# Study on training injuries reveals patterns among recruits and officer cadets



## OceanBonfire (31 Dec 2018)

> Marie-Andrée Laroche, an exercise specialist for the Personnel Support Programs who is involved in Phase 1 (injured members) of the Training Reintegration Program at the Canadian Forces Leadership and Recruit School (CFLRS), in the company of Captain Carole-Anne Dufour, of 41 Canadian Forces Health Services Centre Saint-Jean, during a presentation of the results in Regina.
> Photo: Journal Servir
> 
> 
> ...



https://ml-fd.caf-fac.ca/en/2018/12/23199

http://www.journalservir.com/nouvelle.php?id=1665


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Dec 2018)

Would be nice to see the whole study. Also interesting is the link between having a higher (be "fitter") FORCE test score, and a higher injury rate. I wonder if they looked at whether the higher score individuals were doing more PT than the lower scored pers (who physically couldn't complete as much PT), or just left it open ended.


----------



## chrisf (1 Jan 2019)

Would be interesting to see the injuries categorized as well between healing over over the duration of the course, requiring an individual to be recoursed, and career ending.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Jan 2019)

Or what exactly an 'injury' is.  Is DOMS an 'injury?  I see it as the result of a great day in the gym...


----------



## PMedMoe (1 Jan 2019)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Also interesting is the link between having a higher (be "fitter") FORCE test score, and a higher injury rate. I wonder if they looked at whether the higher score individuals were doing more PT than the lower scored pers (who physically couldn't complete as much PT), or just left it open ended.



That's quite the assumption.  Maybe they just didn't want to do as much PT.

My guess is people who are "fitter", do more PT and by doing more PT they are subject to more injuries.  Or maybe the fitter people just tough it out when they do get an injury and make it worse.  :dunno:


----------



## BeyondTheNow (1 Jan 2019)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> That's quite the assumption.  Maybe they just didn't want to do as much PT.
> 
> My guess is people who are "fitter", do more PT and by doing more PT they are subject to more injuries.  Or maybe the fitter people just tough it out when they do get an injury and make it worse.  :dunno:



Futher to that I’d also argue that “PT” is far too general. (Personal PT in addition to unit) There are those who focus primarily on certain types of PT and those who focus on others. (Not to mention body type, height, weight etc etc.) I’ve seen individuals whose regular PT regimen is fewer times/wk than that of others, but who had better scores on the FORCE simply because they were faster. All individuals were easily considered “fit” in every sense of the word though.


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Jan 2019)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> My guess is people who are "fitter", do more PT and by doing more PT they are subject to more injuries.



Thats literally what I said.... fitter people are doing more "reps" during course PT, and that "extra time" exercising causes more injuries. I think mine is a far safer assumption than fitter people conceal injuries and make themselves worse.

Obviously we don't have any of the data of the study, so we can't pick it apart properly. The problem is, they might have gone and proved the FORCE test is a poor predictor of general fitness or ability to resist LBIs on BMQ.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Jan 2019)

I'm not very mathy, is that study suggesting women are disproportionately injured more than men?



> There is also a link between having a higher score on the FORCE test and having a higher rate of injury.


Surprised to read that, I'd have expected the opposite.

In my limited experience the majority of lower body injuries I seen were from people over weight or out of shape. With a number of them I suspect faking injuries in order to get out of pt.


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Jan 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm not very mathy, is that study suggesting women are disproportionately injured more than men?
> Surprised to read that, I'd have expected the opposite.
> 
> In my limited experience the majority of lower body injuries I seen were from people over weight or out of shape. With a number of them I suspect faking injuries in order to get out of pt.



More often than not, based on what I've seen and experienced, the injury rates for soldiers (or any human) increase where there isn't alot of thought or science put into how the 'ramp up' period is managed. 

For example, putting a big ruck on someone who's nowhere near ready physically, or mentally, to do a long march with alot of weight on is never a good idea, even if it's in line with certain 'macho' - or organizationally institutionalized - concepts of how to lead battle PT. If you try to apply a cook book, off the shelf PT solution to any group of fitness neophytes, you're bound to take some casualties. 

The questions is, of course, is to what extent that's acceptable. My sense is that, as the quantity of qualified recruits declines, the more we need to pay attention to our qualitative approach to fitness training.


----------



## observor 69 (1 Jan 2019)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> That's quite the assumption.  Maybe they just didn't want to do as much PT.
> 
> My guess is people who are "fitter", do more PT and by doing more PT they are subject to more injuries.  Or maybe the fitter people just tough it out when they do get an injury and make it worse.  :dunno:



I am a regular swimmer and the natural bent is to try to get better at your athletic activity.
This also means being aware of how the body is responding to the extra pressure on your body parts.
I know swimmers have issues with their shoulder and upper arm.
I would expect other activities have their own physical challenges.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (1 Jan 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm not very mathy, is that study suggesting women are disproportionately injured more than men?



Disregard a reply I made to you...I clearly read too quickly the first time over.


----------



## cld617 (1 Jan 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm not very mathy, is that study suggesting women are disproportionately injured more than men?



That's exactly what's being said, women make up a disproportionate number of injured recruits. This holds true throughout their careers and across a wide spectrum of trade choices. 

More women need to take an interest in fitness and in particular strength training to handle the stresses the military puts it's people through.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Jan 2019)

Fitness?  I don't think that's a woman/man issue.  
Strength Training.....I could agree to that.  

My knees hurt all the time when I was younger. When I got out I added weights to my regime and sore knees went away....and still don't hurt to this day.  Arthritic hip sure does .....but neither of those types of exercise will help that.


----------



## cld617 (1 Jan 2019)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Fitness?  I don't think that's a woman/man issue.
> Strength Training.....I could agree to that.



Women on average perform worse in tests of physical fitness than men in the military. Given that tasks assigned are done so (at least in theory and usually in practice) without concern for gender or size, it's easy to conclude the smaller weaker person will incur more stress. One can even say that women need to put more emphasis on fitness training than men, given that men perform at higher levels in untrained individuals. They're at a disadvantage from the get-go and need to work hard to overcome it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Jan 2019)

They perform worde in fitness tests or actual assignments in real life situations? ?


----------



## cld617 (1 Jan 2019)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> They perform worde in fitness tests or actual assignments in real life situations? ?



Gauging peformance in performing their duties physically is difficult, but we do know they accumulate more injuries, limiting their ability to continue performing at the same level as their peers. Take rucking for example, it was found women are injured 2.4x more often and their level of injury was considered serious 2.5x more often than men.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Jan 2019)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> Disregard a reply I made to you...I clearly read too quickly the first time over.


All good


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Jan 2019)

cld617 said:
			
		

> Gauging peformance in performing their duties physically is difficult, but we do know they accumulate more injuries, limiting their ability to continue performing at the same level as their peers. Take rucking for example, it was found women are injured 2.4x more often and their level of injury was considered serious 2.5x more often than men.



All the more reason to have something available that is more sophisticated than the typical 'one size fits all' fitness program. 

And FWIW, I know several females in the Infantry who could kick most peoples a$$es physically, as well as a couple of female Olympians, so it's clearly not a gender thing....


----------



## garb811 (3 Jan 2019)

I think it could also be beneficial if they were to dig into patterns within certain platoons. I've heard first hand about how different Pls have different "intensities" based on their DS and that certainly will affect injury rates as physical activities outside the official training syllabus are layered on.


----------



## cld617 (3 Jan 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> All the more reason to have something available that is more sophisticated than the typical 'one size fits all' fitness program.
> 
> And FWIW, I know several females in the Infantry who could kick most peoples a$$es physically, as well as a couple of female Olympians, so it's clearly not a gender thing....



Absolutely it needs to be tailored to the individual, the question is how do we apply that in places like BMQ? My answer is physical testing prior to getting to St Jean to give the best shot at success in a group. 

It is a gender thing for 9x% of individuals, there will always be outliers. When you get women up to the same fitness level as their male peers, the injury levels even out and there is no statistically significant difference. The reality is however most females do not achieve these levels, a late 20's female who achieves platinum on her Force test would only score bronze in the male category. Very very few achieve the same standards as fit males in strength, this is where the training focus needs to be.


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Jan 2019)

garb811 said:
			
		

> I think it could also be beneficial if they were to dig into patterns within certain platoons. I've heard first hand about how different Pls have different "intensities" based on their DS and that certainly will affect injury rates as physical activities outside the official training syllabus are layered on.



Yup. BMQ DS do not necessarily have the knowledge or skills to properly develop recruits physically, so probably need some  training themselves, as well as making sure that properly qualified staff manage/ lead more complex programs.

I've run hundreds of recruits through training but never had one minute of training myself in anything related to physical training science or practice. We were just expected to follow the program pick it up along the way, unlike most everything else we trained people for such as navigation, skill at arms etc.

Casualties? We just shuffled them off to the MIR and carried on...


----------



## Journeyman (3 Jan 2019)

cld617 said:
			
		

> Very very few [females] achieve the same standards as fit males in strength, this is where the training focus needs to be.


Curiosity:  why does the focus need to be on strength?  

Once upon a time, I was in a regiment that had no shortage of guys who could bench-press a truck.... but we seemed to spend an awful lot of time running -- and not sleeping -- usually in swamps.


Rucking was pretty common in filling out morning PT too, but once in the field, having gotten to 'Point A,' everyone emptied all the support weapon ammo and radio batteries out of their ruck, which tended to get ditched at the RV;  spare kit: dry socks, fleece, toque/bug net went in pockets not filled with pers ammo.


----------



## cld617 (3 Jan 2019)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Curiosity:  why does the focus need to be on strength?



Because strength along with structural differences between the genders are often the biggest bridges to gap. Aerobic capacities once trained become more similar, however even in trained females the strength differences are still significant. Even once those rucks are stripped down and you're walking around with 40lbs, the male who's now walking around with a ruck that is at 1/6th his max squat capacity is going to work much less than the female who's is at 1/4th her's, this directly translates to alleviated stress accumulation and in turn less injury. Even running has a strength component to it, both in providing momentum and reducing stress. There's a reason nearly every trip to a physiotherapist has you leaving with a list of exercises to accomplish, strength training is pivotal in overcoming and prevent injury. 

I'm not suggesting women try and get a 225lb bench press, but I am suggesting they get a 225lb squat. They need to build functional strength levels that their peers are already at.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3633121


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Jan 2019)

[quote author=Journeyman] 

Once upon a time, I was in a regiment that had no shortage of guys who could bench-press a truck.... but we seemed to spend an awful lot of time running -
[/quote]









 ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Jan 2019)

[quote author=daftandbarmy] 
I've run hundreds of recruits through training but never had one minute of training myself in anything related to physical training science or practice. We were just expected to follow the program pick it up along the way, unlike most everything else we trained people for such as navigation, skill at arms etc.

[/quote]

The last leadership course I taught on had a checked out psp guy give classes on the proper way to run a pt session the students had to pass a Po check running a pt session. Worked in theory. In practice a little bit of the value was lost because the whole course was tested over two days and it was just a meat grinder back to back 20 minute pt sessions.

Still I thought the instruction was pretty good. I think I'd like it if we had what the British army still has and our own pt instructor trade.


----------



## dapaterson (3 Jan 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I think I'd like it if we had what the British army still has and our own pt instructor trade.



In the mid 90s we chose musicians over fitness instructors as a continued military trade...


----------



## Journeyman (4 Jan 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> ;D


    :rofl:  So true


----------



## PMedMoe (4 Jan 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> ;D



Or one who plays some sport...


----------



## dapaterson (4 Jan 2019)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Or one who plays some sport...



Like "I'm from Newfoundland and I play hockey"?


----------



## garb811 (4 Jan 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In the mid 90s we chose musicians over fitness instructors as a continued military trade...


Are you actually implying that we should have kept a support trade that had no war-fighting role, at all?  :Tin-Foil-Hat:

While there were some awesome PERIs, there were also more than a few who believed the only reason for the trade was so they could partake of a better sports scholarship than hockey players in a Bn.


----------



## brihard (4 Jan 2019)

A pretty decent article on US army fitness by Mark Rippetoe, the author of Starting Strength:

https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/heavier-kit-stronger-soldiers/?fbclid=IwAR0xUr4P16AWoDxIefBguwNw2CY4RlA6DF4VdcKA9e_j2LJzTX6HMjlCSrI

Heavier Kit? Stronger Soldiers!
BY MARK RIPPETOE DECEMBER 31, 2018

An article last week in Popular Mechanics lamented the fact that today's soldiers are being asked to carry ever-heavier loads of squad and personal equipment, even as advances in battlefield technology continue apace with modern warfare. Our friend Glenn Reynolds thought I might have something to say about this, and amazingly enough I do.

It seems odd to me that an entire article could be written about how heavier-than-ever kit must be carried by combat infantry without once using the word "stronger." The actual weight of the components of battlefield munitions is examined in excruciating detail, from batteries to bullets, from body armor to water, from communications to medical gear, as are the efforts to minimize its weight through technology. Strategies to help soldiers carry increasing loads were listed -- track vehicle "mules," motorized exoskeletons, and various robotic options are discussed, but by the end of the piece no plans for dealing with the problem had been announced. It was observed that "[a] soldier carries 100 pounds of the lightest kit imaginable."

The fundamental problem here is quite simple, as is its solution: Soldiers are not strong enough to carry a heavier kit, and as long as military physical training remains rooted in pushups, situps, and running, PT will be inadequate to the task of producing a stronger soldier. The solution is to address basic training from a strength approach and to leave subsequent conditioning to the discretion of the company command team based on the needs of their unit's assignment. Essentially all of it now is conditioning, with no barbell strength requirement in place at the basic training level.

To be sure, the Army seems to understand that it should address this problem. But their response has been typical of a military bureaucracy: leave 90% in place and take the lowest bid on the 10% that gets the chop. My suggestion is quite radical, highly effective, quite inexpensive, immediately productive, easily implemented, safer than endurance-based training, and as a result will never even be considered. I'll share it with you.

The vast majority of military recruits are young men. These people are plagued with poisonous levels of natural testosterone. Instead of running them into the ground, let's make them stronger by implementing a correctly designed and performed barbell-based strength program as the primary PT modality for basic training.

It is perfectly normal to take an 18-year-old kid from no deadlift at all to 400 pounds in six months, with comparable increases in all the other strength indices. This will be accompanied by an increase in useful muscle mass of anywhere from 20 to 30 pounds. I have done it professionally for 40 years, and it is not complicated if you understand the simple accumulative effect of adding five pounds to an exercise performed three days per week. If you have absolute control over the training and dietary environment of an 18-year-old kid -- as you do in basic training -- there is absolutely no reason why every male in the military cannot become at least two or three times as strong as they are under the current paradigm.

Barbells are very cheap. They don't use a lot of space. They are far more portable than exercise machines. Each barbell has multiple functions -- they are not single-purpose devices. They are easy to learn how to use, and they are relatively easy to learn how to coach. They are quite a bit safer to use if properly implemented. Stress fractures are quite common among runners and virtually unheard of in barbell training, and in the military they are the equivalent of low-back pain in the general population. The DoD spends about $500 million per year on musculoskeletal injuries, about 80% of which are overuse injuries like stress fractures. The hilarious thing is that strength training specifically prevents these types of injuries, even though the conventional wisdom holds that it is dangerous.

Conditioning develops very quickly, whereas strength takes time. Moving two miles with a 100-pound kit is a strength performance in that each step is a submaximal display of strength. It should be obvious that a 400-pound deadlift translates into a much easier two-mile transit than a 200-pound deadlift would enable. Since conditioning comes on quickly (ever hear of two-a-days?), if we need to train for it within a short time frame we can. Strength takes longer, but it lasts longer once it's acquired, and so it should be prioritized since it enables ground combat personnel to function more effectively.

Modern soldiers are not runners, or even walkers anymore. Mechanization has taken the place of the 20-mile march. But it is very important to understand that a strength-trained 18-year-old kid can still run quite effectively without wasting time by running as PT. You all know a strong kid who can run anyway. He can run accidentally. He doesn't need to waste time running when he can be training for the much more useful capacity of strength.

If Heavy is the problem, Strong is the solution. And you don't get strong while running. We are wasting the strength potential of every man in the service by misunderstanding the nature of this problem. It can be addressed by the systematic application of the correct PT. Unfortunately, I'm not in charge.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jan 2019)

I'm a big believer is barbell-based strength training as a core of any physical training regime.  It is simple (you only need to master a half-dozen movements), it's flexible, its progressive, and it produces results.  In the military, it is something that can be done collectively.

I think one of the problems is that using barbells doesn't convey the same image as what Rippetoe has labelled "conditioning."  If I run a platoon through barbell training, their muscles are sore, but they aren't panting and sweating as much as if they went out for a 5km run.  That can be perceived by some as "lazy."


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (4 Jan 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> A pretty decent article on US army fitness by Mark Rippetoe, the author of Starting Strength:
> 
> https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/heavier-kit-stronger-soldiers/?fbclid=IwAR0xUr4P16AWoDxIefBguwNw2CY4RlA6DF4VdcKA9e_j2LJzTX6HMjlCSrI
> 
> ...



Hit the nail on the head.  Conditioning is so easy it should be the last thing a soldier focuses on.  More important is strength, speed & agility and flexibility. 

The problem is these things are hard to coach and require time and proper planning to get right.   

A proper strength training program needs a minimum of 90min (120 min is better) to complete correctly with adequate rest built in between sets.

The military would need to drastically change it's philosophy on unit PT and the entire CAF would need a radical culture change for this to be implemented properly.

The only place I've even seen this sort of thing in the CAF are at Light Bns and Special Units.  

When I was at a Bn, I worked out for a minimum of 2hrs everyday.  A mix of powerlifting, boxing and circuit training with tires, jerry cans, sandbags and sledgehammers. This was only possible because my former CO (who is now retired) was a huge proponent of physical fitness and mandated that fitness was to be done until 10 o'clock every day by everyone (including himself) no exceptions.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (4 Jan 2019)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'm a big believer is barbell-based strength training as a core of any physical training regime.  It is simple (you only need to master a half-dozen movements), it's flexible, its progressive, and it produces results.  In the military, it is something that can be done collectively.
> 
> I think one of the problems is that using barbells doesn't convey the same image as what Rippetoe has labelled "conditioning."  If I run a platoon through barbell training, their muscles are sore, but they aren't panting and sweating as much as if they went out for a 5km run.  That can be perceived by some as "lazy."



Put 4x45lb plates on a prowler and have those "runners" push them a 100m 10x and then see if they still think it's "lazy".


----------



## Quirky (4 Jan 2019)

Maybe it's time to transition basic training into it's own respective elements, have Army instructors run Army candidates, Air Force for Air Force etc etc. What good is it having RCAF and RCN recruits train like the Army - scale obstacle courses and endlessly walk with ruck sacks. The Army already does a great job of destroying the body of a soldier, I see re-musters every year with guys in their late 20s to mid 30s who have shoulder, hip, back, knee problems that will likely translate to VAC claims. Do we really need to train everyone the same, even in basic training, considering how drastically different deployments and careers will be for the three elements?


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Jan 2019)

Most of the rucking is gone from BMQ. Maybe instead of splitting the services back up, we put an emphasis back on fitness and healthy lifestyle?

Yeah, the Army breaks people physically. The RCAF breaks people financially (Cold Lake) and the RCN breaks people mentally (constant deployments if you're sea fit). Pick your poison. :facepalm:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (4 Jan 2019)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Most of the rucking is gone from BMQ. Maybe instead of splitting the services back up, we put an emphasis back on fitness and healthy lifestyle?
> 
> Yeah, the Army breaks people physically. The RCAF breaks people financially (Cold Lake) and the RCN breaks people mentally (constant deployments if you're sea fit). Pick your poison. :facepalm:



Fitness and Healthy Lifestyle.  Wouldn't that be just Grand?

We could easily do it if we wanted to, there is zero will to change; however.


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Jan 2019)

Quirky said:
			
		

> Maybe it's time to transition basic training into it's own respective elements, have Army instructors run Army candidates, Air Force for Air Force etc etc. What good is it having RCAF and RCN recruits train like the Army - scale obstacle courses and endlessly walk with ruck sacks. The Army already does a great job of destroying the body of a soldier, I see re-musters every year with guys in their late 20s to mid 30s who have shoulder, hip, back, knee problems that will likely translate to VAC claims. Do we really need to train everyone the same, even in basic training, considering how drastically different deployments and careers will be for the three elements?



Good idea. 

IIRC that the FORCE Fit test is a reasonable requirement for everyone. Beyond that, it's probably important to tailor our fitness training approaches more specifically to each arm and service. 

I can't believe that it's outside the realms of the reasonably possible, given that we already have a well developed system of tailoring other kinds of training accordingly.


----------



## Kat Stevens (4 Jan 2019)

Funny that we live in a country where everyone is categorized, sub-categorized, and hyphenated into ever shrinking special interest groups, but the idea of soldiers training soldiers, sailors training sailors, and airpersons training airpersons is horrifying.


----------



## cld617 (4 Jan 2019)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I think one of the problems is that using barbells doesn't convey the same image as what Rippetoe has labelled "conditioning."  If I run a platoon through barbell training, their muscles are sore, but they aren't panting and sweating as much as if they went out for a 5km run.  That can be perceived by some as "lazy."



Which is exactly why physical training needs to be stripped from unqualified pers to teach, beyond administering a strictly controlled regime written by a professional.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (4 Jan 2019)

I have no doubt that fitness and healthy lifestyle should form part of our basic training, as much as it ought to be taught in High School across the country, but mostly is not. And that is not "element" specific: it applies to all three elements just the same.

This said, there is no denying that the Army, as a rule, requires a higher level of strength and endurance than the other two elements and that as a result, physical fitness (including strength training) forms a greater proportion of their use of time. Those are not valid reasons for splitting basic into elements, however.

Nevertheless, I do agree that we are at a point where basic should be re-split from "training command" and back to each element, for the following reasons:

1- at least two "elements" feel that before they can employ personnel coming out of basic, they have to be taught further basic knowledge required of the element. I say at least two because I don't know if the RCAF has the equivalent of the Army's BMQ-L or the RCN's NETP. Would it no be easier for these two elements to simply incorporate the BMQ and their own first phase into a single whole taught in one - slightly longer -shot?

2- Splitting the courses would make it possible to carry out such courses at "elemental" bases - the RCN in Esquimalt and the Army at one or two Army bases around, the RCAF perhaps at Trenton? This way, with instructors readily available without a need for postings involving moving, a larger number of recruits could probably be trained faster - and training scaled up or down easily as the need arises without the bottleneck that is St-Jean when increases in numbers are required quickly.

3- Finally, with the current concept of the Army, RCN and RCAF acting as the official Force Generators in their respective element, what is the point of making them responsible for all of a member's training, except the very first step? Shouldn't they have control over the totality of the training of the personnel under their element?


----------



## PMedMoe (4 Jan 2019)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Are you actually implying that we should have kept a support trade that had no war-fighting role, at all?  :Tin-Foil-Hat:



And our musicians do....what?  Now, I'm not referring to some Infanteer or Construction Engineer who also happens to play bagpipes; I'm talking about someone in the CF whose trade is Musician.

At the very least, the PERIs could have done the welfare/morale positions on tour without us having to bring in PSP.


----------



## garb811 (4 Jan 2019)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> And our musicians do....what?  Now, I'm not referring to some Infanteer or Construction Engineer who also happens to play bagpipes; I'm talking about someone in the CF whose trade is Musician.
> 
> At the very least, the PERIs could have done the welfare/morale positions on tour without us having to bring in PSP.


 ff topic: I'm not really sure how you're extrapolating that I'm somehow advocating that retaining musicians was a sound choice; it wasn't a one or the other proposition anyway.


----------



## PMedMoe (4 Jan 2019)

garb811 said:
			
		

> ff topic: I'm not really sure how you're extrapolating that I'm somehow advocating that retaining musicians was a sound choice; it wasn't a one or the other proposition anyway.



K.  My bad.


----------



## dimsum (4 Jan 2019)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Yeah, the Army breaks people physically. The RCAF breaks people financially (Cold Lake) and the RCN breaks people mentally (constant deployments if you're sea fit). Pick your poison. :facepalm:



Sadly, Cold Lake is but one of the places that you might get broken financially.  I'm not sure how Pte/Cpls fresh out of course afford it in Comox (Qs are on a waiting list and no PLD) or Victoria.

But I digress.


----------



## Navy_Pete (4 Jan 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I have no doubt that fitness and healthy lifestyle should form part of our basic training, as much as it ought to be taught in High School across the country, but mostly is not. And that is not "element" specific: it applies to all three elements just the same.
> 
> This said, there is no denying that the Army, as a rule, requires a higher level of strength and endurance than the other two elements and that as a result, physical fitness (including strength training) forms a greater proportion of their use of time. Those are not valid reasons for splitting basic into elements, however.
> 
> ...



They did a bit of it when I went through basic about 14 years ago, but would be nice if there was a lot more dedicated time in learning how to properly do some basic weight training exercises and give everyone enough of a basis that they can start safely self learning.  As a scrawny guy that's built to run, picking up the dumbbells was always kind of intimidating and was worried about hurting myself, and that didn't really change until got some got some good gymrat partners and some pointers from the PSP staff. Otherwise I would default to running, sit ups etc, which is okay, but doesn't really build a complete package.

Wrt to point 3, doing BMQ all together forces you to start out thinking as the CAF as an single force (even if there is always elemental rivalries). Made friends in all three services, so didn't really care when the Navy/AF support budgets fell off during Afghanistan as it was redirected to help keep friends safe.  Even understanding that intellectually, no real substitute for a human face on the other end.  Keep running into folks now, so it's helpful to build that network early and has helped out a bunch of times. Also, we always struggle to staff the Navy billets at CFLRS, so naive to think we'd be able to incorporate all of BMQ into the NETP training and effectively staff the courses without further impacts to the fleet.

One thing other Navies do is have instructor positions being high profile, coveted positions reserve for the best and brightest.  They are a big feather in the cap for promotion, and really highlights the importance of good training by actively selecting the instructors to get the best teachers in place.

I don't think that's something we do well (or at all) and lots of the positions are just another posting (or a dumping ground for problem children). Doesn't need to be the best techs or whatever, but we don't always do a good job of making sure that the people that have the passion for training others end up in the right spots (or worse, bounce those natural mentors from ship to ship because they 'are too good to be wasted at the school').  At least on the NCM side some of that basic instructional techniques incorporated into PMQ etc, but on the officer side it's trial by fire, with a training plan for some instructional technique courses that normally ensures you get it done in time to be posted.


----------



## Quirky (4 Jan 2019)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Maybe instead of splitting the services back up, we put an emphasis back on fitness and healthy lifestyle?



Still too many obese dinosaur SNCOs who think going to the base fitness center during work hours is AWOL. In the AF, operations always, always take precedence over health and fitness. I shouldn’t have to fight tooth and nail to give my pers time to go workout during the day if it doesn’t impact ops.


----------



## Journeyman (5 Jan 2019)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> And our musicians do....what?


Well historically, Commonwealth Army musicians tended to also be stretcher-bearers.

/history geek


----------



## Haggis (5 Jan 2019)

Quirky said:
			
		

> Still too many obese dinosaur SNCOs who think going to the base fitness center during work hours is AWOL.


The other thing that used to irritate the crap out of me when I worked at NDHQ was those people who would track me down at the NDHQ gym and hold an impromptu "meeting" with me at the squat rack. (In some cases that was the only time they ever darkened the door of the gym except for fitness testing.) That's one reason why I opted to spend a bit of my own money to go to a non-DND gym.


----------



## PMedMoe (5 Jan 2019)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Well historically, Commonwealth Army musicians tended to also be stretcher-bearers.
> 
> /history geek



That I knew.  Pretty sure you don't need any special training to carry a stretcher.


----------



## Journeyman (5 Jan 2019)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Pretty sure you don't need any special training to carry a stretcher.


To bring the discussion full circle..... fitness.   ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Jan 2019)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> That I knew.  Pretty sure you don't need any special training to carry a stretcher.



However, there's a reason that the PARAs, and others, include a 'stretcher race' of some kind in their selection programs. Probably one of the hardest events I've ever done!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzC-t7kpKWw


----------



## PMedMoe (6 Jan 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> However, there's a reason that the PARAs, and others, include a 'stretcher race' of some kind in their selection programs. Probably one of the hardest events I've ever done!



One year, in Ottawa, after the 13km rucksack march, instead of the fireman's carry, we did a stretcher carry.  No, not easy.  Have done it in the field too, while schlepping webbing, med bag and weapons....even more difficult.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (6 Jan 2019)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> That I knew.  Pretty sure you don't need any special training to carry a stretcher.



You would think so, until . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZMtWIkJLyQ


----------



## medicineman (7 Jan 2019)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Well historically, Commonwealth Army musicians tended to also be stretcher-bearers.
> 
> /history geek



So were the PERI's  :nod:

MM


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Jan 2019)

I feel like the PERIs would be far better at doing that then someone who plays jazz flute in a uniform.


----------



## mariomike (7 Jan 2019)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Pretty sure you don't need any special training to carry a stretcher.





			
				Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> You would think so, until . . .



What Blackadder1916 said,
https://www.ems1.com/ems-products/patient-handling/video/323718187-Mother-Jugs-Speed-stretcher-scene/
"What took you so long?"


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Jan 2019)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> That I knew.  Pretty sure you don't need any special training to carry a stretcher.



Then why did the army teach me how to carry a casualty on a stretcher on recruit training in the RCA Depot back in 1958?


----------



## PMedMoe (7 Jan 2019)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Then why did the army teach me how to carry a casualty on a stretcher on recruit training in the RCA Depot back in 1958?



:dunno:


----------



## Underway (7 Jan 2019)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> One year, in Ottawa, after the 13km rucksack march, instead of the fireman's carry, we did a stretcher carry.  No, not easy.  Have done it in the field too, while schlepping webbing, med bag and weapons....even more difficult.



 I agree. My section PT before Afghanistan included stretcher carry.  Carrying your buddy with all their gear, and your gear over rough terrain is not easy.  I actually changed my workouts to add more free weights so that my grip endurance improved.  Grip strength was fine, but after 5 min of hanging onto that stretcher.... ouch


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 Jan 2019)

Underway said:
			
		

> I agree. My section PT before Afghanistan included stretcher carry.  Carrying your buddy with all their gear, and your gear over rough terrain is not easy.  I actually changed my workouts to add more free weights so that my grip endurance improved.  Grip strength was fine, but after 5 min of hanging onto that stretcher.... ouch



As seen at about 0:46, it takes a whole community raise a stretcher across rough ground  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkg5Cr2_F18


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Jan 2019)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Then why did the army teach me how to carry a casualty on a stretcher on recruit training in the RCA Depot back in 1958?



As I recall, this included loading the casualty onto the stretcher and both two and four person carry, including synchronizing our pace to lessen his discomfort. I also think we also were taught this on OCP Phase 1 in 1960.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Jan 2019)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Then why did the army teach me how to carry a casualty on a stretcher on recruit training in the RCA Depot back in 1958?



Probably someone said "Well, he's not as smart as a musician or a PERI who can do this on their own, so we better give him a hand..."


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Jan 2019)

We spent a whole day in basic doing all sorts of stretchery things, including lashing the casualty in and lowering out an upper floor window. More to it than "hands on, prepare to lift".


----------



## Blackadder1916 (7 Jan 2019)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Then why did the army teach me how to carry a casualty on a stretcher on recruit training in the RCA Depot back in 1958?



I like DAP's answer better, but then I have been told that I have a sarcastic sense of humour.

The realistic answer is well put forth by this quoted from a US Army research study in 1998 of "Standard and Alternate Methods of Stretcher
Carriage: Performance, Human Factors, and Cardiorespiratory Responses".



> The requirement to transport casualties is a common soldiering task described in almost all
> Army test and evaluation program (ARTEP) manuals as well as in the Soldier's Manual of
> Common Tasks. One of the most common ways to transport a wounded or otherwise
> incapacitated individual is by stretcher.



That requirement to lift and tote your fellow soldiers was as applicable in the 1950s when you were a young soldier as at any other time.  There may probably have been some greater emphasis placed on stretcher drills in the Canadian Army of the 50s and 60s and maybe even the early 70s due to "National Survival Training" (at least it appears that way to me thinking back to Cornwallis and the amount of time spent on knots, lashings and stretcher handling drills - there was far less emphasis on such when I did CFOCS about a decade later).




			
				Underway said:
			
		

> I agree. My section PT before Afghanistan included stretcher carry.  Carrying your buddy with all their gear, and your gear over rough terrain is not easy.  I actually changed my workouts to add more free weights so that my grip endurance improved.  Grip strength was fine, but after 5 min of hanging onto that stretcher.... ouch



From that same study



> . . . Two-man carriage times to exhaustion were 4 minutes for hand carriage and 26 minutes with the harness. . . .





			
				medicineman said:
			
		

> Journeyman said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



While the use of bandsmen as SBs was generally thought to be the common operational employment of such in Commonwealth armies, when was the last time such was the case in the Canadian military?  I would hazard a guess that it may not have been that regular an occurrence even during the Second World War.

(From a 1952 Canadian Army HQ Historical Section report) http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/his/rep-rap/doc/ahqr-rqga/ahq047.pdf


> 35. K.R. (Can.) states that bandsmen will be
> trained as stretcher bearers and in first aid to the
> wounded (K.R.(Can). 1939, para 686). However, the
> number of wounded Canadian soldiers who were attended by
> ...


.

Just as few battalions had bands authorized during the war, so was the situation in the peacetime CF.  Even when the number of full-time bands was greater than it is now, the musical organizations (save perhaps for pipes, bugles and drums that were made up from the existing establishment of the unit) were not part of manoeuvre units and could not be called upon as "spare pricks" to use as GDs to do lifting and toting in jobs such as stretcher bearer.  I would suppose that the same would apply to PERIs.  On the sole occasion (about 40 years ago) that I recall being given a GD as a "stretcher bearer", he was an infantryman, I don't know if he had any musical talent however I had to sign him out from the RSM on a temporary loan card (I'm not joking).


----------



## UnwiseCritic (17 Jan 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Fitness and Healthy Lifestyle.  Wouldn't that be just Grand?
> 
> We could easily do it if we wanted to, there is zero will to change; however.



I think there is a will just not in the correct places. However, on another note I don't think the CAF is overly capable of internal change. Removing a triservice basic might be useful but I have seen many soldiers get out of shape of PAT platoons that are run poorly. Filling current slots of basic with combat arms only soldiers with a different fitness progression might be a simpler option than splitting it into land, sea and air. Do they not already do this for phase 2 at Gagetown?


----------



## OceanBonfire (10 Jul 2020)

> *Association Between Musculoskeletal Injuries and the Canadian Armed Forces Physical Employment Standard Proxy in Canadian Military Recruits*
> 
> Introduction
> 
> ...


----------

