# Fitness Standards



## madchicken (6 Dec 2004)

hey everyone.  I'm getting ready to put in my application to the reserves soon.  But I'm not in shape yet, so I was woundering if anyone could tell me the exact physical standards that they want on the medical exam, or even just give me a link.  Thanks!


----------



## Rob (6 Dec 2004)

Here ya go:

http://army.ca/forums/threads/16007.0.html

Those are the _minimum_ standards that you must achieve on the physical fitness evaluation.


Cheers


----------



## ramy (6 Dec 2004)

Try the search feature and also some of the "sticky" threads, they should be able to help you out.

Ramy


----------



## JasonH (6 Dec 2004)

Here's a hint, tends to help to do double or triple of the minimum's so you won't have any problems.

Besides, shouldn't take you long to get upto 50 situps and pushups.

Running on the other hand, that depends.  And I'll leave that to the others to help you with cause I have enough trouble on my own getten my arse out to run every night hah.


----------



## ab136 (9 Dec 2004)

Just did my fit test today. I was ready to pound out the push-up and sit-up.  When I reached the min. number the tester said"OK you can stop now".  So by the time he finished saying that I was 2 over min. on each.  I could have done more but it did not seem to matter?!?  Is this going to affect me when it comes to review board time??? ???


----------



## fleeingjam (9 Dec 2004)

No, but its good that you can do more, they say you should be as fit as you can be when you arrive at BMQ.


----------



## Scott (9 Dec 2004)

I'll let someone like Tracker weigh in for a definite on this but I was told that if you are applying for something that is ultra competitive that may require great physical fitness that just doing the minimum when others are doing better would not look good. 

When I joined you went until you collapsed, simple.

Again, I'll let Tracker grab the ball and run with it here, I am out of date.


----------



## foerestedwarrior (9 Dec 2004)

ARMYboi69 said:
			
		

> So you have to do 17 Push-Ups, that's it?   Do you have the option to keep going?   Does that affect your stats or chances to be accepted?



its 19, and same thing with me, they just stopped me at 19, but i would say, if you cant do atleast 3 sets of 25 inside an hour, you need more work. Ithink things like SARTEC and other should have something where there is a minimum, but they take the top x amount of people, though i think there are PT selections processes for each different trade like that.


----------



## HollywoodHitman (9 Dec 2004)

If you do just the minimum, there is a possibility you will not be accepted. Maybe at first yes, but once you begin to move through your courses and with your unit, you will be under pressure to exceed the standard. 

17 pushups is NOTHING. 

Teamwork is everything, and not being able to keep up with the team will cause you more stress than trying to exceed the minimum standard, every time. 

Entrance standards are not necessarily Battalion, Company, Platoon or Section standards........Peer pressure is not always a bad thing.


----------



## foerestedwarrior (9 Dec 2004)

I understand that HH, but the original question was what is the minimum on the entrance physical exam. I agree taht the standard should be higher, and everyone, regardless of trade shoul be able to atleast double the minimum. In the army, you are a rifleman first...


----------



## OatmealSavage (7 Jan 2005)

Here is my plan. Before I join the infantry and show up for five or whatever weeks of fun in Wainright I should be fit enough for a jump course or Recce Patrolman or whatever, and before I ask for a jump course I should be looking at the minimum JTF standard. Before I test for JTF selection... never mind I'm too old and lazy for that. Problem is I have only a vague notion of a meaningful standard. When I was in only a couple years ago, Everybody you asked had a different standard: Express test level whatever, LFCAPFSDS or whatever it is ruck march and fireman carry, or worse yet, No Standard At All.

What I want is some boasting from people who did the courses last year. How fast can you do 5K, or 10K? How many pushups, sit-ups, chinups can you do? And was the course fun for you or was every morning a horrible puke run.

For example, is 50 pushups still the currency with which battle school students pay for every minor mistake? I remember being assigned 100 pushups for getting caught adjusting my kit during an inspection, and then, because I drew attention to myself, I got a hundred more because the MCpl noticed my boots were dusty. A bit of a challenge for me.


----------



## shawnzy (9 Jan 2005)

in this hole fitness thing what if you have Asthma but it ain t really bad are yoiu still aloud in?  :skull:


----------



## mrosseker (9 Jan 2005)

I had asthma as a kid, and I made it in. 

P.S. use the spell check button. A messy post is a sure way to not get the answers you are looking for.


----------



## OatmealSavage (9 Jan 2005)

ARMYboi69 said:
			
		

> Would that have to be done without stopping?   Or would they say "30 now, 20 after breakfast.", or something like that?



It was supposed to be 200 in a row. I should probably admit that I only managed 75 before I collapsed into a snivelling puddle of suffering.


----------



## MJP (9 Jan 2005)

ARMYboi69 said:
			
		

> How many people could actually do 200 without stopping?



Probably not too many (I can think of allot that have trouble with 20)....I know I couldn't/can't do 200 proper push-ups at once.  That being said I know quite a few guys that do multiple sets of 60-90 as part of their fitness regime so 200 if you train enough can be done.  50 is a very obtainable goal armyboi.  You would be surprised at how fast your body will strengthens when you do push-ups, chin-ups and situps regularly.


----------



## Swin435 (9 Jan 2005)

madchicken

Don't sweat the little things.   You'll do fine on the PT.   Last I heard from my buddy in recruiting in Winnipeg is they are hiring.   No reasonable offer to be denied. 

The horror stories of 200 push-ups in a row, while I can't speak for an Infantry Battle School, no longer happen in the Armoured School.   We are a friendlier, gentler military.  I went through the being singled out for mistakes or watching everybody else be punished for a mistake you did.   It is an effective tool when used properly, that has been stripped of our instructors.   

Good luck to you


----------



## Gibson27 (10 Jan 2005)

The key is not to count the number you can do, it's pushing yourself till you can't do no more, do this everyday and see an increase of around 5 a week. That's if you are doing moderate weighttraining as well. Triceps are important in the overall motion of the pushup, make sure you also work these well. But don't push yourself to injury ( or overtraining )/


----------



## Gibson27 (10 Jan 2005)

Sure start a goal, and add to it, if you count ever one and you know you can only do 15 let's say, the mind will give up before the body does, you won't want to push yourself because you'll make yourself stop because it's difficult.

Try the one minute non stop, perfect form, and add to it. At the end of the week, count what you can do, record the number and do the same for next week. 

Keep at it bro and you'll have it down to a science.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (10 Jan 2005)

ARMYboi69 said:
			
		

> 200 in a row?!  I haven't ever met someone who's even done 50 in a row, so 200 is way too high :skull: How many people could actually do 200 without stopping?



I dont want to blow my own horn - but i will anyways  ;D, On my Units last PT examination I managed 71 pushups consecutively, 32 sit-ups in a minute and my run time was amoungst the top 5 in the Sqd. (Work at it every night and anyone can. Eventually, you'll find you cant even sleep until you'ce busted out 50)

Some guys in the regt. had a fellow do 115 push-ups during their entrance PT test at CFRC. He stopped, because he was growing bored, they say he was only beginning to show signs of tiring. I saw the guy last summer at meaford, and 1 look at him removed all doubt or disbelief in the story!


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (10 Jan 2005)

When I was on course, on our PT tests I was usually able to manage about 60 pushups.... the most ive ever done was 71 and 32 situps in a minute... wait a minute! Shortbus! are you stealing my results? =p We need to have a competition  >

A few others guys managed to make over 50 too... i was able to do the 2nd or 3rd most pushups on my BIQ course... the guy that did the most did something like 85.He was in crazy shape though, he ran the 2.4 in like 8 and a half minutes, he sprinted the entire time.It wasnt a flat track, half of it was uphill... mostly just all around Camp Aldershot.I still cant beleive how fit he was.He now belongs to the PLF I beleive.

Ive seen guys on tv do a few hundred before =p


----------



## OatmealSavage (10 Jan 2005)

Sh0rtbUs said:
			
		

> I dont want to blow my own horn - but i will anyways   ;D, On my Units last PT examination I managed 71 pushups consecutively, 32 sit-ups in a minute and my run time was amoungst the top 5 in the Sqd. (Work at it every night and anyone can. Eventually, you'll find you cant even sleep until you'ce busted out 50)
> 
> Some guys in the regt. had a fellow do 115 push-ups during their entrance PT test at CFRC. He stopped, because he was growing bored, they say he was only beginning to show signs of tiring. I saw the guy last summer at meaford, and 1 look at him removed all doubt or disbelief in the story!



"It ain't braggin if ya done it" -that's a quote but I forget who. 200 pushups is minor in the big picture - http://www.recordholders.org/en/list/ulysses.html

In 1989 the whole platoon would do 50 pushups several times a day because we f(made a mistake), not including PT periods. Is it still like that? 50 pushups on a PT test was the least of our problems, but I don't remember what the scores were.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (10 Jan 2005)

"In 1989 the whole platoon would do 50 pushups several times a day because we f(made a mistake), not including PT periods. Is it still like that? 50 pushups on a PT test was the least of our problems, but I don't remember what the scores were."

Aha.. hah.

the minimum you have to be able to do is 19  :-\


----------



## RapidFire (10 Jan 2005)

Doesn't your weight have allot to do with how much you can do?  ??? Like, I weigh 144lbs (give or take 5 lbs) and I can only do 41 pushups (as of 5 minutes ago) but if someone who is 175 or 180 lbs was to do almost the same amount, that would make him more physically fit, no?

If that's the case then I would probably have a harder time doing tasks and so on.

Just a stupid question. lol.


----------



## FITSUMO (10 Jan 2005)

I just put my papers in and now I am in a state about the PT.  
I run 15-40K/week, bike 70-200K/week and Swim 5-10K/week( training for a 1/2 Ironman this summer), 3 weight pile sessions/week and some muay thai or boxing for fun and stress relief.  I do the step test 2 times per week( just for practice) and I always get to level 7 some times level 8..........here is my first problem, I hurt my shoulder boxing and I am having a right hard time with chin ups, I know that they are not required for the test but what about BOOT.
And the second problem I have is this I am 5'10 and 240......when I started training was a whooping 310.  Am I going to get screwed because of these 2 problems...

respect
fitsumo


----------



## OatmealSavage (10 Jan 2005)

RapidFire said:
			
		

> Doesn't your weight have allot to do with how much you can do?  ??? Like, I weigh 144lbs (give or take 5 lbs) and I can only do 41 pushups (as of 5 minutes ago) but if someone who is 175 or 180 lbs was to do almost the same amount, that would make him more physically fit, no?
> 
> If that's the case then I would probably have a harder time doing tasks and so on.
> 
> Just a stupid question. lol.


Not a stupid question at all, or at least the same question occurred to me so then we are both stupid. I weigh 210 and if I assume the pushup position on the bathroom scale it reads 130, so I figure my pushups are equivalent to a 130lb bench press. It is not exactly the same because I can do more pushups (40 8)) than benches with that weight (20something). I wonder what your numbers would be and are they the same % of your bodyweight. Are there any kinesiology students lurking here that need to write a paper for school? 

The little guys seem to have a huge advantage with chin-ups, but on the other hand they tended to be real impressed when I wheeled a trailer around by myself. Other than that high performance (for infantry type stuff anyway) has little to do with size and everything to do with heart. Some little guys have made me feel like a whiner when I see them carrying the same 70lbs of crap and keeping up and smiling. They invariably outrun me too.


----------



## chrisf (10 Jan 2005)

The complete weight of your body isn't on your hands while doing pushups, some of the weight is on your toes... imagine doing a handstand, then doing pushups... then it would be similar to doing bench presses.


----------



## OatmealSavage (10 Jan 2005)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> The complete weight of your body isn't on your hands while doing pushups, some of the weight is on your toes... imagine doing a handstand, then doing pushups... then it would be similar to doing bench presses.



Note the scale reads 210 when I stand on it, and 130 when I do pushups on it. If a handstand is similar to a pushup, why can I bench 300 and do exactly 0 full handstand pushups? Something to do with tiny deltoids I think, which aren't involved in pushups or benches.


----------



## RapidFire (10 Jan 2005)

> Other than that high performance (for infantry type stuff anyway) has little to do with size and everything to do with heart. Some little guys have made me feel like a whiner when I see them carrying the same 70lbs of crap and keeping up and smiling



I really hope that's true, I'm a little guy and I'm kind of nervous about it because I don't want to seem incompetent or something, and after reading the thread "Recruits these days", It's really got to me, I've decided I'm not going to apply until I can do at least 3.5x the minimum fitness requirements considering I'm only 140lbs. As far as the attitude I could go all the way, but I don't want my â Å“smallnessâ ? to hold be back.

Anyway, I think they should test strength in a different way, like a certain amount of pushups depending on your total body weight, and then we little guys wouldn't get a break on push-ups, especially chin-ups. (Witch would probably affect us in the field)


----------



## Gouki (12 Jan 2005)

Not true whatsoever. Where do you get your facts from exactly? No where reputable that's for sure.

Not everyone has the same "challenge" because if your back/lats are stronger then your chin ups are easier. My friend has much bigger and thicker lats than the average person and I have seen him do over 20 chin ups. Mind you he is a bodybuilder but I'll bet money that the challenge for him to do 5 chinups is nonexistent compared to someone who is untrained who would struggle greatly with the same amount.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (12 Jan 2005)

At what point did everyone realize that you'd been arguing with a 14 year old =p

Steve, as a side note, what other exercises can you do to improve your lat strength? I am in lack of a chinup bar or a nearby gym and was wondering =p Im a bit of a fitness nazi.


----------



## Gouki (12 Jan 2005)

jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> At what point did everyone realize that you'd been arguing with a 14 year old =p
> 
> Steve, as a side note, what other exercises can you do to improve your lat strength? I am in lack of a chinup bar or a nearby gym and was wondering =p Im a bit of a fitness nazi.



I knew he was 14 but even still ...  

Unfortunatetly it seems like your options seem very limited... however, there are always rows .. you got a barbell of some sort, or anything heavy resembling it? You can do bent over rows with a decently heavy weight. BO rows are one of the best back exercises, it'll give you some strength for sure. Dumbell rows are another viable option, basically you just row with one hand with anything heavy enough (pref. a dumbell) and use a bench of some sort as a balance to rest your opposite leg and hand.


----------



## armyrules (13 Jan 2005)

I think the more you weight the more you have to pushup so I guess it is harder for someone that weighs more. I am 5'9 and weigh 155 and I can do 50 pushups max. So I think it means the better shape you're in the more you can do.


----------



## Kal (13 Jan 2005)

Armyrules
     Not neccessarily true.  I weigh 225-ish and can bench 330.  I can do more push-up than some skinny guys I know and some can do more than me.  Flipside, I know some guys that are bigger than me that can bench less and can do more push-ups and some that can do less.  I find though, generally, the smaller guys pound for pound are stronger...


----------



## Mischiefz (14 Jan 2005)

just curious but isnt bench press more chest and push ups ( millitary style) more triceps?


----------



## armyrules (14 Jan 2005)

Kal said:
			
		

> Armyrules
> Not neccessarily true. I weigh 225-ish and can bench 330. I can do more push-up than some skinny guys I know and some can do more than me. Flipside, I know some guys that are bigger than me that can bench less and can do more push-ups and some that can do less. I find though, generally, the smaller guys pound for pound are stronger...



       Yeah thanks with that enlightment Kal I guess I was confused  you can bench 330 nice job

                 cheers


----------



## Kal (14 Jan 2005)

Mischiefz
     Not true.  While yes bench press is primarily chest, you use a lot of tricep and shoulder strength, too.  Same goes for the push ups.  Quick lesson, your shoulder is comprised of three main muscles;  anterior (front) deltoid, medial (middle) deltoid and posterior (rear) deltoid.  Bench press and push-ups use mostly the anterior deltoid of the shoulder muscle for those exercises.  Ever do a heavy chest workout or a lot of push-ups and the nexty day your shoulders are sore........?


----------



## Buzz (14 Jan 2005)

I'm new to this and I was reading the forum about push-ups and sit-ups.  I'm currently waiting for my call for basic.  

But to get to the point, I read somewhere a while ago and practice now for, push-ups and sit-ups, by taking a deck of cards and alternating between black(sit-ups) and red(push-ups) until I've gone through the deck.  Simply put, each number tells me how many I have to do.  IE) 182 push-ups and 182 sit-ups by the time your done.  You could also use the deck for alternate exercises separating the suites ...then you could end up doing 91 reps of a certain exercise (maybe chin-ups).
But the thing is it's not 182 reps or 91 reps all at once. 

This could help for those that get tired of an exercise. Because it's a fact that if you don't like an exercise in a training program chances are your not going to stick with it.  

Personally I've never had a problem with Sit-ups and Push-ups but it does start to get a bit monotonous. 

Just an idea to help those that need some kind of goal or marker.  Basically get through the deck and you know you've done a work out.

-Buzz


----------



## chriscalow (14 Jan 2005)

Hey Buzz, that's brilliant.  Me and my workout partner are always looking for ways to get the boredom out of the push up, sit up, and chin up exercises.  Thanks..


----------



## Buzz (15 Jan 2005)

No prop QY Rang...I was there once.  LOL


----------



## Kal (15 Jan 2005)

Just make sure you don't tell any of your staff or instructors while on course that one.  You may live to regret it...............


----------



## Buzz (15 Jan 2005)

Only meant to help...not hinder..


----------



## armyrules (18 Jan 2005)

that is a great idea Buzz I'll have to check that out  cheers


----------



## chriscalow (3 Feb 2005)

No worries,  It's all eyes and ears open and mouth shut.  It's worked out great though.


----------



## furtive (5 Feb 2005)

Just to weigh in with my experience.  When I was teaching QL3 Armoured Crewman for the militia in 2001 (LFQA aka SQFT) we weren't allowed to give more than 25 pushups at a time.  In fact even then I think they stopped us from giving any "exercise as punishment" whatsoever (too many abuses of power, which happens more often than it should in the reserves).  

In fact, orders got so bad at one point (I think it had to do with the stupid "no running with combat boots" rule) that when having candidates practice with C-9/C-6 assembly/disassembly we couldn't have them do "baton races" (one person disassembles the weapon, runs around the tent, tags next person who assembles, it runs around the tent, tags the next person, etc...) even though the candidates all loved it.


----------



## Roy Harding (15 Aug 2009)

Copied from the "LCol collapses during BFT thread"



			
				Roy Harding said:
			
		

> I agree with you, basrah.  Except for two things:
> 
> I HAVE seen a soldier pass out from heat exhaustion - granted he was a junior Private, and the CofC should have had a closer eye on him.
> 
> ...





			
				basrah said:
			
		

> Very true. A lot of the younger soldiers really do not know how to prepare for a BFT. Some think that a set of good socks and a bit of stretching will do it. As leaders, snr troops should be looking after the greenhorns.
> 
> Also, you are very correct in the lack of preparation. I am sure anyone who did the old 2x10 can attest that there wasnt always time to properly prepare for hydration, and often it was a fastball.
> 
> ...





			
				PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I won't say much because I am privy to some information regarding this.
> 
> I will say, this officer was in _extremely_ good shape for a man his age and no stranger to BFTs and preparing for them.
> 
> ...



I've copied the above posts because 

A.  I wanted to continue the discussion, and

B.  I didn't want to hijack the thread these posts originally appeared in.


Roy

Edited to add:  It should be noted that some of the remarks contained in the above quotes have nothing to do with Training Standards - they are in relation to the unfortunate report of a soldier who collapsed during a BFT ( http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/88481.0.html )- and have nothing to do with the current discussion.

RHH


----------



## Roy Harding (15 Aug 2009)

OK.  Having (I think) separated the two subjects (I didn't want to do a split, because the original posts were ALSO pertinent to the original thread), there are a couple of posts I want to address.

BFT is a MINIMAL standard.  It should be expected that ANY soldier, at ANY time should be able to accomplish this task - without warning, despite atmospheric conditions, time of day, time of year, or anything else.

There was (whilst I still served) a pernicious attitude (especially amongst CSS troops - no finger pointing intended - I WAS a CSS troop) that the BFT was something that one needed to train for.

BS, I say.  If one needed to "train" for the BFT - then there was something wrong.  This is not a new thought to me - when I was the Ops NCO of 1 Svc Bn in 1994 I said the same thing, loud and proud - and was (basically) told to STFU.

Let's face it - the BFT is a bullshit test - if you don't meet this standard, you're in the hurt locker.  You should (and I have) be able to do this after a weekend drunk, while still nursing your hangover (my personal experience dates back to the BFT's predecessor - the "2 X 10").  It is a MINIMUM standard.

And training to a "minimal standard" leads to have "minimal soldiers".

Thoughts?  Discussion?


----------



## old medic (15 Aug 2009)

meni0n said:
			
		

> Who in their right mind would do a 13km in that kind of heat?



Nobody. At least, nobody should have been. 

There have been repeated warnings about this sort of thing for many years.
It can also be found in at least five DND/CF publications (General safety manual, 
Training manual, Medical Services manual).... 
example:

Army Lessons Learned Center The Bulletin
VOL 5 NO 1 - MAY 1998   Beware of Heat Illness 
http://armyapp.forces.gc.ca/allc-clra/Downloads/bulletin/TheBulletinVol5No1eng.pdf

Note the buddy system... Puckchaser has it right.



> Are you serious? So we should start moving training to allow it to be easier? No more winter ex if it is too cold out? Ive done BFTs when it is -20 and + 40, never have I seen a soldier pass out.



That's the same thinking that caused a life threatening brain injury. 

Lets take a read of the Training Manual 
B-GL-381-001-TS-000  Training Safety 2007 edition
http://armyapp.forces.gc.ca/ael/pubs/B-GL-381-001-TS-000(CH9).pdf
SECTION 5
Hot Weather Training......................................1-90



> 221. Commanders’ Guidelines for Preventing
> Heat Stress Casualties. At a WBGT measure of
> 27.5 °C and over, work/rest cycles and water
> discipline shall be implemented. At a WBGT
> ...



"Shall be implimented". Sounds like a command. 

So, if the second newspaper article is to be believed, the dry (not the wet bulb) 
temprature was 30 celcius.  They were at least required to have level 4 or 5 (above 32 wbgt) 
heat stress precautions in place, meaning maximum 20 minutes activity. 

I seriously doubt they were doing 13km in under 20 minutes, and there is no chance 
this was essential tactical consideration.  

The book even says to expect casualties when you do. 

It's the same in the US, the temprature of 30c - 86F would have put the yellow flag (heat category 3) up, and the activity would have been classified as heavy work (maximum 30 minutes activity only). However, the pack weight would have moved it up to red (category 4) maximum 20 minutes activity only. 
Source: TB MED 507/AFPAM 48-152


 <edit, repaired my spelling>


----------



## basrah (15 Aug 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Edit to add:  The reason no one knew where he was is because he was well ahead (about 0.5 km) of the main body and took a different turn to the finish point.  (Either the route was not marked or had not been explained).  It was only noted that he was missing when everyone else finished.  He was actually off the road in high grass.



Since when are BFTs done on your own time? Ive done one or two in my time and have never seen someone finish on their own time, ahead of the group.


----------



## basrah (15 Aug 2009)

old medic said:
			
		

> That's the same thinking that caused a life threatening brain injury.
> 
> 
> So, if the second newspaper article is to be believed, the dry (not the wet bulb)
> ...



And teaching soldiers that if the weather is too hot dont go out is really going to help soldiers over seas? Just because training has the potential to cause harm doesnt mean we should avoid it. Soldiers must be taught the correct safety precautions to deal with such potentially harmful situations, and bring these lessons with them overseas.

A BFT every month? Unless this is a CANSOFCOM unit, I highly doubt that.

30 degrees? From the way everyone is talking I was expecting it to be closer to 40... 30 really is not all that hot.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Aug 2009)

basrah said:
			
		

> Since when are BFTs done on your own time? Ive done one or two in my time and have never seen someone finish on their own time, ahead of the group.


Some like to shoot through it and do it in a couple of hours. Others like to take the full alloted time. This is not a forced march and there is no written requirement for it to be done as a formed unit.


----------



## Larkvall (15 Aug 2009)

What is going to happen to him?

Is he going to get thrown out because he didn't pass?


----------



## old medic (15 Aug 2009)

basrah said:
			
		

> And teaching soldiers that if the weather is too hot dont go out is really going to help soldiers over seas? Just because training has the potential to cause harm doesnt mean we should avoid it. Soldiers must be taught the correct safety precautions to deal with such potentially harmful situations, and bring these lessons with them overseas.
> 
> A BFT every month? Unless this is a CANSOFCOM unit, I highly doubt that.
> 
> 30 degrees? From the way everyone is talking I was expecting it to be closer to 40... 30 really is not all that hot.



I'll work backwards.  The article said 30, but gave no indication of humidex or wet.   It may well have been above 40 once factored in for all we know. 

I don't think this was a formed unit event. Sounds more like a scheduled event that NCR units sent 
people too as required. I don't think it would be the same people doing it once a month. 

Re, teaching soldiers.  It's not about teaching soldiers. It's about simple disregard for a policy that 
is repeated and sent out once or twice a year. Infact, it wasn't even a 





> potenial to cause harm


.
The book actually says it will cause harm.  In this case, someone is on a respirator and may die. 
Disregarding all known orders and doctrine and killing your troops in Ottawa for the sake of not 
messing up your 0830 to 0430 schedule is not responsible training and gives a very different lesson.


----------



## old medic (15 Aug 2009)

Larkvall said:
			
		

> What is going to happen to him?
> 
> Is he going to get thrown out because he didn't pass?



No.  
Now Health Services will take care of him and attempt to heal the injuries.


----------



## Jammer (15 Aug 2009)

...then he gets another opportunity to do it again.
If he isn't successful then he goes on RW has to do the CF EXPRES test.
If he passes, he good. If not, he goes on remedial PT for 6 months and if he STILL can't meet the standard,it's C&P...blah blah.
Being a LCol, well you can draw your own conclusions.


----------



## PMedMoe (15 Aug 2009)

basrah said:
			
		

> A BFT every month? Unless this is a CANSOFCOM unit, I highly doubt that.



Are you posted to Ottawa?  Do you know what the guys at Connaught do?  They do a lot of the work up training (ranges, first aid, BFT) for people deploying to Ottawa.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (15 Aug 2009)

basrah said:
			
		

> Since when are BFTs done on your own time? Ive done one or two in my time and have never seen someone finish on their own time, ahead of the group.



I have seen it every year.
My first 6 years of the military I would have agreed with oyu.Being posted to a unit the BFT was a form up in ranks and walk at someone elses pace.However after getting posted into a school position in LFAA  Idiscovered that there they called it the IBFT Individual Battle fitness test.Meaning they sent out sentrys for all turns,water station/man eating truck and .....let us do it all on our own!
Timer started and off we went.If you wanted to run the whole thing,go for it finish in a hour.Those whom did not cross failed...all by themselves.


Having said that to back up what PMEDMOE is saying I have done 6 BFT's in one year....course after course after....


----------



## PMedMoe (15 Aug 2009)

True, X-mo-1979.  At our unit, we always started as a group but usually by halfway we were spread out over a kilometre or so.  I do know of units that do it as a group as well.


----------



## Roy Harding (15 Aug 2009)

Sorry to have revived this thread (and moved various posts over to it), and then disappeared.  It was not my intention.  Life has a way of doing that sometimes.

I revived this thread with a specific purpose in mind - and that purpose was/is to discuss what MINIMAL fitness standards mean.  I hasten to point out that what is said here in no way reflects upon the gentlemen discussed in the thread regarding the soldier collapsing on a BFT.  What I say here is intended for soldiers serving in a field unit - Headquarters, bases, and other static locations are a different kettle of fish.

Before I begin, however, I want to address a couple of things that have been brought up here during my absence.

Someone (I don't recall and it's not important who) questioned whether a unit would do more than one or two BFTs per year - perhaps as many as one a month.  Yes indeed - that happens.  When I was on strength of LFWA HQ (a unit - with a CO and everything), given the nature of the work involved, it was impossible to have EVERYONE do the BFT at the same time.  You could not (at that time, and I imagine it's still the same for other HQs and static units) simply shut the place down and do a BFT.  Consequently, there were six to eight BFTs scheduled every year - section heads were able to slot individuals into at least one serial per year, without disrupting the work of the section.  I loaded myself on every serial that I had a soldier participating in (I was a Sgt at the time - if that matters).  And I ALWAYS brought the last soldier of that serial in - period.  I didn't care about personal time, or whether I'd get a "check in the box" for failing to come in on time or not - I brought the weakest man in, every time.  So - I did six to eight BFTs every year - while on strength of that particular unit.  Not unusual, I think.

Others (again I won't specify - but mostly our resident medics and affiliated personnel) have pointed out that there are medical limits to the atmospheric conditions one trains in - and they were quite right to do so.  Exceeding those limits would unnecessarily injure some soldiers, prove nothing, and would be, frankly - stupid.  It was not my intention to imply that one should ignore medical limitations imposed on all of us - and if it came across that way - I apologize - I was in a hurry when I revived this thread.

Still others (I can't remember if it was here or on another thread) have pointed out that there exists a CF manual which outlines how one should "work up" to a BFT.  And whoever it was is correct - there is such a manual - and in my opinion it was aimed at those in static locations who merely must pass the BFT annually - it was a BS manual for _field_ troops (of _ANY_ branch/trade) when it was published, and it remains so today.  It is, of course, a valuable resource for those in static locations/jobs who do not participate in unit PT (for whatever reason).

Now - I think I have answered (perhaps not their originator's satisfaction) those objections to my original premise which have cropped up while I was away - if I'm incorrect - please join in the discussion.

My original premise was that training to MINIMAL standards produces MINIMAL soldiers.  And I hold that to be true.

If you are in a field unit, and I don't care whether that's an Inf Bn, Armd Regt, Arty Regt, Engr Regt or Svc Bn, it is part of your bread and butter to be BETTER than the minimum CF standard.  If you aren't - you're a hurtin' unit (both individually and as a CF Unit) - and you need to get your act together.

ANYBODY on strength of ANY field deployable unit who needs to "work up" and "plan" for a BFT is not doing part of their job.  It (the BFT) should be viewed as a "walk in the park" - because that's what it is, for field soldiers.

Long winded post - and although I have more to add, I'll take a breather here.

My intention was, and remains, to stimulate discussion on Fitness Standards - not to slag anyone.


Roy


----------



## navymich (15 Aug 2009)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> ANYBODY on strength of ANY field deployable unit who needs to "work up" and "plan" for a BFT is not doing part of their job.  It (the BFT) should be viewed as a "walk in the park" - because that's what it is, for field soldiers.



However, there are the times where you get non-field soldiers who are attached to a field unit for workup training who are not given the time/opportunity/knowledge to prepare for a BFT who are then sent for the "walk in the park".  I was one such person.  I had never done a BFT in my whole career.  I joined the unit I was attached to, they took us on a couple of hikes (three 3km marches with minimal pack weight over the time period of 3 days), had a day rest then went on the BFT.  I completed it in good time, but I was a hurting unit.  The "training"  marches had destroyed the soles of my feet and they never healed in time for me to try different techniques to make things smoother.  The word fail was never on my mind and I continued one foot in front of the other.   

I'm at a unit where you do the expres test yearly, fit in PT at your own time/pace (shift work doesn't allow for group PT) and that's that.  If you look at the standards I am expected to meet, I am above that.  But put a square peg in a round hole, and the standards are different.  Some will say that I should have been prepared for the BFT (very short notice of my attach-posting did not allow for this).  Others will say that we are all soldiers and should all be able to do this regardless.  But as Roy has pointed out, there are military members that are different.

So, what is the solution for a situation like this?  Should people be treated different if they are attached to a different element/unit?  Should they be held back until they are at an equal level of those they are joining?  Should all units regardless of location/element/trade be expected to do a BFT yearly?  I am curious too, as to how a new Pte in a field unit is prepped for their first BFT?  They aren't the seasoned soldier who has done a few BFTs each year and have it as a walk in the park.  

Just adding to the discussion...Roy, I've said it before, it's great to have you back and have your input on subjects.  It's knowledgeable and entertaining and easy to join in to.


----------



## dangerboy (15 Aug 2009)

airmich said:
			
		

> I am curious too, as to how a new Pte in a field unit is prepped for their first BFT?  They aren't the seasoned soldier who has done a few BFTs each year and have it as a walk in the park.


From the Infantry point of view, the new Pte is over the duration of his Basic Infantry Course worked up to a 13km march and at the end of the course (roughly) they would complete it.


----------



## Roy Harding (15 Aug 2009)

airmich:

I think dangerboy has addressed one of your questions - IE, by the time a new Infmn arrives at Bn - he (should) already exceed the minimum standard - thus there's no problem.

As far as your personal experience goes regarding being attached to a fd unit - I think your experience illustrates a lack of leadership on "someone's" part.  Who that someone may have been - I don't know.  But that "someone" should have been capable of realizing your different situation and taken steps to avoid hurting you.  Sorry it didn't turn out that way for you - and good on ya' for doing it anyway.

In a way - the personal situation you outlined in your post reflects how MANY of my troops arrived at field units (I was, after all, a freakin' CLERK!).  If they were posted in during the summer (as was normal), and a unit BFT was scheduled for September (as was normal), a quick word from me to the CSM was usually all it took to have them excused from the September BFT.  Of course, I also always solemnly swore that I'd have the "newbie" in shape by December - and I only recall one instance in which I failed to keep that promise.

Common sense needs to prevail - of course.  And I'm not suggesting that Air Force or Navy folk need meet the same standard.  Hell - I wouldn't want to have to meet the Navy standard for fire fighting - that shit scares the hell out of me.  

But I do think that there was (when I retired in '04) an attitude, especially amongst Army CSS folk (and I was one - so don't play that card), that meeting the "minimum standard" (which is what the BFT is) was "acceptable".  It's THAT attitude that I'm railing against.  

I have no interest in making airmen or sailors into soldiers - that's not their role.  They've got their own set of problems.

Roy


----------



## Larkvall (15 Aug 2009)

As an outsider it seems a little strange to me.

When you consider the incident on Friday it is not hard to imagine doing a BFT in 35C+ heat with maybe some humidity is harder than doing one when the temperature is 5 C. We are talking 2 different standards here based on temperature. Sure it is possible to do one in a temperature of 35C, but statistically wouldn't it be easier to meet the minimum standard in October as opposed to July?


----------



## Roy Harding (15 Aug 2009)

Larkvall said:
			
		

> As an outsider it seems a little strange to me.
> 
> When you consider the incident on Friday it is not hard to imagine doing a BFT in 35C+ heat with maybe some humidity is harder than doing one when the temperature is 5 C. We are talking 2 different standards here based on temperature. Sure it is possible to do one in a temperature of 35C, but statistically wouldn't it be easier to meet the minimum standard in October as opposed to July?



You're right - and I don't have all the facts available regarding conditions on that particular BFT.

The question is - should meeting the "minimum standard" be enough?  Not to mention - should meeting the minimum standard be made "easier" in some way?  (Recognizing that there are valid medical concerns regarding atmospheric conditions that should NOT be exceeded during training).


Roy


----------



## MikeL (16 Aug 2009)

Larkvall said:
			
		

> As an outsider it seems a little strange to me.
> 
> When you consider the incident on Friday it is not hard to imagine doing a BFT in 35C+ heat with maybe some humidity is harder than doing one when the temperature is 5 C. We are talking 2 different standards here based on temperature. Sure it is possible to do one in a temperature of 35C, but statistically wouldn't it be easier to meet the minimum standard in October as opposed to July?



We can't just train when its cooler/more comfortable outside. We don't stop patrolling, conducting ops, etc in Afghanistan during the summer time because its hot outside.  


Train as you fight.


----------



## Jammer (16 Aug 2009)

In Bde units...NO ONE does the BFT on their own time.
Anyone who was on Roto 0 in Kabul will remember the odds and sods as well as straphangers thrown together outside of the BG who had to do a BFT around the perimeter of Camp Julien AFTER they arrived in theater in 40 degree heat.
If they failed, they were on the first flight repat'd.
Some standard!


----------



## Roy Harding (16 Aug 2009)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> ...
> Train as you fight.



Bingo!



			
				Jammer said:
			
		

> In Bde units...NO ONE does the BFT on their own time.
> Anyone who was on Roto 0 in Kabul will remember the odds and sods as well as straphangers thrown together outside of the BG who had to do a BFT around the perimeter of Camp Julien AFTER they arrived in theater in 40 degree heat.
> If they failed, they were on the first flight repat'd.
> Some standard!



Bingo again!

The question in my mind - however - is what those folks who failed were doing there anyway.  This SHOULD have been taken care of prior to deployment.

Once again - I'm not suggesting that _training_ take place outside the quite reasonable standards set by the medical folk - to do so would result in unnecessary and stupid injuries to soldiers.

What I AM suggesting, however, is that if training is well ABOVE the minimum standard - then failures such as Jammer outlines would not occur.

Of course - if we (the corporate we) had confidence that ALL soldiers met AT LEAST the minimum standard ALL THE TIME, then BFTs in the middle of operations such as Jammer describes would not be necessary - operations are hardly the place to determine if folk are ready for operations, after all.

Roy


----------



## Infanteer (16 Aug 2009)

What does the BFT have to do with either Battle or Fitness?  Not much to either - and I question it's utility when most only feel challenged by the some buggered up feet for a few days.  It isn't really even a test - its pass/fail status only recognizes the minimum and, for the most part, it's done in a group and doesn't really test 80% of the guys doing it.

IMHO, the Marines have it right with their new Combat Fitness Test.


----------



## Roy Harding (16 Aug 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> IMHO, the Marines have it right with their new Combat Fitness Test.



I agree with what you've said.

Can you provide a synopsis or link to the Marine Combat Fitness Test you mentioned?


----------



## blacktriangle (16 Aug 2009)

First of all, I would like to thank Roy Harding for starting this discussion. 

I have been doing PT rather religiously for the last 4 years. I have never looked at the minimum standard as something that I wanted to attain. For me, I have found that just setting higher expectations for myself helps. I've seen what minimum standards and effort achieve. I don't want to look like that.


However, after seeing how PT "standards" actually work in the CF, I will say that we need to focus more on GETTING everyone to the minimum standard, before we worry about them surpassing it. 

At the same time, outside people being sent to field units from HQs/AF/Navy can't be expected to have the same level of fitness, can they? It doesn't make sense for those pers to suddenly be subjected to damaging PT that they have never experienced before. All CF members should be looked upon as investments, and as important as it is to get them fit, unnecessary injuries only help to reduce the overall readiness of our force.

I wonder if offering incentives would work to motivate people? Bring in Fitness Category bonuses for people that get exempt on express tests? A small amount every month because a soldier exceeds the minimum standard? I bet that would be judged as illegal/unfair to those who are too unfit to receive it, though.

How much bearing does PT have on promotion/leadership courses? I'm assuming that if you run the BFT in an hour you get the same PASS as someone who barely walked it in time?



Also, +1 to what Skeletor said.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Aug 2009)

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/marines/a/cft.htm

The actual events are debatable, but the following principles are what are right:

1)  The event is scored, meaning that greater degrees of fitness are recognized;

2)  The score goes on the yearly evaluation, which means that fitness is relevent to one's promotion prospects;

3)  The event mixes up events, which challenge whole body fitness; and

4)  The main focus is on a "Maneuver Under Fire" test - a test which focuses on the features of fitness required for battle; short, anerobic bursts using the whole body sustained for a period of time.


----------



## Roy Harding (16 Aug 2009)

Infanteer:  Thanks for that - I haven't followed the link you provided (I will) - but your synopsis seems to be "on the money".

Speaking of money:  popnfresh - what an "outside the box" idea you have there.  Financial recompense for being good at (a part of) your job.  I think there's a germ of an idea there - but I'm not sure it would be worth the hassles.  Do you have examples from other militaries which pursued this practice?


----------



## blacktriangle (16 Aug 2009)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> Speaking of money:  popnfresh - what an "outside the box" idea you have there.  Financial recompense for being good at (a part of) your job.  I think there's a germ of an idea there - but I'm not sure it would be worth the hassles.  Do you have examples from other militaries which pursued this practice?



Sure. Our military. 

-CANSOFCOM
-SAR Techs

While the pers in these trades/units aren't paid specifically for their fitness level (as they have other various skillsets that warrant compensation) I would argue that without their superior levels of fitness, they would have failed to meet bona fide occupational requirements for employment within the aforementioned groups. 

Thus, as I see it, they are however indirectly, being paid a premium to maintain superior physical fitness. 

NOW,

With that said, I don't believe that is the way it should work. While it would be nice to get some extra coin to buy some new running shoes or an ice pack for my aching body, I chose to join. I think we need to instill the mentality in all members that proper fitness is a bona fide requirement for employment with the CF. No excuses. If we all looked at it that way, then people would realize that we already are paid to keep in shape. CF members have access to fitness and recreational facilities at no cost generally speaking.

If the current standard is sufficient (and we all know it's pretty hurtin') then fine. It must be strictly adhered to, and adequate fitness information and  exercise routines force fed to the troops. No excuses everyone from the bottom up does it, and passes. Everyone from the top down participates and more importantly, enforces it.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (16 Aug 2009)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> Bingo!
> 
> Bingo again!
> 
> ...




My last two deployments I have not done a BFT.Lucky for me I had a Excempt express test from 2 years prior which was still good.Due to the courses,work up,and trying to give me leave...well I accrued 7 days last year alone.

Being able to do the BFT proves nothing IMHO.It isnt even a minimal fitness standard.It's a walk that destroys a pile of guys feet for two days.Big deal.

I do like the idea Infanteer sugested but alas I have come to the conclusion that some forum of physical test like that of marines will never happen.Too many people would fail.IMHO walking 13km is fairly easy for everyone.A well balanced physical test would make way too many in the battle group fail and how do we then deploy?

The talk of doing more PT etc at units compared to a school or differnt posting is B/S from my view.

I have been back to my unit for two years and have maybe done PT organised 15 times.We are too busy.As covered many times here pt gets cut right away.While I do live a VERY active life style and go to the gym 4 times a week I am in much worse shape than I was in a relaxed school setting where I could plan a PT program more than 1 week at a time.And sustain a work out plan over months without 2 week breaks for field deployments etc.

To note prior to going on leave we did a fitness challange that contained a run, push ups situps pull ups and swim.That was a display of condition.However I think if a score was added....well many people would have been below par.


----------



## MikeL (16 Aug 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> I do like the idea Infanteer sugested but alas I have come to the conclusion that some forum of physical test like
> that of marines will never happen.Too many people would fail.IMHO walking 13km is fairly easy for everyone.A well
> balanced physical test would make way too many in the battle group fail and how do we then deploy?



Combat Arms units could adopt it as an unofficial fitness test so unit commanders can see how fit their troops are.
Plus it would help break up the routine by doing something different once in awhile an let you see how fit you are
in a test setting. Or just use aspects(or the whole thing) of the CFT occasionly for morning PT. My Pl has done 
morning PT with parts of it similar to events of the USMC CFT, made PT a bit more interesting, etc.

In my BN some of the Rifle Companies an Recce Pl do the coopers test to assess how fit troops are.


----------



## PMedMoe (16 Aug 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> My last two deployments I have not done a BFT.Lucky for me I had a Excempt express test from 2 years prior which was still good.



You deployed without having done a BFT?  I thought that was the standard for deployment.   ???

I was with an "anal" unit who thought it had to be done within the fiscal year, never mind that your last one would be good until you returned from tour.  Thankfully, for my A'stan deployment, I only did it once.  For Bosnia I did it before I went and while I was there.   :  One Roto got stuck doing it three times (twice before and once during).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Aug 2009)

The BFT is not designed to see if you are a superninjascubasniper. It's to see if you meet the minimal standard of physical fitness as determined by the higher paygrade people that direct our everyday work. How about stopping the amateur guessing about who's the toughest prick on the block. Go ahead and exceed that standard if you wish. However, it's not within anyone's pervue, here, to determine someone elses dedication or fitness because they meet the prescibed standard. All I've seen so far are a bunch of people beating their chests and saying "I do the 13 km twice a day, and it sucks. You have to meet my standard or your all weak, lazy shits". Guess what. I don't have to meet your standard, or anyone elses. The only one I have to meet is the one set down by my Command. Should I strive to do better? Yes. Do I? Absolutely. Just understand one thing. The Army says 13km, with certain kit, in a certain time. It says nothing about doing it in three ranks, or carrying your rifle at the ready. Until you become head of the Army, and change things, people will, and only have to, follow the minimal direction given. And all your macho chest beating won't change things one iota.


----------



## Gunner98 (17 Aug 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> http://usmilitary.about.com/od/marines/a/cft.htm
> 
> The actual events are debatable, but the following principles are what are right:
> 
> ...



Let's also keep in mind the Marines still differentiate in a big way between Male and Female Standards on their "combat test" (not EXPRES-level trg), while our BFT is gender neutral.  To meet the minimum Marine standard for "combat" would take at most 10:58 for men and 13:50 for women. So you think that your attendance on courses, your annual PER and promotion should be greatly influenced by your best 11/14 minutes (which includes 2 minutes for ammo lifts) of the year and don't forget those amazing '3 push-ups'.  I have attended a 4-month Capt career course  in the US (when I was 42 with more than 20 yrs in uniform) and I was not in awe of their physical standards although I did enjoy running with cadence songs. 

The Marine PFT is conducted semi-annually:

Minimum Fitness Requirments 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
Marine Corps PFT Classification Scores - Male and Female
Class	Age 17-26	Age 27-39	Age 40-45	Age 46+
1st	225	200	175	150
2nd	175	150	125	100
3rd	135	110	88	65

All pers must meet 3rd class minimum to pass.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/marines/l/blfitmale.htm


----------



## Roy Harding (17 Aug 2009)

Just to re-emphasize what recceguy said - this is not about chest thumping.  My concern (and it is SPECIFIC to field troops of any trade) is that SOME folk are training only to MEET the MINIMUM standard, and are satisfied with meeting that MINIMUM standard.  And that, in my opinion is foolhardy.

That's all I was suggesting - I don't see how the BFT applies to Air or Navy personnel,  nor do I think it should be applied to them.  Although never having served in the Navy, it is my _impression_ that being able to carry your buddy away from a fire - whilst encumbered with breathing apparatus, and in the dark, is a much more valuable skill to a sailor than being able to walk 13 km with a ruck on your back in a set time.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Aug 2009)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> I don't see how the BFT applies to Air or Navy personnel,



It certainly does Roy. When things go bad for me on an overland ISR mission ( assuming i survive the crash or the jump) i very much find myself on the ground having to potentialy evade and walk long distances before recue can be attempted. The ASERE course alone had me running and walking with my go-bag for 2 and a half days nearly non-stop.


----------



## Roy Harding (17 Aug 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> It certainly does Roy. When things go bad for me on an overland ISR mission ( assuming i survive the crash or the jump) i very much find myself on the ground having to potentialy evade and walk long distances before recue can be attempted. The ASERE course alone had me running and walking with my go-bag for 2 and a half days nearly non-stop.



Fair enough, I stand corrected.  I was merely exposing my ignorance regarding the needs of the Air Force and Navy  

So - is there enough of a need within the Air Force that it should adopt the BFT for EVERYONE (I'm thinking the maintainers, etcetera) - and I'll leave the non-ship helicopter squadrons (what used to be 10 TAG - does it, or a similar organization still exist?) out of it for now.  Those "10 TAG" troops are, for all intents and purposes, Army folk anyway - and have similar needs for training.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Aug 2009)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> So - is there enough of a need within the Air Force that it should adopt the BFT for EVERYONE (I'm thinking the maintainers, etcetera)



Personaly, i would say yes but that would certainly not be up to reality. I doubt the maintainers need it but the aircrews certainly do. That being said, the reality in certain inuts is that it is extreamly difficult for members to train for this and maintain it. Shift work for both aircrews and ground crews makes any group thing nearly impossible and individualy is just as difficult since we are so short of people qualified to sign for maintenance actions. Members end up speding their off time at the gym ( some of them anyways). Other than Tac Hel ( as far as i know), we are not even issued with the required gear. Unfortunately is some aircraft counities, operations run both abroad and at home simultaneously so we cant just stop to have group PT.

I dont know what a realistic solution is.......


----------



## X-mo-1979 (17 Aug 2009)

The thing is the 13km march is the end all maximum and minimum all in one.If you come in at 1 hour or you scrape in the last second you pass.You reach exempt status.

The organization provides no motivation to surpass the standard of the 13km.In fact I can honestly say it serves no real purpose.It proves you can walk.And you walk either fast or slow.

The express test IMHO is a little higher of a standard.At least it is graded on a scale of fitness.Not a Pass or fail.I do understand most think it to be a much lower level than you would expect from a military,however the organization offers incentive for an exempt.Next year you would not have to do it.

I had heard rumblings of the 13km being thrown away while we were deployed,but alas I guess it was just rumor.

I'm a big fan of personal PT on my own time.However if I decide to not do anything and pass the standard what is the difference really?
Does it fall into job performance?Perhaps.However trying to nail someone for not being a fast runner or a fat slob would be problematic at best.Can you say redress!

Until the standard changes the 13km is the minimum and maximum.Someone through out history decided on that.It is easy to administer,easy to pass.

My question would be to you all is how is someone achieving the minimal standard by completing the maximum? (not that I agree but just a thought)


----------



## Roy Harding (17 Aug 2009)

That's a pretty interesting and valid point of view, X-mo-1979 - and one that I hadn't considered.  The "minimum" IS the "maximum" - you're quite correct.  

So what's the solution?  I seem to recall we tried little "shiny bits" for our uniforms some time ago - it was panned by the troops as the BS it was.  So, "shiny bits" are out.

Someone earlier (maybe you - I don't have time to look it up) suggested financial recompense of some kind.  I THINK that'd work for some - but not all (wouldn't have worked as motivation for me - although I would have happily accepted the cash.  I've never been motivated by money - as long as I've got enough to keep a roof over my head and dinner on the table, I'm happy - but that's the repressed hippy in me coming out, I think   )

How would YOU motivate the troops to exceed the "minimum/maximum" represented by the BFT?


----------



## X-mo-1979 (17 Aug 2009)

I agree..that warrior badge just didn't work IMHO.

Monetary reward is great,however it would be ripe with corruption as was the warrior badge.(I.E that guy you know didn't get gold!!)

I have I believe motivated my guys to be stronger during PT.I offered a variety of PT...not running every Monday Wednesday Friday with a sport and a ruck march thrown in there.My leadership saw my passion for RESPONSIBLE physical training and allowed me to develop my subordinates in this field.
The response I got was great.And surprisingly from even the heavier set out of shape guys.They actually looked forward to a variety of PT instead of the constant revolving unchanging schedule.
I believe that many Jnco's and Snr NCO's have done this to great effect and improved the troops way beyond the minimum level.

However what does this really change?A mindset among these few young guys maybe.However this served as 1 year in their 25 year career.Next year they could easily end up somewhere where the revolving schedule of lowest denominator exists again.

My theory on the BFT is this.Its a walk.You can walk fast or slow.If there was a organizational change which instituted a new multi level standard,which also showed up on a PER with points awarded...that would ensure troops were putting more into PT.

Maybe a change to  a physical requirement for career courses.Nothing monumental that only allowed meatheads and uber runners into leadership positions.However something as a benchmark to discourage the lowest standard.They can have a standard for a jump course,I cannot see why the same couldn't be applied to ANY career course.

People need something to reach for to achieve higher IMHO.

These two examples have their issues logistically,and I understand implementing a new standard has its own problems.

Exceeding the maximum of a BFT is moot really.Exceeding the maximum would be coming in 2 sec before the cut off.


----------



## Roy Harding (17 Aug 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> ...
> I have I believe motivated my guys to be stronger during PT.I offered a variety of PT...not running every Monday Wednesday Friday with a sport and a ruck march thrown in there.My leadership saw my passion for RESPONSIBLE physical training and allowed me to develop my subordinates in this field.
> The response I got was great.And surprisingly from even the heavier set out of shape guys.They actually looked forward to a variety of PT instead of the constant revolving unchanging schedule.
> I believe that many Jnco's and Snr NCO's have done this to great effect and improved the troops way beyond the minimum level.
> ...



Bingo.  Thank you - you hit the nail on the head.

"People need something to reach for" and "many Jnco's and Snr NCO's have done this to great effect ".

That's it!  It takes LEADERSHIP - at the lowest possible level - to have troops who are "superior" to the "minimum standard".

What's the reward for doing so?  Pride.   Pride in belonging to a "kick ass section", or platoon, or coy, or Bn, or Bde.

I hate to bring it up again - because I realize it gets old after a while - but it illustrates the point perfectly.  In the Ab Regt, we EXCEEDED the "minimum CF standards" which existed at the time.  How come?  Because we were Airborne - and we took pride in that, and because we took pride in that, it was incumbent upon us as individuals to ensure that the Regiment was perceived as "elite" (although that was a verboten term at the time) by the rest of the CF.  I imagine a similar mindset is prevalent amongst CANSOFCOM troops today (even if it isn't officially sanctioned.)

The LEADERSHIP needs to inspire and motivate the troops to NOT be satisfied with the bare minimum - they need to instill PRIDE in the troops to achieve more.  And the methods of doing that are as numerous as the number of Jr and Sr NCOs in the CF.

It remains true that to train your soldiers to a "minimal standard" results in commanding "minimal troops".

The folks I feel sorry for are those serving in those field units (and they exist) which do not take pride in being "better" than the "minimum standard".  It is those folks who are physically injured, have their feet torn apart, and generally dread the BFT.  A little pride from their leadership (at all levels) would have them "walking in the park" like the soldiers they have the potential to be.

Or do I have it all wrong?


----------



## Gunner98 (17 Aug 2009)

Roy,

Can infer from your post that no soldiers in AB Regt were unfit, chubby or unmotivated toward PT?


----------



## X-mo-1979 (17 Aug 2009)

Bingo it is roy.
Not only does it come from being in a elite unit,it also comes from beating such units in runs etc.I can tell yah my guys were all grins watching another unit come running in while we were all stretching....and were suppose to be "out of shape" due to history...I.E fat Tankers.

Leadership (at the lower level) is key.


----------



## blacktriangle (17 Aug 2009)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> What's the reward for doing so?  Pride.   Pride in belonging to a "kick *** section", or platoon, or coy, or Bn, or Bde.



Back in the MO my troop had an awesome MCpl who used to take us for PT. One parade night while doing a formation run, he actually had us all turn around and run backwards past another group, many of whom were clearly out of shape and several obese.

Was it a gongshow? Yep. But was I happy I was in his group, and not the other? You bet. Whenever that guy was around, we were second to none.


----------



## armyvern (18 Aug 2009)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> That's a pretty interesting and valid point of view, X-mo-1979 - and one that I hadn't considered.  The "minimum" IS the "maximum" - you're quite correct.
> 
> So what's the solution?  I seem to recall we tried little "shiny bits" for our uniforms some time ago - it was panned by the troops as the BS it was.  So, "shiny bits" are out.



Ahhh yes - the old Warrior Test. As I used to say to the ex as he harassed me due to my "silver" (I am not a runner - I am a swimmer) being below his "gold" standard (hey, when you're 2 RCR and have time in your day to do PT for 4 hours a day, you damn well _should_ have a "gold" and be in good shape ...) ...

"So you can outrun me, but I score higher than you on the range every year and during the Warrior Test - at the end of the day it just doesn't matter how fast you can run - my bullet will catch up with you and I won't miss."

That really used to piss him off.


----------



## PMedMoe (18 Aug 2009)

Okay, this is off the Army Fitness Standard, after all, X-mo-1979 said it already, the BFT is the minimum _and_ maximum.

Right now, my standard is the CF ExPres test.  For the last three years, I have achieved the exempt level, but still go and do it every year*.  Would this be considered exceeding the minimum standard?

*As an example to my subordinates and to prove I can still show them up, even though I'm older.


----------



## armyvern (18 Aug 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> My theory on the BFT is this.Its a walk.You can walk fast or slow.If there was a organizational change which instituted a new multi level standard,which also showed up on a PER with points awarded...that would ensure troops were putting more into PT.



Interesting concept. I like it, but wonder how it would ever be implemented for the purple trades serving in LF posns.

Not that those purple trades (which are deeply red these days) even have time for PT 5 days per week (in some locations - not even 3 times per week), but they DO get the BFT done each year.

My wondering is really about "how to implement and incorporate" your suggestion at the national level where purple trades all sit before the same trade merit boards regardless of posting or uniform colour. Does the Sup tech wearing a blue uniform (or green, or black) serving on an Army base not get promoted because he only achieved the "minimum" on an Army test while some Navy (or Army or Air) Suppy serving on a ship achieved a bare pass or an "exempt" on an Express test?

We'd still have to have some way to relate the Army test over to the Express test for those purple trades.

Currently, the Army's (bare minimum & maximum all-rolled-into-one) BFT "pass" equates to an "exempt" on PERs which is equal to another purple trades "exempt" PER score from an Air or Naval location; the Army minimum (which is an "exempt" on the PER) test is accorded higher PER points than a minimum "pass" on Express for PER purposes.

The purple world would have to see an 'equation' that allows comparison between the different testing results for Army to both other elements as we do compete with those other elements for postings/promotions/positions - when it affects careers ... it must have some way to 'compare'. We can't just forget the other elements exist as perhaps the hard army trades can (being that they are also army managed [us Army Sup techs serving on Army bases aren't even 'Army' managed] and aren't compared to those serving in other elements with other fitness testing modes).


----------



## ruckmarch (18 Aug 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Okay, this is off the Army Fitness Standard, after all, X-mo-1979 said it already, the BFT is the minimum _and_ maximum.
> 
> Right now, my standard is the CF ExPres test.  For the last three years, I have achieved the exempt level, but still go and do it every year*.  Would this be considered exceeding the minimum standard?
> 
> *As an example to my subordinates and to prove I can still show them up, even though I'm older.



You've seen some of the European fitness standards for females vs males right?

I know in the UK, women have to do a longer 20MSR than men, perhaps you can ask to be tested using the men's standard to archieve your exempt?


----------



## PMedMoe (18 Aug 2009)

ruckmarch said:
			
		

> You've seen some of the European fitness standards for females vs males right?
> 
> I know in the UK, women have to do a longer 20MSR than men, perhaps you can ask to be tested using the men's standard to archieve your exempt?



And your point is?? 

I get exempt.  How do you know what level I attain?   

Oh, last time I looked, I was in *Canada*, not Europe.  :


----------



## ruckmarch (18 Aug 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> And your point is??
> 
> I get exempt.  How do you know what level I attain?
> 
> Oh, last time I looked, I was in *Canada*, not Europe.  :



My point? You mentioned that you keep taking the test every year, even though you get exempt. Sounds like you are looking for a harder challenge?

As an older person myself, I always find level 10 a good level to brag about.


----------



## Roy Harding (18 Aug 2009)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Roy,
> 
> Can infer from your post that no soldiers in AB Regt were unfit, chubby or unmotivated toward PT?



Nope.  But in my experience it was rare - and it was _usually_ self-correcting because of the aforementioned (perhaps misplace, but real nevertheless) pride.


----------



## PMedMoe (18 Aug 2009)

ruckmarch said:
			
		

> My point? You mentioned that you keep taking the test every year, even though you get exempt. Sounds like you are looking for a harder challenge?



I explained why I do it every year in the first post (read the small print).



			
				ruckmarch said:
			
		

> As an older person myself, I always find level 10 a good level to brag about.



Good for you.


----------



## Roy Harding (18 Aug 2009)

ruckmarch:

Tone it down - read the previous posts by recceguy and me - this is NOT about chest thumping.

Moe:  don't take the bait!


Roy Harding
Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Gunner98 (18 Aug 2009)

Roy has guided this revived thread with these statements over the last week or so:

_"The question in my mind - however - is what those folks who failed were doing there anyway.  This SHOULD have been taken care of prior to deployment."

"The question is - should meeting the "minimum standard" be enough?  Not to mention - should meeting the minimum standard be made "easier" in some way?"

"But I do think that there was (when I retired in '04) an attitude, especially amongst Army CSS folk (and I was one - so don't play that card), that meeting the "minimum standard" (which is what the BFT is) was "acceptable".  It's THAT attitude that I'm railing against."

"ANYBODY on strength of ANY field deployable unit who needs to "work up" and "plan" for a BFT is not doing part of their job.  It (the BFT) should be viewed as a "walk in the park" - because that's what it is, for field soldiers."_

I would suggest from my combined 25+ years in both Cbt Arms and CSS/Med units that the standard/expectation is set by the CO/RSM. The work-up trg is set as a sub-unit goal to build group fitness/morale. When it comes to judging/establishing unit fitness goals it will depend on the personal fitness level of CO/RSM (or Bde Comd/RSM). Some will set examples by leading and other will be tail end charlies. 

In the case of those who deployed to Camp Julien and were subsequently made to do a BFT resulted from the Contingent Comd learning that soldiers who had failed pre-deployment screening were still being deployed - some with serious medical issues. The fact that their COs had still signed off on the DAG form goes back to paragraph 1 - it is a command responsibility. 

I served as a field grade officer in the same CSS unit under 3 different COs - their style, fitness level and visible participation in fitness varied greatly. One was/is a National caliber athlete, one was somewhat physically abused former cbt arms officer (like me) and one an older female. Likewise their RSMs (collectively 5 individuals filled the job including A/RSMs covering during deployments of the RSM) also varied in these traits. 

This obviously leads to a different standard and planned activity for CO/RSM's weekly PT sessions. Since this event was the main (memorable) interaction on a weekly basis between CO/RSM and their troops, it left an indelible impression on everyone involved. These encounters formed opinions by the senior leadership of the soldiers’ capabilities while in garrison. Likewise it showed the soldiers how hard a CO and his subordinate leaders were willing to work to set the example for the same soldiers they were ultimately observing/judging for PDR/PER purposes. 

The attitude of a unit is set by the cultural environment and visible execution of standards to which soldiers are held. Does this need to vary by rank and position?

The culture in the Army starting in 2003 was based on this mission statement for LFDTS - "Mission. Maintain oversight on individual training activities across the Army and provide advice to the Comd LFDTS on all issues relating to the implementation of “One Army, One Standard.” Which lead to this tag line - "The army, training to one standard." (see article - http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_06/iss_3/CAJ_vol6.3_07_e.pdf) 

Today's tag line is "One Army, One Team, One Vision."  

I think this has resulted in a self-fulfilling mindset that says there is no maximum or minimum standard - there is indeed only one standard for the army, as one team with one vision.

Edited several times to fix grammar and flow.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (18 Aug 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Interesting concept. I like it, but wonder how it would ever be implemented for the purple trades serving in LF posns.
> 
> Not that those purple trades (which are deeply red these days) even have time for PT 5 days per week (in some locations - not even 3 times per week), but they DO get the BFT done each year.
> 
> ...



Good points.What I would be suggesting would require a national organizational change.The coopers test is  a good example.It can be given a numbered score,and tests a broad range of fitness.I don't understand why we can't have one standard for all units in the CF.For sure 1 RCR are going to have a higher unit score.No doubt.However with one fitness standard everyone gets the same test,and are scored against their peers.

As you said about purple trades not getting PT 5 times a week,we are in the same boat.

A coopers test(style) across the CF where your score is placed in a box on your PER,would achieve a higher level of fitness in our forces.
To go on your 6B-you have to pass the coopers test(or other well balanced fitness test) to a preset standard.

Units could have a min score due to occupational requirements I.E Med Tech's a min of 75 points a ammo tech 50.For example only.
And yes  I do understand the amount of problems out of my realm of knowledge to implement something like this.


----------



## GAP (18 Aug 2009)

While the different scales of measuring fitness are interesting, we are getting away from the basic premise that ALL personnel must be in such a physical shape as to .......do what? 

Operate as a basic rifleman where extenuating situations warrant....?
        you are trained on firing a rifle, thus are expected to be able to operate one in extraordinary situations, even though your trade does not normally do that.
    
     Pass an arbitrary level of fitness to presume the entire force is capable of going on operation, or only for physical well being...?


----------



## X-mo-1979 (18 Aug 2009)

GAP said:
			
		

> While the different scales of measuring fitness are interesting, we are getting away from the basic premise that ALL personnel must be in such a physical shape as to .......do what?
> 
> Operate as a basic rifleman where extenuating situations warrant....?
> you are trained on firing a rifle, thus are expected to be able to operate one in extraordinary situations, even though your trade does not normally do that.
> ...



..To be in better shape than the average public.To be able to be thrown into dangerous physical demanding situations and be able to physically cope,due to a higher level of fitness across the board.

..to put less strain on our medical facilities,by having healthy soldiers who are FORCED to reach a standard to be retained.

...To ensure a level of fitness is achieved in our senior ranks,by providing testing prior to being able to advance on career courses.

..To maintain a positive image of fitness to the Canadian public.

..To be able to acclimatise to extreme meteorological conditions quickly.Providing a higher level of service from tail to tooth.

As me and Roy discussed it all comes down to leadership.However we all have those leaders who view acceptable PT to be completing a 13km walk.A institutional change including a new developed test for the Canadian forces across the board would ensure a all around level of fitness.A blunt feedback by a written score to the soldier.Showing their weakness and strength.And a career implications where physical fitness fits into PER points.We compare language profiles on the PER,I cannot see why fitness couldn't be worth 2 points.


----------



## GAP (18 Aug 2009)

Thank you....that clarified the focus.....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Aug 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> ..To be in better shape than the average public.To be able to be thrown into dangerous physical demanding situations and be able to physically cope,due to a higher level of fitness across the board.
> 
> ..to put less strain on our medical facilities,by having healthy soldiers who are FORCED to reach a standard to be retained.
> 
> ...



Fixed that for you  Gotta watch how that brush is waved around. 8)


----------



## X-mo-1979 (18 Aug 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Fixed that for you  Gotta watch how that brush is waved around. 8)



Very true.
I was thinking more so the 5's 6a 6b.However in retrospect it could be applied to  PLQ for sure.


----------



## Gunner98 (18 Aug 2009)

Just some additional background that is relevant to the soldier of today's philosophy on physical fitness - yes I am a rules and policy kind of guy.

The Cdn Human Rights Act and the National Defence Act set out the arcs of fire for the CDS.  The Cdn Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) have recognized Universaltity of Service as a bona fide occupational requirement.  

According to DAOD 5023-2 - _"Physical fitness standards are based on, and have been *scientifically validated against, the performance requirements of general, environmental, military occupation and operational duties*."

As a result of tribunal challenges the CF has established, "Common Military Tasks as a Basis for Minimum Physical Fitness Standards.

The MPFS are derived from the following five common military tasks which a CF member might be expected to perform in a time of emergency:

- sea evacuation;
- land stretcher evacuation;
- low-high crawl;
- entrenchment dig; and
- sandbag carry._

If a CF member fails MPFS or occupational standard the member is IAW DAOD 5023-2 _"placed in a remedial physical fitness training program":

- is normally in the remedial program for a twelve-week period; and

- re-evaluated upon completion._

_If service requirements preclude adequate remedial physical fitness training during the twelve-week remedial physical fitness training period, the period may be extended but the total period shall not exceed six months."_

_With the agreement of the CF member and the CF member's CO, in consultation with the applicable PSP physical fitness advisor and CF medical care provider, the CF member may be evaluated before the end of the twelve-week period."_

This the basis of the remedial program in St-Jean and that which guides the COs of today.  The Cooper's Test has not been "scientifically validated against, the performance requirements of general, environmental, military occupation and operational duties" or been declared as evaluating the bona fide occupational requirements of employment by CHRT.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Aug 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Very true.
> I was thinking more so the 5's 6a 6b.However in retrospect it could be applied to  PLQ for sure.



Actually, I was speaking of _everyone_ at _every_ rank level. Let's not confine this to just ORs or NCMs.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (18 Aug 2009)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> The MPFS are derived from the following five common military tasks which a CF member might be expected to perform in a time of emergency:
> 
> - sea evacuation;
> - land stretcher evacuation;
> ...



First off thanks for telling me who made these fitness requirements.I had figured it was not the CF.How is the 13km actually testing any of these requirements?And before someone says the trench dig...I have never had the pleasure of digging in loose pebbles!

Seeming these requirements are vague and lacking what about:
-Pulling heavy weight (i.e dead bodies,injured comrades,ammo crates)
-running quickly over short distances for cover
etc etc.

Is it time maybe for a review with the CHRT to develope a realistic goal for fitness requirements?How does one go about challenging the current system?
I believe many civilians (after reading about our very low standards)and military people are ready for a change in our fitness testing.

Another solution would be to test based on the army fitness manual.Here is a "scientific developed" overall test with levels.How hard would it be to use this already developed higher level of fitness?Or rather how would the CHRT be able to deny us wanting to improve physical fitness?

Better question.Instead of discussing this consistently on this board,how do jnr/nco's Snr NCO's go about trying to change the current norm.As it is not working.


----------

