPTA since 94)


----------



## ZipperHead (1 Jan 2006)

I agree with George and Crow: the PERI trade wouldn't have helped you on your course, as it is the DS, and not the PERI's, are the one's that would have directed the majority of your PT. There needs to be UPTA courses run so that course staff are doing the correct regimen. 

I find that the PSP staff have done a much better job than PERI's did "in the day". There is a much broader knowledge base, with a higher level of trg. As Crow noted, the dedication of the PSP staff seems to be above and beyond (with a few rare exceptions) to what I saw with PERI's.

And, IRT your course canuk, the PT is usually based on trg time available, requirements of course, fitness level of students, etc, so no doubt they did the "classic" run and march PT schedule. I don't neccesarily agree with it, but that type of PT is better than nothing at all. 

Al


----------



## c_canuk (2 Jan 2006)

I will bow to your gentelmen's experience with PSP vs PERI, I'm not that knowledgeable about the difference between the two, but from what I was lead to believe was that PT was; if not conducted by, it was directed by PERI staff. If this was not the case, then at least for Reserve trg it would be nice if there was someone who could do this.

"You can supplement the PT, that you felt you were lacking, by doing extra training after hours.  It is after all, your call."

After hours? we barely got 5 hours sleep after completing our daily tasks, and at lights out I didn't have the energy regardless. When we did finally Saturday and sunday afternoons off I did go to the gym, but 2 days back to back a week is not enough to maintain muscle mass when you are doing way too much cardio, and are being deprived of sleep.

I don't agree that counter productive PT is better than none, I estimate it's the same, we medically RTU'd 10 people out of 60 before we went to the field. And though my Cardio was in awesome shape, I came home with less muscle and little or no change in body fat.

Keep in mind we marched in FFO aprox 15 km a day on top of daily pt.


----------



## ZipperHead (2 Jan 2006)

C_canuk, it sounds like you were (are) in very good shape prior to your PLQ. That's great. However, I'm sure the PT that was done was at a level of the average soldier, and perhaps higher than the average soldier. There is no way that group PT will ever satisfy every single person in a group. At either end of the spectrum someone is either going to find it far too easy or far too hard. At least you had the benefit of being able to pass the physical part with ease (I assume), at the expense of losing muscle mass and some cardio. 

Courses like this are meant to have everybody work as a team, and individual-based PT isn't what it's about. I'm sure if you tried to run a PT program that would have suited your training needs, it would have been to the detriment of the others (assuming that they were in worse shape than you). That's the way it is.

The course is over: I'm sure by now you have gotten back to your pre-course shape. Maybe you motivated somebody else. That's about all you can hope for (right now). With any luck, the new policies will force people to be in better shape before they arrive on these courses, and then folks like yourself will be able to maintain, rather than regress, their standard during the course. Remember: now that you have leadership training, you should be one of the one's motivating, inspiring, whipping  others into fitness.

Al


----------



## NCRCrow (2 Jan 2006)

Wow...Big Al..........good post.............sounds like a PDR/PER debrief


----------



## GO!!! (2 Jan 2006)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Keep in mind we marched in FFO aprox 15 km a day on top of daily pt.



Sounds like quite the course - marching 75 km/ week, for 8 weeks.


----------



## c_canuk (2 Jan 2006)

Big Al, (if I may also call you that?   )

*shrug*

I suppose so, I didn't think I was in that great of shape overall... just not happy I lost so much Muscle... I'm still putting it back on as I was stuck in the field for 8 more weeks after that on various taskings, but I'm making lots of head way getting it back now that I'm in the Golan.

http://ccanuk.brinkster.net/bosnia/Lookinpimp.jpg thats what I looked like prior to going on course
http://ccanuk.brinkster.net/bosnia/group.jpg front left most soldier

http://ccanuk.brinkster.net/danaca/pics/chllingonthepatio.jpg and that was taken a month ago...

you can see a big difference in just my fore arms... I'm on night shift or I'd be able to find better pics maybe =)

I suppose you are right though... I just wish there had been either more time to work out on my own, or more variety in the mandatory PT, we can't always get what we want though eh?  



GO!!!

75 km a week... yeah I guess it was that much... it was about 2km to the mess from the shacks, 2 more the the MTF, 2 for lunch, 2 back to the MTF, 2 for supper, 2 to the MTF, and 3-4 finally back the shacks... Shilo is pretty spaced out and we living in the condemned school by the PMQs... 

we had lots of problems with blisters early on, glad to say I muscled through mine though I was worried I might get an infection, but ditching my old combat slippers with the irregularly worn heels and sticking to my other barely worn in set helped a lot.

Overall the course was probably the toughest one I've ever been on, including being one of 2 siggies on an Arty basic trg... but looking back on it, I'm glad I'm done, and that I succeeded and made it to middle third, when a lot of people didn't even pass. My Section was and is really tight even though most of us never seen eachother before... pressure made us gel and only one of my section got RTUd, and we consistently did very well. 

Looking back I mainly only remember the good times.


----------



## armyvern (3 Jan 2006)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Keep in mind we marched in FFO aprox 15 km a day on top of daily pt.



Wow, Just where did you do this PLQ at? Here in Gagetown? Aldershot? I'll have to ask your C Clerk at 722, Nancy, what are the odds of me getting some of my troops on this course as they could certainly use the PT you managed to get at whatever location.

Bet you're really doing some extra work-outs in the good old Golan now as the PT there don't compare with that from your PLQ either. Please, PM me and let me know where you did your course at.   

Edited: No need to reply...just read your below post. Nice patio in the background...still climbing that pole?? I miss it.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jan 2006)

Don't worry Vern.....most of us never considered the two Km march from the shack to the Classroom in the TLF or whatever it was called in Edmonton and then to 1.9 km march from the classroom to the Mess Hall and then 1.9 Km march back to class then the 2 Km march back to the shacks as totals towards any PT regime before.  I imagine if I was in Gagetown those numbers may have doubled.   ;D


----------



## armyvern (3 Jan 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Don't worry Vern.....



I'm not George. Whew...I thought that I had really missed something here. But I haven't it seems as I don't count it towards my PT if I don't have my ruck on my back while marching. I still remember Cornwallis...so based on to the Mess/classrooms etc, I could add on about 15k of running per day on top of those 2.5 hour daily PT periods.

Edited to add : in my damn combat boots!!


----------



## Patrolman (3 Jan 2006)

I also wonder were this course was run. I just finished instucting on a PLQ in the not distant past and I am amazed so much was done in so little time. 
 I will agree for someone who is good shape your pt wll suffer. Part of the problem is the condition students arrive on crse in. when students arrive on course they are supposed to have a copy of their last pt testing. A lot of times this testing is written off for the ind. so they can attend course. Do you think a CO who is in desperate need of NCO's is going to say I can't send Cpl. Bloggins because he is fat! NO. He is going to write the test off and he will be on course. This in turn drops the course pt way down. It is my opinion the first morning of course there should be a Pt test run by PSP, any who fails should be rtu'D.
 I am still amazed so much marching took place.Your staff must have had in for you making you wear FFO everywhere you went.


----------



## ZipperHead (3 Jan 2006)

> I am still amazed so much marching took place.Your staff must have had in for you making you wear FFO everywhere you went.



I think that this is the way that courses should be conducted. Some of my buddies went to Ft Knox and Camp Pendleton to observe the way the US trains their soldiers in their version of DP1. They march/patrol everywhere, so that it is second nature to be doing so. That way they are used to wearing their equipment, and always being in formation. I really think this is the way all courses should be conducted. The CF is still trying to shrug off the complacency of the 70's and 80's (and 90's one could argue). 

We should be following the lead of the US, as they are at war, and it doesn't take too long to go from peacetime (although with soldiers deployed in Afghanistan, I don't know if we can say we are in a peacetime military...) to war. It's far better to be prepared and ready, than to scramble to get ready (sound familiar????..... in other words, all the 'work up' training that we are forever conducting before any mission).

I think if the powers-that-be realized that it would be far more economical and efficient to conduct our training PROPERLY at the beginning of a soldier/airman/sailor's career, we wouldn't have to spend so much time (re)training people to get ready to go on tour. How many stories have we all heard/experienced of people (and not all are CSS trades) that simply can't do weapons handling, or main a gate, or a defensive position, because they were never trained???? "We don't have time!!!!!". Well that time has to be made up at some point doesn't it!?!?! And the same goes for PT: if PT is put into training so that it becomes part of the culture (like it was in the "day"), soldiers will stay fit throughout their careers. If it's "on again, off again", people get frustrated and say "Screw it!!!!", and how many times have we all see that PT becomes the first victim when the workplace gets busy?!??! 

Al


----------



## c_canuk (3 Jan 2006)

Vern,

So you know Nancy eh? wondered how long it would take before someone had less than 6 degrees of seperation on me =) small military suprised it took this long, I actually haven't climbed the pole I'm on the dark side as Sig Det IC at the moment. the draw down is taking up a lot of my time but the gym here is much better and I get to do PT on my own time other than when I go to the other side for the Tac Marches, so I'm happy. 


George

I mention it cause it was pretty hard on a bunch of people early on as we had to go at a really fast pace to meet our timings, after 3 weeks it was business as usual, though the load of books we had to cart around got heavier and we had 4 C9s unslung per section rather than the usual 2, though I'm told the C9 weighs as much as the FN did so maybe we should have carried C9s all around. 


Patrolman 

it was run in Shilo by Comres with a few PLF guys mixed into the DS


Big Al

I kinda expected we'd be marching everywhere, as every other course I've been on, I've had to march everywhere, just in kingston everything is around the parade square and there is a shuttle from the McNaughton side if thats where your shacks are. FFO is new but I expected that cause it was a combat skills and not a trade course.


----------



## armyvern (3 Jan 2006)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Vern,
> So you know Nancy eh? wondered how long it would take before someone had less than 6 degrees of seperation on me =) small military


I know lots of people!! Nancy's a card, lives up the road from me. Just another red-headed girl!!
Next time you're in CZ, stop by Supply and give Cpl Brake a kick in the butt from me!!

Ya gotta make it up that pole at least once, no tour is complete without it!!


----------



## WogCpl (3 Jan 2006)

Well, after a lot of reading I'll throw in a couple of cents. First off the 13.2 is probably the biggest joke i have ever seen. I have watched very large people pass it with little difficulty and lighter folks who are very fit have a harder time with it, but still pass. How does packing a useless kit list to a designated weight prove anything, if you are going to ruck make it a reasonable list (x# of days rats,x# of days water, and a basic load of ammo w/relation to your function) 

As for the express test it's not a bad judge of over all fitness but the standards are low! As for the no promotion angle that is great but as long as it's all promotions including Pte to Cpl! But, does that mean that someone could be a fat Sgt for ever, they still have to do the test every year and pass or face carreer action so how is that an incentive? Maybe leadership positions should have a higher standard of fitness than your average joe. I was recently in borden on a course and had a look at the 6A's that were passing through and maybe 3 out of about 30 were in good shape. What does that say to the troops.

As far as daily PT goes if anyone has ever tried crossfit, (www.crossfit.com) it's quick, painfull and will sometimes make you puke. But if you want to get in shape, or stay in shape but don't have a lot of time it's a good tool!

Hopefully, this new fitness policy will have an effect, but i am not optimistic. I guess i will just stick with personal pride and the satisfaction of knowing i can perform my job, and still soldier to a basic level. After all, in the end we are all soldiers are'nt we?


----------



## ZipperHead (3 Jan 2006)

I was going to mention Crossfit at some point, but in my mind, it is a more advanced type of PT (it can be, at any rate), and it is better to sell the product that the Army is selling (the AF Manual trg). Crossfit is just circuit training on steroids, really. Don't get me wrong: I have done a few workouts, and almost earned my "pukie" badge on one of the 'tamer' ones. 

In the new year (i.e next week) I am going to shake off my Xmas cobwebs, and start the Crossfit in earnest. If you haven't looked at it, give it a look-see. Very easy to start a regimen, though many of the exercises are all about technique, so don't overload on those. If anyone thinks that the programs are easy: try it before you knock it!!!! One of the ones I tried looked pretty easy, and took twice as long as I planned, and I was ready to hurl only half-way through. 

I wouldn't be surprised if Crossfit (or something like it (like the workouts in the AFM))  becomes the flavour of the year, in regards to people's workouts, as you can easily tailor programs to each individual (strengths, weaknesses, injuries) and it doesn't take a lot of time to do a workout. In fact, if you read through some of the theory, it is better to do these style of workouts compared to endless miles on the treadmill, straight weightlifting, etc. Mind you, every exercise routine seems to be "better" than anything else (they gotta sell books, magazines, health-club memberships.....).

Al


----------



## WogCpl (3 Jan 2006)

You said it Al !
As far as the AFM goes, I have to say i read it and it seems like a well thought out program, and is very progressive, it would be awesome if people used it.
If you are going to try cross fit do like Al says, and stick the technique, but don't get hung up on the specifics either, if you dont think that you can lift a certain weight, go for a lighter one, if reps are too high, don't do as many etc.


----------



## Bert (3 Jan 2006)

I've known about this for six months.  Like Al and Wog said, this is a pretty good and intensive program.  Its scalable 
and can be adapted to your basement and outside activities to unit PT.  Running and weights generally
exercise typical muscle groups.  A crossfit  or the like program stimulates the muscles one doesn't use much.
A complete body development program that supplements the treadmill/track.  You notice major endurance improvements.
Some of the exercises are akward and would be a riot in unit PT.


----------



## buzgo (3 Jan 2006)

Doesn't the CLS provide direction on the use of the AFM programme? Aren't people supposed to be using it? 

When I left Petawawa last year, the units were just getting issued free weights  and stuff so that they could do the exercises - hasn't it happened?


----------



## ZipperHead (3 Jan 2006)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> Doesn't the CLS provide direction on the use of the AFM programme? Aren't people supposed to be using it?
> 
> When I left Petawawa last year, the units were just getting issued free weights  and stuff so that they could do the exercises - hasn't it happened?



As somebody has as their signature: "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single footstep (and a lot of bitching)....".

It will take a while for this type of thing to get into full swing. And regardless of this, just because units have the eqpt, doesn't mean that they will utilize them (or utilize them to the max). Again, everybody will be lined up at 0800hrs to use them, and then the weight room will be deserted the other 7 hours of the workday. I think it will be a lot like a New Year's resolution: lot's of activity in the beginning, then people will lose interest and it will slow down again.

As I said before (and will continue to, ad nauseum): The fit will get fitter, and the fat will get fatter.


----------



## Synthos (3 Jan 2006)

I recently joined the army reserves, and I've since realized that the standards for physical fitness for the military are much lower than I expected.

It's been said before, but I'll say it again: each soldier is a reflection of the army, and if people aren't in shaped others will assume the army is a physical breeze.

I think it's a good idea to deny promotion based on physical fitness. What good is a CO/NCO that can't keep up with his command? As well, leaders set the example for their troops. The have to be stronger,faster,and more competent to be a truly effective leader.

Regular, mandatory phyiscal exercise for EVERYONE in the reserves has to happen. Twice a month maybe. As well, if anyone can't keep up with the rest of the unit/section (barring physical problems) they should be put through administrative action to force another fitness test.  3 weeks later when they do the test if they don't pass it they *have* to be released. This should be applicable to everyone, from clerks to COs.

As a side note, I think if they issued one or two PT t-shirts with army/navy/air logos to each soldier. They would be authorized for public wear as long as you're doing PT (that doesn't include fixing your roof). I think that would encourage them to do PT on their own time (this is more or less for reservists). In addition to that, the general public would see this person running, or at the gym and see the tough, proud people in our CF. Maybe the t-shirts could be rewards or something you have to earn.

As well, once everyone is truly at the same set of standards we can then begin to raise them, and make an even tougher CF.


----------



## Donut (3 Jan 2006)

Synthos, 

in case you haven't been reading this thread, it's taking a heck of a lot more then new t-shirts to get an enforceable fitness standard for both the regs and reserves.

You've had some good points on here, but they're really not backed up by any kind of experience, and I'd suggest you're not qualified to comment on the essentials of leadership, much less what should constitute grounds under which the CF *has* to release someone.

Welcome to the CF, but maybe you should spend some time soaking up the knowledge on these boards, and not throwing out opinion based on a couple of months of service.

DF


----------



## Synthos (3 Jan 2006)

I'm not saying it should be just t-shirts that makes enforceable fitness. They'd be for encouragement and publicity, I don't think I said anything else about it.

I never claimed I have a lot of experience but would you have said what you did if I didn't say I just recently joined. You're right about me not knowing about releasing. However, I think you're wrong in assuming I don't know what makes a good leader. I think it's obvious that a leader who isn't a role model for his subordinates is probably not going to produce troops that aspire to be at that greater level. And if you can't perform to the same level as your troops, then it's hypocritical for you force them to a set of standards that you can't acheive yourself. Please don't assume I don't have experience with leadership just because I didn't get it from the army.


----------



## pbi (3 Jan 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I think the proof of the success of this will be in the proverbial pudding.
> 
> b]I'll believe in this system when I see a Col. removed for failing to get into shape, until then, it's just talk, and talk is cheap.[/b]



And herein lies the problem: leadership by example, both amongst senior officers and WOs. While a few RWs might be required (threat of  release would hopefully not be needed to motivate somebody at that rank level, but...), I think the overall effect on the morale of the CF would be great. But, again, we need to get rid of the mentality that lets people let their personal fitness go down the drain: IMHO it's part of the whole "job-ism" thing that still permeates far too many folks. A true professional keeps themselves as fit as their age and medical condition permit, and doesn't winge about it. It has to be a lifestyle thing.

Cheers


----------



## c_canuk (4 Jan 2006)

also keep in mind that it's hard enough to keep people in the PRes longer than 4 years to begin with.


I don't know about other places, but my unit has a lot of former Reg forces who've done their time playing rough and are a little slower than I am yet that is insignifigant compared to the amount of experiance, knowledge and the willingness to regularly take part in trg that they bring to the table.

In that light who cares if they can't get one more push up, or run that mile a few seconds faster, they've been doing it before many of us FNGs were born, and without them there would be a steep difference in the troop that we could turn out in the PRes.

It's also pretty unrealistic to expect someone who's been at this job for 30 years to be able to keep up with 17 yearolds.


----------



## Synthos (4 Jan 2006)

That's a good point, but if I'm not mistaken the standards are different for the older members. However, greasing the component transfer process and keeping experienced members in should be a high priority too.


----------



## buzgo (4 Jan 2006)

That is a good point, there tends to be a feeling that we should all be 'olympians.' Unfortunately, this isn't going to happen and people need to acknowledge that. People slow down, people get hurt and people get burnt out.

I think that one of the reasons that the US military is perceived as being so fit, and is able to get so many people to be fit, is that they are all YOUNG! How many 45 year old Sergeants do they have? The Brits and Germans have 'age cut-offs' IIRC. If you don't reach a certain rank by a certain age, you won't progress...


----------



## ZipperHead (4 Jan 2006)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> That is a good point, there tends to be a feeling that we should all be 'olympians.' Unfortunately, this isn't going to happen and people need to acknowledge that. People slow down, people get hurt and people get burnt out.
> 
> I think that one of the reasons that the US military is perceived as being so fit, and is able to get so many people to be fit, is that they are all YOUNG! How many 45 year old Sergeants do they have? The Brits and Germans have 'age cut-offs' IIRC. If you don't reach a certain rank by a certain age, you won't progress...



Give that man a prize!!!!! You win the award for Astute Observation of the Day!!! War-fighting is a young man's game. The problem, of course, is that in Canada, our government and their social scientist minions think that we (the military) are but another Department where all the Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be applied the same as they can for Canada Post, CCRA, etc. And it doesn't help that people have come to look at the military as "just a job" as PBI pointed out. People are in denial that they will ever have to fire a shot in anger, conduct a fighting patrol, beat back the hordes from the gate, etc. Giving the "Technician", "Specialist", "Operator" title to every trade doesn't help, as it makes people feel like civvies, who inconveniently have to wear a funny uniform, listen to people with lower education levels, and god forbid, try to fit into the aforementioned uniform: "Hmmmm, CADPAT is getting snug!! Musta shrunk in the wash. Option A: Go to gym, work out, lose weight. Too hard!! Option B: Go to QM, get XXXXL CADPAT. Too easy!!! Option B it is (plus I can stop and get a half dozen fat pills on the way back to work. Then blame society for my woes..... Bonus!!!!!"

Agism (as an excuse) doesn't really cut it, either. Yes, it gets harder to maintain fitness, but with age (usually) comes wisdom and discipline. I remember watching the over-35 crowd get to do their own PT (Tai-chi, slllooooowwwww runs, etc) when I first joined, and thought: "SWEEEEEEETTTTT!!!! I can't wait for that!!!!!". Well, that dream faded away. And now it seems that the one of the fitter groups of soldiers (where I work anyway) is the over 35 crowd. A change in society (Generation X-Box causing young people to be more sedentary; older people realizing that we won't live forever and that our career has to end someday; healthier choices (less drinking, more healthy eating) for the old fogies) has caused this disparity to some degree, but I think blaming the "system" (which I am guilty of, lord knows) isn't the answer, as it comes down to individual responsibility. 

I don't think that we should all be Olympians, but considering we are paid a dump-truck load of money (not P Diddy or Alex Rodiguez level, but better than McJob wage-slaves), given considerable benefits, and have taken on a "calling", we should at least strive to be at a level of fitness where we can be comparable to minor-league athletes (not darts or curling......). We shouldn't have to be witness to the lumps of goo in CADPAT, airforce blue, or Navy workdress, waddling around like the mouth breathers that they are. As a taxpayer it disgusts me to know that some of these "things" are better paid than I am, and are going to be a significant drain on our health care dollars once they retire (if they live that long). Watch "Super Size Me", and the comments buddy makes about how you can hector a smoker nowadays about the evils of smoking, but can't say "Boo!!" to a super-sized fatty because it will hurt their feelings. Too true.......

Anyway, now that I've gotten my dander up, I shall go kill some evil bad-guys in my murder-simulator (Battlefield2).

Al


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (4 Jan 2006)

(I’m responding to a few posts on this thread here,  I apologise for the disorder) 

With all due respect to the idea that has been posed on this thread that all soldiers should be held to one person’s ideal of physical fitness in order to serve; I find this idea to be silly and wasteful.  

I have to agree that for the General Public our Armed Forces are a source of pride;  I do however feel that this sense of pride comes out of respect for people who are willing to stand between harm and the public and hold the line.  I don’t feel they are proud in the Armed forces because they all look super hot and could all be pin ups for calendars.  

First of all I have to agree, it would be nice if every Canadian soldier was perfectly fit, healthy and possessed a supernatural ability to never age, get injured or have one of the million things that are apart of normal wear and tear.  But lets be honest, unless we suddenly discover some wondrous new technology… ahh even then it wouldn’t be cost effective.

Let us look at what our armed forces are for.  Keeping us safe and exercising out national will.  (Am I grossly misinformed? – topical pun intended)

Now, if we look at the point of the issue.  Being able to do the job.  I’m reading there is a need for “upgrading” before being put on active duty.  Obviously we as a nation need a certain level of operational readiness to stay a sovereign nation which hast to be maintained.  (Which, unless last time I went to Kingston those were all Americans, obviously exists)

On the topic of how the military leaders should set the example,  I am forced to agree.  It would be nice if Generals could slap on a rock sack and haul it with the regular troops. (Read the above comment on alien anti ageing technology) But I am going to point out that if I’m in an army an a General is forced onto the front lines, chances are we’re loosing… likely because she was doing push-ups when she should have been reading up on military tactics.  Honestly, I don’t care if a General has a body like Jabba-the-hut,  if she is brilliant at her job, a tactical genius I say let her do what she’s good at.  Similarly for other officers,  if they can do the job,  I’ll live without a pin-up. (living being the important part)

When the chips are down and lives are on the line.  I’d rather the people who are making decisions are there because they have experience, talent and skill.  In fact, if my life was on the line, I’d rather have someone with 15 years experience who has a beer belly watching my back than a 17 year old who can do more push-ups and run farther.  

My point is this; experience is a very valuable thing.  Ageing comes part and parcel with experience – as does less than perfect physical conditioning.  The idea that people should be pushed out because they don’t inspire awe at their physical condition is wasteful.


----------



## COBRA-6 (4 Jan 2006)

You're wrong Zell_Dietrich.

No one is talking about a swimsuit competition, but being fit enough to do the job. Having experience is of little use if you can't go on the attack because you're puking your guts out 10m after crossing the line of departure...


----------



## ZipperHead (4 Jan 2006)

Zell, I'm going to go out on a limb here (because you filled in next to no information in your profile, I will have to make a few assumptions): you aren't in particularly good shape. You aren't in the military. You have never been forced to work until the point of exhaustion (and not the: "I'm a little bit fatigued. Better sit down for a second". I mean: "Holy Sh!t!!! I can barely stand up. My legs are rubbery. I'm seeing triple. My mouth is drier than a desert rats sack. If I close my eyes, I'll fall asleep....standing up.... with all my gear on...."). 

I think that the point of all our talk about fitness is about one thing: fighting a war as an infantry soldier. No more. No less. EVERY single soldier in the military defaults to an infantry soldier when we don't need a truck driver, a paper filed, a weapon fixed, a radio fixed. Every one. CDS on down. Take a long look at General Hillier. He isn't young. He is Armour Corps, fer crissakes!!!! My neighbour in Edmonton was the camp Sergeant Major of Banja Luka when Gen Hillier was the MND SW Commander in Bosnia (Multi-National Division - South West) in 2000-2001. He told me a story about when Gen Hillier would go for a run. His JTF bodyguards weren't able to keep up to him. He told them: "Get in shape, or go back to the Hill!!! (JTF HQ)". It isn't a coincidence that he is the CDS. He is smart. He is charismatic. He is a soldier. If he can do it, everyone should be able to. Should we put in a fat CDS just so lazy soldiers can have a (pathetic) example. Fuck no!!!!

If people don't want to join the military (or stay in) because it is too hard to maintain the fitness level expected to do battle, don't join, or get the fuck out. We don't WANT or NEED them. There. I said it. Come back with how smart out of shape people are. I'm pretty smart. Come back with it's unrealistic to expect everyone to be super-duper fit. I'm not saying you have to be super-duper fit. Just be fit. To fight. Not type. Or cook. Or turn a wrench. Being fit makes it easier to do those things. Plus you will have confidence. And energy. And pride.

Al


----------



## George Wallace (4 Jan 2006)

Slight Highjack.....This just in from another source:





> 'Semper Fit' on Home Front Only
> 
> Marines serving in Iraq are exempted from the Corps' weight-loss plan. Once back in U.S., extra fitness training, lectures, weigh-ins are the drill.
> 
> ...


----------



## Armymedic (4 Jan 2006)

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> You're wrong Zell_Dietrich.
> 
> No one is talking about a swimsuit competition, but being fit enough to do the job. Having experience is of little use if you can't go on the attack because you're puking your guts out 10m after crossing the line of departure...



I concur. Its not about having everyone perfectly fit, its about everyone in the CF being as fit as they can be. Just achieving the minimum standard should not be good enough, CF members should always strive to do better. Passing current standards do not take herculean effort, or a huge amount of time. Most personnel in the army can do it easily withing the pt regimen as perscribed by their units. There is never a shortage of opportunities to participate in unit or PSP directed activities. People should never fail a BFT, never fail a Express test as those standards are today. For if they do, they should feel shame if they are allowed to wear the uniform of our country, the uniform which carries the flag that represents you.

As for personal fitness standards...how this one:
I am having difficulty doing my 40 p/u, 40 s/u. I am struggling to complete the 9th chinup, and I am having trouble maintaining a 50 min 10 km pace on the treadmill.
As outlined by CF's fitness guideline for my age and sex, I would easily achieve exempt on an Express test...why do I feel I am not fit enough?

Perhaps because my 18 yrs of experience tells me so.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (4 Jan 2006)

I suppose you could put your "in shape" guys in charlie team and always have them assault the trench................ that way everyone else could finish digesting their beans and weiners.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (4 Jan 2006)

Mike:

You’re 100% right.  I was too zealous in pointing out that experience is critical for an army to be effective. There has to be the ability to execute that experience.  I did get a general sense from previous posts that there was a prevailing attitude that appearances were more important than experience.  I wanted to make a point that the primary focus should be on the ability to perform,  I feel experience is key.  

Alan:

You’re right in that I’m not in the military, yet.  I will however disagree with your assumption that I am in poor physical condition – 160lbs, 6 feet tall, (I’ll not go on in case a future boot camp drill instructor is reading this – bragging apparently brings a world of hurt) Also I’ll disagree with your assumption that I’ve never worked to the point of true exhaustion.  I’ve worked so hard that I’ve literally puked… and then went straight back to work.  (Yes I worked on a farm, no I’m not lazy, yes it was heat stroke and yes I passed out later that day (scar on my forehead to prove it), and yes I worked the next day) 

I was to defensive for physically unfit, I don’t like the idea if valuable training and skill going out the front door because we’re becoming a culture obsessed with youth and the washboard abs.  What if there was a brilliant tactical officer who lost a foot?  What if he was brilliant at anticipating the enemy’s tactics and excellent at coming up with effective counter strategies?  What would best serve the Forces, salute him as you toss him out or would you use his knowledge and skill for the good of the service?

I really relate to what is being said about how standards must be in place to keep our ability to be effective.  And I personally agree with the idea that the level one keeps one’s physical body should be a considerable factor in promotions.  I wanted to express a dissenting voice against those ideas that say those who are a little older, a little heavier, a little more worn than a 17 year old fresh recruit are slovenly reffuse that should be replaced like one replaces a tire.


----------



## Synthos (4 Jan 2006)

We wouldn't want our officers to allow their shape to become too rounded...

If they did then enemy snipers know that the fat guy is the one to shoot.

Just another reason to stay in shape. 
P.S.
  There's a guy in the U.S. army who lost a leg in (iraq?) but was able to meet their physical fitness requirements so they let him back in.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (4 Jan 2006)

Synthos said:
			
		

> We wouldn't want our officers to allow their shape to become too rounded...
> 
> If they did then enemy snipers know that the fat guy is the one to shoot.



You're saying that like it is a bad thing.... (*oops*)  (swiftly placing hand over mouth)  I'll just start doing push-ups now   ushup:


----------



## WogCpl (4 Jan 2006)

As i said before, i am not holding my breath on the "new" policy being effective. Why create a new policy anyway, why not just enforce the old one. I think Haggis posted it a few months back, i'll try to dig it up later. For those of us who joined 15 or more years ago, the division in fitness is easy to see, especially in the CSS trades. I was always taught "your a soldier first" and i always took it seriously. I do not profess to be an infanteer but i know i can fight at a basic soldier level, and i won't burn out after the first 10 minutes. I think that most of the folks who got in when i did are probably the same, the army is our profession. As for some of the newer troops,(not aimed at all of you) they seem to be too "thin skinned" and concerned with "what's in it for me?"
I was in borden on a course a few months back and i was kind of shocked at the general feel around the shacks. I serously felt like i was in gang teritory, a bunch of punks with their hats on sideways standing around their brand new frenched out honda civics looking like gangstas'. I wish i could have bought a car when i was on my threes, but i could barely aford my bicycle ! What is it with troops today? I know that discipline is lacking, do we pay them too much? Am i just getting old. Anyway I guess my point is that it is going to take a lot more than a small change in our fitness policy to change the way people think about their chosen profession, and how they view "the Service" as a whole.

Yup, i am getting old


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (4 Jan 2006)

I think we’re all in agreement here.  The armed forces needs to be effective.  That means physical ability, training, and experience.  I guess this is just a case of facing south saying left, facing north saying right.  When I have been on Canadian bases, only a dozen times or so, I have seen basically fit people, a few exceptions for the more ‘senior’ staff, but all in all solid.  Therefore I perceived the posts above to be more along the aesthetic lines than operational.  Also, I think we have a slightly different perception on the size of the “pool of talent”; it isn’t limitless and a better person isn’t just ready to go all the time. Also,  I have questions about the state moral would be in if a career and a pension could be thrown out the window because of screwing up one fitness test. Obviously I’m talking in extremes, the current system – from what I understand, has warnings in place and the like.  

So what I’m hearing is:

Standards: Good, we need them. (The Min is very reasonable)
More incentives to improve: Good idea 
Young kids with strangely placed hats:  Bad 
Enforcing the regulation instead of making another regulation to replace the “bendy” regulation: better idea

 :


----------



## WogCpl (4 Jan 2006)

Zell, your absolutely right, but what you don't see is how bad ti has become. I have worked in infantry and CSS battalions and i can honestly say that the fitness situation is much worse in the CSS trades. I really do not care how someone looks, it's the fact that a group of 35 year old men and women(the ones that CHOOSE to do pt) can go out for a run with their troops and lose 70% of them along the way, fat and skinny. If our army was fitter the long lineups at physio on base would probably dwindle, and medical pensions would be decresed because fitter troops get hurt less.etc etc....
If you want to see how unfit we are go to a base physio clinic


----------



## WogCpl (4 Jan 2006)

A quote from Haggis Sept 1st 2005 CFAO 50-1 (the old policy)

"REQUIREMENT AND RESPONSIBILITY
4. It is a mandatory military requirement that members participate in the Canadian Forces Exercise Prescription (CF EXPRES) Program. The physical fitness training prescribed under this Program shall be conducted during normal working hours when circumstances permit. When this is not feasible, the member must maintain training outside normal working hours, in accordance with the member's CF EXPRES Program prescription. The times and places of physical fitness training outside normal working hours will be determined mutually by the member and the EXPRES evaluator. To the extent practicable, these times and places shall be annotated on form DND 279 -- CF EXPRES and approved by the commanding officer (CO). This physical training shall be considered as fulfilling the military requirement for participation in the CF EXPRES Program even when conducted outside normal working hours. 

5. Leadership is fundamental to program success and therefore the primary responsibility rests with the chain of command (including civilian supervisors and managers) to ensure that all members actively participate in regular exercise programs. 

6. To meet their specific requirements, commanders of commands may amplify this order by publishing command physical fitness policies and instructions consistent with this order. In addition, due to the varying nature of employment of Reservists on Continuous or Periodic Reserve Service (Class A or B) for less than 181 days, commanders of commands are delegated authority to determine the level of fitness required for these members of the Reserve Force. 

7. COs are responsible for programs conducted in accordance with CF policy and command direction. Physical education and recreation (PE&R) staffs are responsible to their COs for planning, organizing, conducting, instructing, and evaluating CF physical training programs. Where necessary, members of other military occupations who are appropriately qualified Unit/Ship Physical Training Assistants may evaluate and train personnel under this order." 

and....

"3. Career Administrative Policy -- General. If failure is determined to be a performance deficiency, then CFAOs: 26-17, Recorded Warning and Counselling and Probation -- Non-Commissioned Members, 26-21, Career Shortcomings -- Officers -- with notification to NDHQ may apply. If it is a medical problem then 34-26, Career Medical Review Board, may apply. If Service requirements have precluded adequate remedial training, then the above CFAOs may be inappropriate and alternative corrective measures may be required. In all cases the CO has requisite authority to remedy the situation."[/b]


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (4 Jan 2006)

FatwogCpl :

That is an ironic name for a person who is advocating physical fitness.  
(Sorry if I see irony I’ll go for it) 

I guess I’ve only seen the more active soldiers when on base.  (Which is possible I’ve only been on a base maybe a dozen times in my life, usually for a Judo or Kung fu tournament, or to quickly grab my friend’s stuff on way to Montreal) 

As an outsider looking in, I’m seeing an operationally capable force. I know from personal experience, problems barley visible from the outside are huge once you’re in.


----------



## armyvern (4 Jan 2006)

FatwogCpl said:
			
		

> Zell, your absolutely right, but what you don't see is how bad has it become. I have worked in infantry and CSS battalions and i can honestly say that the fitness situation is much worse in the CSS trades. I really do not care how someone looks, it's the fact that a group of 35 year old men and women(the ones that CHOOSE to do pt) can go out for a run with their troops and lose 70% of them along the way, fat and skinny. If our army was fitter the long lineups at physio on base would probably dwindle, and medical pensions would be decresed because fitter troops get hurt less.etc etc....
> If you want to see how unfit we are go to a base physio clinic


OK, I agree with you on this. It has become bad and it IS worse in the CSS trades, but have any of you considered reasons for this? Yes I AM a soldier first....but I must still do my trade-related job. Some CSS trades don't have the opportunity for mandatory PT on a daily basis as most hard Army trades do. PT is mandatory here 3 days per week...but if I have a course coming through for a kitting or are deploying someone...that takes priority over PT. Yes, it is our jobs to maintain our fitness on our own time if required (and if able to do so barring a P/TCat). Sadly, the own-time caveat only leads to some support personnel (other bases or serving with non-Army enviorments) being given ZERO time during working hours to do PT as in some places the work-comes-first attitude prevails ALL the time as the Leadership can always quote the "according to the regulations it is your personal responsibility." This is indeed a leadership failure. 
About the PCat/T Cat side of the house...
I am aware of many pers on the CSS side of the house who can pass the CF Expres test and are therefore fully comply with the minimum fitness requirements. However, a whole bunch of them (and more than a few in Land DEU) are precluded from carrying rucks or running becasue of permanent medical categories. What to do about this situation?
But before we relegate it to a "majority are CSS trades" observation I would also like to point out that most of these personnel that I have met within my CSS trade, have been re-mustered over to that CSS trade as a direct result of their category making them unfit for futher service in the "hard Army" trades, but as they can still do the express test....they move them over to our trades. 
I would dearly love to see a study done to see what percentage of the "non-deployable/'fat'/can't do a 13km march/carry a ruck/need to go to physio" CSS trade personnel are actually re-musters to CSS trades because of these very reasons. It's high. Of my own personnel in this situation...the rate is...100%.

So looks can be deceiving and I urge you to consider this. That all being said, is booting a guy whose service to the country has caused his injuries as a first line field soldier and made him unfit for further service within his old MOC the proper way to go? Or do we roll him into a CSS posn when he can still meet the minimum (that is the Expres Test) fitness requirements of the CF? I'd argue that his experience and leadership capabilities must also play a role. Let's face it....in trades like mine...whether we like it or not, there are desk jobs that these personnel can still do, thereby freeing up the rest of us who are medically fit to deploy, go to the field etc. My .02 cents worth.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (4 Jan 2006)

> Some CSS trades don't have the opportunity for mandatory PT on a daily basis as most hard Army trades do.




 Inevitably though it boils down to personal motivation. My job is 12 hour shift work that alternates dayshift and nightshift. Although I can't get a straight answer out of my career manager as to when I can get back to a Regiment, and there is no directed PT for me, I make the time to atleast get 45 minutes of PT a day 4 days a week.

 If motivation to stay fit doesn't come from a future need to be fit, one should rethink their choice of joining since PT on basic training wasn't designed to get you in shape just once.

My buck twenty.


----------



## armyvern (4 Jan 2006)

And I agree with your statement. This is a leadership failure as well though. I'm a former shiftworker as well (us Sup Techs do that while posted to Air Force bases). But, if the status quo is to allow ZERO time for PT to personnel in certain places...you must at some point in time require the "Leadership" to be held accountable for that, not just the individual.

By the leadership allowing ZERO time for PT, and simply quoting as their reasoning "it's a personal motivation/requirement/responsibility" , there will be no change. Their needs to be a change in the Leaderships mindset...they need to MAKE IT their responsibility to ensure the personnel are fit. 

After all, why back-fill all those empty posns (that costs money!!) in the trades? You can simply work your personnel to the bone on that 'work-requirement and unpaid over-time/operational reasons' thing and then say "it's a personal responsibility" to keep fit on top of all that which doesn't cost them any money. That's a cop-out as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps we will see improvement in the personal fitness levels when the CF is at the full strength that it should be for our current op tempo and, once again, like back in the days, when we actually had enough personnel to do our jobs, do PT and do the Ops.

Let's face the facts...the military needs to be fit. The Leadership should make it their personal responsibility to ensure that soldier's are fit. If that means hiring the extra 15 personnel required at whatever Unit permanently that would allow us the time and opportunity to get both our jobs, taskings AND PT done....so be it. If a trade/Unit does NOT have time to get out and do PT because the work-load is too heavy, then I suggest it is the CFs responsibility to get them the personnel resources they require.

So what are your thoughts on those personnel I mentionned earlier who can and do meet the CF Express standard, but can't carry a ruck/deploy etc? Some don't look very fit but they do technically meet the standard. Should they have to go to the gym on their own time to get those washboard abs to look fit...even if they're meeting the current CF minimum standard? I think it comes down to what the CF minimum standard actually is (definately not saying that I agree with what the minimum standard is  )...and leadership.


----------



## WogCpl (4 Jan 2006)

Well, if you look at the CFAO it is a leadership failure, no doubt. If a CO's people are not fit then it is his fault if they were not given time to maintain proper fitness as far as i am concerned any CO that hides behind the "personal responsibility" idea is not taking ownership of the problem. You and I are on the same page AV, but first off i think the BFT is useless. the express tests both aerobic and anaerobic fitness, to a degree, where as the BFT proves that if you are really big then 52 pounds is not as much of a difference than if you are really small. I am speaking to holding people accountable when they do fail, which is not being done. On another note if we filled all of the base positions with "non deployable" people then the deployable ones are gone more often, and while we all like to go on tour sometimes enough is enough, ask anyone from 1CER during the 90's. 
As far as my "handle" irony is the reason i chose it


----------



## ZipperHead (4 Jan 2006)

I wish we lived in a black and white world, but we don't. Because we live in the "grey zone", we re-muster 'broken' soldiers to CSS trades. And then expect them to be as fit as an infantry soldier. But because they are on some form of Category, or a chit, they are exempt the rigorous training they require to get in shape. So they get out of shape. So then we tell them to get in shape. Refer to chit. And around and around it goes...... 

Here's something that I've been thinking about lately, so I'll throw it out to the masses: when a person goes on chit, category, etc, is it acceptable for them to get fat/out of shape??? If a person can't, say, run, shouldn't they swim, or bike???? If they can't swim, they can learn. If they can't bike, shouldn't they walk??? I think I know the answer to this one, but it is rather tiresome to hear: "I'm on a chit/category/whatever, so I can't run/walk/swim/bike/life weights......". How about a chit that says: "Member must maintain a healthy weight, via keeping energy ouput equal to/greater than energy input". Let's see how much people would obey THAT chit/category: "It's against my human rights!!!!!" "They can't tell me to do that!!!!!!". But when the chit says "PT at own pace/design/duration", they can do 10 mins of light pedalling on the bike and feel that is plenty enough, and "Hey, that's what the chit says. Can't go against that!!!!". 

I think that the fit and good-to-go soldiers should NOT be forced to do all the deployments, tasks, field training, etc etc. That mentality is what drives out the good soldiers, and allows the weak to stay in ("Cpl "Too Fit" Bloggins will do all my work, I get to sit around, collect the same pay and benefits..... excellent!!!!"). Seen it, lived it, hate it. 

If a person can't do the job of an average person in their trade, good bye, see ya later. That's heartless and cruel. So's life. And war. Go to the Marines (who happen to be fighting a war right now) and see if that looks vaguely familiar to their policy. How many desk jobs are their available in every trade (or the equivalent)??? Who get's the desk jobs once they are all taken: "Hey, I'm a good 20lbs fatter than you, I deserve it!!!!" "No, I deserve it because I did far worse than you on the EXPRES test" "No, my medical file is at LEAST as thick as the New York phone book, I deserve it". And so it goes......

We are not a job placement agency. Once your best-before-date has expired, yes, you are gone. Unless of course they can find something meaningful and useful for you to do. And then the cycle (as above) begins anew. Again, a grey world is what we live in.

As for PT time: it IS a leadership failing if time isn't made available during the work week (a normal week). It is also a personal failing if that time isn't utilized. And if you have to go into "personal" time (lunch, before work, after work), you don't get a medal or an "Outstanding" on your PER: you get a paycheck every 2 weeks. I hear excuses, not reasons, for why people don't do PT. A lot of them emanated from my very lips. Then I got sick of being a lazy bastard and FORCED myself into a routine. Would I rather sit on my ass?!?!?!? Hell yeah!!! But I feel much better, physically, emotionally, pride-wise, etc for knowing that I am bettering myself. And I ran in the field (I was the moron running with a rucksack in the training area the last 2 summers/winters, at night, in the snow/slush, the heat..... you'd be amazed at how many people offered me a lift.... as though a guy in PT gear wearing a rucksack is broken down..... I guess the thought of doing PT in the field never crossed their mind). 

I guess we can wait and see how the "new improved" standards (or enforcement of existing standards) works out, but it won't be pretty. Once people are used to the easy way, trying to make it harder, will be, well, harder. And that sounds like a lot of work. I'm sure the Ombudsman and the Humans Rights people will be working overtime with all the complaints they will receive. Again, the fit will get fitter, and the fat will get fatter...... (I'll stop using that line once I stop seeing grotesquely fat people in uniform.... that won't happen any time soon, I'm sure).

Al


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (4 Jan 2006)

I think the sorepoint of "looks overweight" is just our combined desire to have a lean mean fighting machine for an Armed Forces. I think we all have seen that grossly overweight soldier on the evening news clip and were ashamed. Its my belief though that provided a decent PT program is immplemented that has a basis of fitness that applies to all, then you can develop PT standards specific to trades.

 A clerk for instance, should not need to be able to offload a truck of 155mm bullets, but every artilleryman should. Its my understanding that the yearly PT test is designed to ensure no one drops below a minimal level of fitness, and each trade should ensure that not only is this level maintained but improved upon when/where the situation avails itself.

 In any case at any rank level, if the minimal PT test is not met, the soldier/sailor/airman should immediately be prescribed an extra PT program and the test repeated. A second failure should constitute a review of the CF members employability.

 Yes I agree 100% the changes need to start at the highest level, after all this concept of do as I say and not as I do, doesn't work when it comes to fitness.


----------



## Armymedic (4 Jan 2006)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> I wish we lived in a black and white world, but we don't. Because we live in the "grey zone",



I wish we did Al, cause it would make our lives as CF Sgts much easier.



> How about a chit that says: "Member must maintain a healthy weight, via keeping energy output equal to/greater than energy input". Let's see how much people would obey THAT chit/category



I will try it once I am back from my 6A course in Jan...I'll let you know how it goes over.



> I think that the fit and good-to-go soldiers should NOT be forced to do all the deployments, tasks, field training, etc etc. That mentality is what drives out the good soldiers, and allows the weak to stay in ("Cpl "Too Fit" Bloggins will do all my work, I get to sit around, collect the same pay and benefits..... excellent!!!!"). Seen it, lived it, hate it.


Hate it as well, as I tended to be that medic stuck out in the fd. Now I get those sick, lame and/or lazy to stay back in the UMS for extra hours while I am in the fd so they can catch up on all the paper work and things that always need to be done...nobody gets a free ride anymore.


----------



## armyvern (4 Jan 2006)

> But when the chit says "PT at own pace/design/duration", they can do 10 mins of light pedalling on the bike and feel that is plenty enough, and "Hey, that's what the chit says



BINGO!!
Alan, I do like your suggested wording for the chit. But, you are correct...it would probably never fly.

And the grey zone would continue should the 'broken' soldiers be put out of the military (properly pensioned if required). 5000 new troops for the Army, but nada one for the CSS trades. So if this was to occur, some of us would have even less time for PT because the 'broken' guys wouldn't be around to assist with desk workload etc. It's one big in-effecient circle.

Check my profile...I've been away lots too. At this point in time though my pers tempo still doesn't bother me. Someone's got to go. Will it last?? Who knows. It may just take one simple, as yet unseen, circumstance to make me finally say...enough already...I'm done with this whole outfit. I realize this, as I've seen many far-better and deserving Sup Techs than myself hit this wall and pull the pin very quickly. 

Sad thing really...especially during times when what we are really trying to achieve is an increase in a combat capable, operationally deployable, *fully* fit Canadian Forces.


----------



## ZipperHead (4 Jan 2006)

> A clerk for instance, should not need to be able to offload a truck of 155mm bullets, but every artilleryman should. Its my understanding that the yearly PT test is designed to ensure no one drops below a minimal level of fitness, and each trade should ensure that not only is this level maintained but improved upon when/where the situation avails itself.



In this case, I disagree. I know you are using an example near and dear to your world, but why SHOULDN'T a clerk be able to offload a truck of 155mm rounds? Just because they are a clerk? What should they be capable of offloading? A ream (500 sheets) of paper? I think one of the biggest problems we have have is that we default to the lowest common denominator, not the average. As well, we still patronize females, by ASSUMING that they aren't capable of physical effort, and then some (not all, by any means) play up to the "widdle ol' gurl" routine, and let the suckers (read as: men) do their work for them. And by allowing trades to set their own standard, I would guess that many would lowball the requirements to ensure that they keep their "special" (read as: out of shape/weak) people employed. But then we get the "us vs them" mentality of: "Well, why do WE have to be able to lift/carry/push/run more than THEM?!?!". So the patriarchal system brings in the lowest common denominator standards (EXPRES, 13km with pathetically low weight) to protect people. I think true protection would be ensuring that ALL soldiers are capable of warfighting, by ensuring that they are fit-to-fight, so that they can withstand the rigours.



> Hate it as well, as I tended to be that medic stuck out in the fd. Now I get those sick, lame and/or lazy to stay back in the UMS for extra hours while I am in the fd so they can catch up on all the paper work and things that always need to be done...nobody gets a free ride anymore.



What you are doing there Ash, is being creative. The easy way out would be to let them slide, but making them work "extra" (even though it is in reality probably less than what field soldiers would have clocked in over the duration of an average exercise) makes people re-think the wisdom of being a rear party commando. In the Strathcona's a few years back, the RSM instituted a policy of making everybody on rear party (well, almost everybody... apparently there were some with work day hour restrictions (max 8 hrs a day, 5 days per week).... now THERE'S a sweet chit) work weekends when the Regt was in the field. Didn't that just go over well with all the perenial rear party commandos. One of them even had the gall to say: "I may as well be in the field!!!!". Well, d'uhhhh!!!! That's the point of that policy. I think that if someone has a chit that excuses them from deploying/field trg, they should have to do ALL base duties, so that field soldier's shouldn't have to. Or at least to make people think twice about whining their way out of the field.



> Sad thing really...especially during times when what we are really trying to achieve is an increase in a combat capable, operationally deployable, fully fit Canadian Forces.



I couldn't agree more. The malingering and idleness within the CF is like a disease that needs to be removed, so that it doesn't infect the new soldiers coming in. It already effects those that always say "Can do!!!!". And nobody seems to give a shit that the one's that are tired of the lamers are getting out. There are no exit poll's/surveys for them (that I'm aware of, anyway). Or how many people DON'T join because they see the sad state that the military has become. I know of a LOT of good guys who got out because of the crap that they see (not the field, work, or tours): the crap that puts on a uniform and does their minimal workload (or less) and still gets paid. When a young keen guy/girl wants to be proud, serve their country, seek a job that promises adventure, and then sees some of the sacks that are in uniform in the media, in the mall, etc, that doesn't do much for them trying to "be all they can be", and they look elsewhere. However, the sack that hasn't put on a uniform yet looks and says: "Paydirt!!! Sign me up for that!!" And here we are......

Al

Editted for spelling.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (4 Jan 2006)

My "clerk" comment was in no way a jab at women, but rather I was making the point that with the difference in trades in the CF, a person whos job in garrison as well as wartime, does not require running the 7 minute mile, should be fit as a soldier but not need to be fit as the "ironman" soldier.

 Why should we need to focus on how many bench presses every soldier can do if their trade doesn't require huge pec's? Like I said, set the minimum PT level to a healthy, reasonable level, ensure everyone meets that level and for those that feel they need to go for a run with their ruck, fill your boots.


----------



## ZipperHead (4 Jan 2006)

I had two, count 'em, two (lengthy) responses all ready to be posted, when BOOOOM!!! Firefox crapped out on me twice (I 'upgraded' last week, and it has been nothing but misery all week). Or maybe it's all the fat computer hackers are onto me with all the dissing of their tubby brethren. Must wear tin-foil hat to stop my thoughts from escaping before I hit "Post" button......

Anyway, the gist of my response was that I didn't think that you were consciously slagging women, but since there are a lot of female clerks, it might seem that way. And whether clerk or artillery, there needs to be a higher (than the existing) level of fitness for ALL. Because we are defaulting to the lowest common denominator, it effects all trades. Because the infantry can't select who they get for a clerk, or the artillery who they get for a sup tech, they WILL be effected when push comes to shove, because it will be the clerk in the trench (when needed to guard the base camp), or the supp tech unloading the ammo from the truck (when the fork life packs it in). Trying to raise the standards at that point is a little late.

"Healthy and reasonable" is very open to twisting and turning into whatever people want. One could argue that everyone who passes the existing standard is healthy, so in fact it is reasonable. I think we all know that it is otherwise. We should look to the standards that the USMC has, and use them. They have the best policy: Every marine is a rifleman. And as we are such a small military, we would be wise to latch onto that little pearl of wisdom, and make it so that every soldier is able, physically and skillwise, to perform the role of a rifleman.

Al


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (4 Jan 2006)

Agreed, the current PT standard is too low and sadly there are still members (all ranks) failing to achieve even that weak standard. Bring up the level, ensure all members meet it, but keep in mind not every member needs to be able to pass JTF tryouts.


----------



## Spr.Earl (4 Jan 2006)

SHELLDRAKE!! said:
			
		

> Agreed, the current PT standard is too low and sadly there are still members (all ranks) failing to achieve even that weak standard. Bring up the level, ensure all members meet it, but keep in mind not every member needs to be able to pass JTF tryouts.


Re your JTF tryouts;it's every memebers duty to stay fit even when on leave.
Every one can do it.


----------



## Proud Canadian (4 Jan 2006)

C.  A NEW DAOD ON PHYSICAL FITNESS WILL EMPHASIZE REQUIREMENT FOR 
 ALL CF MEMBERS TO PARTICIPATE IN A PHYSICAL FITNESS PROGRAM 
 SANCTIONED BY THE CF

What about the members that already have a fitness routine? I run 1/2 hour every weekday morning before breakfast. Combine my breaks and lunch and go to the gym or for a bike ride everyday for a min of 1 hour and then as soon as I get home I run another 1/2 hour. Then 3 times a week in the evenings martial arts.

I would hell bent on changing my fitness routine. 

IMO our express standards are too low especially the 35 - 40 age category.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jan 2006)

Interestingly enough - this made CBC news:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/01/04/forces060104.html


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (4 Jan 2006)

"No promotion, no pay raises and even the possibility of dismissal from the forces. "
I assume for extream cases.

"The intention isn't to punish those who fail the test. Those who fail will be assigned to fitness classes. "
Sounds like they don't want to loose the skills and talent if it is all possible to keep that person usefull. This is a fair compromise between doing what it takes to keep operational and keeping those in the service in the service.  (Did I just use the word fair to describe a regulation,  I must not understand) :-\


----------



## GO!!! (4 Jan 2006)

I can't wait to see the "fitness classes".

Although the CDS said "all soldiers" I have a sneaking feeling that there wont be anyone above the rank of Cpl in those classes.  

RHIP!!


----------



## Sf2 (4 Jan 2006)

that's cuz officers pass the first time


----------



## GO!!! (4 Jan 2006)

Like the Colonel in Trenton who sits on two chairs?


----------



## 2Charlie (5 Jan 2006)

Watching this from the side lines.

The problem is much deeper.  The CF has been subjected to mandated Social Engineering for over twenty years.  And domestic agenda control for almost thirty five.

The ‘We are a Microcosm of Canadian society’ has come full circle.

The leadership has grown from politically motivated agendas that have had the CF more worried about social engineering and addressing minority integration through business plans than SOLDIERING.

I understand a lot of the sentiment here and ironically, a lot of the folks who will be sitting in Ottawa passing judgment are offspring of the root causes of within the CF.

They have taken the stance of again re-engineering the CF and will do so without remorse.  How it touches them, I will surmise it will not.  Many of the hard liners hide in the Puzzle Palace or the JAG dungeon and will not be touched by something they consider BELOW them.

We seem to forget that it was not long ago that a lot of the hard charging vernacular was removed from the CF lexicon and replaced with business orientated word speak.  It created the environment that this was not a ‘State of Mind’ to be a soldier, but a Job.

And the people who will champion this newfound fitness image from great heights see it as a new business model, will ensure it is executed in a firm and fastidious fashion.  And being as they are just doing a job, it doesn’t affect them.  Good lord I hope they don’t dust off the BMI again…

For those who don’t see my point of view, ask anyone who has worked higher than the 15th floor how the world is seen?  Not to forget, but there are a lot of old dogs up there with ‘chits’ that most legs would kill for.

I miss the days of the WHOLE unit lining up for PT and heading out as a formed unit.  With the odd time the officers would form their own group and run with the CO, mostly because he was a runner and wanted to stress them without destroying the unit.  But that’s another story.


----------



## Daidalous (5 Jan 2006)

So pretty much it is summed up with.

 Lets enforce what is already law.    Sounds like the liberals and handguns.


----------



## armyvern (5 Jan 2006)

Daidalous said:
			
		

> So pretty much it is summed up with.
> 
> Lets enforce what is already law.    Sounds like the liberals and handguns.



And for those Units with no 'time', let's have the Leadership be accountable for ensuring that they get the personnel resources they require to ensure that they 'make time and enforce the time' to ensure a proper fitness standard.


----------



## COBRA-6 (5 Jan 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> Thats because officers should be as fit, if not fitter then all their troops. Or at least thats how it should be (and from what I hear, its not).



That's the goal. 

We had a phrase drilled into our heads at the infantry school - "YOU CAN'T LEAD FROM THE REAR!"

And how can you expect high fitness levels from your troops if you can't meet them yourself? That whole lead by example thing...


----------



## AmmoTech90 (5 Jan 2006)

2Charlie said:
			
		

> I miss the days of the WHOLE unit lining up for PT and heading out as a formed unit.  With the odd time the officers would form their own group and run with the CO, mostly because he was a runner and wanted to stress them without destroying the unit.  But that’s another story.


It was not that long ago (92-94) that all the base staff in Wainwright paraded for PT three days a week in the gym.  Duty pers too.  Once roll call was complete, they took off to their duties and everyone else broke down to groups.  If the duty pers was acually working someone from their section had to account for them.  There was a minivan accompanied by a PERI to take those excused running/walking to the pool, people with their release in formed their own group if they were in the last 30 days to go for a walk if they wanted.  Other than that you ran or circuit trained (-20 or below only).  Yes the running was broken down into three groups (fastest, fast, medium).  The groups were all lead by Sr NCO/WOs and you were only expected to stay in the medium group for a while after you arrived on camp, improvement was required.  The fastest group was lead by the RSM pretty much right up until the day he retired at 55 and only had 10-15 pers in it.

Anyway all this to say where there's a will there's a way.  This regime happened under a fairly weak CO (from my perception as a Cpl at the time) and a strong RSM who believed in PT.  Once the RSM retired the procedure carried on for a few months until the situation changed and we got a stronger CO and a RSM that only had a year to go and was just marking time.

It didn't take long for the normal mindset to take over.  In around a year and a half, when we are back to doing Platoon/Section PT and people are complaining about not having time to do I would mention the old regime and be met with the response, "Well we couldn't do that, there's no time, work to be done"  BS, there isn't a war going on and if one crops up, we should be fit.

So if a camp that had around 150 people on staff (not including the Battle School) could muster 100-120 on PT and support a Battle School and visiting units including constantly rotating British battlegroups it can't be that difficult.  Oh, and no problems with PT failures.

Just an real life example.


----------



## buzgo (5 Jan 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Interestingly enough - this made CBC news:
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/01/04/forces060104.html



I wonder where they got the info from?


----------



## horsegunner353 (5 Jan 2006)

I think it's about time somebody decided to actually enforce the standards we claim to espouse.  

The Expres test cannot be considered difficult by any stretch of the imagination. In my opinion, if you consider yourself a soldier and cannot successfully complete it, you have so greviously lapsed in your personal physical fitness that there should be no warnings, no counselling, no remedial PT, just a warm hand shake and an escort to the door.  You would have to be in disgustingly poor physical condition NOT to pass the test!

PT has to be considered what Stephen Covey refers to as a Quadrant 2 activity.... namely something that is important, but not urgent.  His contention is that by focussing on Quadrant 2 activities (physical fitness, relationships with family, personal and professional development) you will establish a strong base of effectiveness that will make everything else easy.    All too often units are quick to cancel PT for various reasons, PER season etc etc. PT has to happen every day.... but not every day has to be a JTF2 fitness test.  It should be the LAST thing to be cancelled, even if that means, God forbid, we have to work until.... shudder....1600 hrs!

During a friends "depart with dignity" retirement speech, he unloaded a tonne of opinions he had been bottling up, inlcuding "Those same guys that are too busy to do PT in the morning, are usually the guys leaving for lunch at 1130 and going home at 1530"

Lets hope this practice sticks.


----------



## Synthos (5 Jan 2006)

be careful that you aren't too harsh for a failure of the test, everyone has bad days. A cold, allergies, and a missed meal could easily mean a terrible performance on the test (although you should be better prepared for it, shit happens). A retake of the test (at the least) should be administered before you shove someone out the door.


----------



## Haggis (5 Jan 2006)

Synthos said:
			
		

> A cold, allergies, and a missed meal could easily mean a terrible performance on the test (although you should be better prepared for it, crap happens).



The PSP folks issue instructions in advance of the test (no coffee, smoking 2 hrs prior etc.) 



			
				Synthos said:
			
		

> A retake of the test (at the least) should be administered before you shove someone out the door.



That is the present policy.  No one should get booted as a result of this "new" approach, unless they're already on C&P for fitness.  If so, kudos to their C of C.

This is a "shot across the bow" (belly?) of the chronically and lazily unfit folks:  You got three months to show you're making an effort and the rest of your career to keep it up.


----------



## ZipperHead (5 Jan 2006)

It's funny what the CBC (and all media) take as "news", and if you don't have any insight, it actually sounds impressive (the new policies). But when you read it, it sounds like an abject failure to enforce the BASIC tenets of the military: physical fitness and leadership. If I was an outsider, I would be disgusted by the 10-15% failure rate for the standards that they mention. As an insider, I am extremely disgusted, but that is another story. I think that the average civvy expects the PT standard to be much higher than it is. I'm sure that there are many 40+ year old personnel who see that, and say "Good god, I could do that!!!!". And the fact that young 20-somethings can't is quite disturbing, let alone old broken pers. We are a microcosm of society, but it should be the above average cross section, not the chronically ill, overweight, pathetic cross section.

In regards to someone having a bad day, and not being able to pass on that given day: when there is a minimal standard, the operative word is "minimal". That is the absolute lowest you should achieve. In the military, the standard for most tests is 60%. Anybody who strives for 60%, and no more, is a waste of skin and deserves to get the boot. You should always strive for 100%. Always. You can't be expected to achieve 100%, but that should be your goal. The low standards we have now are not the 100% solution. They are the 60% (I would argue about 25%, but that is my opinion) solution. In other words, if you can't make the standard you have *FAILED*. So, if you can only make 60% on a good day, what happens when you are sick??? Obviously you will be less than the standard: ergo, you fail. Same as studying for a test: if you only study to get 60%, and you forget the answer to one thing, or blow it, you will fail. Here is a rhetorical question: Your child/mother/girlfriend/whatever is deathly sick. You have a choice of two doctors: one is like Dr Nick from the Simpson's, and the other is the best doctor to ever come out of the best medical school ever. Who would you choose to look after your loved one???? Pretty simple to figure out who anybody would choose. Both are extreme examples of individuals, but the point is this: if the Canadian public wants someone to defend their nation, do they want the 60% (or worse) solution, or the one who strives for 100%??? Again, pretty simple to figure that out. Oh, and by the way, all things being equal, both personnel could be of equal pay grade and/or rank. So is the Canadian taxpayer getting their moneys worth out of the 60% solution??? I would argue no. But obviously, 60% is good enough for government work, so that's what we have come to expect/allow. Should the standard be higher???? Hell yeah!!!! Will people fail with that higher standard???? Hell yeah!!!! Can people try to improve above that standard?? Hell yeah. Remember: The 60% soldier of today is the 60% RSM/CO of tomorrow.....

When many of speak of "the good old days" in regards to PT (like AmmoTech), we had as many hours in the day then as we do now. I'm not really sure if the work load has increased (although some would argue that with the advent of a computer at every desk it has, but that can be mitigated by getting people the hell away from them, and/or educating them on using them effectively, but that is a completely different thread - maybe one worth starting to edumacate the masses). I think the biggest change is in ATTITUDE. When the mindset isn't there to enforce it/conduct it, it won't happen. One and a half hour lunches (or longer) happen all the time. People leave early all the time. Obviously if that can happen, we aren't all that busy. Someone posted a link in regards to Marines being exempt PT testing while in Iraq. Well they are at *WAR*, so I think they can get that exemption. What is our excuse. There are 24 hours in a day, and 7 days in a week. The hoary old line about being on duty 24/7 (for Reg F and applicable Res F members, anyway) is true: if you can't maintain what is expected of you during work hours, you use "you" time for it. There are reasons (being in a coma) and there are excuses (it's too sunny to go work out) for not doing PT: minimize the excuses, and work through the reasons. An example: Sgt Lorne Ford (a "victim" of the friendly fire bombing in Afghanistan in 02 - I don't consider him a victim, as my example will show, that's why I used quotations) received severe injuries from the incident. I can't remember how long it was after arriving back in Canada, but it couldn't have been more than 2 or 3 months (quite likely less), but I saw him in the Base gym in Edmonton, getting back into the swing of things, and he had/has a strong desire to stay in. He has/had a REASON to stay away from the gym, but didn't. I hear people using excuses like "I rolled my ankle in RV '92, and I just haven't been the same since...." Yeah, Tiger, you got that killer spirit. I mentioned it before, but I was talking with a Dr at the Base here awhile back, and they mentioned a newly posted in individual who had been on Light Duties for 12 *YEARS*!!!!!! No shit. That's a definite failure in the system (medical and administrative), and in leadership.

I'm sure that there are enough of us at the (somewhat) pointy end that are getting sick of the BS, and hopefully there will be enough at the Puzzle Palace on the Rideau to shake things up (though I won't hold my breath on that one....), and use the teeth that the policies have (actually always had) to change a few (thousand) attitudes. 

Al


----------



## Proud Canadian (5 Jan 2006)

> A cold, allergies, and a missed meal could easily mean a terrible performance on the test (although you should be better prepared for it, crap happens).



army mentality - suck it up and deal with it. Drive the body 100% 

Be proud of the uniform you wear. I never joined the army for the money but for someone in their 20's at a corporal rank and above making more than 40 grand a year should be an incentive itself. Would you like to risk 40 grand and above, great medical, security and pension because your lazy and failed your very easy non-strenuous express test. Crap have you seen what other countries have for their tests. Makes our look like a joke.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (5 Jan 2006)

I wasn't cheering the "good old days of PT".  I was cheering the attitude of that one person in senior leadership and how when that person left things changed in the blink of an eye.

If the CDS can provide that change of attitude things should improve for a few years.  But everything goes in cycles, all we need is change in leadership, either political or military and all these improvements will be gone faster than you can say RMA.

I agree with Allan that you should be able to pass the minimal standard at any time in any condition, barring serious injury.  I have to say that the EXPRES test is a minimal standard.  I did my first shuttle run express test a month ago and was amazed how easy it was.  However it is apparently a measure of people performance against the general population.  A pass is exceeding the 20th percentile of performance.  This means that if you get the bare minimum to pass 80 percent of the general (non-military) population is fitter than you.  If a hung-over, hay fever ridden, just been dumped soldier cannot do as well as 80% of the general population, well, then you better be looking for the broken leg he's dragging along.


PS

I for one would like to see where in Gagetown people have hour and half lunches and leave early.  If any of them are in Ops or Training I would like to have words because those are the cells who always caused us problems due to someones inability to plan.  Here I was blaming it on CO's deciding to have exercises at the last minute, maybe it's because you cant let work interfere with lunch.


----------



## Spartan (5 Jan 2006)

So if this is applicable (or the upcoming policies)to ALL CF members  - inclusive of type - does this mean that the Reserves  - subsection CIC - will be also affected equally across the board and enforced as such?


----------



## KevinB (5 Jan 2006)

PT is an INDIVIDUAL responsibility.

 Don't have time at work - suck it up do it on your own. PERIOD.

I am no longer in the CF - I dont get time at work to do PT - but since my job requires me to wear body armour carry a carbine and handgun and remain effective while doing activites common sense dictates I do my own (and my team does) PT.

 Suck it up Princesses - you want to be the in the CF - buck up and be FIT -- or hit the road.


IF Gen Hillier can run everyday down Col By Drive regardless of weather - I am sure the rest of the CF should be able to follow his inspiration.


----------



## Gunner (5 Jan 2006)

> IF Gen Hillier can run everyday down Col By Drive regardless of weather - I am sure the rest of the CF should be able to follow his inspiration.



That's a key point Kevin, leadership by example.  Gen Hillier has been a consistent long distance runner for years.



> General Hillier enjoys most recreational pursuits but, in particular, runs slowly, plays hockey poorly and golfs not well at all.



http://www.cds.forces.gc.ca/pubs/bio_e.asp


----------



## combatcamera (5 Jan 2006)

Actually KevinB, according to CFAO-50-1 physical fitness is primarily a leadership responsibility - "Leadership is fundamental to program success and therefore the primary responsibility rests with the chain of command to ensure that all members actively participate in regular exercise programs."


----------



## Gunner (5 Jan 2006)

> Actually, according to CFAO-50-1 physical fitness is also a leadership responsibility



And your point is?


----------



## KevinB (5 Jan 2006)

combatcamera said:
			
		

> Actually KevinB, according to CFAO-50-1 physical fitness is also a leadership responsibility - "Leadership is fundamental to program success and therefore the primary responsibility rests with the chain of command to ensure that all members actively participate in regular exercise programs."



 :

I refuse to blame the Chain of Command for INDIVIDUAL failures -- if an ENTIRE UNIT is fats and worthless then I could accept that.
  Besides where does it say that they must make time -- just order people to do it at home...  24/7 BABY


----------



## ZipperHead (5 Jan 2006)

combatcamera said:
			
		

> Actually, according to CFAO-50-1 physical fitness is also a leadership responsibility - "Leadership is fundamental to program success and therefore the primary responsibility rests with the chain of command to ensure that all members actively participate in regular exercise programs."



This is the one catch-all that most lazy pooch-seducers use as their way out: "My CO didn't come into my office, dress me in PT gear, lead me by the hand on a run....... man, it's his fault that I'm a fat bastard!!!!"

I think the day that I see a CO who has a policy in writing that says: "No soldier in my unit will conduct physical fitness training, either during work hours, or off duty..." is the day that hell will truly freeze over. Until that day comes, they have their bases covered, as EVERY CO that I know of must follow the policy. And every OC. And every Troop Leader/Platoon Commander. Blaming "The Man" for what is a personal responsibility (and when they allocate the time/resources, it is a personal failing if an individual can't achieve the standard) is like blaming McDonald's for getting you fat. 

Please stop blaming the system for not providing time/resources/direction. It's there. Use it. I'm begging you. If people spent the same time exercising their body as they did trying to get out of PT, we WOULD have an army full of Olympian's. I remember a saying from my days on the hangar floor: Avoiding work is work in itself...... Just do the work/PT!!!

Al


----------



## combatcamera (5 Jan 2006)

KevinB,

Um, if I'm your boss, and you're out of shape - it's in my job mandate, according to CFAO-50-1 and the CDS, to get you into it - period.


----------



## ZipperHead (5 Jan 2006)

combatcamera said:
			
		

> KevinB,
> 
> Um, if I'm your boss, and you're out of shape - it's in my job mandate, according to CFAO-50-1 and the CDS, to get you into it - period.



OK, this where it gets good: how, pray tell, can you FORCE someone to do something that should be willing, ney, wanting to do????? The vision in my mind is the episode of the Simpson's where Homer wants to weigh over 300lbs so he can work at home (don't get any idea's, CADPAT wearing copycats....), and at the end Mr Burns is yelling at Homer, through the old fashioned "megaphone" to do a sit-up. Eventually, he gives up in disgust and says he'll pay for liposuction. Homer: "WOOHOO!!!!" 

Please tell me that you would start administrative action. Next stop for tubby: the UMS. There the Golden Chit is handed out: PT at own pace/duration/direction because of an "injury". If you can tell me that there has been ANYBODY cast out of the CF (in the last 5 years) because of their poor physical fitness, I would be utterly and completely gobsmacked. And the Ombudsman's office would soon have a (large) shadow cast in their doorway by the distraught individual. 

So what would you do, Combat Camera, to get an individual into shape??? Really, I'm curious. Quoting a CFAO will cause the individual's eyes to glaze over. Yelling will do wonders for their self esteem. Begging is never pretty. Telling somebody who is that far gone that it is their DUTY is going to be lost on them. Or using the word "pride".....

Hasn't it ALWAYS been the CDS's mandate, and his underlings (to have the CF in shape), and look where that has gotten us. Don't get me wrong: I have a lot of time for Gen Hillier (his predecessors, not so much) and he is taking us in the right direction, but words and letters on paper mean nothing if ACTION isn't taken. And how do we get there from here?

_The following is an afterthought after my other ranting:_

I have had to "counsel" a soldier on this very issue (lack of fitness), and I was careful in my choice of words, and I documented it on his PDR that I would not recommend him for leadership training if he doesn't improve his fitness level. This individual IS making an effort to improve, but he has ulterior motives for this (isn't that always the case: the stick/carrot only works so far). My thinly veiled threats helped speed up the process, I'm sure, but it shouldn't have come to this. 

True story (for once): I was a youngish soldier back in the good old early 90's, when you could call someone a fatty and it didn't start a chain of events that ended with a complaint up on the Minister's desk. I was packing on the beef, due to my hard drinking, fast food eating ways. Anyway, I had to squeeze my carcass into my Cornwallis issue CF's for a parade. It was a little..... snug, shall we say. An older corporal looked at me, and said (or words to this effect): "You're a fat fuck. Lose some weight, will ya!!!". There were no tears, only a badly beaten teddy bear back in the shacks, but I stood back, looked at my corpulent figure in the proverbial mirror and said: "He's right. I am a fat fuck!!". So I hit the gym, ate healthy, and ended up in the best shape of my life (at the time). Moral of the story: sometimes the truth will set you free. Not huggy-kissy gobbledy gook about how people are big-boned, or have a genetic predisposition to gaining weight. Boo hoo!! Save it for Oprah.

Al


----------



## combatcamera (5 Jan 2006)

Allan,

Since the entire 60,000 Reg Force, as well as some Reserves, are to be PT-tested by this Spring - as directed by the CDS - you'll have to ask him what will follow.  Physical Fitness IS a leadership responsibility.  How can it not be??  Start running buddy.


----------



## WogCpl (5 Jan 2006)

Things need to change and hopefully this will do it. Is it a leader ship failure if a CO's troops are out of shape? Let me ask this, is it a leader ship failure if an infantry section can't do a proper quick attack, or should they just automatically go home and practice if they don't get enough time at work to become "fit" at section quick attacks?
First off the leadership needs to allot time for PT and ensure that it is being used to do just that, not soccer or ball hockey, PT!  train for sports, don't use sports to train.
Second it is an individuals responsibility to ensure that they use the time properly to stay fit or get fit. 
The blame is not soley on one or the other for failing an express test, but both.
Getting people to take ownership of their fitness, now there is a whole other problem. Right from recruit school in this new CF troops are told what treatment they are entilted to, what kind of pay they are entilted to, they are entitled to play hockey instead of doing pt etc, etc. We have troops in schools that seem to have more "rights" than the instructors that are teaching them, and keep building this feeling of "entitlement" rather than fostering pride in service to country and your brothers and sisters in arms. Heck i even had pride in the disfunctional EME family when i was a young Pte/Cpl. We need to bring back some pride in the army as a whole and maybe some of that "infectious optimism" will bleed down and give troops who think they work for sears or canadian tire (in my trade anyway) some personal pride to stay fit, step up, and be a soldier.


----------



## Bert (5 Jan 2006)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> This is the one catch-all that most lazy pooch-seducers use as their way out: "My CO didn't come into my office, dress me in PT gear, lead me by the hand on a run....... man, it's his fault that I'm a fat *******!!!!"



I think theres a few perspectives on this Al.  As KevinB and yourself state, it is an individual 
responsibility to get into shape and maintain or improve the standard.  However, it is a 
leadership responsibility to make sure the unit meets the standard.  

Collective unit PT training is a tool to make everyone work together, the fittest to the least 
fit.  When they work together, the leadership can measure and monitor the level.  The 
least fit will realize they may need extra training in order to meet the standard or the 
standard the unit assumes.

PT left soley to the individual is a bad bad method.  Since everyone is different, they'll train
at different intensities, and achieve or fail to achieve various fitness levels.  Some will 
train to be stronger, others faster, others for endurance, some not at all.  I won't get into 
attitudes but it factors as well.  When it comes to working together, either deployed or part 
of unit training, differences will be more apparent than similarities.  Collective unit training 
sets the unit standard, identifies those requiring extra training, and the unit can meet the
requirements together.  This is a leadership issue and in my opinion incorporating a
continual and progressive intensive collective unit PT program is a sound course of action.


----------



## combatcamera (5 Jan 2006)

I don't know what to tell you FatwogCpl, other than Physical Fitness IS a responsibility of leadership.  Hopefully, with this new CF policy/directive, some leaders hands won't be tied as much as they were in the past.  Let's hope it works.


----------



## 2Charlie (5 Jan 2006)

Always liked this one for parades in S-3's:

"You look like 40 pounds of shit stuffed into a twenty pound Glad bag tied in the middle"


----------



## Synthos (6 Jan 2006)

CF members should be given something to aspire to by their leaders (lead by example)
CF members should be motivated to do PT through pride in their unit/Army/CF and the desire to do well/be fit/be ready
CF members should be given a set of standards they are required to acheive. Those standards are the standards of the CF, their occupation, and their unit.
CF members should give their -best- effort to perform PT if they're on chit (swimming, walking, tension bands)

(these are some of the sentiments that have been floating around on this thread)

It's the CO's responsibility to ensure that the fitness standard of the whole unit is at an acceptable level. However, he should also be observing to see whether there are individuals who aren't meeting the standard of the unit or more importantly the CF. The CO should then ensure that those individuals are trained up to the unit/CF's level.
If after continual attempts by the staff to bring the individual up to the CF standard then it is ultimately the individual's responsibility. At that point they had better take a hard look to see whether they want to save their employment in the CF. (at least that's what I think)

I think unit PT is -very- good way to ensure that all the sections/individuals in the unit are on the same page in terms of PT.

There's the unfortunate situation of chit magic working it's wonders, but that is something that may difficult to change. Suggestions have been made to change the wording on the chit.

Hey, but what do I know I'm a private, and it's not my job to think


----------



## COBRA-6 (6 Jan 2006)

combatcamera said:
			
		

> Physical Fitness IS a responsibility of leadership.  Hopefully, with this new CF policy/directive, some leaders hands won't be tied as much as they were in the past.



Physical fitness is a personal responsibility, enforcing physical fitness standards is a leadership responsibility, there's a difference.


----------



## greydak (6 Jan 2006)

I just seen the CTV News report on this PT issue...  It shows CF troops from like 1995, in the old helmets and combats; can't DND give them some newer footage to work with?


----------



## orange.paint (6 Jan 2006)

I'm not sure if this is still on topic here,but I figured I'd drop it in here,if for nothing else a rant.

   I frequent the base gym every night ( and if i get home too late i run outside). Last night there was a very very large man approx 350 who must have seen the ATV news the night before on fitness testing.He gets on the treadmill beside me (the ones in the front lobby of the gym in gagetown) does 5 minutes.So I'm already laughing to myself but then he did it....walked over to the chip machine got a bag of lard and a bottle of healthy water, sat down and ate it.Ain't that unbelievable!

"male soldiers under 35 are required to sprint and then do 19 pushups and 19 sit-ups. 
Roughly 10 to 15 per cent of those who take the test don't pass or are deemed medically unfit. "CBC news

   Received a phone call about this one,it was my 52 yr old father.Now I only tell him the good army stuff, and when my dad said "thats pathetic" I honestly felt ashamed.Not because I fall into the "triple digit BMI club" but to think if my own father is saying this, how does the rest of the country feel about their dollars going to us?

   Heres my thought on it.If your obese you get verbally warned and given 6 months to lose it.If at that time you cant lose it,marched into shacks,demoted to private,special meal and work out plan until you lose the weight.Then a year probation reassessed to make sure your keeping it up.Then if your fat bye bye.Does that not seem diplomatic enough to work?Maybe classify it as "remedial medical treatment" or some other cool catch phrase to duck under the human rights bulls***.

  Do they ever think this is why they cant get people into the army now?Young guys want adventure and a good hardcore unit/training.Plus if Cpl.Mcfatass goes home and tells his buddies hey man i make 50,000 dollars a year and I'm fat and lazy....why don't you join up guys? It's easy money! What do you think were going to get signing up? When fit soldiers go home on leave and look great and are hard as shit then lazy, fat, slugs, would think twice about signing up.

Just one guys opinion though.


----------



## buzgo (6 Jan 2006)

combatcamera said:
			
		

> Allan,
> 
> Since the entire 60,000 Reg Force, as well as some Reserves, are to be PT-tested by this Spring - as directed by the CDS - you'll have to ask him what will follow.  Physical Fitness IS a leadership responsibility.  How can it not be??  Start running buddy.



Not the ENTIRE reg force:



> ALL REG F PERSONNEL AND P RES PERSONNEL ON CONTINUOUS RESERVE SERVICE (CLASS B OR C) FOR A PERIOD EXCEEDING 180 DAYS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE WHO ARE EXEMPT OR MEDICALLY EXCUSED, OR SUBJECT TO A LOCATION EXCUSAL, SHALL BE FITNESS TESTED IAW EXISTING POLICY BY 31 MAR 06 FOR THE 1 APRIL 05/31 MARCH 06 EVALUATION YEAR.


----------



## pbi (6 Jan 2006)

I'm shocked by some of the thinking here. 

First of all, the post about the Marines is interesting but is in great danger of being triumphantly misused by the ignorant for the support of idleness. 'Overweight" by USMC standards looks NOTHING like the disgusting blimpery we see in our forces. I spent a year on the Quantico base surrounded by Marines of all ranks and MOCs, and another six months in Afgh seeing Marines every day, including travelling out to the Bde AOs. I have visited Lejeune and San Diego, and trained at Pendleton and Twentynine Palms. I never  saw a fat, sloppy Marine, ever. Ever. So let's not, for one second, think that because the USMC lightens up on its VERY strict fitness standards (I did the USMC PT test when I was at Quantico: as far as I know there was no gradation for age, only for gender), that they would sink to allowing some of the rubbery, blubbery people we tolerate or justify.
The Marines, a force that is approximately three times the size of our entire CF, have successfully engendered a mentality that encourages Marines to take pride in themselves. That is why you don't see them wandering around with long hair, or sloppy uniforms, or guts sticking out like half-deflated weather balloons.

And, please note, even when they allow the deviation that they do in view of combat operations, they demand that the standard be re-established and hold Marines accountable. This where Gen Hillier wants us to go: the mentality and the accountability.

Next, the issue of fitness by senior officers/WOs. It's not about whether they are more fit than their troops, or whether they are "Olympians". It's about leadership, something that I fear is not fully understood in all quarters of our forces. If you want your people to be fit, you better be as fit as you can be, and they better see you working at it.  We have developed a very sick culture over the years of "do as I say, not as I do" and "I've done my time", both of which are used by people who have the power to do so (or the lack of personal integrity not to care...) to get out of being fit. It sucks, and it's not professional.

After that, let's bury this endlessly recurring argument that somehow, in a tiny, operationally focused force with an expeditionary present and probably even more expeditionary future, we can tolerate MOCs, branches, services or components who think that fitness does not apply to them. Physical fitness is fairly solidly proven to be a contributor to the ability to handle physical and mental stresses, to resist medical problems to a higher degree, to recover from injuries, and is IMHO probably a pretty damned good indicator of attitude toward the profession. Anybody who tries to hide their unfitness behind a capbadge, uniform colour, etc. should just get out IMHO.

Finally, what do I mean by fitness? I do not  mean "one person's idea of fitness", and I would hope that this anarchic idea of PT standards was swept away, at least in the Army, some time ago. We have a really excellent Army PT manual. I have a copy, and I have used it for years. How many people here have even looked at it? I do not mean that we can all run 25km and do 50 chin ups. Who could do that? What I mean is that we put our collective chins up, embrace the Army standards (or CF Expres, which represents a BARE minimum of fitness...) and work to be as fit as our age and medical conditions permit. For too lomg too many people have hidden, evaded, malingered or otherwise gotten out of doing PT and PT tests, and as an institution we have done exactly zero in too many cases. Gen Hillier wants to fix that. He wants us to take fitness seriously.

That, IMHO, is what professionals, Regular or Reserve do.

Cheers


----------



## FITSUMO (6 Jan 2006)

As an outsider( for now, soon to be a member) looking in, I am saddened to hear about this lack of will to do PT( by some members), be it directed from your leadership or personally driven.  In my civvie job I work 10-16 hours a day 5-6 days a week, while working these hours I have found time to get my big big butt down from 310 to 240 and still am working on it( training for tri's, du's and marathons).  One of the top  reasons I am leaving a high paying  civvie job to join the forces is the PT, at civvie job management looks down on any form of PT.  Members should be striving to be in "fighting" shape ( ie TRAIN THE WAY YOU FIGHT, FIGHT THE WAY YOU TRAIN).  
  Group PT is a great way to improve yourself, if someone does more of something than you can do, try and beat them.  I train with skinnys and by nature they are much faster runners than I am, but because I am slightly competitive and always trying to improve the training with them has helped me get to a 27min 5k, but because they run it in about 23 mins, that is what I want.  

If you are fat( like I am), accept that you are fat, and make it your job to get to FIT, don't complain to the management because someone stated the truth, if it upsets you ( like it does me) and you need a "good cry", do it while you are running or while hitting the weights, people won't notice it as easy(    ).  

The Fitness test that is the policy is not hard.   The forces will help you get to the minimal(unit PT), but the drive has to come from within

Medical chits should only be used if really needed, not as a way to get out of PT.  If you are injured, get healthy and carry on, if you are using a chit to get out of some thing that may save your life one day( PT) then hang your head,  and get out of my way so I can get in faster.

Here is a concept, you should have to do the PT test every 6 months, but you should also be "ambushed" with a suprise test at any given time, that way you have to always be training, not just training for the 2 times a year.

rant done.


----------



## Infanteer (6 Jan 2006)

Bravo Zulu PBI - that was right on the money.


----------



## pbi (6 Jan 2006)

Infanteer: Thanks. Methinks I delivered myself of a bit of a rant, but some people are missing the ******* point. They associate fitness and PT with "beasting".

FITSUMO: Good on you. Fight the good fight, and set the example. I have also been overweight and out of shape at one time (I speak with the zeal of the reformed) and I know that you can fight your way back if you want to.

Cheers


----------



## trucker00 (6 Jan 2006)

I think the CF should dedicate 25% of the day to PT (mandatory). I don't think there is any reason for member to logged on the their computer any earlier than 1000hrs.


----------



## Jungle (6 Jan 2006)

pbi said:
			
		

> ...and I know that you can fight your way back if you want to.


There are countless successful examples of guys in their late 30s deciding to get back in shape; it's difficult, but it can be done by a determined person.
I also agree we don't need olympic athletes, at any level of Leadership; we need people who will set a good example by doing regular PT, who will at least meet the CF standard on fitness every year. We need people who will take action on those who try to avoid taking the test, and on those who fail it. It's not just a matter of Op readiness, it's a matter of good health and positive image.
As PBI said earlier, for the young olympians out there: morning PT is not a new standard every day.


----------



## schwick (6 Jan 2006)

my SSM just addressed my whole unit telling us we should start getting our shit together PT wise. Good to hear its coming down the pipe and thats for a Reservist unit.


----------



## WogCpl (6 Jan 2006)

I agree with PBI, the army fitness manual is a great tool, and could be used by all units for morning PT, as long as we don't push people so hard that we discourage them. the AFM has levels, and as long as you are training towards your next benchmark, then good on you!
The bigger problem that all of us, Cpl to General, need to take ownership of is mentoring the troops to act and think like soldiers.
When i was in maint pl with an infantry bn, all of us maintainers were keen and tried to do the soldier stuff with the rifle companies as often as possible, as well we tried to stay fit, pt was every morning, regardless of VOR. When i was posted to a second line unit i was pretty much ridiculed by my peers for such things as scrim on my helmet. "your not in an infantry bn anymore" they'd say. My response was always the same "i am still a soldier, remember our motto, by skill and by fighting" but they would just get a chuckle out of it.
Until that kind of attitude changes, and it looks like it's gonna have to ;D, it'll be an uphill battle, which is ok cause i like hill training!!


----------



## pbi (6 Jan 2006)

Fatwog:



> Until the kind of attitude changes, and it looks like it's gonna have to , it'll be an uphill battle, which is ok cause i like hill training!!



That is it, right there. Attitude. We can go on for hours (as I love to do...) about how we got to this wretched state, but that's just ploughing over old ground. What has to happen now is change. Some people will try to rationalize and normalize unfitness. Some people will winge (I can hear it already...) and some will decide that this isn't the life for them anymore. So be it.

Cheers


----------



## Armymedic (6 Jan 2006)

trucker00 said:
			
		

> I think the CF should dedicate 25% of the day to PT (mandatory). I don't think there is any reason for member to logged on the their computer any earlier than 1000hrs.



Don't we already?

most army units already dedicate the first 2-3 hs of each work day to pt.

perhaps its not the time put in...but the effort.


----------



## GO!!! (6 Jan 2006)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> Don't we already?
> 
> most army units already dedicate the first 2-3 hs of each work day to pt.
> 
> perhaps its not the time put in...but the effort.



Very true - I would hazard that if EVERY day started with a short, fast run (2-3km in 6-12 mins depending on ability) and followed that with a good hour of circuit trg, and then a decent stretch, the EXPRESS test would be passed - all the time.

It's been said here already, but the same trades who pi$$ and moan about having too much work to do are the same ones who are nowhere to be seen at 1500 on friday....


----------



## BernDawg (6 Jan 2006)

Rant on.
     Actually some units have no alloted time for PT.  Most notably are the "operational" air force squadrons that are far to busy putting planes in the air to risk losing their personnel to pt induced injuries (I hope everybody can hear the sarcasm in my typing).  It is a shame to see the  pers on remedial pt here in CL.  The units that have alloted time have almost no-one on remedial pt.  (go figure?)  Some of us work hard to pass the express test yearly (laugh if you will.)  Some of us work through injuries and pain on a daily basis to avoid being placed on a more restrictive medcat so we can stay in the forces cause we enjoy the career that much. 
      It is nice to see the desk jockeys in the puzzle palace enforce the existing policies for a change as long as they are subject to the same policies and restrictions.  I've had an MO apologize to me for placing me on category when he personally knew people who couldn't lift 25 lbs over their heads!  I, for one, am tired of seeing pers collect pensions, be excused from testing, and still get promoted with their peers.  
   
    Rant off.


----------



## ZipperHead (6 Jan 2006)

It's good to see that we are getting good input and advice from the civvy aspect (FITSUMO), young soldiers (RCAC_011), and senior soldiers/officers (pbi). So it isn't just me that it is pissed off afterall, tilting at the windmill that is the CF PT standards, like a crazed Don Quixote. 

And since I was stewing over it for the last 2 hours, I will give a quick burst Tx at Combat Camera: I will forgive you for knowing nothing about me, and I know even less about you. And I will forgive you if you haven't read the previous 10 pages of posts in this thread prior to posting, or my long history of rants on similar subjects. I say this because I got in a pissing contest once with someone on these forums because I hadn't read all of his posts, and didn't "know" him. Fair enough. Telling me to go for a run, as though I am complaining about the need to do PT made my blood boil. Unless you run marathons, I would argue that even though I don't know you, I probably run, and work out, more than you. I have done Mountain Man twice (although I didn't do as well as I would have liked, I finished 44th in 04, and 83rd in 05, both times under 6hrs 30min), and I have run the Cabot Trail Relay twice (2 legs in 04, 1 Leg - Cape Smokey in 05). Yes, I have been idle in the not so distant past, but I have never even come close to failing any fitness testing I have done. In fact, I run the 13km BFT (1:24:00 and 1:31:00 this year) just to show that it isn't as hard as people say it is. Anyway, next time you try to give advice like this, don't.

Al


----------



## orange.paint (6 Jan 2006)

Just a quick response to PBI.Yes the marines do something similar to what we do in the aspect of sex and age have different standards.

Minimum Fitness Requirements for Each PFT Event - Males 
Age Pull-Ups Crunches 3-Mile Run 
17-26 3 50 28:00 
27-39 3 45 29:00 
40-45 3 45 30:00 
46+ 3 40 33:00 
  
Minimum Fitness Requirements for Each PFT Event - Females 
Age Flexed-Arm Hang Crunches 3-Mile Run 
17-26 15 Seconds 50 31:00 
27-39 15 Seconds 45 32:00 
40-45 15 Seconds 45 33:00 
46+ 15 Seconds 40 36:00 
(notice no chin ups)
   
   So for those who said they have ONE standard thats obviously not true.Where they differ from us is they use the USMC weight/height ratio scale and if you fail that you go get your body fat checked.I cant find it right now but i believe it was 18 percent allowed,and if you scored high on your physical fitness check you were allowed 22 percent.They are also tested semi-annually with reserves tested annually.

   Just a question for the guys who did the BMI (I've only been in since 2000) what happened if a person failed it back then?Body fat testing? When was they last time they used it?

  Cant remember the name of the movie, maybe it was universal soldier?? The army took these children made them soldiers from birth.The fat kid that fall's out on a run........that was funny.

  With all this talking of fitness I'm wondering how many briefings we are all going to have to sit through and learn about why fat people are fat, and the Canadian food guide etc....

  They are actually sounding serious about this and I hope they implement the coopers test or something else similar as testing. Or is it just going to be the BFT yet again (who cant walk 13 dam kilometers).

cheers


----------



## combatcamera (6 Jan 2006)

Allan,

I guess I should have put a smiley face after my running comment ….  

The point I was trying to make last night is that leaders have a responsibility to make sure their troops are in shape.  It’s not up to the individual.  If you or anyone else doesn' t believe me, here’s a quote from General Hillier himself on the subject:  “This is leadership business, and I expect the support of leaders at all levels to ensure the (Canadian Forces) is fit to fight."

Leading by example is a good start.


----------



## ZipperHead (6 Jan 2006)

> With all this talking of fitness I'm wondering how many briefings we are all going to have to sit through and learn about why fat people are fat, and the Canadian food guide etc....



We had a health and nutrition briefing given to us by the PSP staff, and it was very informative. I had suggested that we have one given, because there are way too many people who make the wrong choices when looking for something to eat (in the field, mess hall, canteens) even when there are healthy choices. These same people then blame the "system" for being overweight. The PSP pointed out many myths, basic nutrition advice, talked about supplements. I already knew most of this stuff, but I still found it informative and interesting. Keep in mind, I can count one one hand how many times I've had similar "official" unit briefings in my 18 year career. Compare that to the countless harassment, HAZMAT, environmental, etc, etc briefings. Of course, people said it was useless, but these types would complain about anything. Education is key.



> The point I was trying to make last night is that leaders have a responsibility to make sure their troops are in shape.  It’s not up to the individual.  If you or anyone else doesn' t believe me, here’s a quote from General Hillier himself on the subject:  “This is leadership business, and I expect the support of leaders at all levels to ensure the (Canadian Forces) is fit to fight."
> 
> Leading by example is a good start.



I think we all get your point that this is a leadership issue. The "support of all leaders at all levels" means that we must support the policy. I agree. I do NOT agree that it isn't up to the individual. You are absolving pers of their DUTY to be fit. Just because a leader orders someone to be fit isn't going to make it happen. As the Zen saying goes "Change must come from within....."

Here's an example: At the Armour School we have PT scheduled 5 times a week. Not everyone can make the timings given (instructors on courses, duty pers, etc). Because the instructors are generally in leadership positions, they are expected to do PT a minimum of 3 times a week, when and where they can. Generally, nobody checks up on if people are doing it, because we are mostly Sr NCO's and officers, and are expected to be self-disciplined enough to do it (a quick glance through the Armour School lines would tell you that it isn't happening in 100% of the cases, and I'm sure that every training establishment is the same). Because the CO and OC's have implemented this policy, is that the end of it? Do we have to be treated like children, and have parades to make sure that every single person has done the required PT every week? This would bar us from conducting our mission (training soldiers), and be counterproductive. Hence, it IS an individual responsibility (in this example) to follow the policy. 

As for leading by example, I agree. But just because the troops see Sgt Luomala going for a run, doesn't mean that they are going to drop their hoagie and strap on the ASICS. Frankly, I don't run because I see the RSM and CO going for a run (good on them for doing so). I run for me. So that I'm not an embarassment. Call me selfish. Too bad that the out of shape turds (of all rank levels) don't see it that way. A loaded gun to the head is about the only thing that is going to get some people to do more than the bare minimum. But since all of the official policy's say that is all we expect of them, what recourse is there? To be honest, I would love to see mandated remedial PT (which I have only seen implemented a handful of times in my career), but because most of the people who would need it basically already have the JAG and MO's as their fire-team partners, it will take some pretty serious wordology in the next "official" policy for that to happen. 

Al


----------



## Haggis (6 Jan 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> They are actually sounding serious about this and I hope they implement the coopers test or something else similar as testing. Or is it just going to be the BFT yet again (who cant walk 13 dam kilometers).



Yep, let's spend even more money on even more standards.

Designing and implementing standards takes time, effort and money away from other activities.  We already have the EXPRES Test, BFT, Army Fitness Standard, JTF2 Coopers Test, Pre Para Fitness Test, Firefighters Fitness Test, etc. etc. as validated, viable and achievable standards.   Instead of re-inventing the wheel everytime someone Purple doesn't measure up, we should re-double our efforts to test to and enforce the standards we already have, and universally at that.  Fund the training.  Provide the resources and facilities to train to the standard.

But the *biggest* change that has to happen is for the civilian and military "managers" have to accept that work isn't going to get done between, say 0730 and 0900 every day, as PT is being done. As per the CDS's direction and IAW CFAO 50-1 which makes it a command responsibility to permit members to do PT during work hours when time permits.  

"Managers" (commanders) at all levels should be required to justify to higher when time DOESN'T permit and they should be directed to adjust the work schedules accordingly.

Why?

Because if we can make time for social activities and dozens of meetings during the work day, we can make time for PT.

On a side note: CFPSA is already working on a new standard for the over 55 crowd.  The project manager is looking for over 55 year old particiapnts to assist with developing and validaitng the requirements.  Not surprisingly, volunteers are extremely hard to find.

If you're over 55, a CF member and interested, PM me and I'll put you in touch with the Project manager.


----------



## ZipperHead (6 Jan 2006)

> On a side note: CFPSA is already working on a new standard for the over 55 crowd.  The project manager is looking for over 55 year old particiapnts to assist with developing and validaitng the requirements.  Not surprisingly, volunteers are extremely hard to find.



I used to think that nothing would surprise me anymore in the military, being a veteran of the Combat Bra debacle, hearing that there are people involved in procuring a new purse for female members, Air Force getting blue t-shirts and blue thread for their name/ranks for wear in CADPAT (a camouflage COMBAT uniform, for god's sake!!!!!). But the thought of the standards (probably) being lowered even further, thereby removing the "one army, one standard" mentality, is indeed a sobering thought. I was going to make a joke about what the standards will be, but I think that they will be amusing amusing enough in and of themselves.

Al


----------



## Haggis (6 Jan 2006)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> I used to think that nothing would surprise me anymore in the military, being a veteran of the Combat Bra debacle, hearing that there are people involved in procuring a new purse for female members, Air Force getting blue t-shirts and blue thread for their name/ranks for wear in CADPAT (a camouflage COMBAT uniform, for god's sake!!!!!). But the thought of the standards (probably) being lowered even further, thereby removing the "one army, one standard" mentality, is indeed a sobering thought. I was going to make a joke about what the standards will be, but I think that they will be amusing amusing enough in and of themselves.
> 
> Al



Standards aren't being lowered  for the over 55's.  They don't exist.  The approach here is to validate a standard to be applied to the over 55's so that they can (if capable) serve until CRA 60.

Wanna volunteer someone?  ;D


----------



## GO!!! (6 Jan 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Wanna volunteer someone?  ;D



I nominate these three!

http://www.strathconas.ca/photogallery/coc04/pages/coc8.htm

 ;D


----------



## Armymedic (6 Jan 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> They are actually sounding serious about this and I hope they implement the coopers test or something else similar as testing. Or is it just going to be the BFT yet again (who cant walk 13 dam kilometers).



You'd be surprised...or then again, maybe you won't.


----------



## Patrolman (7 Jan 2006)

A couple of years back my unit CO implemented a PT test using the Cooper testing method as a guideline. We were to be tested every three months and given a level based on performance. The test was as follows: 2.4 KM run,chinups,set-ups,squat,400m sprint,pushups,and the CF swim test.( I don't remember the levels) For those who failed they were placed on remedial PT with the PSP staff. Failure to improve was supposed to lead to a possible release.
 This was unit implemented with no support from Ottawa,So in the end nobody was released and the few who were incapable of passing the test never improved their PT levels. Individuals would report to the MIR and get chits to excuse them from the test by medical staff who felt the CO was a big meany.
 The biggest complainers of the testing were the support trades who felt they should not have to perform at the same levels as an infanteer.I am a proponent of one standard for all regardless of sex or trade and In some cases the support trades need it most.( not always!) 
 I am reminded of my early years as a young Pte. in Bosnia watching an obese(so obese he had a panel sewn into the largest issued commbat shirt  so would have a uniform) Cpl. mechanic stuff his face with ice cream and do half of the work of his fellow mechanics. Why half the work? He was so large he could only work on one type of vehicle.The Iltis, because he was able to lean over the hood. Any other vehicle he couldn't fit under or climb up to do repairs. Hopefully with this new PT policy these types of ind. will have the priviledge and honour of wearing the uniform taken from them. If you can't fit into the largest size of combats issued then you should think of another career choice!


----------



## BernDawg (7 Jan 2006)

Patrolman:
     Back in the days of the BMI we had a few guys who were not allowed to wear their uniforms because they were a "disgrace" to it.  A human rights case proved that this was demeaning and the practice was abolished (along with the BMI standard).  I'm not defending it just informing you of past events.


----------



## pbi (7 Jan 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Standards aren't being lowered  for the over 55's.  They don't exist.  The approach here is to validate a standard to be applied to the over 55's so that they can (if capable) serve until CRA 60.
> 
> Wanna volunteer someone?  ;D



And, perhaps even more importantly, so that we can have a way to stop the CF from turning into an annex of the County Home once we start accumulating a significant number of people over 55. I remain very nervous of this whole "serve till 60" thing: I think it is absolutely trouble for any military, but in particular for a tiny one like ours.  

Cheers


----------



## North Star (7 Jan 2006)

OK, I've been quietly reading this string over the past few hours and can honestly say I'm thankful people out there are supportive of changing the CF culture to encourage fitness. It's been a topic that's been bugging me for quite some time.

Before I go into my solution to the problem, I should probably let people know my background. Joined the PRes as an Infantryman in 94, went through the old RESO program from 98-00 (minus Ph IV, as it wasn't offered), taught at LFCATC Meaford (conducing PT with the course BTW), went back to complete Ph IV as a "fat Captain" (well, I wasn't really fat but I liked to joke about it with my peers), went to Bosnia, and then CT'd to the Reg F as an INT O. I now work in Ottawa at NDHQ, and have had the displeasure of, yes, watching Snr Officers not make it to stage 4 of the Express Test.

An effective PT policy, IMHO, is predicated on the following:

1) Creating a culture of fitness within the CF that is balanced, achievable, and combat-oriented, regardless of trade;
2) This culture needs to be supported by the Chain of Command, with encouragement outweighting sanctions (but sanctions being used when needed); and
3) Supporting our soldiers with proper medical and fitness advice.

Point 1. Pretty simple stuff really. We have to drop the crap and acknowledge that combat will make physical demands on everyone, from the light infantry soldier to the clerk in the rear getting shelled. Any PT standard created by the military has to acknowledge this fact, and the standard should as much as possible reflect the situations encountered in combat. In my opinion, any PT standard needs to combine ruck marching, running in kit, muscular strength as demonstrated in a combat-oriented task (like diggin), and traditional push-ups/sit ups etc. From what I understand the new PT standards slowly being implemented are fairly close to this vision, and a welcome development. 

Point 2. We have to acknowledge a few truths however in achieving the above. First, not everyone will achieve the "light infantry" standard. Sad but true. But everyone is a "soldier" and should be fit to fight. People not fit to fight, regardless of trade, rank, or position, should be given some form of warning and a realistic period of time to sort themselves out. People who are very fit or who put in an effort to get fit should be held up as examples and positively rewarded for their efforts with points towards promotion. If knowing French very well can get you points towards promotion, why not fitness? I'd even go so far as saying that if someone can't speak french but is very fit, why not compensate the lack of bilingualism points with fitness points? All within reason of course... 

One idea that people will probably freak out about on this forum, but which I'll throw out there, is handing out a medal for the top echelons of fitness in the army. It would be incredibly difficult to get, and organized along the same lines as the Queen's Medal for Champion Shot. Only give out two per year with one to each gender, Reg F or PRes. I have no idea how it would be organized, but I would envision something like a super mountain-man event organized at the national level combining a series of combat oriented physical fitness events. 

Point 3. This is probably my most important point. The others above are generally in agreement with everyone else. I think we do an awful job in the CF of providing medical and fitness support to our soldiers. I give my case in point. I used to get bad IT band problems and the odd case of ankle inflammation. Being a dumbass, I'd just soldier through it. When I did report it, they'd give me Ibuprofen and send me on my way. Then, about a year ago, I went in for a physio appointment for a broken arm and noticed a pile of shoe inserts being delivered. I casually joked with the physio guy, and he took it on himself to give me a foot inspection. Well, turns out I've been overprinting for years. I was issued a pair of insoles and went back to doing PT. You know what? It felt damn good. I could run forever. I used to feel a little stiff after runs but with these insoles, I don't feel anything after a long run. I later learned the US Army, upon joining, conducts a foot and body mechanics inspection of all new recruits. The CF should do the same during all medicals to ensure that PT problems don't start earlier. If someone fails to meet a PT standard, a medical/fitness inspection should be immediately ordered for the member to make sure it's not the result of a problem out of their control that can be fixed with a simple $10 piece of plastic. Likewise, if someone's having problems with body weight, we should have them sit down with a dietitian and perhaps even provide them with advice and counselling. We don't do stuff like that. Our medical system is geared to fixing broken people rather than prevention, and if we want to help people push themselves physically we need to change that to avoid creating fitness "problem kids" over the long term. 

Will this cost some money? Sure, but you can't have an Army on the cheap despite what past governments have been trying to do. Just acknowledge it, pay it, and carry on.

Now, as for the unfit Locals and Cols floating around who grew up on the "step test" mentality. Same deal. Medical inspections to ensure their bodies are up to the task. A grace period to allow them to train for the standard (along with everyone else). If they fail to achieve it, a warning just like everyone else and counselling. If they don't improve after that wake-up call? Well, CF members have access to internal Public Service employment calls now, which is more of an advantage most get looking for a job. 

Now, the compensation issue. I think this issue is always blown out of proportion. Reg F/Cl B/Cl C soldiers, as long as they are conducting unit PT or stuff as prescribed on their exercise prescription form are covered. Hold onto those things like the holy grail. The Army Lessons Learned Centre has an excellent Pam on that stuff. As for class A reservists, I'd simply pay them a small bounty per year to cover "physical fitness expenses" and have them fill out an exercise prescription to cover them for pension purposes. By accepting the money, they acknowledge that they're to exercise on their own time. If someone who accepts the bounty subsequently fails the standard, their pay is docked for the value of the bounty and the Physical Fitness counselling procedure started. That way no one can really complain they're "not being paid" to do PT. 

Well, that's my rant on the subject. I too get annoyed when I see members in uniform neglect their duty by allowing themselves to become unfit. But the best way to get those people out of the service is to cut off their argument that their sedentary lifestyles are the result of medical problems by being proactive in providing exercise and medical advice, while rewarding those people who go out of their way to be examples to others.


----------



## mgreer (7 Jan 2006)

Actually I'm perplexed at why the leader of our Armed Forces would announce to the world that an incredible 9000 CF personal cannot pass a fitness test of a sprint and 19 push ups & sit ups for males 35 & under.  I won't even comment on the standard for females. The current lax and lenient fitness test is embarrassing and obviously tailored to ensure a certain level of personnel can obtain it.  Yet, we have 9000 troops, sailors and air personnel that cannot.  I'll assume that a high number of those are our diligent leaders in Ottawa.  Yes, the ones you see televised on Remembrance Day, with their guts out so far they can't see their feet.  Including several Chief's that I personally knew!

The other question is the labelling of fitness testing?  Why are we using a common civilian term?  Why is it not called physical endurance testing, or something along that line?  Even more laudable is the statement in the news article, "This year's round of testing should be completed by spring, and fitness classes will be offered to those who don't pass."  Fitness classes!!  Give me a break.  We're talking about our Canadian Forces here, and the General is saying those who can't pass the test will be "offered" fitness classes!  What the hell ever happened to remedial physical training for crying out loud..  It's beginning to sound more like a Wal-Mart employee moral building seminar.  "Offered" fitness classes!  And this for the world to see!

Michael


----------



## Quiet Riot (7 Jan 2006)

A pretty good article appeared in the National post about this. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=3f723083-25d6-4af3-9d15-f57536531ebd&k=71293&p=2


> Drop and give me, er, 19
> Canadian Forces getting serious about physical fitness   Font: * * * *  Simon Cheung, National Post
> Published: Saturday, January 07, 2006
> The Canadian Forces' Chief of Defence Staff has let his personnel know that he's serious about keeping them in shape.
> ...





> Gen. Hillier's directive calls for all personnel to be tested by April.
> Those who do not pass the test will attend a supervised 12-week remedial training program each time they fail. After the fourth failure, they will be subject to an administrative review and could possibly be released from duty.


At the end of the article it provides the fitness standards for the British and US army.


----------



## ZipperHead (7 Jan 2006)

North Star: brilliant post. I wish I would have taken the time to sit back and watch and shoot before posting, but that isn't my way. The difference between a Sr NCO and an officer I guess   

I think your ideas are the most "do-able" and balanced so far (compared to the "kick all the fatties" out hard-line I take, but that's just me being me). Your fitness/prevention advice was covered by a bunch of us in different threads, but it certainly is welcome here, as believe it or not, not everybody reads every thread on this forum (my brain can accept only so much before I forget basic motor skills). I am a big fan of the education/prevention/train-smarter-not-harder attitude. In Cornwallis we had an officer (physio maybe, or MO.... not sure, just remember she was pretty cute  ;D ) held up the issue Bata grey/green running shoe and said (or words to this effect): "This is a piece of junk. Buy something like this [holding up a Nike running show]" Of course the majority of us had them in civvy lock-up, but unless you had the chit (which 99% of us were too scared/stupid to get) you wore the "cripplers". And so it goes with the Mk III's (covered in depth in other posts, so I won't rant here). It's amazing how a little money (towards modifying with insoles or cushioned soles) would go a LOOOONNNNNGGGGG way to preventing the injuries that occur. Personally, I'm willing to spend my own money rather than jump through the hoops (though I have) to get the stuff that will save my body aches and pains. The Army stops looking after you after retirement, but you have to live with your body long (hopefully) after that.

Not that we need more badges, tabs, medals, bars than our Boy Scout/Cadet uniforms already have, but some form of recognition (other than the Aerobic Excellence award) would be a nice motivator to get people to exceed the standards. Something along the lines of Base Commander authorized time off for getting over level 3 across the board in the AFS PT tests (or level 4 to make it more "l33t" (you young 'uns will understand that - for the non-MSN speak types, that is Geek for "elite".). No, not time off for completing the BFT, which it seems most units do by default now, to give people time to "recover" after the strenuous (sarcasm in full effect) event. And if it's the same guys/gals always getting the time off, well done them. There should be SOME reward for exceeding the standards and staying fit.



> Actually I'm perplexed at why the leader of our Armed Forces would announce to the world that an incredible 9000 CF personal cannot pass a fitness test of a sprint and 19 push ups & sit ups for males 35 & under.



I'm actually glad he did that, as it was like airing our dirty laundry to the public. Open the curtains, let the sunlight in, and watch the cockroaches (try to) scatter. Pretending that there isn't a problem is a problem. I think the gauntlet has been thrown down, CO's put on "warning" that he is "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore" (not his quote, but I'm guessing it could be appropriate), and that it's time to shape up or ship out. It would be interesting to see a CO fired over his/her unit's poor PT standing. That would cause the offices to be empty for 90 minutes per day, come hell or high water. 

Al


----------



## orange.paint (7 Jan 2006)

back in petawawa....what a way to start a post.

   Anyway we had people put on verbal/written warning for physical fitness.They went to their own "special" pt everymorning with psp.While they did slightly improve they still were no better at end state.My question is if they are on this special pt for 12 weeks does this mean they would be exempt field work?I know here in gagetown I usually leave at around 5h30 to make it to work if I'm in the field or I stay in petersville.So where would they schedule in this "fat camp"? Does this mean back at the regiments they wouldn't go on exercise? I personally like the field,but to some this would be a reward.

   I believe if its going to take place during normal pt hours it isn't going to help the member in the long run.Basically all I see happening then is the fat will get easy pt every morning.This would also be a team building morale thing when you take fatties away from the team. Hopefully this extra 12 weeks include after supper pt and Saturday mornings.

  Enough fat talk for now off to the gym.


----------



## mgreer (7 Jan 2006)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> I'm actually glad he did that, as it was like airing our dirty laundry to the public. Open the curtains, let the sunlight in, and watch the cockroaches (try to) scatter. Pretending that there isn't a problem is a problem. I think the gauntlet has been thrown down, CO's put on "warning" that he is "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore" (not his quote, but I'm guessing it could be appropriate), and that it's time to shape up or ship out. It would be interesting to see a CO fired over his/her unit's poor PT standing. That would cause the offices to be empty for 90 minutes per day, come hell or high water.
> 
> Al




Personally, that's part of today's problem.  Having to air our dirty laundry to get something done, IE; SCONDVA.  Shows the sad state, in whereas we're not only unable to resolve our own problems internally, but also the fact that is gotten to this point....

Michael


----------



## Patrolman (7 Jan 2006)

BernDawg,
               I am aware of the BMI testing that used to take place in the past. I am in no way a supporter of that method of determining physical fitness. I know plenty of fat guys who can run like the wind and plenty of skinny guys who couldn't run if their lives depended on it. Therefore making this test irrevelant in regards to fitness.
  A person who obese and fails the BMI test is completly differen't from someone who carries a lot of muscle on their frame and fails the BMI test.Releasing someone based on BMI tests and not on physical fitness results would be wrong. Releasing someone who fails fitness tests consistantly should most definately be released from service. 
 The Canadian military should have no place for people who are incapable of passing the tests set forth by CF. That is my opinion and many may not share it,however I believe the new generation of soldiers share in my thoughts and look forward to the changes being implemented!


----------



## ZipperHead (7 Jan 2006)

I don't welcome a return to the BMI witch-hunt days either. The thing to remember though, if I recall correctly, is that BMI is only one indicator of your overall health and fitness. It isn't magic, because of all the varying body-types (mesomorphs, endomorphs, ectomorphs), and the fact that muscle weighs more than fat doesn't help.

I remember seeing some pathetically unfit types in the ideal/normal range (link for BMI calc: http://nhlbisupport.com/bmi/), and some beefy but fit lads considered obese because of muscle and bone versus fat. They would do the good ol' skin caliper test if you were over the 25 (IIRC), and would do the weighing in water in extreme cases (the only case I heard this done in was a SAR Tech human-ape dude who could bench-press cars who was in the 30 range. Could be army urban legend, but I'm pretty sure any serious gym rat could get over 30 pretty easily).

I think the BMI is a good tool to assist (in determining health/fitness), but there isn't any point in putting great stock in it.

Al


----------



## scaddie (7 Jan 2006)

I've read through all these posts, and there are many great suggestions and ideas, but what exactly are they going to test us with? The express test? That would be absolutley ridiculous. Has anybody been tested yet?


----------



## buzgo (7 Jan 2006)

The only people getting tested are the ones who haven't done it this FY. If people are exempt due to superior score last year, or have done it or are medically excused, then no testing.

The EXPRES test is a good test, many other organizations use it. The problem is that people settle for the minimum and haven't got the willpower or pride to try and excel. That is why the CDS said 





> THIS IS NOT ABOUT FITNESS TESTING, IT IS ABOUT HELPING TO SET THE CONDITIONS FOR SUCCESS IN OPERATIONS


. He is trying to create a 'fitness culture' within the CF as a whole. This is something that unfortunately until now has been very lmiited. Hopefully now PSP will get the FUNDING and SUPPORT needed to enable us to make the changes that we need to make. Maybe we will now take this on in an educated and progessive way, as many of the earlier posters have pointed out.


----------



## scaddie (7 Jan 2006)

Alright, thanks. That makes sense.


----------



## BernDawg (7 Jan 2006)

Patrolman:
  Me-thinks you have misunderstood me.  I agree with you.  I was just making a conversation point about the old way and the results.  My earlier rant on the thread is pretty clear I think.

Cheers

Dawg


----------



## Patrolman (7 Jan 2006)

BernDawg,
        I didn't misunderstand you I just wanted to respond to your last post and at the same time let others know about my feelings towards BMI testing. I had read your previous post(rant) and feel we are on the same page on the new policies as well as the old.
  I guess it all boils down to self respect on this issue. Unfortunately the CF has percentage of people who just don't seem to have any at all. That is unfortunate because it affects us all. Again I welcome the policies and can't wait to see them begin to work. I am glad we now have a CDS who is soldier rather than a politician unlike the previos yes men.


----------



## BernDawg (8 Jan 2006)

SEEN!! ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Jan 2006)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> I think the BMI is a good tool to assist (in determining health/fitness), but there isn't any point in putting great stock in it.
> 
> Al


Allan,

We've been over this a couple of times before. The BMI is a farce. It was developed by the Insurance industry hacks, and has no medical basis in fact. It is a system designed to increase premiums. That's it. It cannot, and should not, be used in any capacity whatsoever, for a fitness standard. If anyone doubts the verasity of my statement, Google it down to it's roots.


----------



## Acorn (8 Jan 2006)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> No, not time off for completing the BFT, which it seems most units do by default now, to give people time to "recover" after the strenuous (sarcasm in full effect) event.



Time off? Last time I did it we didn't even get the rest of the day off. Not that I'm complaining.

Acorn


----------



## WogCpl (8 Jan 2006)

Hey Allan, thanks for the BMI calculator post!!
Scored a 30.3 whoo hooo!!
It says I am obese  
It is a crock of s**t!


----------



## pbi (8 Jan 2006)

Actually the Chief is following some pretty well-established paths in dealing with the media; paths that have been discovered the hard way (ie: by doing the opposite until it hurt). Announcing bad or embarassing facts first, thereby "scooping" the media is  an extension of the military principle of seizing the initiative, and is a whole hell of a lot better than trying to respond/evade/invent as we saw too often years ago. It isn't pretty, but it's probably a lot less painful in the long run.

Secondly, although he is by nature a very straightforward, blunt speaker (I had the pleasure of hearing him speak recently here at CFC), he knows that when you speak to a civilian audience, you use terms that they can easily understand. Now, this sometimes sticks in the craw with us uniformed types as we cringe at some of the "translations", but it is more effective than the bad habit it is intended to correct: littering our speech with acronyms and "militar-isms" that no civvy can grasp.

I'm embarassed, too. But, you know who the real embarassments are? Not the Chief and his announcement: but the people who stumble around in public in this country's uniform looking like slobs, completely undermining credibility, and dragging down those of us who believe that fitness and a sharp, proud appearance are basic elements of service in a professional military.

The most important point is not that anybody is getting embarassed, but that the Chief is acting publicly and demanding a standard, as minimal as that may be.

Cheers


----------



## ZipperHead (8 Jan 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Allan,
> 
> We've been over this a couple of times before. The BMI is a farce. It was developed by the Insurance industry hacks, and has no medical basis in fact. It is a system designed to increase premiums. That's it. It cannot, and should not, be used in any capacity whatsoever, for a fitness standard. If anyone doubts the verasity of my statement, Google it down to it's roots.



I suppose that I am going to have to accept that I was a bit too enthusiastic in endorsing the BMI and eat my words (they are low calorie, so shouldn't take too much to burn them off  ;D ). 

I think what I meant by "good tool" is that it something to use as a benchmark, even if it is flawed, much in the same way as using a scale to benchmark weight gain/lost. Many proponents of fitness advocate throwing away your scale, or better yet giving it to your worst enemy. The allure/danger of scales (or the BMI scale for that matter) is they give visual/numerical feedback on progress. The problem being is people weigh themselves 15 times a day, get discouraged and say screw it. Or they see that they lost 10 lbs on the Atkins diet (which I don't advocate, but use by way of example) and say it is the best thing since sliced bread (errr, no sliced bread on the Atkin's diet....).

I think the point that this is not about PT testing but about fitness is something that I have lost focus on, and many others I suspect. It is the very thing that I hate in the military when teaching soldiers: teaching to meet the PC standards, and nothing more. Man, if anything is a contender for my Top Pet Peeve of all time, that is it. Yes, you have to ensure people will meet the standard, but you should definitely ensure that they are going for the Gold standard, not the Participaction pin (might go over the head of some of the youngsters, but I suppose that is another inherent problem in today's society ..... lack of emphasis on fitness in the youth of Canada).

Al


----------



## Garry (10 Jan 2006)

I was in when BMI was instituted. Everyone I knew was in the danger zone (above 25 BMI) and most (me included) were at, or over 27. I was at 27 (considered well above weight). 

That was the summer I went a little nuts, and was running app 20 miles per day. I was on my 6A course, and had the time. I also hit the weight room pretty hard....I felt I was fit. I'll never forget Lester waling down the MIR hall in his underwear and bursting into the MO's office (something M/Cpls didn't do !!) and saying to the MO "They say I have to lose 100 pounds- where are they going to take it from?? (yes, he had a belly, but he could alos bench press a volkswagon 

BMI didn't work. Neither did the express test. I got hauled in once because I refused to do more than the minumum number of reps to pass. CO acused me of being unfit. My response was "it's a test, I passed-...and I choose not to work harder than I needed to to pass- care to go for a run, or hit the weight room with me Sir?"...Thank God for unit PT- he then remembered working out with me, and declined my offer. The matter was dropped.

I really liked the "old days" of the 1.5 mile run, 2 x 10 (miles) with the man carry, obstacle course, and range at the end. (remember, the idea wasn't just to complete the run, but to arrive fit to fight). No cheating there- you were either fit to fight or you weren't. You also were able to work through pain, or you didn't make it.

PC works just fine until the bayonets are fixed. The Military has no room for those who cannot defend their country.

Attaboy Rick!!!


----------



## ZipperHead (10 Jan 2006)

> I really liked the "old days" of the 1.5 mile run, 2 x 10 (miles) with the man carry, obstacle course, and range at the end. (remember, the idea wasn't just to complete the run, but to arrive fit to fight). No cheating there- you were either fit to fight or you weren't. You also were able to work through pain, or you didn't make it.



It's kind of funny that you mention this, as I was researching some stuff ref PT, and I found some info on why the 1.5 mile run was removed from the PT tests. I can't find the link at the moment, but if I recall, it mentioned that it was (removed) because of injuries. From running 1.5 miles (2.4km). The humanity.....

BTW, Garry, I am in full agreement with you on your quote: it seems that people have come to find discomfort (not true pain, which in my mind is a broken femur, or testicles in a vice) from a march ("Oh my footsies are tender and my back hurts!!!!") is enough to throw in the towel, and get a Light Duties chit for 2 weeks. Yeah, that'll work after an advance to contact on the 2 way range.

Al


----------



## GO!!! (10 Jan 2006)

Well, it appears that threat of action has spurred some soldiers here in Edmonton to act.

I have witnessed an inordinately large number of "larger" troops in the gym/pool/fieldhouse since Christmas leave, many complaining amongst themselves about the "unfair" and "unreasonable" requirements that the "fitness Nazis" are coming up with - so maybe Gen. Hillier's new plans are having an effect, if grudgingly, on our military.

This could be just a yearly increase, due to new year's resolutions, but maybe, just maybe, we are turning a corner here!


----------



## Spartan (11 Jan 2006)

As an aside, this is coming in at a good throttle at least in my unit (Pres) -parade night pt sessions - with emphasis on circuit training, and running - small armoury with large number of stairwells that need to be ran, and outside Pt - Don't know if its just that our CO loves fitness himself - or a further directive....
But is an excellent idea as such - and I'm wondering how many other units will follow suit? I say this as fitting in the "whose PT level is in the needs to keep working at it category".


----------



## North Star (11 Jan 2006)

Saw the CDS in the gym here in Ottawa on Monday, doing a couple bench presses. 

I love leadership.


----------



## FITSUMO (11 Jan 2006)

Ok, all this talk of fitness over the past few days gave me the idea to "test" myself against the other army( USMC, BRITS, US ARMY) standards, so on day one I did max PUs, situps, pullups on a 2 min time line plus a 2.4k run, and on day 2 I did the same but I did a 5k run( approx 3miles).  My results were good for the CND, US and Brit army, and I scored 2nd class( which is still above the min, Pull ups really bad for me) for the USMC.  I am a 240lbs fattie, that works really long hours( civvie) so what is the excuse of some of the members of the CF, if I can meet these standards anyone can.  Are the "new" standards really that extreme that I have to train harder? I think not( but I will just in case).  Fitness can be painfull, but as a member of the "ARMED FORCES" should you not expect a little discomfort every once and a while.

rant off.


----------



## Haggis (11 Jan 2006)

North Star said:
			
		

> Saw the CDS in the gym here in Ottawa on Monday, doing a couple bench presses.



Just a couple??  ;D

Did you rag on him for it?


----------



## orange.paint (11 Jan 2006)

Fitsumo....your preaching to the choir here.And no I'm well over level 2 for the USMC standard,as are most other people on this board.If you wanna brag I know a couple of these guys here are fitness machines.And yes your right theres no reason not to meet the minimum requirement....also no reason not to top the testing.

  No real change at my work place,and I think the influx to the gym GO!!! would proably be the new years resolution guys trying for a week until it hurts, and quiting again until Jan 2007.

   I'm using the sar tech pt standard as my own personal fitness testing excluding the swimming.It's a good standard in my mind.What are you guys using for a personal guage?


----------



## Glorified Ape (11 Jan 2006)

> ALL REG F PERSONNEL AND P RES PERSONNEL ON CONTINUOUS RESERVE SERVICE (CLASS B OR C) FOR A PERIOD EXCEEDING 180 DAYS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE WHO ARE EXEMPT OR MEDICALLY EXCUSED, OR SUBJECT TO A LOCATION EXCUSAL, SHALL BE FITNESS TESTED IAW EXISTING POLICY BY 31 MAR 06 FOR THE 1 APRIL 05/31 MARCH 06 EVALUATION YEAR.



The only people that fall under that specification would be people who haven't taken their PT test yet this year or are overdue for a test, no?


----------



## Daidalous (11 Jan 2006)

If you can not reach level 6 on the run, do 19 push up, 19 situps, and get a grip on 90(It think thats the min) you are hurt bad or have serious problems.  Like having  heart attack walking up the stars problem.  My personal view is that if the military is going to foot your medical bills 100% that they dam well should have some say.  It is not like the CDS is going to enforce a harder test, just enforce the one we have.


----------



## orange.paint (11 Jan 2006)

taken on parade and shot comes to mind ;D :threat:


----------



## FITSUMO (12 Jan 2006)

"Fitsumo....your preaching to the choir here.And no I'm well over level 2 for the USMC standard,as are most other people on this board.If you wanna brag I know a couple of these guys here are fitness machines." ( from rcac_011)
Sorry, my intention was not to brag, FAR FROM IT, I was trying to make a point that the standards of fitness are achievable for anyone with the drive..  There are people on this board ( ie paracowboy, GO!!, etc that I am sure are fitness gods)  that would kill any standard put in front of them.  

On another note, rcac_011  can you PM me and explain the 450m shuttle from the SAR tech pt( how is it broken down, ie what are the intervals for the shuttle).

cheers


----------



## ZipperHead (12 Jan 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> I'm using the sar tech pt standard as my own personal fitness testing excluding the swimming.It's a good standard in my mind.What are you guys using for a personal guage?



I think you hit the nail on the head: if you can meet the lowest standard, work to the next highest standard, and so on, until you are at the best shape/intelligence/knowledge level attainable, within reason (being obsessive about anything comes with its own hazards). Striving for the lowest standard, in any undertaking is, in my mind, the bane of society in a larger picture, and the military in particular. The fact that "we" have accepted that as the "new normal" (in the past) says something about "us" as a group (and I think you fella's understand that I am talking about the "Royal We", versus the people reading this forum).

P.S. If you don't mind me asking, why aren't you doing the swimming? The reason I ask is because I started swimming as a means of improving my overall fitness (crosstraining), and it is a good way to give your body a break from the same old, same old (assuming you are doing a lot of running). If it's because you can't swim, I won't be so obvious as to say you should learn (though you should learn  ;D ), but you can use the pool to do your workouts: water running (using the little "life belt" riggin's), shallow end circuit training using the board thingies (the proper name escapes me.... APS strikes again). I know that the normal pool timings available to us (in Gagetown, I was/am doing my pool training over lunch hour (during the Military Noon Swim), as that was the only time convenient/avail). You can only work with what ya got.....

Al


----------



## orange.paint (12 Jan 2006)

I only excluded the swim due to logistics....bringing shampoo and all that stuff.Lame excuse?I'm the guy who also gets to the base and has to turn around because I forgot my i-pod.Then my wife hands me my mil i.d saying "you might need this" (know it all).


  Have you been back in the pool since Christmas is over?Just wondering how the water/people percentage is now that it's cold.According to the darn running track everymorning it's proably packed.Took one look at the track today and went outside for 10km.


   Fatsumo, you can find the standard here at army.ca just search sar tech.That and the coopers test are great.Also the new army fitness manual test is pretty good.Only thing I hate is the jumping (which is a plot from "the man" to keep us short guys down).I was embarrassed by a level two in that.But if you get the running times its a pretty good gauge.23 min per 5km is pretty easy.I cannot get the 2.4 yet,I'm stuck at 9:50-9:55 range,down from 11:40 3 months ago.

   Sort of like forest gump I just started running....60 pounds later here I am 210 down to 150).I'm going to be a new father soon,what I dint understand is how these guys go home to their families where their kids have nothing to look up to.No role models.

   Apparently psp has a program to build you up to jtf2 or sartech standards.This is coming from a sartech I've been talking too lately,haven't checked with my psp staff yet.

   Going on course next Monday,I'll post back to tell you how the p.t is.I'm hoping for some good stuff but from what I heard the pt on the PLQ is hit or miss.I was thinking shouldn't pt be crazy on this course (just mod 1-5) to make sure the future mcpl's are "fit to fight?"


----------



## ZipperHead (12 Jan 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> I only excluded the swim due to logistics....bringing shampoo and all that stuff.Lame excuse?I'm the guy who also gets to the base and has to turn around because I forgot my i-pod.Then my wife hands me my mil i.d saying "you might need this" (know it all).
> 
> Have you been back in the pool since Christmas is over?Just wondering how the water/people percentage is now that it's cold.According to the darn running track everymorning it's proably packed.Took one look at the track today and went outside for 10km.



Don't forget your shampoo and soap (and ID) while on course  ;D. Your room-mates might appreciate it....

Haven't used the pool since before Xmas (says the guy who is chastising the guy who doesn't go: Do as I say, not as I do!!! ). Last year it was somewhat crazy at this time of year (New Year's resolutions and all). It thins out big time come Feb. If you can (which I have the luxury of doing: RHIP) show up at exactly 1130 (when the Mil Swim starts) and hog a lane, or show up at around 1215, but keep in mind it is Endex at 1245hrs, unless the PSP staff like what yer packing in the Speedo's  

Good luck on your course.

Al


----------



## GO!!! (12 Jan 2006)

FITSUMO said:
			
		

> There are people on this board ( ie paracowboy, GO!!, etc that I am sure are fitness gods)  that would kill any standard put in front of them.



 :-[ Due to a rather serious injury, GO!!! has not done PT in three months, and finds the trek to get chips arduous, but has vowed to return...


----------



## FITSUMO (13 Jan 2006)

"Fatsumo, you can find the standard here at army.ca just search sar tech."
 ( its FITSUMO, but hey fatsumo works too )
I did the search that is why I asked about the 400 meter shuttle run, just wondering how its broken down.

GO!!, sorry to hear about your situation, injuries blow.


----------



## orange.paint (13 Jan 2006)

FITSUMO ;D its 50m sorta like the beep test.(sorry about the fatsumo thing,just word association I guess!)the whole test is one part right after the other.

   
   I think I'll hold out on the speedo's part for the pool,swam in too much cold water as a kid....iceburgs...seals pointing and laughing.But I'll have to check out the pool when I get back,give the knees a rest.Maybe I'll practice in the slurry pit by the main gate of petersville, looks clean ;D.


   Pack kit day for me, not gonna run tonight.(That is until I change my mind after supper).

cheers


----------



## Infanteer101 (16 Jan 2006)

I was surfing the web to find a copy of the CF Army Fitness Manual when I came across something a little disturbing and since I didn't see it discussed yet I thought I'd post it for feedback and opinions:

 http://www.cbc.ca/ns/story/ns-military-fitness20060106.html

Text:

Forces exercising less, failing fitness tests  
Last updated Jan 6 2006 09:02 AM AST
CBC News 
Many members of Canada's Armed Forces are failing fitness standards that aren't as tough as they were 20 years ago.

In 1984, a male soldier was required to do 30 pushups. Now it's only 19. Women in the service had to do 38 knee pushups in 1984 and are now required to do nine regular pushups.

Even with the new standards, the military says roughly 10 to 15 per cent fail.

"There's no question that the standards have been slipping over the years for a variety of reasons," said Dan Middlemiss, a defence analyst.

A recent military survey suggests members of the Forces are exercising less and gaining weight.

About 3,000 members filled out an anonymous health and lifestyle survey in 2004, sharing information on their height and weight, and diet and exercise habits.

Twenty-one per cent are obese, an increase of three per cent since 2000. But the obesity rate in the military is still slightly below the national average.

"There is concern that the prevalence of obesity is going in the wrong direction, that the trend in physical activity is going in the wrong direction. And we've got to reverse that," said Dr. Jeff Whitehead, head of epidemiology at the Canadian Forces Health Services Group in Ottawa.

Nearly half of the respondents are unhappy with their weight. But while activity levels are dropping, dieting seems to be a popular solution. Forty per cent reported changing their diet on their own in the past year with the goal of losing weight.

Whitehead said the survey results, which were compiled in December and have yet to be released, may have contributed to a new emphasis on military fitness. 

Just before Christmas, Canada's Chief of Defence Staff, Gen. Rick Hillier, issued an order freezing promotions and pay raises for personnel who cannot meet the Armed Forces' fitness standards.

All 60,000 members can expect to have their physical fitness level tested by this spring. 

and this one:

Forces must be fit to fight, Hillier says  
Last updated Jan 5 2006 08:16 AM AST
CBC News 
Canada's top soldier, Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier, says members of the Armed Forces must pass a fitness test or face serious repercussions. 

Right now, soldiers must take an annual 20-minute physical test; male soldiers under 35 are required to sprint and then do 19 pushups and 19 sit-ups. 

Roughly 10 to 15 per cent of those who take the test don't pass or are medically excused.

Until now, failing the test had no impact on a member's career.

But CBC News has obtained an internal directive from Hillier that says a soldier's career will now come to a halt until the fitness test is passed — no promotion, no pay raise and even the possibility of dismissal from the Forces. 

Hillier said Canada's military is now conducting operations worldwide and every member must be fit and up to the challenge.

"I am convinced that adherence to a physical fitness program will not only increase strength, energy and endurance, but also improve and individual's ability to cope with mental and emotional stresses," Hillier wrote.

"This is leadership business, and I expect the support of leaders at all levels to ensure the CF [Canadian Forces] is fit to fight." 

Hillier's directive was sent out just before Christmas to senior officers, who will inform the troops and enforce the new policy.

Those who fail the test can expect a warning, compulsory fitness classes, or even an appointment with an employment counsellor.

"The idea is to bring everybody up to a required level of fitness. We don't want to unnecessarily fire people because they're not fit," said Karol Wenek, director of military employment policy with the Department of National Defence.

The military plans to have the physical fitness of all 60,000 members tested by this spring.  

Feedback on this should be interesting... 

_Modified to change font colour_


----------



## Haggis (16 Jan 2006)

Since I work at NDHQ, I can tel you that feedback on this is quite interesting. ;D  

and now, back to the gym!

MOD EDIT: TOOK OUT LINK WHEN I MERGED THE THREADS


----------



## Chimo (16 Jan 2006)

SO what are YOU doing about it??!! Drop and give me 20.


----------



## BernDawg (16 Jan 2006)

Yes, I dare say, the gym here in CL is very busy these days.  I expect it to slack off again after the current round of express tests is over.  Maybe I'll be able to get on my favourite machines again.
 ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Jan 2006)

With regards to the reserves,

I'm told by friends in ottawa that reservists are no longer allowed to use the NDHQ gym there.

In my town we used to be able to use the gym facilities at NavCan, now apparently it's off limits to the reserves.

I remember talk in the reserves about us being given some type of allownce to go towards a gym membership or to do organized PT but apparently it was nixed.


Is there anything done to help reserves with PT financially is it basically 'You should be doing it anyways so do it'?
It would be nice for the reserves to have access to government facilities such as NDHQ or NavCan


----------



## darmil (17 Jan 2006)

I don't bother with military gyms.As a reservists I use a civilian gym its closer than the base.Thats terrible that the reserves are not permitted to use the facilities at NDHQ and NavCan. All I can say as a reservist you are an individual when it comes to PT.


----------



## buzgo (17 Jan 2006)

Unless it changed in the last week, reserves can use the NDHQ gym during 'work' hours (0700 - 1800?) I'm not sure but I think that reserves can also access the YMCA passes that are available to mil pers in Ottawa.


----------



## COBRA-6 (17 Jan 2006)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> Unless it changed in the last week, reserves can use the NDHQ gym during 'work' hours (0700 - 1800?) I'm not sure but I think that reserves can also access the YMCA passes that are available to mil pers in Ottawa.



Yep, reservists can use the NDHQ gym during the day. At night it's a no go, only open to people with NDHQ building passes (security reasons). I don't have the memo here but remember seeing it. 33 CBG HQ tried fighting it, but to no avail. 

YMCA passes are intended for people entitled to fitness facilities (Reg F and Class B Res F). 

The support in Ottawa for all pers has gone way downhill since CFB Ottawa was shut down, but that's another rant...


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Jan 2006)

Well thats good atleast.  My buddies said they we being turned away during the day even, maybe a miscommunication though.

Sucks for reserves who work during the day though and wana hit NDHQ at night.  Another fitness nightmare is trying to get new recruits (or those applying to me) tested for their CF PT test in ottawa.  No longer being held at NDHQ some friends and I had to run around ottawa all day (and even into quebec) going back and forth trying to find a place to get almost 15 of these guys tested. It's funny when you need a person to have their parents permission on a slip to be tested in a gym when their applying for the military.   Again thats another rant.


----------



## COBRA-6 (18 Jan 2006)

Nothing that happens in Ottawa surprises me, using you brain in the NCR has been forbidden by the National Capital Commission. 

I do my PT along the Rideau Canal (or on it in the winter), the proximity to Ottawa and Carleton U helps with the motivation...


----------



## Glorified Ape (18 Jan 2006)

I took my test in July - that would make me exempt, would it not?


----------



## George Wallace (18 Jan 2006)

That should do you fine for 2005.

Happy New Year!   ;D


----------



## buzgo (18 Jan 2006)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I took my test in July - that would make me exempt, would it not?



Did you pass?


----------



## Acorn (19 Jan 2006)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I took my test in July - that would make me exempt, would it not?



You're good 'till the end of the PER reporting period (31 March) and good as far as the CDS's direction goes in the CANFORGEN. Unless you got Exempt on the EXPRES test, and you aren't in an Army unit that does the BFT annually, you'll have to do it again at some point in the next reporting year (1 Apr 06 to 31 Mar 07).


----------



## Jonnyboy250 (20 Jan 2006)

what do the reserve non fulltime's have to do for promotion now? the full battle fitness test, which includes the 13K ruck march? or the standard 20 pushups, 20 situps, 6 pullups and the step test?


----------



## Haggis (20 Jan 2006)

Jonnyboy250 said:
			
		

> what do the reserve non fulltime's have to do for promotion now? the full battle fitness test, which includes the 13K ruck march? or the standard 20 pushups, 20 situps, 6 pullups and the step test?



Until the new DAOD is published, there is no requirement for Class A Reservists to be fitness tested for promotion.


----------



## Jonnyboy250 (24 Jan 2006)

lol sweet, then my unit is belt feeding me the bullshit


----------



## GO!!! (24 Jan 2006)

Jonnyboy250 said:
			
		

> lol sweet, then my unit is belt feeding me the bullshit



That's the spirit!

Keep in mind, there is maternity wear available for the larger troops, so don't be afraid to be who you are, even if it is 250-300lbs. Your Chain of Command can't make you do a damn thing - so do the minimum - that'll teach 'em - sweet!

 :


----------



## Haggis (24 Jan 2006)

Jonnyboy250 said:
			
		

> lol sweet, then my unit is belt feeding me the bullshit



So step right up to the dessert tray and be a good example to your troops.



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> Your Chain of Command can't make you do a damn thing - so do the minimum - that'll teach 'em - sweet!



Except defer your promotion because you can't keep up with your subordinates.  That's called "lack of ability".  Wanna get promoted?  Buck up and be ready.  Once the DAOD is issued, there'll be no mercy extended to "tubs".


----------



## mgreer (24 Jan 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Once the DAOD is issued, there'll be no mercy extended to "tubs".



The way it should have always been!


----------



## foerestedwarrior (24 Jan 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Once the DAOD is issued, there'll be no mercy extended to "tubs".



Any ETA?


----------



## Haggis (24 Jan 2006)

foerestedwarrior said:
			
		

> Any ETA?



If I said "soon" that wouldn't help so I'll  say "unknown, but hopefully soon" as this will affect the entire CF.


----------



## buzgo (24 Jan 2006)

I believe that the DAOD is being worked on as we speak. It was actually drafted some time ago but there may have been funding issues.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jan 2006)

Question 1.
There are some soldiers in the CF who are on medical categories thus exempt from this rule. 
Will this get in shape or else rule prompt more soldiers to find ways to be put on medical categories?  I mean won't there be a big temptation to try and cheat the system?

Question 2.
I've seen some soldiers who are VERY overweight. I'm not in near as good shape as I should be but some people are not in any sort of shape at all. I recall working with one soldier a few years ago who must have been 350+ pounds. I wouldn't be surprised at 400.

Now anything short of a near miracle, I couldn't see this soldier dropping to a healthy shape or even dropping down to be considered overweight. He was obese in a shocking way.
What happens to him?  
Does he simply get passed up for promotion until he reaches the CF physical standard, will the CF offer him some kind of serious help program (like gastic bypass? I mean if they pay for boob jobs and sex changes....)  OR do soldiers like him run the risk of being released from the CF.

If enough people ARE released I can see us developing some serious man power problems.


----------



## Spartan (25 Jan 2006)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> If enough people ARE released I can see us developing some serious man power problems.


Especially from many CIC units - Without flak and arguement here wrt thoughts about this part of the CF - I'm just wondering what happens as I haven't seen anything thus far - I'm just wondering if it will be an across the board standard enforcements and what this will do wrt this component (ie will they be considered reservists and standards applied as such?)


----------



## Haggis (25 Jan 2006)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> Question 1.
> There are some soldiers in the CF who are on medical categories thus exempt from this rule.
> Will this get in shape or else rule prompt more soldiers to find ways to be put on medical categories?  I mean won't there be a big temptation to try and cheat the system?



Well the PSP folks wouldn't let me do my EXPRES test last week because my knee surgery was "too recent".  I needed an MO's chit to say I was good to go before they'd test me.  So I tried to book an appointment.  HA!  Too many people ahead of me trying to get out of doing the EXPRES test.



			
				Ghost778 said:
			
		

> Question 2.
> I've seen some soldiers who are VERY overweight. I'm not in near as good shape as I should be but some people are not in any sort of shape at all. I recall working with one soldier a few years ago who must have been 350+ pounds. I wouldn't be surprised at 400.



Round is a shape.  ;D



			
				Ghost778 said:
			
		

> I mean if they pay for boob jobs and sex changes.



But not for laser eye surgery.  Which procedure will make you a more effective soldier?  Never mind... Don't get me started.....


----------



## foerestedwarrior (25 Jan 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> But not for laser eye surgery.  Which procedure will make you a more effective soldier?  Never mind... Don't get me started.....



I KNOW!!!

I think that if you cant pass the standard, get out. Sure it will cause man power problems, we will be better off for it. I mean, I put my social life on hold so I can work out 6-7 hours a week, not alot in the long run. I am not in fantastic shape, but enough to have gotten my exemption on the EXPRES test. 

If someone is 350-400lbs, then no promotion. That is the incentive to get in shape. If you cant run atleast a level 6 on the beep test......well then I dunno.......


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jan 2006)

> But not for laser eye surgery.  Which procedure will make you a more effective soldier?  Never mind... Don't get me started.....


Or to pay for a soldier to get dental work done so they can volunteer for overseas duty.

I wonder if my CSM will beat the crap out of me if I put in a memo for gender reassignment 



> So I tried to book an appointment.  HA!  Too many people ahead of me trying to get out of doing the EXPRES test.


Thats what I figured would happen.  The medical system being swamped with soldiers seeking exemption from the Express test.  
I had an MO put something wrong down on my medical which (incorrectly) put be on a medical category thus making my 2 year wait for a component transfer even longer. Tried to book an appointment and the girl said I'm better off getting a civi doctor to examine me and write me off, which of course I'll have to pay for.  I had a feeling the express test exemption thing might be a reason for it.


----------



## Haggis (25 Jan 2006)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> I wonder if my CSM will beat the crap out of me if I put in a memo for gender reassignment



If that's all you're asking for the answer will be "yes".  If you ask to get your eyes done at the same time, you may be able to score a package deal.


----------



## rifleman (25 Jan 2006)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> Thats what I figured would happen.  The medical system being swamped with soldiers seeking exemption from the Express test.



Come on. What evidence do you have that people there were trying to get out of xpress testing?


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jan 2006)

> Come on. What evidence do you have that people there were trying to get out of xpress testing?



Are you being sarcastic or your honestly asking for evidence?


----------



## rifleman (25 Jan 2006)

I am honestly asking for evidence that all of a sudden people are flocking into the MIR just to get out of Xpress testing. I ask because I think the report that 10% or so were unfit or medically excused testing was used to make a point of the CF's fitness level. However, of the number, how many were actually unfit? 

I think it is reasonable in our line of work to have injured soldiers.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jan 2006)

It's common sense more than anything.  Up until now soldiers have been able to squeeze by.  If your unfit then what's going to happen? Nothing.  People weren't getting kicked out and there didn't seem to be any real big repercussion.
Now, if you are "unfit" then you can no longer be promoted, your chain of command becomes involved, i don't know the exact details.  In anycase, soldiers who are unfit will deal with repercussions.

Now, all the soldiers who were unfit have a choice.
Take the express test, fail, then start the process of what happens when you fail.
Or, since being on a medical category can excuse you from having to take the test (thus suffering repercussions on failing) a soldier can speak with the doctors with a view to being medically excused. (Bad back, ankles etc..)

I'm not saying all soldiers are going to get exempt from the test, far from it.  It's still common sense that some soldiers WILL try and get on a medical category to avoid this.  Now some will of course be justified and deserve/require the exemption and some will do it because they are lazy.  Thats just human nature.

The example I like to use is when I had to go a units MIR to get poison ivy cream. The Mir was completely SWAMPED! People had to wait outside. The medics were in a brutally pissed off mood. Why were so many people at the Mir? Because we had just been told the next day was a battalion run with a general or colonel or someone and it was mandatory everyone go. From the mouths of the medics, most of the people were there just to get out of the run.

Now if someone will go to that length to get out of that days PT and running, isn't it logical that they will mirror that laziness and try to get out of the career effecting CF express test?

Again thats not all soldiers but I think there will be enough of them doing it to effect the medical system slowing it.


----------



## rifleman (25 Jan 2006)

Getting a chit for a year so you don't have to take an Xpress Test is a lot different than getting one for a day's run. That in itself has career implications.  What you gave wasn't evidence just supposition.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jan 2006)

Ahh well you got me there gumshoe. Consider it supposition then.  I'll wait until someone from the medical field chimes in with their opinion on if they feel like this new order will result in an increase of soldiers seeking medical exemption from the express test.

I don't think people are getting 'chits' for a year. Medical categories/exemptions are a little more substantial and far reaching than that.


----------



## rifleman (25 Jan 2006)

So ... those people at the MIR might actually need medical assistance. How dare they, on sick parade no less <--- That was sarcasm


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jan 2006)

Now you're just trolling 



> I'm not saying all soldiers are going to get exempt from the test, far from it.  It's still common sense that some soldiers WILL try and get on a medical category to avoid this.





> From the mouths of the medics, most of the people were there just to get out of the run.





> Again thats not all soldiers





> Now some will of course be justified and deserve/require the exemption and some will do it because they are lazy.



You about done trying to turn this thread into a petty argument Rifleman?
If you're trying to suggest I'm insinuating anyone who goes to the mir is faking or that no one there actually needs medical assistance then you're grabbing at straws - in a pretty pathetic attempt too.
My comments I quoted above point out the fact that I'm targeting a specific group of people and not making blanket statements so nice try.


----------



## rifleman (25 Jan 2006)

the question was directed at Haggis and you. And it was just asking for evidence. You said that medics told you about getting out of the run. not Xpress testing. Just keeping it honest


----------



## Haggis (25 Jan 2006)

rifleman said:
			
		

> the question was directed at Haggis



As I said in my previous post, I tried to book a GDMO appointment and have been waiting six days for a call back to acknowledge my request.  In the past I've received return calls in less than a day.

On the evidentiary side, three weeks ago I went to the MIR after PT for an injury.  It was well after sick parade (mid to late morning) and the place was still packed.  About 90 minutes later, one of the Med A's came out and apologised for the wait stating they'd had a couple of emergencies.  No big deal.  While waiting for the results of my X-Rays, (now going into my fourth hour), I overheard two staff comment (jokingly??) that "it was never this busy before the CANFORGEN".

You can draw two conclusions from that:  1. In an attempt to meet the standard, people are overtraining and getting hurt.  2. In an attempt to skirt the standard people are in "Test Avoidance Mode".

Even if it is a small percentage of the CF, from what I saw in that waiting room and the comments I overheard, I'll take door number two, Johnny.


----------



## mgreer (25 Jan 2006)

rifleman said:
			
		

> Getting a chit for a year so you don't have to take an Xpress Test is a lot different than getting one for a day's run. That in itself has career implications.  What you gave wasn't evidence just supposition.



No, but getting medically excused for a period of time to get ones self in shape to pass the express test is more reasonable than first failing and having to deal with the repercussions.


----------



## rifleman (25 Jan 2006)

Michael Greer said:
			
		

> No, but getting medically excused for a period of time to get ones self in shape to pass the express test is more reasonable than first failing and having to deal with the repercussions.


This is becoming too big of a deal. I was just trying to point out that I highly doubt that people were at the MIR just to get out of Xpress Testing. My advice is stay within your arcs, worry about your own fitness and encourage your subordinates to do the same. FIT TO FIGHT and  FIGHT TO WIN!! .... OUT


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jan 2006)

> I was just trying to point out that I highly doubt that people were at the MIR just to get out of Xpress Testing.





> You said that medics told you about getting out of the run. not Xpress testing



You're right of course.  This happened 3 years ago, before the new rule came out. The medics were not talking about the express test.  
I was trying to conclude that if soldiers were willing to go to the MIR in order to get out of going for a run (in my example, which would have no career slowing implications) then it only stands to reasons that these same types of out of shape soldiers may likely seek out being designated medically unfit for the test instead of getting in shape to pass it or fail it and suffer the consequences.  




> No, but getting medically excused for a period of time to get ones self in shape to pass the express test is more reasonable than first failing and having to deal with the repercussions.



Is this fair though?  Can being out of shape actually be considered a medical condition?  If soldiers are permitted to be medically exempt from the test until they are in a position where they can pass it, doesn't that defeat the whole discipline/punishment side of the order?


----------



## ZipperHead (25 Jan 2006)

rifleman said:
			
		

> This is becoming too big of a deal. I was just trying to point out that I highly doubt that people were at the MIR just to get out of Xpress Testing. My advice is stay within your arcs, worry about your own fitness and encourage your subordinates to do the same. FIT TO FIGHT and  FIGHT TO WIN!! .... OUT



I doubt you are going to get any "proof" that there are people going in with the express intent of "getting out of the EXPRES Test". I think any self-respecting or competent MO (military or civilian) who hears someone say: "I want to get out of the EXPRES Test. Gimme a chit, Doc!!!" is probably going to tell them to get bent. I have a feeling the complaints are a little less specific, yet attain the same net result: medically excused from carrying out with the testing (until the chit runs out). Those without shame (or pride.... or dignity) don't let a little thing like details stop them from doing whatever it takes to get out of something like PT, or fitness testing. 

My better half is a Med Tech, and she tells me nothing about the specifics of people coming through the Base Clinic, as she is prohibited because of confidentiality issues. So I would seriously doubt any Med Tech is going to come on here and say the X% of all people coming in to the MIR this week were because of this reason (get out of fitness testing). 

I have my own theories/suspicions about whether or not MIR visits are up since the latest directives, much in the same way I could bet a paycheck that on Fridays and just prior to summer/winter leave, MIR visits are down, and on Mondays and the first day after block leave, visits are up. Or just prior to a kick-ass run or the 13km. Do I have proof? No. Do you have proof to dispute this? I doubt it as well. 

I'm not sure if that is "in arc" enough for you, but I happen to back those such as Haggis and Ghost who have witnessed enough BS to know that if it looks like BS, smells like BS, and feels like BS, it is probably BS. But I suspect that maybe we are just conspiracy theorists. Get out the tinfoil hats, lads!!

Al


----------



## rifleman (25 Jan 2006)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> I have my own theories/suspicions about whether or not MIR visits are up since the latest directives, much in the same way I could bet a paycheck that on Fridays and just prior to summer/winter leave, MIR visits are down, and on Mondays and the first day after block leave, visits are up. Or just prior to a kick-*** run or the 13km. Do I have proof? No. Do you have proof to dispute this? I doubt it as well.



I never made wild accusations requiring proof.


----------



## Armymedic (25 Jan 2006)

rifleman said:
			
		

> Come on. What evidence do you have that people there were trying to get out of xpress testing?



ancedotal evidence of people coming in to use the medical system as an excuse to get out of everything and anything...Hmm let me see what I can get for you.

How about I make this easy...
Yes it happens. More often then you think. Easier now as civilian practitioners are easier to snow.


----------



## Armymedic (25 Jan 2006)

Michael Greer said:
			
		

> No, but getting medically excused for a period of time to get ones self in shape to pass the express test is more reasonable than first failing and having to deal with the repercussions.



Unfortunately, not correct. You can only be medically excused if you are hurt  or injured (everyone knows the difference between hurt and injured...hurt is weakness, injured means you unable to continue, and need time to heal). If you are fit full duties, then you shall do and pass the PT test or face the repercussions.

If a peer or subordinate repetitively seems to get the chit for 7 days 2-3 days before testing...then now it is a chain of command issue and you need to address this administratively after you discuss this situation with the medical staff supporting you.

And as a supervisor, get some nuts, and put that down on the PDR as an area of development and use it to screw said lackie into doing their job. There is no excuse for not meeting standards.


----------



## mgreer (25 Jan 2006)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> Is this fair though?  Can being out of shape actually be considered a medical condition?  If soldiers are permitted to be medically exempt from the test until they are in a position where they can pass it, doesn't that defeat the whole discipline/punishment side of the order?



That was my point.


----------



## orange.paint (12 Feb 2006)

"I believe" that being overweight is considered a "sickness".To keep this person from being offended (because i care  ;D )I'll keep details breif.

That person couldn't complete their BFT x 2.
failed the beep test x 2 
administration action taken to release the member.
member got civilian lawyer fought and won.
Getting booted or has been booted for something else. >

anyone in the unit I was with will know who I'm talking about.

This was quite the post around the time of the canforgen but seems to have died.Anyone actually seen anything implemented in individual units?Everything looks the exact same to me in my unit here in gagetown.

I believe it was said before or on another post but bring back the warriors badge....I'm like a crow...SHINEY!!!!!I brought up to some superior people about P.T being a PO/EO on courses not the usual NA. I got the usual political mumbles that actually didn't answer my question and of course I heard "fit to fight" "legality" "policy" but all in all I again didn't change the world.

Something I must add is I rarely go to the base hospital (unless parts are missing or hanging off).But I have had usually not a problem,maybe because my file is small and full of juicy accidents like dislocations ,mad cow, etc.I find these guys professional,and just to compare civi-side I had a MRI and a brain scan in 4 days, while my father-inlaw waited 7 months for a MRI.


----------



## GO!!! (12 Feb 2006)

Michael Greer said:
			
		

> No, but getting medically excused for a period of time to get ones self in shape to pass the express test is more reasonable than first failing and having to deal with the repercussions.



Why are those people out of shape in the first place?

What would be "reasonable" is to punish the lazy for their sloth, as they deserve, and then have them get back into shape.

How about a different example: Cpl Bloggins, a cook, is unable to chop carrots properly. As a result, using your logic, he should be excused duties until he (supposedly) works on his chopping skills, until he can pass the carrot chopping PO. More likely, he will take the time to play playstation and muck around on army.ca, and not get any better at all.

If troops are unable to pass the express test, they should face draconian punishments. 

1) Mandatory move back into single quarters, with mandatory PT for 2+ hours daily.
2) Pay is frozen at their present rank and IPC - if you are too unfit to do the job, you are too unfit to get a raise.
3) Enforced low cal meals, to ensure that the subject loses weight.
4) Re-asessment of PT standard after 60 days. You pass, great, go home and order a pizza - and remember what happens when you fail....


----------



## mgreer (13 Feb 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Why are those people out of shape in the first place?
> 
> What would be "reasonable" is to punish the lazy for their sloth, as they deserve, and then have them get back into shape.
> 
> ...



I agree totally, unfortunately you've taken my sarcastic reply to a previous post out of context.  Here's the thread.

Quote from: rifleman on January 25, 2006, 12:40:03
Getting a chit for a year so you don't have to take an Xpress Test is a lot different than getting one for a day's run. That in itself has career implications.  What you gave wasn't evidence just supposition. end qoute

(my reply) No, but getting medically excused for a period of time to get ones self in shape to pass the express test is more reasonable than first failing and having to deal with the repercussions. end quote.

I was trying to imply that this is the extent that some will go to, to get around the test.  

Mike


----------



## pbi (13 Feb 2006)

Roger all so far, but again the real goal has to be a change of mentality. Why do people want to be out of shape, overweight and lazy in the first place? Why do they accept looking like a slob in uniform? This will, IMHO, only be changed by leadership and setting an example, combined with building an atmosphere in the whole CF, not just a few operational field units, that we are about readiness, fitness and proud of it. Then you will see self-policing kick in. While this may sound like naive "boy scout" stuff to some, IMHO it is exactly what the CDS is doing (he sets a personal example, by the way...) and what all of the leaders under him need to do as well. (And this is where part of the problem lies, IMHO). Punishment is definitely a part of the equation, but only where leadership has failed to exert a useful motivating influence. In fact, I wonder if instead of wasting time punishing people who want to treat military service like a McJob, we should just boot them. 

Cheers


----------



## Journeyman (13 Feb 2006)

pbi said:
			
		

> Punishment is definitely a part of the equation, but only where leadership has failed to exert a useful motivating influence. In fact, I wonder if instead of wasting time punishing people who want to treat military service like a McJob, we should just boot them.



And perhaps THAT is where the problem lies. As we increasingly civilianize the military, through "rights trump obligations," contracting/alternate-service-delivery, _et al_, we actively encourage the McJob mindset. 

Spending time wandering the combat arms' lines in Edmonton, Petawawa, and Valcatraz, one gets a feeling of an almost "war-footing" mentality that is simply not present anywhere else in the CF.

Avoiding fitness is just one more manifestation of the 'warrior vs. McJob' problem, IMO. (I can't use "IMHO," since my opinions are seldom "humble"    )


----------



## foerestedwarrior (13 Feb 2006)

I wonder if there is some way to try and get some CBT arms PT guys out to other bases to run the PT. It would force that Warrior aspect into their PT.


----------



## orange.paint (13 Feb 2006)

Man that would be a nice posting!
Your job will be running these guys into the ground!ahhh to dream!
I have to agree with everyone of the last posts.Our problem is that we are a window into canadian culture hippies,coke heads,and yes obese people.And until we tweek human rights to our favour we will never get rid of these people.It almost seems the youth of today are obsessed with easy money and the"me" attitude,not "us".


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Feb 2006)

Quote,
I_t almost seems the youth of today are obsessed with easy money and the"me" attitude,not "us"._

Thats because they are, but then who's fault is that? It goes back to what PBI said, leadership by example. My kids see a 45 year old man working out regularly, playing hockey and volleyball, guess what they WANT to do?...........leadership comes in many ways, not just at work.


----------



## foerestedwarrior (13 Feb 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote,
> I_t almost seems the youth of today are obsessed with easy money and the"me" attitude,not "us"._
> 
> Thats because they are, but then who's fault is that? It goes back to what PBI said, leadership by example. My kids see a 45 year old man working out regularly, playing hockey and volleyball, guess what they WANT to do?...........leadership comes in many ways, not just at work.



I LOVE doing sports and stuff, geuse what? My parents are the same way and always have been. My friends that sit around inside and watch tv all the time, thats what there parents do.....mmmm I think you are onto something...


----------



## orange.paint (13 Feb 2006)

I say send them all to rural newfoundland....10km hike to the store,4 km to the mailbox's(in someones kitchen).Maybe it has to do with city culture also where parents are afraid to let their kids roam free due to the sick individuals in the world.I know growing up me mudder would pack a lunch and I would be gone all day checking snares,cracking open other kids heads with rocks,swimming etc.

Prime example is the shacks.I'm no TI JOE Ive only been in going on 7 yrs but when we were in the shacks we all went camping and party's constantly.If you walk through the shacks on duty now,all you'll find is people on keyboards,eating chips.Now don't get me wrong, drinking like a fish for years on end wasn't great but just goes to show we had more "us" attitude.

As I said before we are a window into Canadian culture.


----------



## Lou-Dog (13 Feb 2006)

I'm so glad that somebody in a leadership position had the backbone to up the CF's physical standards.
 It's about bloody time somebody did something.

 I can not tell yo how frustrating it was to be a Jr NCM and run PT. The majority of the Warrants in my squadron would "lead from the rear" as they fell out of my brisk 5-6km runs.....and curse my name into the ground for giving the soldiers such a good challenge.

 But then again, those are the type of people who joined the CF for "jobs". Maybe they should have applied to McDonalds instead. 

 Looks like somebody is trying to make the CF a gung-ho place to be.....Good Job!!!


----------



## Armymedic (13 Feb 2006)

Perhaps it is a societal issue after all...
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060213/baby_boomer_060213/20060213?hub=Health

Canadian baby boomers retiring in bad shape

CTV.ca News Staff 
  
Updated: Mon. Feb. 13 2006 5:11 PM ET 

The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada is warning that rising obesity rates and inactivity among baby boomers could be threatening years of steady progress on heart health.

"It was shocking to find that the rates of obesity in baby boomers have soared by nearly 60 per cent and a staggering 52 per cent are inactive," Dr. Beth Abramson, foundation spokesperson and cardiologist told CTV.ca.

Yet 80 per cent still think they will enjoy a longer life expectancy than previous generations, the foundation reports in its annual report card on heart health.

Abramson adds that baby boomers, or those who are between 45 and 60, are less fit and more overweight than today's seniors.

For example, 30 per cent of baby boom respondents are obese, in contrast with 24 per cent of seniors. 

Furthermore, 52 per cent of baby boomers surveyed lead a sedentary lifestyle, while 50 per cent of seniors are inactive. 

Abramson says several factors could account for these contrasts.

"This baby boomer generation was one of the first generation used to having cars and modern technology and perhaps have led a relatively privileged life and perhaps are falsely reassured with access to good health care," she said.

If they don't take preventative steps, she warns, "baby boomers may be the first generation to turn back the clock and experience a decline in the quality of life."

According to the study, population estimates show the number of Canadians in their 60s will jump by 50 per cent over the next 10 years.

Even more worrisome, the study's authors note, about one-quarter of health care practitioners in Canada are baby boomers themselves, getting set to retire -- or possibly get sick themselves.

"Our heart health crunch may very well become a heart health crisis," Abramson said.

Still, there is some good news, Abramson said. Only 21 per cent of baby boomers are smokers these days versus 29 per cent a decade ago.

The report, which draws data from the Canadian Community Health Survey of 2003-04, is a follow-up to the foundation's first report card on the heart health of the baby boom generation 10  years ago.

According to the foundation, about 1.3 million or 21 per cent of Canada baby boomers have already been diagnosed with heart disease, stroke or high blood pressure.

The foundation is hoping this study will serve as a "call to action" not only to baby boomers but to the federal government.

The foundation is calling on Ottawa to:

Deliver on the commitments made during the election campaign to support physical activity and healthy eating. 
Commit to further tax incentives that will encourage physical activity and healthy eating 
Ensure the recommendations from the Trans Fat Task Force that outlines ways to reduce processed trans fats in Canadian foods are implemented


----------



## ZipperHead (13 Feb 2006)

It's good to see this thread restarted (without someone whinging about how they are upset that The Man is making them do PT again). 

I have noticed that the amount of people doing PT has increased dramatically here in Gagtown (which kind of sucks, as it makes for horrendous parking and crowded facilities, but that's better than the ghost town it used to be). However (there's always a "however" with me   ) it seems that there are many pers just going through the motions, as though just wandering around the track for 20 minutes is going to take them from El Tubbo to Chuck Norris stature (on a total tangent: what is it with everyone worshipping Chuck lately?) in 2 solid weeks of walking. It might work to keep Grandma in fighting trim (fighting off other grandmas at the bingo hall, anyway), but certainly not enough to get a soldier fit to fight. Or maybe I have it all wrong, where I am sweating like a whore in church, and out of breath at the end of my workout. 

I'm not sure how much the "lead by example" and cultural change (PT culture) aspect is going to help those pers that are more prone to sloth than sit-ups. I think the administrative version of a boot in the nuts with a frozen mukluk (i.e pay frozen, restrictive diet, and I am very fond of the idea of moving people back into the shacks (although they may have build a shitload of shacks to accomodate the number of pers they would have to do this to)) is what is going to be needed to kickstart change. I do believe in changing the culture and leading by example, but I'm enough of a cynic to know that unless they kick it draconian stylie, it will be a case of the fit getting fitter, and the fat getting fatter (haven't used that line in a while).

Al


----------



## George Wallace (13 Feb 2006)

Gee Allan?  First you're complaining that there aren't enough people doing PT.  Now, you're complaining that they are, but not to Olympic standards (well....your standards.).  Will you ever be happy?

 ;D


----------



## orange.paint (13 Feb 2006)

Heres my idea for morning P.T.

1 1/2 hr every morning (not including stretching and parade) 

ALL broken people will attend in combats to either direct traffic, time events, or count.This will give them a purpose between 7h00- 8h30.

Everyone is left to do a certain task at their own pace.For example today we will do 10km.It is a timed event which will be recorded.Times will be posted up in hanger lines to promote healthy competition and embarrassment.This way everyone can see either improvement or downhill spiral into fattown.When the fit guys finish early they can carry on with their own PT.

It also allows people to push themselves to reach personal goals outside of the 23 minute 5km.I absolutely despise running at that half walk thing we seem to do on every sqn run.No benefit to the fit.

Also when a weekly PT summary comes out and Tpr/Pte bloggins is dead last on everything, some bells and whistles will go off and there is the documented proof.
Sometimes the big green machine needs the paperwork,here it is.

Bring back rewards.If a member is extremely fit its obvious that he puts his own time and effort into it after the working hours.Allow these soldiers to do their own weekly training during sqn PT periods.Have them come on mandatory runs etc but allow them to carry on with whats working for them.


----------



## ZipperHead (13 Feb 2006)

> It also allows people to push themselves to reach personal goals outside of the 23 minute 5km.I absolutely despise running at that half walk thing we seem to do on every sqn run.No benefit to the fit.



You and me both. I have the luxury now (due to rank and place of work) to do my own thing, but when I was a Cpl, I bitched about the slow pace, and was told "Do PT on your own time if this is too slow!!". Well, Einstein, I did PT on my own time, which made the Sqn pace even slower (by my standards). Sometimes you just can't win.

Here's some advice rcac_011: Write a memo asking to do a PT program of your own design, etc. Back it up with trg advice or plans from PSP staff. Odds are you will be allowed to do it (although it involves paperwork). Or get thyself onto the Cabot Trail Relay team (just looked at where you are posted, as per profile). As it is a School team, you get the leeway to do the team PT program (HQ Sqn OC is team captain, so no worries there) and your CoC is compelled to comply. It's a good go, if running about 15km over hilly ground in Cape Breton is your idea of a good go. I've done it 2 years, and I'm doing it again this year. You don't have to be a fast runner (only have to maintain a 6 min/km pace), and the training advice you receive (from PSP and other runners) is valuable. PM me if interested.

Al


----------



## Long in the tooth (13 Feb 2006)

I must confess that after leaving the Infantry 10 years ago I put on half a ton of weight.  Now that I've failed an Expres test PT is no longer a luxury I have to sqeeze time in for, but a command performance parade.  In three months I've taken half the weight off.  I like it.  "If you're not deployable you're not employable".


----------



## ZipperHead (13 Feb 2006)

Worn Out Grunt said:
			
		

> I must confess that after leaving the Infantry 10 years ago I put on half a ton of weight.  Now that I've failed an Expres test PT is no longer a luxury I have to sqeeze time in for, but a command performance parade.  In three months I've taken half the weight off.  I like it. * "If you're not deployable you're not employable".*



Another good line, that I wish was taken a lot more seriously.

Al


----------



## orange.paint (13 Feb 2006)

I'm actually just getting back of course whats going on with the Cabot trail team?Haven't heard too much about it in a while.Went to the original meeting and been thrown off to the three wind's ever since. Did they pick the legs yet? training schedule?team?

I think that I might actually throw in that memo,now that I'm qualified to write them ;D

Been running everyday dropped 60 pounds.(of course everyone at hq thinks I have aids etc).
I originally went over to keep pat company on the run but hes gone to south Africa now so I dont know if hes running.

Yah I'm the newfie that was  easier to walk over than around....that should narrow it down.I'm running the 5km in 22 minutes now but I still got to work on distance,if I had my leg I'd be set.But of course had no time to look up any info between the per/pdr memo writing marching around stuff.(In retrospect I did get some good hill runs in in N.S after supper's)


----------



## Armymedic (14 Feb 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> Heres my idea for morning P.T.
> 1 1/2 hr every morning (not including stretching and parade)



Schedule that time every day, but in reality a good hard 40 min session of running, circuit tng or swimming is equally effective. It is in the quality, not always the quantity (time). 
Also include stretching, with a proper warm up and cool down time...its something we rush thru inappropriately, and ultimately causes injuries.


----------



## ZipperHead (14 Feb 2006)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> Schedule that time every day, but in reality a good hard 40 min session of running, circuit tng or swimming is equally effective. It is in the quality, not always the quantity (time).
> Also include stretching, with a proper warm up and cool down time...its something we rush thru inappropriately, and ultimately causes injuries.



Coming from somebody who sees the results of: 1) too much, too soon and 2) much pain, little gain, I think that this is good advice to heed.

One thing that I have learned over my years of pain and anguish is that it is better to train smart than to train  hard, at least until your body is ready for it, then make the most effective use of your training time (quality vs quantity). One thing that AM pointed out, which I am guilty of, and I see all the time, is the lack of a properly conducted cool-down, which, IMO, is more counter productive than not conducting a proper warm-up (you can always ease into a work out, but too many people abruptly end their work out, and then wonder why they are stiff and sore the next day).

Oddly enough, Ash, I was reminded of your "experience" back in the day when you made the error of being so bold as to "suggest" that the Sqn be broken up into different running/fitness groups, as there were different levels of fitness amongst the Sqn members. As I recall, some people (who will remain nameless, natch  : ) took offense to this. I guess that you were just ahead of your time.


----------



## orange.paint (20 Feb 2006)

We all seem to idolise other armies but i found this out today.USMC MINIMUM standards:

3 pull-ups

50 crunches

28 minute 3 mile.

I do however like that they have a test like this implemented, I find the 13km rucksack a mindless 1 1/2 2 hr walk that doesn't really prove much. I don't know many people who cannot finish the 13km but I bet there are plenty who couldn't complete a run,pull-ups etc.

Powers should be given to unit CO's RSM's to develop unit requirements to augment the 13km in my mind.For example armd crewman must be able to do score 60 on the coopers test or can be removed from the unit.

Lets face it 13km is 13km. I've walked farther in wal-mart in tow of a pregnant wife.And yes I've carried more crap out of wal-mart than you could fit in a rucksack.


----------



## Haggis (20 Feb 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> Powers should be given to unit CO's RSM's to develop unit requirements to augment the 13km in my mind.  For example armd crewman must be able to do score 60 on the coopers test or can be removed from the unit.



Enforcing the existing standard is far cheaper in dollars, time and resources. We already have a standard and, unlike your suggestion, everyone in every unit knows what it is.  Why invent a new one?


----------



## rifleman (20 Feb 2006)

And if everyone could invent there own, it wouldn't be a standard


----------



## orange.paint (20 Feb 2006)

I have to disagree. (notice there was no verbal warning this time!)

I understand that yes someone needs to make a policy etc and that would cost money.What I'm trying to say is that If the power that be said OK CO of the north west pony regiment, give me a fitness test that will challenge your troops and give them a bench mark to strive for.Sort of like the USMC 1st ,2nd ,and 3rd class rating.

I wont ramble on about the 13km again. If you cant complete it or are too sore to do anything the rest of the day.......look in the mirror. It's a lax standard.

Or In the Canadian army fitness manual remove the little quote at the bottom of the page that says it isn't a standard and the only standard is the 13km.And there you go Haggis one standard that everyone can work with.Also isn't the coopers test already approved?

And is it really a WASTE of money to promote fitness?Challenge soldiers? (heaven forbid)

Also if your worried if everyone will understand and know the standard we can use that e-mail thing,works great.

dollars
you pay PSP on salary if you want them to test.
soldiers get paid everyday.
People in NDHQ get paid everyday....

Time
if your on this website you can make time.....
coopers test can be done In about 1 hr or less
cf fitness test over two days during PT period.

resources
legs, running shoes, heartbeat. 1x pull-up bar (If you can't find one on base....)
1x bench and weight set. (three weight rooms here I know on base)

Haggis I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, maybe my feeble mind cannot grasp the bureaucracy of physical training.Something needs to be done to weed people out.In my mind any airship in cadpat can do the darn 19 push-ups and 6 on a beep test. Personally I would rather have 10 guys who can actually pass a coopers test beside me than 100 guys in cadpat moo-moo's  who completed the 6 on the beep test.

Fit to fight? .....But not after beep six right?

I will now go rest my sore aching body to prepare for tomorrows activities,thinking of what it must feel like to achieve minimum standards,and not want to change our discusting system.

Like my wife's family told me "to be British is not to be angry at the world, its to be disgusted"

Anyone happy with that system disgusts me.

we are Canada's bodyguard.....what kind of body guard would you want if your life depended on it?


----------



## Haggis (20 Feb 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> I understand that yes someone needs to make a policy etc and that would cost money.What I'm trying to say is that If the power that be said OK CO of the north west pony regiment, give me a fitness test that will challenge your troops and give them a bench mark to strive for.Sort of like the USMC 1st ,2nd ,and 3rd class rating.



... and if an "airship" fails the 'local test', no formal career action can be taken (bad PER/PDR, RW or C&P).  If so, it is completely redressable.  Stick to what you can enforce.... the existing standard.



			
				rcac_011 said:
			
		

> Also isn't the coopers test already approved?



Only for applicants to JTF2.



			
				rcac_011 said:
			
		

> Also if your worried if everyone will understand and know the standard we can use that e-mail thing,works great.



Everyone already understands.  What they need to understand (and see from the C of C) is that it WILL be enforced.



			
				rcac_011 said:
			
		

> dollars
> you pay PSP on salary if you want them to test.
> soldiers get paid everyday.
> People in NDHQ get paid everyday....



What's your point?  PSP is underworked and needs to invent another standard for them to apply in addtion to the ones they already have???  Good use of scarce resources, isn't it?



			
				rcac_011 said:
			
		

> Time
> if your on this website you can make time.....


I was at the gym before the sun came up today (and every other weekday for that matter).  I've still got time for a Timmys (and Army.ca  ).



			
				rcac_011 said:
			
		

> resources
> legs, running shoes, heartbeat. 1x pull-up bar (If you can't find one on base....)
> 1x bench and weight set. (three weight rooms here I know on base)



I was thinking more of the dollars, time and resources it takes to design, validate, implement, communicate, train on and test a new standard and measure the results.  Ask your PSP folks about the amount of effort required to do this.  Just for fun.



			
				rcac_011 said:
			
		

> Haggis I'm not trying to be sarcastic here



Could've fooled me. ;D



			
				rcac_011 said:
			
		

> Something needs to be done to weed people out.



Something IS being done.   That's the title of this thread.



			
				rcac_011 said:
			
		

> I will now go rest my sore aching body to prepare for tomorrows activities,thinking of what it must feel like to achieve minimum standards,and not want to change our discusting system.



Before the system is changed, we have to know what's wrong with it.  Maybe this CDS initiative will show that the CF can tolerate (and is ready for) a higher fitness standard.  Maybe not.  But we have to start somewhere, right?



			
				rcac_011 said:
			
		

> Anyone happy with that system disgusts me.



Then I guess I don't disgust you since I never said I was happy with it.  I did say we have to apply it and measure the results.  Then we can move on.

Remember, not everyone needs to be fit enough for DHTC.


----------



## TCBF (20 Feb 2006)

" than 100 guys in cadpat moo-moo's  who completed the 6 on the beep test."

- CADPAT moo-moos:  I love it!


----------



## Haggis (20 Feb 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> " than 100 guys in cadpat moo-moo's  who completed the 6 on the beep test."
> 
> - CADPAT moo-moos:  I love it!



Come to Ottawa, Tom.  I'll point out a few.


----------



## GO!!! (20 Feb 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Remember, not everyone needs to be fit enough for DHTC.



This is the problem, IMHO.

While everyone may not _need_ to be in good enough shape to be at the hill, it would be a good thing to shoot for. I can't even count how many times I've heard a statement to that effect, used as an excuse to go to timmys instead of the gym, or why they fell out of a ruck march. 

This is a defeatist attitude, and is miles away from the "warrior ethos" I am told exists.

While everyone may not need to be in good enough shape for the hill, they should want to be.


----------



## Haggis (20 Feb 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> While everyone may not need to be in good enough shape for the hill, they should want to be.



To this, I agree.  What undermines this is those who have the expectation that this should be THE standard.

I've worked through the JTF2 training package just for fun.  Damn if it doesn't get you pretty fit, but it's awfully time consuming.  It's not easy to work it around a wife, three kids and a non-standard work week.  Once I get a "green light" on my knee (hopefully next month), I intend to do it again.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (20 Feb 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> This is the problem, IMHO.
> 
> While everyone may not _need_ to be in good enough shape to be at the hill, it would be a good thing to shoot for. I can't even count how many times I've heard a statement to that effect, used as an excuse to go to timmys instead of the gym, or why they fell out of a ruck march.
> 
> ...



If it isnt broken, dont fix it. In this case, we have a defficiency, and an excellent model to template from would be the USMC (I know I know, not the Marine argument again), but their 'everyone is a rifleman first, tradesman second' attitude speaks for itself.

At least thats what you seem to be dancing around, in this case.


----------



## buzgo (21 Feb 2006)

How much did the Army and PSP spend on developing the Army Fitness program? How many units are actually using it? Lets use what we've got before we come up with something new.


----------



## orange.paint (21 Feb 2006)

Better yet implement the army fitness manual test. I know here many MANY people could not achieve level 3 on all testing. 

I agree with go!!! we need to strive for things like cat A jtf2 fitness, saying this I am not ready for that yet myself but I train everyday to get to that level. People get too comfortable with the 13km and the beep testing and realise hey I make 50 000 a year.Why should I do more than my REQUIREMENTS....thats why we gotta raise the requirements.


----------



## MdB (21 Feb 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> Why should I do more than my REQUIREMENTS....thats why we gotta raise the requirements.



Because, as I see it, military personnel (at least in the combats arms), are athletes specialized in armed operation. What athletes do? Strive for the best results. Requirements are kind of perverse in a way, it tells you that upon reaching some point, you're ok. More importantly is attitude in that and that's derived from culture. What is Gen. Hillier doing? Instilling a new culture regarding fitness policies by among others putting in effect standards and consequences to not meeting them. But ultimately what he's doing is a positive reinforcement to reach a healthy (haha) fitness culture (which implies more than standards, excellence).


----------



## Haggis (21 Feb 2006)

Consdiser the standard to be a line in the sand, not a goal.

Fall below that line and your future is in peril.


----------



## orange.paint (21 Feb 2006)

Sorry if my post wasn't clear guys thats sarcasm BIG TIME.
 ;D
it was referring to the moo-moo guys i was talking about earlier.The line is in the sand but it's one fat beach out there.

This is a new year coming up in the next few weeks.Maybe I will see some action actually taken upon people who do not finish their 13km. Oh yeah they get to do the beep test if they fail.And No soldier I know has ever failed the beep test.

You guys said about the combat arms being a athlete of combat.I wish.The whole reason I posted on this thread was to basically state that the current testing in my opinion is weak.Enforcement in my mind has been weak. (I know guys who failed last BFT still getting paid).

On the culture aspect,where is it? I had morning P.T cancelled twice this week (and before someone jumps on in and says do it on your own I ran 20km last night so dint start) for very lame reasons.Work that could have been easily done from 10h00 to 12h00 AFTER P.T.
Believe me I had a hard-on when I heard Gen hillier was going to enforce standards on P.T but it's going to take 10-15 yrs to weed out the people who have already reached higher rank levels who can be held at current rank but I haven't seen anyone demoted yet.

Culture again.I find it embarrassing when your working with other countries like Bulgaria for example and they all are in excellent shape and your working with cpl fatass who gets out of breath putting on his boots.

Our culture can be quickly fixed.Raise standards.Body fat analysis. gestapo...etc.
And yes I realise there are large individuals who can out ruck, out run fit looking guys, but imagine how good these troops could be if they lost the extra stomach.

AS I SAID BEFORE: If you were important and needed a body guard,you life was threatened who would you want as a body guard? we are Canada's guard.

Heres a question: What was the BMI removed for? why do the U.S.a still use it? I know it was flawed with larger builds etc but couldn't you get body fat tested if you failed the BMI?I wasn't in the army at this time so I would appreciate any info.


----------



## ZipperHead (21 Feb 2006)

I like hearing people like rcac_011 say "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!!!" (plus I know him, and from what I have seen it takes a lot to get him mad). His anger is borne out of frustration, of a system that says it is going to change, but we all know deep down that it won't really change that much. Why the cynical outlook?? Look around. Too many people on IPS, or Permanent Category (which seems to be the most honest description I have ever heard in the military), who, unless there is an emergency session of parliament to be rid of their sorry carcasses because of a new change in the fitness policy, will cry fowl, get a redress/consult the Ombudsman/go to the media. 

I would love to see some tough love be issued out (especially at the leadership levels) as a warning across the bow's of the cruise ship mentality we have, but I won't be holding my breath. To allow even one person to breach the new policy guidelines (because, well, darn it, they are just too valuable to lose!!!) will show the weakness that is in place already (i.e no real enforcement of existing policies, so what's to say that there will be an enforcement of a new policy). 

It takes time to go from zero to hero (it's taken me two years of steady work to be at a state that I can live with, and I would like to think I was never at rock bottom in the first place), but too many people act like it's a big surprise that they are supposed to be in shape in the first place. If finger pointing and laying the blame on someone else were an Olympic event, we would be owning the podium in that event.

I personally feel that everyone should be striving for the JTF standard, but not neccesarily having to being in that shape. Setting the bar as low as it is, is as rcac_011 said, disgusting. It gives people nothing to aim for. It's a lot like those milk commercials, where the girl says she dreams of the crowd chanting "You're number 2!! You're number 2!!!!". As mentioned, level 3 on the new fitness manual "gut check" chart is a very reasonable goal to strive for, without having to become a marathon runner, a gym monkey, or a gymnast (although it is hard for me to propel my sorry carcass the distance required on the standing long jump for level 3 .... note to self: eat less poutine).

The cultural change, unfortunately, is going to take a lot longer than any sane person will have the patience for, unless of course, there are tangible repercussions for not heeding the warnings given. I know I won't be shedding any tears if there is a line up at the release section after the first adminstrative shockwaves are felt if/when the policy is enforced. For a person to say they never saw it coming is laughable, at best. 

Al


----------



## GO!!! (21 Feb 2006)

I agree with Allan's assessment that there is no will at the leadership level to enforce the PT standard. 

IMHE, the largest percentage of guys on category, accomadated and on restrictions are at the SNCO level, so this leaves trades like the infantry in a quandry - do we toss our DFS WO, Unit JM and Master Sniper? Where are their replacements? Twenty years in the infantry, especially in a para role, practically guarantees a busted up bod - what then?


----------



## TCBF (22 Feb 2006)

My cohort probably has the highest percentage of 'busted body' types.  What scares us is the young 20-30 year olds who join with half busted bodies.  Imagine what they will be like in ten years?  Heck, on a good day, we out-run and out-ruck them now.

In the Army, 50 year olds should NOT be passing 25 year olds.

Make a list and check it twice:  the guys and girls in the "Moo-Moos" are your DIP (Die In Place) CSW crews.  Give them enough ammo for a 30 minute delay, handcuff them to the tripods, then retrograde with the people you KNOW can hump a ruck.

 ;D

Just kidding in that last paragraph

Tom


----------



## Armymedic (23 Feb 2006)

no you weren't.

Besides for those of us who understand it...its not a bad plan.


----------



## orange.paint (23 Feb 2006)

Heres a question.How do firefighters manage to keep a high standard with the human rights act?Maybe we should be looking outside at other agencies.

TCBF, better bring zapstraps....some may not fit the handcuffs.Wouldn't want those guys to feel offended.


----------



## Gunner (23 Feb 2006)

> How do firefighters manage to keep a high standard with the human rights act?



High standards have nothing to do with human rights.


----------



## ZipperHead (23 Feb 2006)

Maybe I'm thick, or maybe I am starting to see the forest for the trees, but: a large portion of this thread has been about how we need to enforce the ONE standard that we have (the CF standard). But, as pointed out, firefighters, JTF2, paratroopers, SAR Techs and many other trades, positions (is CSOF (or whatever it is this week) still going with it's own PT standard?) have their own standards. Somebody slammed rcac_011 for saying that it would be too hard to enforce different CO's own PT standards (if a CO chose to have his/her own). Well, how about allowing a Corps to adopt their own standard, modelled on an existing standard, such as JTF, SAR Tech, firefighter, whichever, as long as it isn't below the CF standard (in case some rogue CO would be so lame as to declare that they need a LOWER standard). What of that then?? 

Just because an infantry guy is fitter than the JTF2 standards, doesn't neccesarily mean that he wants to be in the JTF, for whatever reason (lifestyle, family, no interest, etc). I'm saying this because people will invariably say "If a person wants to be in that shape, join the JTF2 fer crissakes!!!". And perhaps a CO wants to have his unit at a higher level, but is thwarted at every turn due to the ever present cry of "But I meet the CF standard!!!!". I know that this would cause a see-saw effect whereby one CO would be a gung-ho mofo and choose the JTF standard, and the next the CF, and the next somewhere in between, but at least it would give them the latitude to make their own choice, as they are responsible for the training of their soldiers to go to war, not the Ombudsman, or the base social worker, or whomever deals with those that cry fowl when they are asked to give more than the lowest possible standard dictates.

I know that this is radical, and no doubt already discussed somewhere, sometime, but I am NOT going to enter a search that includes the following words: JTF, PT, and CF in this forum (I'm sure the number of relevant posts would be in the area of the US national debt in dollars.)

Al


----------



## TCBF (23 Feb 2006)

I think I touched on something like this on another thread.  If each trade has it's own min Med Cat (312225, etc), why not have each trade with its own Fit Cat?

Tom


----------



## Haggis (23 Feb 2006)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm thick, or maybe I am starting to see the forest for the trees, but: a large portion of this thread has been about how we need to enforce the ONE standard that we have (the CF standard). But, as pointed out, firefighters, JTF2, paratroopers, SAR Techs and many other trades, positions (is CSOF (or whatever it is this week) still going with it's own PT standard?) have their own standards.



Each one of those standards is higher than the CF standard, and for good reason.  Those jobs are more demanding.  The CF standard doesn't cut it.



			
				Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> Somebody slammed rcac_011 for saying that it would be too hard to enforce different CO's own PT standards (if a CO chose to have his/her own).



That was me (and it wasn'; an intentional "slam".  I just come across as a crusty old prick at times.)  I did it for the reasons stated above and to keep with the topic at hand.  This thread is entitled "new *CF* Fitness *Policies* Coming" and everytime a thread like this starts, there's a hue and cry that "we should adopt (insert name of another Army/Marine/SF)'s fitness standard.  My points are these:

1.  We already have a minimum standard, which will stand up to legal scrutiny and is defensible in a redress.  That needs to be enforced.  

2.  Not everyone needs to be fit enough to go to DHTC but they should try to be as fit as they can be.

3.  Not everyone can be  fit enough to join CSOR but that shouldn't stop them from being as fit as they can be.

4.  Existing standards are not being enforced.  There is little to no consequence of failure or avoidance (prior to CANFORGEN 198/05)

5. Given our current resource state, arbitrarily implementing a new standard NOW would be wasteful.



			
				Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> Well, how about allowing a Corps to adopt their own standard, modelled on an existing standard, such as JTF, SAR Tech, firefighter, whichever, as long as it isn't below the CF standard (in case some rogue CO would be so lame as to declare that they need a LOWER standard). What of that then??
> Just because an infantry guy is fitter than the JTF2 standards, doesn't neccesarily mean that he wants to be in the JTF, for whatever reason (lifestyle, family, no interest, etc). I'm saying this because people will invariably say "If a person wants to be in that shape, join the JTF2 fer crissakes!!!". And perhaps a CO wants to have his unit at a higher level, but is thwarted at every turn due to the ever present cry of "But I meet the CF standard!!!!". I know that this would cause a see-saw effect whereby one CO would be a gung-ho mofo and choose the JTF standard, and the next the CF, and the next somewhere in between, but at least it would give them the latitude to make their own choice, as they are responsible for the training of their soldiers to go to war, not the Ombudsman, or the base social worker, or whomever deals with those that cry fowl when they are asked to give more than the lowest possible standard dictates.



Which brings me to my last point. ;D

6.  There's nothing to stop a CO from implementing their own standards.  But they cannot take career action against soldiers who do not meet "The CO's Standard" as long as the soldier meets the minimum *CF* standard for age, gender and specialty (i.e. SAR Tech or JTF2).

As I said in an earlier post, I'm not advocating that the current CF standard is adequate.  What I'm saying is that, before we invest time, money and resources in a "new and improved" standard, let's see what the CDS's little project shows us. As the CDS states in CANFORGEN198/05:



> LET ME BE CLEAR: WHILE THIS GUIDANCE WILL PROVIDE SENIOR LEADERSHIP WITH A *SNAPSHOT IN TIME*, THIS IS NOT ABOUT FITNESS TESTING, IT IS ABOUT HELPING TO SET THE CONDITIONS FOR SUCCESS IN OPERATIONS.



Maybe this "snapshot" will show that we're ready for a higher challenge.  Maybe it won't.  At least then we'll have a point of reference and a start line to cross.


----------



## orange.paint (2 Mar 2006)

Gunner said:
			
		

> High standards have nothing to do with human rights.



Read back.It will illustrate a young land monster who fought the system and won.Being fat is a disability.DND is an employer.



			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> Each one of those standards is higher than the CF standard, and for good reason.  Those jobs are more demanding.  The CF standard doesn't cut it.



And an infanteer/armoured crewman should be on par with a postal clerk?Are the combat arms not more demanding?



			
				Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> perhaps a CO wants to have his unit at a higher level, but is thwarted at every turn due to the ever present cry of "But I meet the CF standard!!!!".



Agreed.Our low standard is a crutch to the weak.

Haggis,you seem to somehow in one sentence say the standard we got is what we need to keep because it's easier to upkeep/cheaper/enforce.Then in the next breath say it is not sufficient.You seem to be depending on the lack standard and the canforgen this year to remove all the physical fitness problems.Problem being, and what most of the rest of us are trying to say, is that the current system fails 10 percent OF THE WORST. How many people do you know that PASS the minimum and are far from in a healthy, fit to fight shape.

One thing that made me tingle inside today was reading in the new maple leaf that they are FINALLY going to start testing "A" class reserves to the same standards.I brought this point up to Major Creighton (pardon spelling) a while back and was told it was a legal issue. .....who knows maybe I actually changed something (one can pretend  ;D).

 This is the first change I've seen anyone else seen anything concrete...make my night and tell me about someone fat getting the axe.....

Off to the gym. (will produce a detailed map for those who need it)

cheers


----------



## Haggis (2 Mar 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> Haggis,you seem to somehow in one sentence say the standard we got is what we need to keep because it's easier to upkeep/cheaper/enforce.Then in the next breath say it is not sufficient.



Exactly. What you didn't read is the reason why I said what I said.



			
				rcac_011 said:
			
		

> You seem to be depending on the lack standard and the canforgen this year to remove all the physical fitness problems.



No, read my post again.  



			
				rcac_011 said:
			
		

> One thing that made me tingle inside today was reading in the new maple leaf that they are FINALLY going to start testing "A" class reserves to the same standards.



It's about time.  But it will only be meaningful if there are consequences for failure.



			
				rcac_011 said:
			
		

> I brought this point up to Major Creighton (pardon spelling) a while back and was told it was a legal issue. .....who knows maybe I actually changed something (one can pretend  ;D).



There will doubtless be legal challenges to this.  That's why, through this CANFORGEN the soon-to-be released
results of the testing (snapshot in time) and the new DAOD, the CF has to have a slam-dunk case to fall back on when (not "if") some CADPAT balloon fails, doesn't get promoted and puts in a redress.



			
				rcac_011 said:
			
		

> Off to the gym. (will produce a detailed map for those who need it)



You show me yours and I'l show you mine! ;D


----------



## pbi (4 Mar 2006)

Gunner said:
			
		

> High standards have nothing to do with human rights.


The example of firefighters (civilian, anyway...) has everything to do with human rights. I doubt that,following the BC Forestry firefighter case a few years ago, there are any fire depts left in Canada whose fitness policy has not been reviewed by municipal lawyers for compliance with human rights. Basically, as a result of that woman's challenge to the "generic" nature of the BC test that she failed, fire fighter fitness tests have to be directly linked to required tasks (climbing a ladder wearing turnout gear, carrying rolled hose length, carrying weighted dummy, etc). As well, the fitness test in many depts in Canada is administered only as a part of the entry process. Once in and part of the union, many firefighters are not too keen to see regular fitness re-testing, fearing that it would be used by "management" to get rid of people.

The fact is that we are under the laws of Canada, whether we like it or not. Arbitrary, locally-developed "standards" that can't be defended against a challenge are what got us into trouble in the first place. If we want our fitness standard to survive a court challenge, then we better be able to prove in a court of law (not in a mess argument or on Army.ca) that the standard required is needed.

The main reason, in my opinion, that you don't see challenges to the fitness standard in organizations like the Marines has little to do with the standard itself, and everything to do with the mentality, pride and "lifestyle". Change how people think of themselves, and you will go far towards solving this problem. So, like most of us have noted before, it's a leadership problem. But, I believe that the more we go on ops, especially dangerous ops, the more we will produce leaders and soldiers who believe in being fit.

This change of mentality cannot happen overnight. It took decades for the CF to slip into the pit of sluggery and "job-ism" that pervades too many people's mindsets today. It will take us years to reform (a lot of people will have to leave, thus removing their poisonous influence), but it can be done. As an aside,  I have very grave doubts that the recent decision to allow people the right to elect to serve until 60 will help this process. In a tiny force such as ours, with limited intake, this may be a recipe for trouble. I hope we donot live to regret it.

Cheers


----------



## Patrolman (20 Apr 2006)

Just noticed this thread has been inactive for a couple of months. I was just wondering has anyone seen any kind of implantation of these new policies at their units? I am still seeing some pretty hefty military types doing the combat stress test on their combats.

I am heading back to work on May 1st after a few months parental leave. I believe I am probably more fit now than I was when I was at work. The resposibility was on me to stay fit and I am glad to say I didn't fall into the fat trap while I was home. I plan to run  the Fredericton half marathon on May 14th.


----------



## Haggis (20 Apr 2006)

Funny that you should ask..

I was in contact with the CFSU (Ottawa) Fitness Co-rordinator this morning.  The new DAOD has not been signed yet.  No projected release date.


----------



## orange.paint (20 Apr 2006)

Nope still the same.For those who try their best to stay in shape, I suggest putting in a memo through your chain of command for doing your own PT.It has been very accepted at my unit and they require me at parade and that's it.I believe anyone who is putting a large amount of effort into themselves should be trusted to keep themselves in "uber"shape.


Patrolman that was my second choice of races this month,wish I had legs enough to do that and another the next week.

Now here I begin to rant...

this is directed at the sick lame and obese in our army.

what is it going to take these folks and make them fit to fight?

OBESE PEOPLE:

1.obviously has shown they cannot take care of themselves (note maybe this could go under hygiene) why trust them with subordinates/expensive equipment.

2.Cannot physically keep up,slowing the team and making the team less effective.

3.Work tires obese people quicker,hence the fat f+c% that falls asleep on sentry,or don't wake up to replace you. (Ive also seen this con courses where the obese were asleep early and failing due to lack of studying)

4.Have more illness in a reporting period,more likely to develop serious health problems.

5.Appears poorly in uniform,making the Canadian armed forces appear weak and un disciplined.

Unfortunately I didn't join a army I joined the "Canadian retire at 40 dream" plagued with pers who don't want to be soldiers just want money.

How do we fix it? We can't. They won't.

How would I?

How about pay incentives if you reach certain levels of fitness.

If you fail the minimum requirements you lose out on pay,even if you pass later that week.

Rehabilitation for obese.extra training etc.

make a brigade of over 50 bmi and they can be our guys to keep the homefires burning (so I can get out of here and overseas again!)

humiliation is my favorite.Poor leadership?maybe.Or maybe I grew up in a place where its my culture and then who are you to tell me I'm wrong  ;D

Destroy the 6074 pants (someone in supply can tell me the largest size for real) make combats on height and width,not round and girth

And I will even do my part.Anyone who is obese and wants to lose weight PM me and ill send you a training plan...then you can go bleed Crisco all over the running track.

or firing squad...call me sick but I would love that job.




haggis what DAOD is this?I seem to be a little lost here care to go in-depth with it?


----------



## 54/102 CEF (20 Apr 2006)

Happy to say I`m a graduate of Rick Hilliers Get in the Gym program - almost got exempted for age of 51 - Shuttle Run is a far cry from the days of running in boots (I admit it - I`m imprinted from the Cold War). 

After 8 weeks of coaching by an excellent PERI am still pleased on how fast you can bounce back from deskbound bum to getting serious jogging again. I am told by aquaintences that Australians do this 2 times a year - all regs and reserves. Seems an easy program for any unit not tied into a regular forces 5 day a week life. (Aka Reserves and non megabase units like NDHQ)

Has anyone got data on how many did not do the test by 1 April? I see lots of people avoiding it - or taking it much later than early this month.

Other eyes and ears?

See you next year as this is my new means of tpt - http://www.montagueco.com/productcx.html

All you gung ho snake eaters will like this model - http://www.montagueco.com/productpara.html


----------



## Gunner (21 Apr 2006)

> Has anyone got data on how many did not do the test by 1 April?



It's going to be briefed to the CDS by mid-May.  Current indications are a low completion rate however this is thought to be due to data not being entered into HRMS.  A call has gone out to make sure the PT is entered ASAP.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Apr 2006)

Reserves don't have the option of a Reg force PERI, or the new civie equivalent to draw on. We don't have a free gymnasium packed full of TV's and treadmills, trackmasters and dumbells (human and inanimate). If I get hurt , or hit by a car, at 05:00 while humping my ruck, who pays, till I get back to work? Not DND, like you Reg guys. Or better yet, finds me a new job after getting fired because I wasn't at work. Soldier first, suck it up Buttercup, and if you like it, you'll sacrifice for it, are all bullshit answers. Most of us have civvie jobs and families. Reg force have the advantage of daily, organized, worry free, injury taken care of, no career implication PT. We don't. Provide us the means, even playing ground, benefits, legislation, etc and we'll do it. We already work two jobs to your one, don't dare say we're slack and lazy because we don't indulge in the same gratuitous perks that the Regs do. You get your 20-25 days leave with your family. Mine is spent at summer Ex. I have to beg my boss for course time. My wife is pissed because my Brigade can't get the simple fact, that Mother's Day is a stupid time to hold an EX (every year, just like clockwork). I'll do what I can to get and stay fit for the Army, but if your not going to afford me the same benefits, perks and consessions as the Regs, don't dare try and force the same standard. In the end we'll do what we're told, and I suppose this was just for all those sanctimonious greek gods out there. That's my rant, and I doubt I'm done. We'll see.

_edit for caveat_


----------



## WogCpl (21 Apr 2006)

You could always just component transfer.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Apr 2006)

Go read my profile sunshine.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Apr 2006)

;D

Aw!  Come on D________!.....You have a least 8 good years left.   ;D


----------



## buzgo (21 Apr 2006)

Gunner said:
			
		

> It's going to be briefed to the CDS by mid-May.  Current indications are a low completion rate however this is thought to be due to data not being entered into HRMS.  A call has gone out to make sure the PT is entered ASAP.



There is a new system coming out where the PSP staff will have a PC available DURING testing and will enter all the data right on the spot. Now they take all the forms and enter them after the fact - when you have 1000 forms to do it can get tedious.


----------



## Hot Lips (21 Apr 2006)

I do have to agree...having an employer who allowed time throughout your day for PT would definitely be kick a**but...here goes my 2 cents...I am a nurse and I see the results of poor physical fitness daily and know that our healthcare system is burdened by obese sick people, so there are more reasons than just your job requirements to stay fit...

Fitness should be a lifestyle...it should not be just "fit in" a day but a part of everyday...everyone can find time to incorporate fitness in their day...whether that means parking your car a ways from where you are headed so you have to walk or taking the stairs instead of the elevator...little changes make a lifestyle and are easy to do, and quietly and slowly help one to become more fit, with other activities throughout the day.

I make time for my health/fitness almost daily and it is for me that I do, the spinoff is...I can get ready quickly when and if I get a call from the CF.

HL


----------



## 54/102 CEF (21 Apr 2006)

I'm with HOTLIPS on this - 

ANYONE can do the training - all you need is a 20 metre stretch of flat ground.

Can't do pushups or situps? You really need special time for this?

Recce Guy - email me with your address and I'll mail you a CD with the BEEP test music on it. Put it on a MP3 player and you're off to the races.

For anyone on the DIN - Here's the link to download the Beep test music MP3 file 

http://dcds.mil.ca/projects/pmonmsc/documents/b-test.mp3


----------



## Springroll (21 Apr 2006)

Hot Lips said:
			
		

> I do have to agree...having an employer who allowed time throughout your day for PT would definitely be kick a**but...here goes my 2 cents...I am a nurse and I see the results of poor physical fitness daily and know that our healthcare system is burdened by obese sick people, so there are more reasons than just your job requirements to stay fit...
> 
> HL



I echo this too, Hot Lips. 
Working with seniors for many years as their caregiver, you can see the affects of a "lazy" lifestyle very clearly. 
Our aging population is getting heavier and heavier and alot of that falls onto the shoulders of caregivers who are too lazy themselves to encourage a client/resident to do some sort of physical activity, even if it is just holding their hand and walking up and down the halls of the facility, or taking their client out for a walk if they are at home. 

Alot of it falls into diet also. 
With so many convenience foods out there, and people not "having" enough time to make a good healthy home cooked meal, people are packing on the pounds. If more people included more fresh fruits and veggies in their diet rather than sweets and high fat meals, we would have a healthier society.


----------



## Gunner (21 Apr 2006)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> There is a new system coming out where the PSP staff will have a PC available DURING testing and will enter all the data right on the spot. Now they take all the forms and enter them after the fact - when you have 1000 forms to do it can get tedious.



Most army guys and gals don't do the Xpress test but the BFT.  Hence the results need to be entered into HRMS.


----------



## BernDawg (21 Apr 2006)

I do think it's awfully odd that the latest round of testing is over here in Cold Lake and the gym is once again a habitable place with plenty of room for those of us who go regularly.  In fact it's practically a desolate waste land in the mornings now but i guess it goes along with the new years resolutionists that usually peter out by valentines day.  It truly is a vicious circle isn't it?
 ;D


----------



## Haggis (21 Apr 2006)

Gunner said:
			
		

> Most army guys and gals don't do the Xpress test but the BFT.  Hence the results need to be entered into HRMS.



PSP are not the only folks who can enter this.  Any OR clerk (Reg F or Res F) can as well, once proof is provided to the clerk.  If you've done the BFT, for pension purposes members should go to thier local PSP gym and fill out the Exercise Prescription portion of a DND 279.  Have it signed by your CO and placed on your pers file.

*Recceguy:*  If you're doing a form of PT (like ruck marching) not listed on the DND 279, submit a memo to your CO requesting this form of PT be added to your DND 279.  That way, when the bus hits you, you're covered!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Apr 2006)

Thanks Haggis.


----------



## Hot Lips (21 Apr 2006)

Okay...here is a kettle of fish...I probably ought not open but anyway...how many people do you suppose..."take PT" during the day...but don't really...because I am at the gym pretty regularly and it is never packed...I would think it ought to be...any time of day...I mix it up so I am surprised that more people aren't taking advantage of these wonderful free facilities...of course there are other gyms people attend...just seems odd...wish my employer would give me an hour a day to get fit...

As for the diet part...my understanding from my education is that diet constitutes 80% of weight loss and physical wellness...you are what you eat, lol

HL


----------



## orange.paint (21 Apr 2006)

I personally don't buy the argument about the reserves not covered for PT.If your human and actually give a fu#k about your health you would do it.As hotlips stated she does PT but she isn't covered by the hospital she works with.You can get hit by a vw full of Yugoslavians in T.O and your not covered either,life is like that.

IT IS NOT A ISSUE OF REG/RES.ITS HEALTH!

This new directive isn't going to change anything.It came out in December and I was ecstatic.Picturing fatties burned at the stake etc.But here we are.I have friends who are now in other secret org's (dare I say the name) who were reserve.THEY didn't do the whole dam I would love to work out but I'm not covered to go running.

And as it was said earlier in this post,the fat get fatter the fit get fitter..

there are excuses and reasons,think about that.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Apr 2006)

Quote,
_As hotlips stated she does PT but she isn't covered by the hospital she works with_

Is she going to be fitness tested by said hospital with possible repercussions if she doesn't pass?.......NO?
Then stop making stupid apple/oranges comparisons......


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Apr 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> And as it was said earlier in this post,the fat get fatter the fit get fitter..
> 
> there are excuses and reasons,think about that.



See my previous caveat regarding sanctimonious greek gods.


----------



## orange.paint (21 Apr 2006)

Apples to oranges I was stating that she can get hurt at anytime during her training.It would effect her career but she still does it.Why?Pride in her body and for health benefits.

How the hell is that apples and oranges.Or for these guys jacking the tread pizza and hamburgers.

Basically anyone who is going to argue about not being covered etc is proably not in optimum shape.That is an excuse.I had a guy in my troop who lost a leg,he didn't ***** and whine about pt he did it.That's a reason to not do PT but he didn't want to make excuses.


Bruce is that really that stupid?


Many reserve guys are on rugby teams etc,its the few who ***** about being covered who make it a sweeping generalisation of the reserves.And it is not true.
Policies may come.People may leave,not me.I will be the guy at the front gate laughing as you drive by,and if that day comes I promise I will be.

Fit to fight.You cant get more brevity than that.If your not fit to fight,you don't deserve to wear the uniform period.

I personally wouldn't want these sort of people in my troop.Not fit to fight what the hell are you going to do on deployment?The taliban won't lower a standard to let you survive.

I will be fit to fight (sorry if that offends anyone) so troops beside me can depend on me to help them out when the crap hits the fan.Not be too out of shape to keep up.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Apr 2006)

At 150 pounds for a grown man?.......You might not last as long as you think.
...and I guess at 220 you were a "fat slob" who should have been tossed anyways....no?
Quote,
_Anyway that's what I did.Work out 5-6 times a week throw in a bit of weight training twice a week  on top of cardio.
Ive lost 60 lbs went from 220-150 since last October.I too had a serious accident that prevented me from pt for a few months.Now I'm trying out for csor._

Sure hope you get all that free time in a Regt.....though I doubt it.

I am the first to want everyone fit, but your just being a total jerk-off about it. I guess its like being a born again smoker/etc.......one must stand on that pedestal and demand admiration.


----------



## orange.paint (21 Apr 2006)

That was a fitness post which has nothing to do with this.If you could show the link it would display I was relating to another poster who is in the same boat I was last year.Also look at my fitness forum which states I would help anyone with traing plans which I have here to help them out.



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> At 150 pounds for a grown man?.......You might not last as long as you think.
> ...and I guess at 220 you were a "fat slob" who should have been tossed anyways....no?



Really ..that's why Ive already been in for 7 years plq qual.yep I wont last.
According to your profile you didn't last .10 years arty.150 for a grown man?actually its a perfect weight for my height.And at 220 I still could run well under the low standards this army has.






			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Sure hope you get all that free time in a Regt.....though I doubt it.





			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Yah cause were really not busy : at the armoured school.Why wouldn't I be able to work out at the regiment?Last time I checked normal work hrs in petawawa was 7h30-16h30.Theres that whole after supper hours your forgetting about.Plus PT in the morning which was pretty good before I left Pet.And if your referring to CSOR..I'm sure standards will be kept there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Apr 2006)

Yep, like I said.


----------



## orange.paint (21 Apr 2006)

recceguy...for CDS  ;D
you made me use a dictionary...today is not wasted.

sanctimonious . ???


----------



## Haggis (21 Apr 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> recceguy...for CDS  ;D



I'm in.

Besdies, some folks think Gen Hillier's days are numbered.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42446/post-369777/boardseen.html#new

*rcac_011:*

If a Reg F guy is hurt doing "self supervised" PT on his own time he is eligible for medical coverage, doesn't lose his pay or benefits while he recuperates and can qualify for a diability pension if he's no longer employable.

If a Res F guy gets hurt doing "self supervised" PT on his own time he has none of that.  The assumed risk for Res F troops is exactly that: potential loss of livelihood, earnings, career etc.  All Recceguy is saying is that if you are going to hold the Res F to the same standards as the Reg F then give them the same protection.

And, for the record, I believe that fitness is a life requirement, not a job requirement.


----------



## orange.paint (21 Apr 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> [All Recceguy is saying is that if you are going to hold the Res F to the same standards as the Reg F then give them the same protection.
> 
> And, for the record, I believe that fitness is a life requirement, not a job requirement.



Yep understood.Agree 100% with res guys getting coverage doing dnd sponsored activities (not knife fighting etc :blotto.



			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> And, for the record, I believe that fitness is a life requirement, not a job requirement.



I know you do!We have acually been on this post for quite sometime and believe we both understand where they other is coming from...it's the people who drop in just to argue/insult people...fighting on the internet...wow...

hey but if my comments make them angry maybe they will burn a few more calories typing!

cheers to haggis


----------



## Hot Lips (21 Apr 2006)

LMAO...non-compliance, non-compliance... :blotto:

HL


----------



## 54/102 CEF (21 Apr 2006)

Bike - Walk - JOg - Roller Blade - Pushups - situps - repeat

Doesn`t have to be boring - take dog for a little run - meet the neighbours - promote CF - now you`re a fit ambassador! 

Here`s the link for the beep test music

http://www.defence.gov.au/army/1_19RNSWR/fitness.htm --- look in bottom right hand corner - enjoy!


----------



## GO!!! (21 Apr 2006)

I still believe that there is no reason that we can't ask reservists to be in good enough shape to do the BFT/express test.

These are bare bones, threshold standards. They don't require any special training or equipment to pass, and most reasonably fit people can do them. 

I also believe that while reservists may not be party to our generous "perks", they have others, like the ability to say;

"Sorry about that sir, but I'm just not going to be able to go on that 3 week dismounted winter patrol ex, I have work/school/other to do" 

There are many reg force soldiers that would love to do this - but it is not one of our "perks".

This is an issue of give and take. You (reservists) get to choose which training you would like to do, in accordance with your career (military and civilian) and life goals. 

*You* chose *not* to make this a full time career, so why should you be party to full time benefits? 

No one is demanding that you finish the mountain man here, just a 2 hour walk with a ruck and a quick jog in a gym. Bare bones.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Apr 2006)

We should be fit enough, agreed. However, I don't ever recall saying we wouldn't or couldn't do the BFT or Express, just that if we are hurt doing the mandatory work up, we shoud be compensated somehow, as this training will be done on our own time and the injury could affect our civil employment and wage. Don't forget also, if I do a weekend ex it also equates to two weeks straight work, just with two different employers, not one. We'll never reach conscenus on it. Each force has it's niche and needs, but if things are going to be standardized and have career implications across the board, the playing field for that program should be level. Just my $00.02


----------



## Haggis (22 Apr 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I still believe that there is no reason that we can't ask reservists to be in good enough shape to do the BFT/express test.


It's coming.


			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> These are bare bones, threshold standards. They don't require any special training or equipment to pass, and most reasonably fit people can do them.


I know many Reservists who do the BFT regularly, simply because they are students/young parents who can't afford a gym membership.



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> I also believe that while reservists may not be party to our generous "perks"...



Disability and loss of earnings protection is not a "perk".


			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> ... they have others, like the ability to say;
> 
> "Sorry about that sir, but I'm just not going to be able to go on that 3 week dismounted winter patrol ex, I have work/school/other to do"
> 
> There are many reg force soldiers that would love to do this - but it is not one of our "perks".



But they still do it: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40546.0.html



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> We should be fit enough, agreed. However, I don't ever recall saying we wouldn't or couldn't do the BFT or Express, just that if we are hurt doing the mandatory work up, we shoud be compensated somehow, as this training will be done on our own time and the injury could affect our civil employment and wage.



As I said earlier:



			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> If a Reg F guy is hurt doing "self supervised" PT on his own time he is eligible for medical coverage, doesn't lose his pay or benefits while he recuperates and can qualify for a diability pension if he's no longer employable.
> 
> If a Res F guy gets hurt doing "self supervised" PT on his own time he has none of that.



Is your coverage for self supervised PT considered another perk, GO!!!? Or is it just fair protection in the spirit of the Chief of Military Personnel's vision to "Look after our people, invest in them and give them confidence in the future."  (http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/engraph/missionvision_e.asp) I don't see any distinction in that statement between Reg F or Res F.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Don't forget also, if I do a weekend ex it also equates to two weeks straight work, just with two different employers, not one.



A Class A Infantry WO who works for me has, between unit training, two brigade ex's, teaching a weekend PLQ, Professional Development and his civvy job, worked five straight weeks (with two more to go).  He commutes two hours each way to his civvy job and another hour to the unit.  He's also doing PT six days a week as part of his CSM's "Fitness Challenge".  No extra leave, money or "perks".  All he wants is due consideration and protection as is afforded to his Reg F counterparts. This costs no extra money or time, just a bit of understanding on the part of all involved.
  


			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> We'll never reach conscenus on it. Each force has it's niche and needs, but if things are going to be standardized and have career implications across the board, the playing field for that program should be level. Just my $00.02



That, gents, was my point.


----------



## orange.paint (22 Apr 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Reserves don't have the option of a Reg force PERI, or the new civilian equivalent to draw on. We don't have a free gymnasium packed full of TVs and treadmills, trackmasters and dumbells (human and inanimate). _edit for caveat_



Its called outside running.push ups can be completed without a lot of equipment. chin-up bars can be found anywhere.Not on a base? nail one to a tree or buy one at walmart for a door jam 27 dollars.Sounds like your angry reg force guys got it "cushy."If you decided to be a reservist,and your civilian job is so great buy a gym membership.We pay for ours with time,you pay for yours with cash.As for dumbells...yep they must be stupid,working out and looking after themselves.Why would a man do that?To benefit himself and the army..when he could be looking for excuses not to.


 "Soldier first, suck it up Buttercup, and if you like it, you'll sacrifice for it, are all bullshit answers. Most of us have civi jobs and families. Reg force have the advantage of daily, organized, worry free, injury taken care of, no career implication PT". 

If I break my back doing a recce competition i get put on category...oh no ..no career implications there :.yes recceguy some reg force guys have families too,we decide the small scarfice of lets say 7-9pm working out supersedes the "daddy's not coming home "due to his poor physical condition.As for daily PT hahahaha!We do that working thing too but ours is all army not just part time.We do the be out in P.V by 5hoo and leaving at 6-7 at night to come home...then its your responsibility to do it on your time.Sort of what you poor reservist go through is it not?

 "Provide us the means, even playing ground, benefits, legislation, etc and we'll do it. We already work two jobs to your one, don't dare say we're slack and lazy because we don't indulge in the same gratuitous perks that the Regs do. "

You apparently are slack and lazy.All I'm hearing is excuses.I hope they do give you guys an even ground.I hope they implement higher PT levels for reserves,hey and maybe test you guys on a monthly basis.You guys do have the harder life working at sobeys between parade nights.And as for perks...you can put a memo in to get on the new tf to Afghanistan,volunteer for jobs/choose jobs in the army,decide to get an education while reg guys gotta do this all at night (the horror).

 "You get your 20-25 days leave with your family. Mine is spent at summer Ex. I have to beg my boss for course time. My wife is pissed because my Brigade can't get the simple fact, that Mother's Day is a stupid time to hold an EX (every year, just like clockwork). "

Oh my god.Mothers day...the horror.That is the the most lame complaint I have ever heard.How does a Brigade commander sleep at night knowing your mother is out there crying her eyes out cause little her poor son had to go play army for 2 weeks.Give me a break.We have worked through Easter,Christmas etc who cares. Your in the army.Those guys in Iraq have missed mothers day as well and would proably laugh at your bullshit bitching about it.I get 25 days off,you can choose to work when you want.

"I'll do what I can to get and stay fit for the Army, but if your not going to afford me the same benefits, perks and consessions as the Regs, don't dare try and force the same standard. In the end we'll do what we're told, and I suppose this was just for all those sanctimonious Greek gods out there. That's my rant, and I doubt I'm done. We'll see".

You'll do as directed by higher.And I hope those three dragoons at the top end push the pressure down on the army in general.If you don't want the same standard why in other post are you bitching about the "total force concept"?You choose to be a reserve deal with it.

sanctimonious Greek gods..sounds like your the one that should be worshipped.The soldier who isn't covered by the army for PT,works another job besides his part time voluntary commitment to the army.Had to work mothers day more than two years in a row.

People wake the frig up.Germany is over.We are actually in a war against terror.Put your beer down get the frig out and make way for the next group of soldiers who realise fitness and soldiering go hand in hand not being drunk pretending the Russians are making the advance.(refering to recceguy not all our cold war vets).

SO even though recceguy jumped on this tread to make it ABOUT reserves,it's not.Its about fitness and directives from higher.
Bruce left to go find the gym(or looking down for his penis) so lets get it back on track.


----------



## GO!!! (22 Apr 2006)

How many reservists get hurt doing PT anyway?

Has one ever had a pension denied because of it? 

When/where/who?

So much of this appears to me to be in the realm of theory, I'm tempted to dismiss all/most of it. I fail to see how one could garner a lifelong injury by walking for two hours. 

I think reservists want to have their cake and eat it too. None of the full time commitment, all of the full time benefits, only put your uniform on when you want to. Minimum fitness is a basic human responsibility, not something your casual - time employer should have to assume unlimited liability for. Sounds like a system ripe for abuse to me.

recceguy, you seem to harbour so much anger and resentment towards the regs, why did you ever get out? 

By your assertations about our generous perks, cushy jobs, ample leave and otherwise worry - free employment, I would have thought that you would have ridden this green gravy train for at least a few more years...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Apr 2006)

Finally got out the dictionary and found out what sanctimonious meant eh? 

Anyway, I tried to make a point. Haggis did it much more eloquently. However, I see that you still got your blinders on and insist on perpetuating the points we moved past and the ones you yourself are condemning and accusing me of.

Watch that soap box when you step off. It's getting pretty high.

GO!!!,

With your well know anti Reserve bias, it's not even worth entering into a discussion with you about it. What you percieve as me being anti Reg couldn't be further from the truth.


----------



## the 48th regulator (22 Apr 2006)

> I think reservists want to have their cake and eat it too. None of the full time commitment, all of the full time benefits, only put your uniform on when you want to



:rofl:

this is gonna be good one to watch.....

dileas

tess


----------



## orange.paint (22 Apr 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Finally got out the dictionary and found out what sanctimonious meant eh?



Yes sure did.Most of us are having a hard time getting an education in english,working and all.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Anyway, I tried to make a point. Haggis did it much more eloquently. However, I see that you still got your blinders on and insist on perpetuating the points we moved past and the ones you yourself are condemning and accusing me of.



Your comments have added nothing to the thread.Maybe start one about reserves being covered after hours,that is not what this tread is about.You are contributing nothing but how well an 50 year old man can spell.Blinders are on low standards,when  the directives are coming...you have not been contributing to this tread until your brethren Bruce was mouthing off and most likely PMed you to "help out".Read back a few pages,this wasn't about reserves until you made it and thus continue.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Watch that soap box when you step off. It's getting pretty high.



can you actually lift a soap box anymore?by the sounds of things the man who once lifted centurion rounds isn't a pillar of fitness anymore.Directives will be pushed,people will listen or get the hell out of thisarmy I still have a little pride in.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> GO!!!,
> 
> With your well know anti Reserve bias, it's not even worth entering into a discussion with you about it. What you perceive as me being anti Reg couldn't be further from the truth.



It's pers like yourself recceguy who make people angry at reservist.As I alluded to earlier read back..it wasn't about reserves until you made it.As for you being anti regs I believe you are a opportunist,like they paycheck but don't want to do the work a soldier has to namely PT.Or why would you be cutting bullshit excuses.Why not head back to the forum and start a "I had to work mothers day" or "fuck working out if I ain't covered" and leave this forum for people fitness minded and as one poster stated representing the cf.Right now it's cancer like yourself destroying the image and young minds here in the cf. Notice how I never classified reg/res that's because I don't care as long as your fit.


maybe take out your dictionary and look up fitness,or get out and let other young leaders who are gung-ho take your wasted position.


----------



## Haggis (22 Apr 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> How many reservists get hurt doing PT anyway?



I know of three, personally, all of whom ended up being medically released.  One, a CWO, had to give up a rather well paying civvy job as a result.



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> Has one ever had a pension denied because of it?



Read my earlier post.  A Reservist doing PT on his own time (i.e. not signed in, not on duty etc.etc.) is not eligible for pension coverage.  The injury was not suffered in the service of HRH.  



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> So much of this appears to me to be in the realm of theory, I'm tempted to dismiss all/most of it. I fail to see how one could garner a lifelong injury by walking for two hours.



How about getting hit by a car?  Blowing your knee out running?  Falling down an ice-covered hill while snowshoeing?  Ruck marching for two hours isn't the ONLY worthwhile form of PT y'know. 


			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> I think reservists want to have their cake and eat it too. None of the full time commitment, all of the full time benefits, only put your uniform on when you want to.



I don't think you grasp the level of commitment of many Reservists.  In return all the average Reservists wants is fair treatment.  They already get paid 15% less that the Reg F, why screw them over even harder, particularly the dedicated ones (they do exist!).  

In many of your posts, you make it sound like ALL Reservists are soft go wanna-be's who stay in front of the TV when the weather turns bad or there's a new episode of "Over There" airing rather than go "training".

I'm curious.  Why is this?


----------



## orange.paint (22 Apr 2006)

Read recceguys post haggis and that's why GO!! responds as he do.
I personally cannot comprehend a snr NCO speaking as he does.It does nothing for the troops below him and nothing for the young guys reading this board.

discusting.
Lets get back to fitness/directives and leave this reservist thing for the messes somewhere shall we?

if you don't have something constructive to the fitness or information of higher directives post elsewhere....this from MODS :


----------



## GO!!! (22 Apr 2006)

Riiiight.

Here we go again.

recceguy: All reg force members are ignorant, unedu-macated slobs engaging in a form of uniformed welfare, their jobs are too easy, and their benefits too generous. 

GO: reservists complain too much, and get to pick and choose their taskings while demanding full time benefits

tess/recceguy/O'leary et al: LOOK - A MO HATER - LET'S GET 'IM BOYS


----------



## the 48th regulator (22 Apr 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Riiiight.
> 
> Here we go again.
> 
> All reg force members are ignorant, unedu-macated slobs engaging in a form of uniformed welfare, their jobs are too easy, and their benefits too generous.



finally you are learning....

dig for dig for dig....

dileas

tes


----------



## geo (22 Apr 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> How many reservists get hurt doing PT anyway?
> 
> Has one ever had a pension denied because of it?
> 
> ...



Go, it just so happens that I work in the shop that, amongst other things, looks after injuries, indemnity requests & the like. I could provide you with several names........
There aare a whole bunch of stupid reasons for the problems to have happened - the point is; It's happened.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (22 Apr 2006)

All

45 mins in the gym on a 20 m track three times a week and minimize the Timbits will get you past your Express Test.

So get going and ceasefire. Says more about the writers than the readers.

We have too much to gain together to waste time on pokey chest games.


----------



## orange.paint (22 Apr 2006)

Second that.
the timbits I mean ;D.


----------



## Haggis (22 Apr 2006)

54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> All
> 
> 45 mins in the gym on a 20 m track three times a week and minimize the Timbits will get you past your Express Test.
> 
> ...



Thread killer!  ;D

Agreed.  A bunch of us have dragged this off topic (including me  :-[.).  But in doing so we've found topics for at least two other threads.  That's gotta count for something!


----------



## orange.paint (23 Apr 2006)

Now haggis you said the directives were coming down,what directive is this?
also whats the deal with A class reserve will they be tested?


----------



## Haggis (23 Apr 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> Now haggis you said the directives were coming down,what directive is this?
> also whats the deal with A class reserve will they be tested?



Waaaay back on page 1 of this thread is the text of CANFORGEN 198/05.  It states that two new DAODs (which are slowly replacing CFAOs) will be issued stating how and when CF members will be tested and outlining the consequences of failure.  The new DAOD on promotion policy will state that you must have a valid fitness test pass in order to be promoted.

Although it hasn't been published yet, my spies tell me that Class A Reservists will be held to the same standards as Reg F, Class B and C Reservists.

It's important that we don't go the route some units took in the 90's with the Warrior programme.  The Reserves lost a lot of otherwise good soldiers because the Warrior fitness standard was applied in a draconain way, without allowing the unfit soldier time or opportunity to meet the standard.  It was "meet it now or get out".

It's also importnant to realize that in both componenets there are folks who's only PT is chasing the chip truck.  This new DAOD is intended to give them the head slap they need to make thier own life and career choices.  Whether those are positive or negative is up to the individual.


----------



## Journeyman (23 Apr 2006)

54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> We have too much to gain together to waste time on pokey chest games.



Done properly (always use strict form when working out), pokey chest does exercise the triceps. Chucking the timbits down your neck will provide balance in working the biceps. There's still a requirement for cardio though.....are there posted standards for this "running after chip truck"?   

Been civie, RegF, Res....more than once each. There's fit & fat in all three elements - - it's a personal choice. Personally, I'd rather go for a run than waste time flaming others1

_________________
1 OK, some dopey posters in other threads (usually recurring offenders) get sarcasm; but that's still not flame  ;D


----------



## Franko (23 Apr 2006)

Back on topic troops....

Fitness in the CF and the policies remember?

Hate to lock another thread for a couple of days because people have to cool off.

/mod mode



I have seen both shapes in the Regs and Reserves...."fit" shape and "pear" shape.

The whole point is everyone has to get into fit, fighting shape. It takes time, as rcacc011 put it.

The days of the overweight soldier are gone and everyone has to get with the program....even I am.

If you become injured there are actions to take to get better...unfortunatly the reserves don't have the same institutions that we do. Not too many reserve units have a UMS to go to ..... AFAIK.

My $0.02 worth.

Regards


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Apr 2006)

No one was arguing for the 'right to be fat'. We all recognize the requirement for being fit to fight. The question was how the policies, which is what the thread is about, were going to encompass Cl A's hurt during off duty PT training. Which is not off topic. It has to do with how the policies are going to be applied to Cl A's and their options if injured, which is still on topic.


----------



## orange.paint (23 Apr 2006)

I personally want to see what happens when the results are posted in this year.In my opinion a person who is going to be in any leadership role who doesn't pass shouldn't be placed in that role again till he can meet the minimum requirements.Which is a whole other rant on the lack standard.

Hopefully this will open up the positions to more fit people thus producing the "culture of fitness" the CDS wishes to have.The system needs to be flushed from the top down,jobs that are currently held by out of shape pers may be that they excel or have expertise in that field.This should exempt nobody.As keen fit soldiers can do the job just as well.Just sometimes these out of shape people will make it appear only they can excel at their job, so they have a purpose.

I believe if they stick to the standards that are in place now though no one can complain at the standard being draconian.It there and everyone knows that standard as stated earlier.Therefor when it comes time for the testing this year EVERYONE who fails knows their toast.What happens then?we shall have to wait and see.

I also heard the rumor a while back that class A will be tested.I can honestly say A class to reg and all in between the standard is low and well know.This can be a good START.Begin with this to root out the major problems with the lack standard and develop the standard in the future to make our force stronger (numbers isn't always everything).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Apr 2006)

I don't think anyone was arguing against that, we all recognise the need and reason.


----------



## Hot Lips (23 Apr 2006)

Well we nurse will be really glad to see this policy...after hours in ER we used to get CF members who couldn't get into the base hospital after hours...

I had no idea, and I always assumed (yeah yeah ass-u-me) that CF members were fit...cause they were CF members...wouldn't they be...wouldn't they have to be?

Low and behold...the more I looked around at people in Uniform the more I noted that this was not the case.

It is a shame in a way to have to implement a policy...I know some trades are more sedate...but it is well known that a healthy person, is fit or mind, body and spirit...

I don't have to exercise...I do and it feels great...I can contribute that much to my country at this time...my own better health...cause the system is burdened with those who are not healthy...obesity, smoking and poor diets are for the most part why, the healthcare system is in a crisis...

My 2 cents

HL


----------



## Gunner (23 Apr 2006)

Gents, I'm locking this topic to let tempers cool for 24 hrs.  I have cleaned up all the BS (from everyone) and get it back on track.


----------



## Gunner (3 May 2006)

Ok, by popular demand, I've lifted the lock.  Let's keep it on topic, professional and with reasoned comments.


----------



## Haggis (3 May 2006)

I'll start by saying that the DAOD is not yet signed by the CMP (formerly ADM (HR-Mil)).  However, the results of the testing are being compiled for a report to be rendered to the CDS in the very near future.  The data input deadline was last weekend, so everyone will have to be a bit more patient.


----------



## foerestedwarrior (4 May 2006)

Ok, let me say this. I am a Class B reservist, that is required to pass my express test. Regardless of that fact, I have achieved exemption every time I have done it, right from the get go. So I was in shape to do it while I was a class A. 

Everyone should be doing PT. People who wine about the fact that they might get hurt by doing PT so they dont are lazy whiners.......Lots of people have been murdered in Toronto in the last year, yet you still go there..............thats dangerous............you still drive your car to work everyday....and that is dangerous........I geuse until we do it, class A reservists will stay out of shape(generally)


----------



## Neill McKay (4 May 2006)

foerestedwarrior said:
			
		

> Everyone should be doing PT. People who wine about the fact that they might get hurt by doing PT so they dont are lazy whiners.......Lots of people have been murdered in Toronto in the last year, yet you still go there..............thats dangerous



Given the number of people who live in Toronto, the percentage who are murdered in any given year is pretty small.  It's not as dangerous as the media would have you believe.

But more on topic, I don't know that a lot of people have said they won't do any PT because they're afraid of getting hurt.  Rather, they've said that requiring a member to do PT on his own time, when he's not covered in any way by the Crown and therefore may risk his livelihood should he be injured badly enough, is a bad idea.



> ............you still drive your car to work everyday....and that is dangerous........I geuse until we do it, class A reservists will stay out of shape(generally)



Do you assert that most Class A reservists are out of shape?


----------



## paracowboy (4 May 2006)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> But more on topic, I don't know that a lot of people have said they won't do any PT because they're afraid of getting hurt.  Rather, they've said that requiring a member to do PT on his own time, when he's not covered in any way by the Crown and therefore may risk his livelihood should he be injured badly enough, is a bad idea.


see, though, here's my problem with that logic:

We know that the fitter a person is, the less likely they are to receive a serious injury/illness, and the quicker they will heal from said injury/illness. By staying reasonably fit, eating a reasonably healthy diet, and cutting back on the booze/nicotine, the individuals in question are actually ensuring they are less likely to endanger their livelihood. So, it behooves all God's chillun to get/stay as fit as they can, regardless of Component. Heck, regardless of occupation. Or gender, race, sexual orientation, religious belief, or preferred TV show.

Or have I flipped out again?


----------



## Hot Lips (4 May 2006)

Paracowboy,

I agree with you 100%, when you say that the more fit you are the less likely you are to get hurt and more likely it is that you will recover quicker if you do.

Why wouldn't individuals want to stay fit and healthy for their own good?  If you go skiing you can hurt yourself, or whitewater rafting...these are sports but people still do them, even though they can get hurt...they want to be active and fit.

I find it really hard to buy into this whole, I have to do it for my job  ???

My 2 cents

HL


----------



## Neill McKay (4 May 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> see, though, here's my problem with that logic:
> 
> We know that the fitter a person is, the less likely they are to receive a serious injury/illness, and the quicker they will heal from said injury/illness. By staying reasonably fit, eating a reasonably healthy diet, and cutting back on the booze/nicotine, the individuals in question are actually ensuring they are less likely to endanger their livelihood. So, it behooves all God's chillun to get/stay as fit as they can, regardless of Component. Heck, regardless of occupation. Or gender, race, sexual orientation, religious belief, or preferred TV show.
> 
> Or have I flipped out again?



Everything you've said above makes very good sense.  The issue isn't whether or not a person should be fit.  The issue is that requiring PT for a reservist, on his own time, without any coverage if he maims himself doing it, isn't right.  The reg. force member who wrecks his ankle on a morning run with his platoon and can't walk for two weeks is looked after.  The reservist who does the same on his own time and can't stock shelves at Canadian Tire for two weeks is screwed.  Requiring him to put himself in the situation of being screwed in this way is the problem.

I don't think you'll find anyone who says reservists shouldn't do PT.  What some people are saying is that if reservists are going to be required to follow a PT programme on their own time. they should be looked after by the Service in the event that they're injured.  Right now that doesn't happen, so by mandating PT by reservists on their own time the Service wouldn't really be holding up its end of the deal.


----------



## paracowboy (4 May 2006)

yeah, I'm pickin' up what folks are layin' down here, but I'm not talkin' about Reservists doing PT "just for the Army". I'm saying they (along with every other fat, weak-willed, obeseri illegitmo in this doughnut-munchin' land of ours should) be doing PT for their own general good. And ours as tax payers, since it would knock our medical and insurance fees down.

Sure the CF should do something to assist them, I'll buy that. But I also don't think that the lack excuses anybody from being a lazy POS. You signed the line. Nobody held a gun to your head. You weren't conscripted. Reservists can accept the chance to go overseas and get their asses blown up, but can't accept the chance they may twist an ankle playing rugby with some buds for an hour? Nope, don't buy that at all.

Before I enlisted, I lifted weights, rodeo'd, played hockey, and practiced the ancient art of the Sukiyaki nose-toss. I didn't have an Army blanket of insurance covering me. I got hurt, but I bounced back and stayed fit. 

The CF should do something, but bottom line: every soldier should bloody well realize that they accept certain risks when they sign line, and they should damn well also be aware that they will be required to make certain sacrifices for the greater good. So, they can bloody well do some sit-ups.

If our Reservist in question is so scared he'll roll an ankle, let him find some other means of staying fit than going for a run. The options are limitless. That dog don't hunt, I'm afraid.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (4 May 2006)

For All

Some made a comment about not doing it until they get iron clad coverage

But not all made a comment!   

So we should stop wasting time where there is no problem - that will take care of itself -  and assist each other over the 10 foot wall of making the Army a better more capable place.


----------



## foerestedwarrior (4 May 2006)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Everything you've said above makes very good sense.  The issue isn't whether or not a person should be fit.  The issue is that requiring PT for a reservist, on his own time, without any coverage if he maims himself doing it, isn't right.  The reg. force member who wrecks his ankle on a morning run with his platoon and can't walk for two weeks is looked after.  The reservist who does the same on his own time and can't stock shelves at Canadian Tire for two weeks is screwed.  Requiring him to put himself in the situation of being screwed in this way is the problem.




OK, lets look at it like this. If you are a firefighter, you have to be in shape, they are not covered for doing PT on their own time. How about anyone in the sports trade(trainers, coaches, athletes), any one of them get hurt, they cant do their job, yet they still do it.

Paracowboy hit the nail on the head. You VOULUNTEERED to join the reserves. Buck it up, and go for some PT. If you are afraid of hurting yourself, invest some money and learn to swim. It is ALMOST 0 impact, yet still a fantastic aerobic and anaerobic work out.

Someone once said "The thrill of living is too great a sacrifice for the safety of existence"...I wish i could remember who it was. 

Neill McKay- ALOT are. I currently help to run the PT at my reserve unit. I have 3 troops(under 20 years old) who can only do about 5 pushups before they start to drop their hips(like drop right to the ground). Now that is out of about the 20 people I do PT for. The other about 15 have troubles after about 10-12. The remaining 2-3 people, 25 easy....... So I would say that those 3 troops that cant do 5 push ups(about 10-15 seconds of physical effort), would come thunderin in after about kilometer number 5 on their BFT. Who do you want to be watching your back, the guy breathing so hard after a short ruck march he can hardly see, or the guy who can fireman carry you after a 13km ruck march.............


----------



## orange.paint (5 May 2006)

Reading the mapleleaf today at work and noticed the airforce developed a computer program and physical scan that determines if the person can operate inside cockpits.Now of course my brain started going how about put the parameters in for a lav 3/ coyote turret,drivers hoes etc.If they can't fit they cant be employable.

Where is this data base of people completed/failed?Is it public access?

Something I thought was really neat this week is that the army is starting to think outside the box on fitness.We have a couple of our more fit guys training with crossfit trainers this week to pass it on to the troops later on.Nice to see.

Now going on courses plq etc you have to pass your fitness test.Why the heck is this not implemented in battle school.This is where IMO the problems can be nipped in the butt.If your on chit for PT at a trades training level,recourse.Rewarding less work is not on in my mind.If your broken you don't pass go or get 200.Stopping the malingering,MIR commando's and out of shape losers at this level will benefit the whole army later down the road.Having said that only the most fit people should be in training and give the instructors the power to fail pers for fitness.Give them the ability to give red chits for fitness,after 3 bye bye fattie.Or make a P.O on fitness on every course.


----------



## Haggis (6 May 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> Where is this data base of people completed/failed?Is it public access?



The report to the CDS has not yet been delivered.  It will not name names, nor will any executive summary posted in the public domain.  The report will most likely indicate, by command and component, the number/percentage of those who passed, failed, were exempt or medically excused.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (6 May 2006)

To speed this up - ref getting the message

An idea

An Access to info request

Dear sir

How many people in unit X

Passed Express test - by rank
Failed Express test - by rank
Were exempted - by rank
Were deferred due to med un fit - by rank

The results should be posted just like safety numbers

Then everyone who doesn`t pass gets a coach - to encourage him/her - not rat him/her out as a POS.

Within a short time we should see sky rocketting pass rates


----------



## scaddie (6 May 2006)

I was told the other evening that everyone deploying on Class B, whether it's course or just a tasking, must pass the minimum express test. At least it's a start.


----------



## Haggis (6 May 2006)

Scaddie said:
			
		

> I was told the other evening that everyone deploying on Class B, whether it's course or just a tasking, must pass the minimum express test. At least it's a start.



The policy of the NDHQ PRL is exactly that.  Every member applying tor a Class B position over 180 days must have an EXPRES or LFCPFS test pass on their file.  Members may be hired without this, but they MUST pass within 90 days or their employment will be terminated.


----------



## geo (6 May 2006)

(yup.... but only if greater than 180 days)


----------



## Journeyman (6 May 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> ....they MUST pass [fitness test] within 90 days or *their employment will be terminated*.





			
				geo said:
			
		

> (yup.... but *only if greater than 180 days*)



.....less than 180 days, and the employment stays but they're terminated    ;D


----------



## orange.paint (6 May 2006)

Is it really a start? 
http://www.recrutement.forces.gc.ca/media/pdf/physical_fitness_en.pdf

So your a under 35 plus member please to god tell me you can do

19 push ups,19 situps and 75kg grip.

2hrs 26min 20sec BFT

or does AFM fitness check level three offer a much broader sense of fitness?And much more challenging compared to the previous.
2.4km 10min 30- 9min 16
5km 25:00 23:01

45kg bench press 27-32 reps
situps 40-44 reps

and all the jumping.

As stated Level three is where you should be.Its an easy goal that could benefit many members who I have seen complete this test achieving "getting started" to level 1 on all exercises.The problem being the bottom of the fitness check page excluded pers from being punished for not achieving a level three by stating
"The fitness check will not be used as a standard,The only standard is the LFCPFS"

Now in my opinion why pay all the money ,all the training using the manual if the only test that really matters is the LFCPFS?

Now this is another little thing I was thinking about also.After looking at the ranger competition today why don't we have something like this on a army wide scale? 24 hr competition involving EVERY unit from PLF to JTF entering 2 man teams.Boost esprit de corp,reservist in top condition who are picked to represent their units get coverage for training,and one hell of a good competition.Now personally I haven't done mountain man/Ironman yet (will this year hopefully) but wouldn't a army wide military competition be a good idea to boost the idea of physically fit soldiers?Also the civilian public would perceive the army as being a fit/hardcore place to be, thus keeping losers from applying.

Just my little idea of the hour.

Now on training of new troops.I am sick and tired of the amount of pte's marching limping around in cadpat.Here these troops cannot keep up with the weak PT at training centers and can be expected to go to operational units with much higher (from what I recall) levels of physical fitness and be employable?These are the troops at the MIR every morning because they got pains in their legs...by the way "skins" its called a hamstring, suck it up.

General Hillier wants the culture of fitness well nip it in the butt on both ends.Snr NCO's not in shape,Demote.New troops coming in cant keep up/on chit recourse.

Next I'm going to attack our medical centers.I don't frequent these places and had quite a little tiff with a guy at the front counter there Friday.I began filling out a forum that was for part time staff and he decided to say what the heck are you doing? I quickly sneered back "I don't ####### frequent this facility thanks,which one you want me to fill out" (I'm getting minor plastic surgery done on a old wound..its needed not cosmetic) he stopped >. Now these are the same people who give out chits like its an invitation to a after hours club in Ottawa.Chits like "cannot wear boots that are not broken in" "cant do anything except breath (and only at own pace)" enough is enough!People get hurt and go there for legitimate reasons (I.E myself on Friday, during my lunch i must add) but there has to be a limit while on courses.More than 2 periods of class time lost RECOURSE! If your on chit for more than 5 days RECOURSE.That way the medical center can keep handing out the chits and training cells can keep re coursing and graduation day will be full of Canada's fit new soldiers,not 25 promising broken Cpl's on chit.Thus ending a plague on our already over worked medical facilities who also have to deal with fit troops with real problems on top of these malingering idiots.I have had no probelms at the doctor offices when I did go unlike a lot of broken people who always have problems.
(most likely its because my med file dont look like a JANES AFV book)

Rant out.


----------



## Haggis (6 May 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> .....less than 180 days, and the employment stays but they're terminated    ;D



Don't quite see what you're getting at, JM and Geo.

Just to be clear: A reservist can be hired by an employing unit for a contract of over 180 days without having completed a fitness test.  However if the Reservist fails to pass or fails to be tested within 90 days of the hire date, the *employment* is terminated.  The Reservist is not terminated.


----------



## geo (6 May 2006)

quite simply, from my perspective, reservists that are only there for 1-6 months, don't get put thru their paces...... bottom basement should be set at 90 days IMHO.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 May 2006)

............and any Reg, that does not meet the same criteria, should be afforded the same opportunity to retire, without pension, forthwith. Get off the fat Reserve bandwagon. There's lot's of slovenly, out of shape, useless, fat POS posers in the Regs too. Deal with them, maybe the Reserves will stop following the example.


----------



## orange.paint (6 May 2006)

......or shot.


----------



## Haggis (7 May 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> ............and any Reg, that does not meet the same criteria, should be afforded the same opportunity to retire, without pension, forthwith. Get off the fat Reserve bandwagon. There's lot's of slovenly, out of shape, useless, fat POS posers in the Regs too. Deal with them, maybe the Reserves will stop following the example.



What burns my butt is seeing some SpandexPAT wearin' tan beret Ninjasniper outside of NDHQ waiting for his bus when his god-like physiqe (Not Adonis.  Buddah is a god, too.) tells me he should be walkin'.

But hey, he could be Reg... he could be Res.  Only his hairdresser knows for sure.


----------



## George Wallace (7 May 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> What burns my butt is seeing some SpandexPAT wearin' tan beret Ninjasniper outside of NDHQ waiting for his bus when his god-like physiqe (Not Adonis.  Buddah is a god, too.) tells me he should be walkin'.
> 
> But hey, he could be Reg... he could be Res.  Only his hairdresser knows for sure.



Unfortunately, that is the spot that you will find the most of these types.......not the Tan Beret types, but the Buddha's.  And rank doesn't give you any privileges to acquire that 'Buddha' butt or belly.

Remember BMI?  How many NCMs were punted for BMI?  Then when you went near a HQ, of any size, where was that standard?  In the end when 'Science' came into play, many, if not all, of those folk were re-offered their jobs back.

Such is the 'Circle of Life'.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 May 2006)

.....and I have no argument with that. Except every one of these fitness threads seem to end up taking a decidely Reserve force bent.

If we want to talk about Force's fitness, ........fine. Keep it notional and nominal. Everyone in the same basket, with the same benefits, coverage and the same goals. Total force. Just like our equipment, BTS, tasks, rank, etc, right?


----------



## Haggis (7 May 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> If we want to talk about Force's fitness, ........fine. Keep it notional and nominal. Everyone in the same basket, with the same benefits, coverage and the same goals. Total force. Just like our equipment, BTS, tasks, rank, etc, right?



Where's the fun in that??   ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 May 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, that is the spot that you will find the most of these types.......not the Tan Beret types, but the Buddha's.  And rank doesn't give you any privileges to acquire that 'Buddha' butt or belly.
> 
> Remember BMI?  How many NCMs were punted for BMI?  Then when you went near a HQ, of any size, where was that standard?  In the end when 'Science' came into play, many, if not all, of those folk were re-offered their jobs back.
> 
> Such is the 'Circle of Life'.


.........and everyone that got punted for BMI has course for redress. BMI has no status in medical fact. It's an insurance scam, gone out of control.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 May 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Where's the fun in that??   ;D



Exactly. If you don't enforce all of the standards equally, the system is a hypocrite, and loses all it's credibility. If you treat one side as the poor cousin, it's entitled to act as the poor cousin, and you cannot bitch about the results.


----------



## orange.paint (7 May 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Reserves don't have the option of a Reg force PERI, or the new civie equivalent to draw on. We don't have a free gymnasium packed full of TV's and treadmills, trackmasters and dumbells (human and inanimate). If I get hurt , or hit by a car, at 05:00 while humping my ruck, who pays, till I get back to work? Not DND, like you Reg guys. Or better yet, finds me a new job after getting fired because I wasn't at work. Soldier first, suck it up Buttercup, and if you like it, you'll sacrifice for it, are all bullshit answers. Most of us have civvie jobs and families. Reg force have the advantage of daily, organized, worry free, injury taken care of, no career implication PT. We don't. Provide us the means, even playing ground, benefits, legislation, etc and we'll do it. We already work two jobs to your one, don't dare say we're slack and lazy because we don't indulge in the same gratuitous perks that the Regs do. You get your 20-25 days leave with your family. Mine is spent at summer Ex. I have to beg my boss for course time. My wife is pissed because my Brigade can't get the simple fact, that Mother's Day is a stupid time to hold an EX (every year, just like clockwork). I'll do what I can to get and stay fit for the Army, but if your not going to afford me the same benefits, perks and consessions as the Regs, don't dare try and force the same standard. In the end we'll do what we're told, and I suppose this was just for all those sanctimonious greek gods out there. That's my rant, and I doubt I'm done. We'll see.
> 
> _edit for caveat_


that was the second reserve topic mentioned on all these posts.The first was a guy bringing up the point he couldnt use NDHQ gym way back on page 15.We didnt bring it up.And personally I could care less who you work for or what you do,wear a uniform get in shape.Reg guys in the field too much to commit to a regime reserve guys aint covered bla bla bla excuses all around.Oh and by the way I was talking to two class A res guys at the gym two nights ago I know from NFLD.Imagine working out not covered....but it didnt come up in conversation as we had better things to talk about, like drinking beer and working out and life in general.
As recceguy stated though BMI is flawed but body fat analyis is not.Calipers and a psp staff and there you have if your fat or not.No waiting for a pool to be weighted in etc.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (7 May 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> .....and I have no argument with that. Except every one of these fitness threads seem to end up taking a decidely Reserve force bent.



Who will see my bet that 15% of the CF can`t pass the Express Test? ATI going in soon.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 May 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> that was the second reserve topic mentioned on all these posts.The first was a guy bringing up the point he couldnt use NDHQ gym way back on page 15.We didnt bring it up.And personally I could care less who you work for or what you do,wear a uniform get in shape.Reg guys in the field too much to commit to a regime reserve guys aint covered bla bla bla excuses all around.Oh and by the way I was talking to two class A res guys at the gym two nights ago I know from NFLD.Imagine working out not covered....but it didnt come up in conversation as we had better things to talk about, like drinking beer and working out and life in general.
> As recceguy stated though BMI is flawed but body fat analyis is not.Calipers and a psp staff and there you have if your fat or not.No waiting for a pool to be weighted in etc.



Just don't get it do you.

To make it simple for you to understand, once and for all.  The system is flawed, broken, etc. Neither the Reg force nor the Reserves have a lock on physical fitness. There are disparities and unequal application of standards all around. Until you provide EQUAL training, testing, promotion, graduation, compensation, deceleration and motivation, your setting fire to a straw man.

And to put this to rest, and to satisfy your (rcac_011's) curiosity, I have completed every PT test that the military has tossed at me, first time, on the first attempt, since 1968, and continue to do so.

You were a 220 lb pudgy last year. You've improved. Good on you. Others may need better motivation or help. Quit trying to change the world over night. Your ideas have value. Your presentation sucks!!! Get it? This isn't Reg vs Res. It's total force fitness. Pretend that you care about that instead.


----------



## orange.paint (7 May 2006)

You want coverage for reserve soldiers.In my opinion the most simple way to do it would be to give them free memberships at local gyms and have them sign in to be covered.Seems fairly simple in my mind (seeming it has to be for me to grasp).Reg force  guys bring pt gear and portable showers to the field for morning pt.



			
				54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> Who will see my bet that 15% of the CF can`t pass the Express Test? ATI going in soon.



15%?God I hope not.But I'm going to shoot for 10%.




			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Just don't get it do you.
> 
> There are disparities and unequal application of standards all around. Until you provide EQUAL training, testing, promotion, graduation, compensation, deceleration and motivation, your setting fire to a straw man.



If you want to look at the morning PT standards for 2 rcr compared to the armoured school it would fit this statement.The fact is all armoured school pers must pass the bft or express which is weak but provides the same testing all around.The standard is there.Training will never be EQUAL.I'm RCD in Gagetown and PT at the regiment is extremely different than the school morning training.Compensation has been covered earlier in my post by getting troops to sign in.Motivation is being a soldier.Pride in the uniform and pride in yourself.Motivation is your career progression or lack there of due to fitness.

Do I really care about total force fitness?Of course not.Those members who do not pass basic military testing will not be doing tours.Or on tasking without passing.Therefor Its not a problem I will ever have to come in contact with.So I instead direct my attention to the regular force,where the problem is just as large.


----------



## orange.paint (7 May 2006)

So Recceguy my questions to you would be. 

How do you want the reserves to be covered?

Morning PT I know is not a option,how about signing into the local gym or into he armouries to work out?

How long should these fat POS be given to get into shape?

Is one annual reporting period enough?Should they all be exempt this year?

And for the reg guys who get this coverage and morning PT should they be booted NOW?

they have been given the tools for years,why keep them here now after they blaintly ignored the aspect of physical fitness.


----------



## Haggis (7 May 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> You want coverage for reserve soldiers.In my opinion the most simple way to do it would be to give them free memberships at local gyms and have them sign in to be covered.



Who pays for this?

-Reseve units?  Most have around $15-30K of unfunded non-deliverables every year as it is.
-CFPSA?  Most civvy contracted CF gyms (at least in the NCR) either harshly limit or deny entry to Class A members
-Support base?  Possibly, but will recover the cost from the Reserve unit's O&M.

in any case, throwing Class A money at the problem might work, assuming the money existed in the first place (which is usually doesn't).

I'm hoping the the new DAOD on fitness will address pension coverage for "off duty" (i.e not signed in) Reservists doing PT.  Not holding my breath, though.


----------



## paracowboy (7 May 2006)

this is in no way meant to abrogate the CF of what I think it's responsibilites are to the Reserves' fitness, but is there no way that individual units can raise funds to buy their own gym equipment, and put it in the Armouries?

I realize it does nothing to address the issues brought up, but it would give the troops access to a 'free' gym.


----------



## a23trucker (7 May 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Who pays for this?
> 
> -Reseve units?  Most have around $15-30K of unfunded non-deliverables every year as it is.
> -CFPSA?  Most civvy contracted CF gyms (at least in the NCR) either harshly limit or deny entry to Class A members
> ...



Bingo......you've nailed it.......
The BFT requirement for the reserves was dropped because of the cost of providing adequate work-up training/PT sustainment & the cost of injuries caused during that trg.
(I was the investigating officer for one of the first cases where an injury occurred during the BFT. Guess what the finding said; The reserves can't afford the policy to make it's soldiers comply.)
There are ways around this issue, but it will require policies that will make the beancounters cringe. 
Cheers
AM


----------



## orange.paint (7 May 2006)

If the directives are coming out on reserve fitness,forcing units to test and comply with current fitness standards the money has to be there.If a standard is going to be allotted to the reg/res there has to be a plan to implement it. Monetary and logistically.

Leaders wouldn't give a problem without a solution and direction.Lets wait out, let the bean counters count or stare at their beans and figure it out.


			
				a23trucker said:
			
		

> (I was the investigating officer for one of the first cases where an injury occurred during the BFT. Guess what the finding said; The reserves can't afford the policy to make it's soldiers comply.)
> There are ways around this issue, but it will require policies that will make the beancounters cringe.
> Cheers
> AM



Just wondering when this was?And if it wasn't a viable plan to implement the fitness testing on reserves how come the new directives are targeting this? Maybe the class A would be more suited towards the express test as testing ?

Fitness cost money and time.No one with any grain would put foward this plan and not plan the budget for this.


----------



## Haggis (7 May 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> this is in no way meant to abrogate the CF of what I think it's responsibilites are to the Reserves' fitness, but is there no way that individual units can raise funds to buy their own gym equipment, and put it in the Armouries?
> 
> I realize it does nothing to address the issues brought up, but it would give the troops access to a 'free' gym.



There is a fitness grant given to Reserve units every year (based on a dollar amount per solider on their parades state).  Normally it's no more than a few hundred bucks.  That's enough to buy one, maybe two, civvy gym memberships.  (Usually it is spent on equipment upkeep for existing stuff  like ball hockey sticks, a basketball/football/soccer ball etc.)  Civvy gyms have quickly caught on that these one or two memberships are being shared amongst 40-50 troops and have demanded that the units (perceived as a bottomless pit of government money, thanks to Adscam etc.) cough up for memberships for each and every user.

There are other sources of money available to Reserve units as well:  Unit Fund, NPF, Regimental Association etc. but there are restrictions on what this money can be spent on.  In a nutshell, if it is (or should be) available through "the system" then the money cannot be spent on it.  Whether "the system" can or cannot provide it (i.e no funding in "the system") is not the issue.  It simply becomes another non-deliverable.



			
				rcac_011 said:
			
		

> If the directives are coming out on reserve fitness,forcing units to test and comply with current fitness standards the money has to be there.  If a standard is going to be allotted to the reg/res there has to be a plan to implement it. Monetary and logistically.



Really?

Did your unit see any addtional funding to cover SHARP? Diversity? Radiation safety? WHMIS?  Other annually "mandated training"?  



			
				rcac_011 said:
			
		

> And if it wasn't a viable plan to implement the fitness testing on reserves how come the new directives are targeting this?



The DAOD is to target fitness within the CF as a whole.  It will not be a Reg or Res specific directive.


----------



## paracowboy (7 May 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> There is a fitness grant given to Reserve units every year (based on a dollar amount per solider on their parades state).  Normally it's no more than a few hundred bucks.  That's enough to buy one, maybe two, civvy gym memberships.  (Usually it is spent on equipment upkeep for existing stuff  like ball hockey sticks, a basketball/football/soccer ball etc.)  Civvy gyms have quickly caught on that these one or two memberships are being shared amonst 40-50 troops and have demanded that the units (perceived as a bottomless pit of government money, thanks to Adscam etc.) cough up for memberships for each and every user.
> 
> There are other sources of money available to Reserve units as well:  Unit Fund, NPF, Regimental Association etc. but there are restrictions on what this money can be spent on.  In a nutshell, if it is (or should be) available through "the system" then the money cannot be spent on it.  Whether "the system" can or cannot provide it (i.e no funding in "the system") is not the issue.  It simply becomes another non-deliverable.


is there no way that the diverse sources of funds can be used together? 100 bucks from this, 20 from that, 75 from the other thing?

What about approaching the gyms and saying that they can advertise "Canadian Soldiers work out here! Ladies, take note!" (Or words to that effect), in order to get reduced rates or even free memberships?

Instead of buying hockey sticks or soccer balls, why not see if you can get those donated, and buy sports equipment more oriented towards ersistance workouts? Maybe some kettle bells or dumbells and some Crossfit acoutrements? See if any of the local Fitness Instructors would be willing to donate their time to come into the Armoury and beast the troopies? Or maybe some local sensei, sifu, or kru would do so? Approach a local boxing club, and see if they'd be willing to accomodate?

What about other forms of fund-raising? Hitting up Daddy Warbucks for some donated gym equipment?

Would any of these be viable? Can you state that the PT periods (for lack of a better word) mentioned above would be parades? Would that address the insurance issues, at all?


----------



## a23trucker (7 May 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> Can you state that the PT periods (for lack of a better word) mentioned above would be parades? Would that address the insurance issues, at all?



Sorry we would like to but all "parades" must be paid or not conducted. Area directives forbids all voluntary parades (rules are as a result of the voluntary pay sheets for insurance purposes when units ran out of money at the end of the fiscal year; "Pink Paysheets" of the 80's & 90's)

Cheers
AM


----------



## Haggis (7 May 2006)

a23trucker said:
			
		

> Sorry we would like to but all "parades" must be paid or not conducted. Area directives forbids all voluntary parades (rules are as a result of the voluntary pay sheets for insurance purposes when units ran out of money at the end of the fiscal year; "Pink Paysheets" of the 80's & 90's)



In fact, it's not an area directive, it's a CMP directive (ADM (Hr-Mil) Instruction 20-04) which prohibits "unpaid" training: http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/instructions/engraph/2004_V16_admhrmil_e.asp?cat=1#2.14

2.14 Voluntary Service

Under article 203.065 of the QR&O, a member of the Res F who is serving on other than a period of Cl “C” Res Svc is entitled to be paid for each day of service. *Therefore, voluntary service without pay is not permitted. *  

*Paracowboy:*  All your ideas have merit and many have probably been tried.  Although it may work on civvy street, the creative allocation of funding is the kiss of death for a Reserve unit CO (if s/he gets caught). 

Let's try another approach to this debate. (Mods: you may want to split this off to another thread?). Who has tried what?  Has it worked? Why?  Has it failed?  Why?  

I'll start.  Here's one I'm trying:

In my company I have instituted a Fitness Challenge.  I tested the troops "unofficially" back in mid March on 2.4 km run, pushups, sit ups and chin-ups.  Then, once they'd put out max effort, I told them they would be re-tested again in 12 weeks.  Then I told them that most improved soldier in each of the four test components and the most improved overall would win "cool" prizes donated by myself, other company leadership and the Regimental Association.  Lastly I threw the Army Fitness Manual at them and turned them loose.

No PER consequences as the test are "unofficial".

No funding constraints as the prizes are donated and the soldier is not forced to compete, therefore no Class A pay or benefits.

No coercion, no pressure, no consequences.  It's all voluntary.  The only pre-condition is that if you don't train, then you won't improve.  If you don't improve then you can't win a prize.  Simple as that.  They have three weeks until re-test time.

So, folks, lets's hear from other units (Reg F or Res F) who have tried a similar approach and what their end results were.


----------



## orange.paint (7 May 2006)

We were tested on the AFM last September or October.Honestly it was an eye opener for many including myself.Although not level 2 or below I had previously thought I would be all level 4...boy was I wrong.

We were suppose to be retested in march however its may and the armoured school has dropped the ball on fitness yet again.

Back during roto13 to Bosnia and prior to and during workup training we were tested by coopers test once a month (9 months I believe) like clock work.ALL results were posted on a spread sheet to every troop to put up on our message boards.It was a great incentive to work your ass off as everyone in your peer group and leadership would see where you stood.Sort of like shame but nicer.

I do like the idea of reward for good work.Personally I wouldn't want the leadership to fork out money but simply say here is a blank leave pass for next Monday or Friday ....GO!!!!! Nothing says 100% than trying to get a day away from the office. ;D

Good work Haggis,
How about if your guys are class A make the reward a month gym membership or something.


----------



## Haggis (7 May 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> Back during roto13 to Bosnia and prior to and during workup training we were tested by coopers test once a month (9 months I believe) like clock work.ALL results were posted on a spread sheet to every troop to put up on our message boards.It was a great incentive to work your *** off as everyone in your peer group and leadership would see where you stood.Sort of like shame but nicer.



Yes, I remember that.  My troops and I were in the gym constantly.  When my camp closed and we moved to VK, the results showed compared to the units already there  .



			
				rcac_011 said:
			
		

> I do like the idea of reward for good work.  Personally I wouldn't want the leadership to fork out money but simply say here is a blank leave pass for next Monday or Friday ....GO!!!!! Nothing says 100% than trying to get a day away from the office. ;D



Although that's good for Reg F, Class B and C soldiers it's not much for Class A types, hence the prizes (all troops, Reg F or Res F like shiny shyte ;D)  As this would be short leave, it could be harder to do at some units.  At NDHQ, for example, short leave requires the CO/Director/DG's authorization.  In many cases that Director/DG is a civvy and all s/he sees is a day of productivity walking out the door.  (I'm lucky.  My civvy bosses see and understand the benefits of a fit staff; Reg F, Res F and Public Service.)



			
				rcac_011 said:
			
		

> How about if your guys are class A make the reward a month gym membership or something.



I though of that but didn't go that route for two reasons:  First, at this time, it wasn't feasable.  Most of the troops will be gone for the summer shortly after the challenge ends.  Second, my previous experience with civvy gyms leads me to beleive that they view the CF (along with emergency services agencies like cops, firefighters and EMT/paramedics) who MUST be fit and NEED a gym, as some kind of cash cow.  Hence my observation two posts ago about thier reluctance to allow shared memberships.  As a result, my prizes are things the troops can use in the field, not golf shirts and beer mugs.


----------



## foerestedwarrior (9 May 2006)

Canforgen(087-06) just came out. It outlines what will be in the DAOD's. 

Recap;
No Promotion with out applicable PT test pass. This is for Reg F, and P Res Class A, B, C AND MEMBERS OF THE SUPP RES, CIC, AND CANADIAN RANGERS WHEN 
ATTACH POSTED OR SECONDED TO EITHER THE REG F OR P RES.(for class A, and B under 180 days, there is a 2 year implementation program to get people used to running the tests, and stuff. Though pass of the test immediatly will still be required for promotion.)
If you are on a med cat exempting you from PT test, it will go for a MAXIMUM of 3 years, with no chance for renewal.
P Res, appointment to MCpl, or any rank higher then Cpl, will be based off Merit and availability(plus the normal, PT, Med, ect.)
Reg F, appointment to MCpl, or to the rank of Cpl or above, will be based off Merit and availability(plus the normal, PT, Med, ect.)
MBR's aged 56-60 will still be required to pass the EXPRESS test at the 35+ age standards, but no admin action will be taken. 
MBR's aged 56-60 who do not meet the standard(35+) will be considered on a case by case basis for promotion, career courses, and reserve employment, by the approving authority with proper JAG advice.


----------



## buzgo (9 May 2006)

You will see the policy regarding pers aged 56+ changing (50+ I believe) as CFSPA is currently doing the study to determine the EXPRES standards for that age group.


----------



## orange.paint (20 May 2006)

1
 If the CF member …fails on the first attempt to meet the MPFS
 the CF member is …placed in remedial physical fitness training for up to twelve weeks
 Then the CF member is …re-evaluated to the MPFS
 If......pass – no further action.

fail – go to Step 2.

2
 fails on the second attempt to meet the MPFS:
 result:issued a RW; and placed in remedial physical fitness training for up to twelve weeks. 
re-evaluated to the MPFS.
 pass – no further action.

fail – go to Step 3 


3
 fails on the third attempt to meet the MPFS:

result: placed on C&P and in remedial physical fitness training for up to twelve weeks.
         

re-evaluated to the MPFS.
pass – no further action.

fail – go to Step 4 


4
 fails on the fourth attempt to meet the MPFS:
 resultlaced in remedial physical fitness training for up to twelve weeks and given the opportunity during the six-month period of the C&P, or an extension of the period of C&P if necessary, to be: 

re-evaluated to the MPFS; or 

evaluated to the common task fitness standard.
The approval of a CF medical care provider is required for the CF member to attempt the common task fitness evaluation. If approval is not given, the CF member is subject to an AR and probable release.


is re-evaluated to the MPFS.
 pass – no further action.

fail – AR conducted and probable release.

is evaluated to the common task fitness standard.
 pass – CF member is assigned a physical fitness training program by PSP, where available, in order to meet the MPFS; and 

evaluation cycle restarts.

fail – AR conducted and probable release.


neat spread sheet I found thought I would post it for all who is wondering about courses of action that can be taken.


----------



## Patrolman (20 May 2006)

When I kick started this thread back on page 21 I had mentioned I was doing the Fredericton Half-Marathon. The race was last Sunday.I finished in 1hr 44mins and 44 secs. 49th out of 321 and 5/13 in my age group. Not bad for a first timer.
 And nothing has changed at my work place either, still plenty of overweight persons reg force and reserve drawing a paycheck every two weeks.


----------



## orange.paint (20 May 2006)

good job on the freddy half.Wish I had done it,plq mod 6 destroyed ALL my race plans this month.I did however land a evening job at running room,they approached me!

yep same situation down the road patrolman.


----------



## paracowboy (20 May 2006)

rcac_011,

once again, please put some effort into your posts. We spend a great deal of time tellin' these kids to stay in school, we jack 'em for msn speak and improper grammar, and you're typin' posts that are barely intelligible. It's like jackin' a recruit for his pocket being undone, with a Cpl right there: hands in pockets, and boots unbloused. You follow me?

You spend a lot of time on here ranting against the fatness of the Forces. If you're so against laziness, how come you can't run your posts through spell check? 

You've stated previously that you've completed your PLQ. Good luck with PDR season.

Grammar, Punctuation, Capitalization, Sentence Structure, Presentation: 
Grammar and Sentence Structures - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/31327.0.html

Re: Grammar and Sentence Structures - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/31327/post-340105.html#msg340105

Language skills are not an unimportant attribute - and the increasing opportunity and requirement to communicate on the internet emphasizes the need to be able to express oneself clearly and concisely, developing logical arguments in open debate and be able not only to understand others, but to make oneself understood. And none who follow basic principles of good language usage will be diminished for it. Especially those who are in a Leadership position. The way you write may not be indicative of how smart and capable you really are, but it is indicative of how smart people are going to think you are.

para-mod-boy


----------



## Michael Dorosh (20 May 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> There is a fitness grant given to Reserve units every year (based on a dollar amount per solider on their parades state).  Normally it's no more than a few hundred bucks.  That's enough to buy one, maybe two, civvy gym memberships.  (Usually it is spent on equipment upkeep for existing stuff  like ball hockey sticks, a basketball/football/soccer ball etc.)  Civvy gyms have quickly caught on that these one or two memberships are being shared amongst 40-50 troops and have demanded that the units (perceived as a bottomless pit of government money, thanks to Adscam etc.) cough up for memberships for each and every user.



We discussed this at some committee meeting I was tagged as NCM rep for one day; my understanding is that the grant has to be spent on something tangible - ie equipment as you point out. Memberships at a gym were ruled out as not being "tangible".


----------



## GO!!! (20 May 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> We discussed this at some committee meeting I was tagged as NCM rep for one day; my understanding is that the grant has to be spent on something tangible - ie equipment as you point out. Memberships at a gym were ruled out as not being "tangible".



Hmmmmmm..... >

I would consider a digital camera "tangible".

This would be an excellent idea for all units, reg and reserve. 

Take a picture of each soldier, stripped to the waist (with the obvious bra for females) and post it, 8.5x11, full color,  in the hallway/office door of that persons work area, so that everyone who speaks to them knows how seriously they take PT, and by extension, their jobs. 

After all, a wee bit of humiliation may come in handy where no amount of C&P ever could!


----------



## sgtdixon (22 May 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> We discussed this at some committee meeting I was tagged as NCM rep for one day; my understanding is that the grant has to be spent on something tangible - ie equipment as you point out. Memberships at a gym were ruled out as not being "tangible".



A gym membership may not be tangible.
But the rolls of fat poking out under the Tac Vest are QUITE tangible.

but hey, what do I know, Im a Pte(R) awaiting BMQ/SQ/DP1
albeit a Pte who dropped from 310lbs in gr12 of high school, to 225 as of current, who runs 3x weekly and hits the gym on Edmonton Garrison 2x weekly.


----------



## Hot Lips (22 May 2006)

I reiterate, that being physically fit...ought not just be a job requirement...it ought to be a personal health goal.

Canadian society on a whole has obesity and sedentary lifestyle issues...and they are growing...pardon the pun.  Health care feels the weight in an overloaded system and much of it to do with obesity related health issues...such as diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, wear and tear injuries on joints...and the list goes on

This article speaks of why we ought to be physically fit...and not just for the sake of it...but because it affects most other aspects of ones life...in a positive way...specifically ones ability to be more productive at work.

http://health.allrefer.com/news/index.php?ID=5248

HL


----------



## geo (23 May 2006)

For anyone who has access to the DIN, might I bring your attention to CANFORGEN 87 thru 89/06 & DOADs 5023-0 thru 2.

Reservists on Class A have 2 years to "shape up" (unless you're due for promotion).

Things should start to get interesting.

If you're employable, you're deployable. If you're deployable - you gotta be fit!!


----------



## Haggis (23 May 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Reservists on Class A have 2 years to "shape up" (unless you're due for promotion).



They should be already.  Right Hot Lips???



			
				Hot Lips said:
			
		

> I reiterate, that being physically fit...ought not just be a job requirement...it ought to be a personal health goal.





			
				geo said:
			
		

> Things should start to get interesting.



You have a talent for understatement, Geo!



			
				geo said:
			
		

> If you're employable, you're deployable. If you're deployable - you gotta be fit!!



About friggin' time!!!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 May 2006)

After 29 pages, everyone should get the point. Everyone now knows the policy, implications and impact. It's policy and not up for debate. So, as it circles the drain, yet another time, we'll lock it. If you have something substantial, that hasn't been said or intimated already, or there's an official change in the policy, contact a Mod.


----------

