# Measuring Physical Fitness (Split: CF weighs releasing combat wounded soldiers)



## Pusser

:stirpot:  How do we define fitness?  Right now the long-legged track star, who would crumple carrying any real weight up the side of the mountain is lauded and rewarded by the system, but the short-legged rugby player who's carrying the radio has to fight just to stay in.  How can we preach universality of service, if we can't define what that actually means?


----------



## brihard

Pusser said:
			
		

> :stirpot:  How do we define fitness?  Right now the long-legged track star, who would crumple carrying any real weight up the side of the mountain is lauded and rewarded by the system, but the short-legged rugby player who's carrying the radio has to fight just to stay in.  How can we preach universality of service, if we can't define what that actually means?



A tribunal. 

A sergeant, warrant officer, and master warrant officer, selected randomly with one from each of the three infantry regiments. Candidates for the tribunal will have to be nominated by their peers, with particular regard for time in and general crustiness. The tribunal will convene in the Sgts&WOs mess, Friday at noon, and will be empower to impose arbitrary standards, and to adjudicate in cases where there is any matter of dispute.  Adjudication will consist of the tribunal taking all persons subject to such processes into the field for the duration of the weekend from Friday at noon to the first parade on Monday, and what happens in the field stays in the field. The tribunal will whatever means they deem fit to decide if the soldier(s) in question can hack it. If a majority of two out of the three NCOs grudgingly concedes that the member can do the job (even if he wouldn't have cut it 'back in the day') that member stays in. If not, the boot.

Crazy, but so crazy it just might work. ;D


----------



## HItorMiss

Pusser said:
			
		

> :stirpot:  How do we define fitness?  Right now the long-legged track star, who would crumple carrying any real weight up the side of the mountain is lauded and rewarded by the system, but the short-legged rugby player who's carrying the radio has to fight just to stay in.  How can we preach universality of service, if we can't define what that actually means?



Coopers test achieve minimum at all levels plus a BFT. No need to get Operator/Assaulter standards just pass the coopers and a BFT then you are good to go. Yes I am aware those without arms might be at a disadvantage but I am sure there is a way to set it up so that things like push ups and pull ups can be achieved.


----------



## MJP

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Coopers test achieve minimum at all levels plus a BFT. No need to get Operator/Assaulter standards just pass the coopers and a BFT then you are good to go. Yes I am aware those without arms might be at a disadvantage but I am sure there is a way to set it up so that things like push ups and pull ups can be achieved.



Pull-ups and bench would put women at a distinct disadvantage as compared to males with their physiological makeup with the current standards in the Coopers Test.  I know quite a few very in shape women, that would put a great deal of men to shame with their fitness but would have real difficulty with the 7/8 strict pull-ups (IIRC it has been a few years since I've done it) that a entails a minimum score on the test.


----------



## HItorMiss

Min score is 6 and I hate to say it but having standard across the board would be a good step period. But I will concede that perhaps that is a bit much maybe lower the mins for woman?


----------



## vonGarvin

MJP said:
			
		

> Pull-ups and bench would put women at a distinct disadvantage as compared to males with their physiological makeup with the current standards in the Coopers Test.


And your point is?  The test is non-discriminatory, and based on the requirements of the job, and it matters not if you're old or young, man or woman, there is one job, one standard.





			
				BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Min score is 6 and I hate to say it but having standard across the board would be a good step period. But I will concede that perhaps that is a bit much maybe lower the mins for woman?


Nope, I disagree.  One standard.  Period.


----------



## MJP

Technoviking said:
			
		

> And your point is?  The test is non-discriminatory, and based on the requirements of the job, and it matters not if you're old or young, man or woman, there is one job, one standard.Nope, I disagree.  One standard.  Period.



Disagree all you want.  The fact is it is discriminatory as one group through no fault of their own would be at an disadvantage.  The CF still has to follow federal legislation when it comes to their selection process.  The minimuns in the CF Expres test were found to be the score needed for most candidate to be successful in the CF.  The same for cut-off scores for the CFAT.  They are both empirically tested BFORs (Bona Fide Occupational Requirements) that the CF could use in court if they were challenged.  Throwing in test that is used for another purpose (selecting SOF personnel and making 3VP   happy) would open the CF to potential legal trouble.  I am all for a better test than the Expres, but for now I would settle for us just enforcing the standard (as in no more fat warrior platoon in ST Jean for one).  I am still amazed that in this time of almost frozen recruitment that we do not just release people that are unable to meet the standard when they show up.


----------



## mariomike

Technoviking said:
			
		

> The test is non-discriminatory, and based on the requirements of the job, and it matters not if you're old or young, man or woman, there is one job, one standard.Nope, I disagree.  One standard.  Period.



I do not disagree with you. I too have a strong opinion on the subject when lives are at risk. But, there have been legal challenges.
Here is one case that is relevant to the CF and DND.
According to the attached link, from the mid-1970s to the early 1990s, CF and DND firefighters were tested for physical fitness using a test derived from the "Cooper" test. Under that test there were different standards according to a firefighter's age and gender. In June 1991, the Canadian Forces Fire Marshal requested that a new "non-gender, non-biased and task-related" aka "one size fits all" fitness test be developed. A contract was awarded to the Queen's University Ergonomics Research Group (ERG) to develop the physical fitness standards for CF and DND firefighters.
More here on Bona Fide Occupational Requirements, if interested:
http://www.pssrb-crtfp.gc.ca/decisions/fulltext/2006-85_e.asp


----------



## MJP

mariomike said:
			
		

> I do not disagree with you. I too have a strong opinion on the subject when lives are at risk. But, there have been legal challenges.
> Here is one case that is relevant to the CF and DND.
> According to the attached article, from the mid-1970s to the early 1990s, CF and DND firefighters were tested for physical fitness using a test derived from the "Cooper" test. Under that test there were different standards according to a firefighter's age and gender. In June 1991, the Canadian Forces Fire Marshal requested that a new "non-gender, non-biased and task-related" aka "one size fits all" fitness test be developed. A contract was awarded to the Queen's University Ergonomics Research Group (ERG) to develop the physical fitness standards for CF and DND firefighters.
> More here on Bona Fide Occupational Requirements, if interested:



I dislike Human rights tribunals for a whole host of reasons, but the Meiorin case from BC is the gold standard when it comes to the onus being on the employer to show that those physical requirements being tested are needed.


----------



## mariomike

MJP said:
			
		

> I dislike Human rights tribunals for a whole host of reasons, but the Meiorin case from BC is the gold standard when it comes to the onus being on the employer to show that those physical requirements being tested are needed.



FYI, I edited my post to change the link. I think this link is appropriate:
http://www.pssrb-crtfp.gc.ca/decisions/fulltext/2006-85_e.asp


----------



## vonGarvin

MJP said:
			
		

> I dislike Human rights tribunals for a whole host of reasons, but the Meiorin case from BC is the gold standard when it comes to the onus being on the employer to show that those physical requirements being tested are needed.


Here  is the only onus that the CF  the Army ought to show why it needs tough physical standards.  Remember, these guys in the video are carrying xx lbs of stuff, probably have little sleep in the previous few days, and all of them are expected to perform in a part of the world many hours' time different from their home, with little time to adjust properly.  And no, it's not all shooting and jumping and stuff.  Just hump, hump and hump.

I mean, are we supposed to cater to a certain group in order to employ them?  Or are we supposed to provide a fighting force that can be the sharp end of Canada's foreign policy?


----------



## MJP

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Here  is the only onus that the CF  the Army ought to show why it needs tough physical standards.  Remember, these guys in the video are carrying xx lbs of stuff, probably have little sleep in the previous few days, and all of them are expected to perform in a part of the world many hours' time different from their home, with little time to adjust properly.  And no, it's not all shooting and jumping and stuff.  Just hump, hump and hump.
> 
> I mean, are we supposed to cater to a certain group in order to employ them?  Or are we supposed to provide a fighting force that can be the sharp end of Canada's foreign policy?



Then the army needs to make its case, get whatever test they want validated and implement it.  If it can be legitimately shown that whatever level of fitness they deem is required is truly necessary then they will have no problems legally.  I would be the first to applaud them if that was the case.  Believe me I would love to see higher standards even if only for the combat arms.  Like I have said before here and here, but until senior people get on-board with the fact that generally fitter soldiers do better with the rigors of combat then we will continue to have issues.


----------



## ballz

I agree with your viewpoint TV, I think it's a hell of a lot more discriminatory to tell a 20 yr old male that can do 18 pushups that he's not fit fot duty while letting a 40 yr old woman that can do 7 do the same job. It's not his fault he has a y chromosone and more testosterone.

If the job only requires 7 pushups, then yes, it would be discriminatory against women to require 19 because the higher threshold would only serve the purpose of filtering out more women. 

But that is not what's being advocated. All that I am asking is that they find the minimums they believe is necessary to do the job (which is probably higher than 7 pushups, but now that they've let it slip to 7 for somebody, that's probably what they would have to settle at) and apply it to everybody.

For the legal aspect, as was said, all that would need to be done is cross their t's and dot their i's to already have the evidence in place to say "this level of fitness is required because anything less is a safety hazard." I don't think it would be hard to prove that anybody that can only reach stage 3 on the beep test is a safety hazard, to themselves and to other people.

However, TV, I just did a course and a huge report on OHS and argued until I was blue in the face about all this stuff. Until a political party has the cajones to start taking on reverse-discrimination, it ain't happenin'. I don't think senior leadership getting on board would be enough. Thinking about how stupid it is will only give you a headache.

I think it would be easier to see certain trades have a higher standard set. It is a different job with different requirements so that part would be easy to support. But I'm not sure if there's a point... the demands of the courses required to get qualified for "x" position should already be hard enough to ensure the level of fitness we want... Nobody is going to pass DP1.1 with a level 6 on the beep test anyway...


----------



## Franko

We had a young fella from the PRes who was fit, under 30, in Bosnia (Op Palladium R13) have a heart attack.

Don't judge a book by it's cover.

Regards


----------



## vonGarvin

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> We had a young fella from the PRes who was fit, under 30, in Bosnia (Op Palladium R13) have a heart attack.


Healthy people don't have heart attacks, but I know what you mean.  "Fit" does not necessarily equal "healthy".


----------



## aesop081

ballz said:
			
		

> Nobody is going to pass DP1.1 with a level 6 on the beep test anyway...



...and we've all see the guy who can get to level 10+ who couldnt operate when on minimum sleep and minimum food.

The 20MSR is indicative of absolutely nothing useful. There is something fundamently flawed about how we establish our standards and it goes beyond the numbers we have set.


----------



## Franko

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Healthy people don't have heart attacks, but I know what you mean.  "Fit" does not necessarily equal "healthy".



Exactly


----------



## Tow Tripod

Listen to all the wanna be Doctors on this thread. If it is your time then its your time. That could be here in Canada or on Operations 2008 we had a great combination of super fit troops and others that maybe were not that fit. In the end they all did a great job and we where very lucky overall. My 2 cents! Nothing more, Nothing less!


----------



## ballz

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> ...and we've all see the guy who can get to level 10+ who couldnt operate when on minimum sleep and minimum food.
> 
> The 20MSR is indicative of absolutely nothing useful. There is something fundamently flawed about how we establish our standards and it goes beyond the numbers we have set.



Yes we have and I agree (although I do like the beep test as a component of the test...) but that's a whole other issue... :-\


----------



## Scott

Tow Tripod, lighten up, people are allowed an opinion.

And just to drive home the whole point about looking fit not necessarily meaning you are fit, I give you Jim Fixx.


----------



## McG

Technoviking said:
			
		

> The [Coopers] test is non-discriminatory, and based on the requirements of the job, and it matters not if you're old or young, man or woman, there is one job, one standard.


The Coopers test is not based on job requirements.  It measures based on an arbitrary selection of physical tasks.  While the Coopers Test does measure fitness, it it does not provide a measure of an individuals ability to perform military duties.  The same can be said of the CF Express Test.

I suspect that a proper fitness test will give us a good predictor of who is or is not likely to suffer heart failure under physical or emotional stress.  Such a generic fitness test probably should make accommodation for age, gender, inseam length, etc.  A general fitness test is nice, but we also need the job based fitness test.

The LFCPFS (AKA the BFT) is based on job requirements.  It does provide some measure of an individual's ability to perform military duties (I'd argue that the test is fairly shallow as far as what it measures, but it does measure).  It is one standard that does not discriminate, and that is how it needs to be.  At the same time, IMO, it is a poor test of fitness as one can be well into obese and still pass. 

I think we either need both  the job-based and general fitness tests, or we need a better measure of cardio health in the existing job-based test.

Now, going back to the point being argued earlier -> should we demand a universal standard that expects 6 to 8 chin-ups for a woman to be found fit enough to serve?  The only military thing that I've done that was really analogous to a chin-up was pulling parachute risers, and that is actually much easier than a real chin-up.  With the Coopers Test being a non-job-based general fitness test, I would support MJPs assertion that a one size fits all standard is in appropriate.  At the same time, maybe we want to adjust the Army Fitness standard so that (in addition to marching, dragging a casualty, and digging) all soldiers must be able to individually clear an obstacle of height X.

... in any case, this discussion of measuring physical fitness has come well of the topic of retaining medically unfit personnel.  I suspect a thread split is about due.


----------



## vonGarvin

For all
If my post of the pic offends, I cannot apologise for you how you feel.  I didn't post the pic to malign him or his family.  The point has been made, and I stand by it.  If you are angry with me: deduct my MilPoints, mute me, or choose to look away.  I must make it known that I thought long and hard about it, but I felt it was a point that had to be made, and in no way, shape or form was this meant to speak ill of the dead, for it was us who failed him.  That is my point.  We have to learn to say "no" from time to time, and to stand by those decisions.


----------



## ModlrMike

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> ...and we've all see the guy who can get to level 10+ who couldnt operate when on minimum sleep and minimum food.
> 
> The 20MSR is indicative of absolutely nothing useful. There is something fundamently flawed about how we establish our standards and it goes beyond the numbers we have set.




This is not directed a you CDN Aviator, but I have to rant an little here.


I have to disagree. I've read the science on the 20MSR and I'm convinced we're at fault here, not the evaluation. The Beep Test, as designed is highly accurate. We fail in the administration of it. When the PSP Staff say you only have to get to level "x", then they've undermined the test at its core.

The 20 MSR is a test of maximal endurance and effort. To stop at the "minimum" does nothing to provide an accurate evaluation. It may sound like semantics, but it is the Expres *evaluation*, not test. The difference being that a test has a set, known answer, and an evaluation does not.

When the PSP are asked "What do I have to get to?" they should respond "I don't know."


/rant off


----------



## Chilme

I'm hoping I can clear up some myth here:

1) The EXPRES test as we know it (20 MSR, handgrip, push-up, sit-up) is not actually a BFOR.  It is however a predictor of universal CF test known as the "Common Military Task Fitness Evaluation (CMTFE)" 

http://canadianmilitaryandefence.blogspot.com/2010/09/common-military-task-fitness-evaluation.html

If you go through the document, you will notice that the CMTFE task a full week to get a group of people through it.  It is currently being conducted by PSP in St. Jean and a few other select areas.  Due to the time involved, cost of equipment, lack of facilities, and complexity of this test, the CF has opted to use the EXPRES as a predictor of the CMTFE.  Previous scientific study determined that one's result  in the EXPRES closely reflected their result in the CMTFE and therefore, we use the EXPRES.  Obviously there are some circumstances where a correlation does not exist.  Not a problem.  After 2 consecutive failures in the EXPRES any CF member is eligible to conduct the CMTFE, but the request goes all the way to the top and one better have a logical reason for it.

2) Regardless of the EXPRES being a BFOR, I still can't rationalize why there are different age/sex minimums given the Universality of Service policy.

3) Regardless of anyone's opinion on a particular fitness test, you have to remember it will always just be a predictive evaluation and cannot perfectly mimic job requirements, especially not all requirements.  Every test has its strong points and weak points.   Bottom line, PSP Research and Development has meticulously determined that there is correlations in the tests and operational requirements and the leadership agrees.  Therefore it is your duty to pass the test.   

4) I will tell you there is light at the end of the tunnels. PSP R&D are currently re-evaluating the EXPRES test and standards, given that they were developed out of the Cold War and we know times have changed.


----------



## Pusser

The problem is whether that light at the end of the tunnel will be warm ray of sunshine of fiery laser beam in both eyes!

I dislike testing in cases like this because all it does is prove how well you do the test.  If you fail the Expres test, the remedial PT you are offered only has the purpose of getting you to pass the test.  It doesn't change anything material.

I think we should get rid of fitness testing altogether, as it is a punitive (i.e. pass this or suffer the consequences) and, therefore, negative incentive to maintain a level of fitness.

I have never understood why we run the crap out of people on basic training and then STOP!  The CF should have a culture of fitness that encourages regular exercise in various forms.  Merely providing facilities and instruction (which, frankly, vary in access and quality) is not enough.  We need senior leadership to take an active role in promoting fitness.  It's better now than it used to be, in that most people in postions of authority allow those personnel who want to exercise the opportunity to do so, but this is not universal, nor is it organized.  Perhaps daily, or at least thrice weekly PT sessions or intramural sports should be required.  Perhaps the Expres test should only be used for personnel who wish to be exempted from regular unit-organized PT.  Unfit personnel should be identified for extra PT by their chain of command, not somebody who judges push-ups with a ruler and a protractor.

I believe that all military personnel need to be fit, but I also believe there are better ways to achieve this goal.  If we're all out there exercising regularly, we can't help but be fit.


----------



## Future Pensioner

Technoviking said:
			
		

> For all
> If my post of the pic offends, I cannot apologise for you how you feel.  I didn't post the pic to malign him or his family.  The point has been made, and I stand by it.  If you are angry with me: deduct my MilPoints, mute me, or choose to look away.  I must make it known that I thought long and hard about it, but I felt it was a point that had to be made, and in no way, shape or form was this meant to speak ill of the dead, for it was us who failed him.  That is my point.  We have to learn to say "no" from time to time, and to stand by those decisions.



Sometimes our best intentions are just wrong, and when they are pointed out to be wrong, we should accept it and perhaps apologize for offending people, rather than continue to make excuses and blame people for how "they" feel.

The fact of the matter is that the posting of the pic was wrong.  As a matter of fact, in my opinion it also violated the Conduct Rules of this site in reference to "personal attacks" and "posting rules" (ie offensive, defamatory, harassing, etc...).

To try and defend it and/or justify it only makes it worse.


----------



## Chilme

Pusser said:
			
		

> Unfit personnel should be identified for extra PT by their chain of command, not somebody who judges push-ups with a ruler and a protractor.
> 
> I believe that all military personnel need to be fit, but I also believe there are better ways to achieve this goal.  If we're all out there exercising regularly, we can't help but be fit.



I think you are making some fundamental errors in your thinking.

1) How is the CoC supposed to determine if someone is fit or not without an evaluation.  Do they look at their appearance and determine it?  Do they watch them playing ball hockey and determine from that that a mbr is unfit? Or do they pick someone in their unit they don't particularly like and decide they are unfit to get them? (Cause that could easily happen and no one could do anything)

The CoC has to have some way to evaulaute the fitness of their pers that is scientifically validated, consistent across the country, and professionally administered.  Otherwise the lawsuit against the crown would be a Lawyer's and dream.

2) What do you think motivates many individuals to exercise regularly?  Well I can tell you one major is a test.  Those who train regularly on their own generally have little to no issue passing a test and it is another day at the gym.  I can tell you with absolute certainty that there are CF members who would absolutely let themselves go if they knew that didn't have to be tested and see the results on their PER. 

3) below is a link to the CF Physical fitness DAOD that shows much of what you were talking about is already written into Policy.  Check the first few pages and you will see that.

http://canadianmilitaryandefence.blogspot.com/2010/09/canadian-forces-physical-fitness.html


----------



## a_majoor

The Australian Army has a different idea:

http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/news/6797/?print=true



> *Push-ups no match for combat*
> 
> News Item
> 
> Date:
> 29 November, 2011
> 
> DSTO researchers have found a better way to ensure our soldiers have the strength and endurance to perform in combat.
> 
> Artillery gunner from 1st Regiment, Royal Australian Artillery (1RGT) performs a box lift and place test
> Artillery gunner from 1st Regiment, Royal Australian Artillery (1RGT) performs a box lift and place test
> 
> Presenting at the 2011 Defence Human Sciences Symposium, DSTO researcher Greg Carstairs outlined that current generic fitness assessments (including push-ups, sit-ups and chin-ups) are often poor predictors of performance in strength based job tasks.
> 
> “Assessments that are directly relevant to specific tasks give a better indication of a person's ability to perform a role.  This means that the person can perform more effectively with a reduced risk of injury," Mr Carstairs said.
> 
> In a DSTO study involving over 100 soldiers, the effectiveness of push-ups, sit-ups and chin-ups was compared to a 'box lift and place' assessment method (pictured) that involves lifting a weighted box in a manner that replicates what is required in the field.
> 
> The results of this assessment method were then recorded against five strength based task simulations, including 'bombing up' a tank, repetitively loading an artillery gun, dragging an injured soldier, building a bridge, and lifting a field pack onto the tray of a truck.
> 
> Success with the 'box lift and place' assessment method was closely correlated to success in four of the five strength based tasks, while push-ups and chin-ups correlated with only one of the five job tasks (bridge building).
> 
> “The box lift assessment is a far superior predictor of job performance,” Mr Carstairs said.
> 
> “With combat roles scheduled to soon be open to women, these new methods will help us to objectively assess the physical capacity of our soldiers, irrespective of age, sex, height or weight."
> 
> This research forms part of the Physical Employment Standards project, which is developing physical tests that are predictive of job performance. As a flow-on effect, it is hoped that PES will help to improve recruitment, training and retention of capable personnel in the Australian Defence Force (ADF).
> 
> The Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) is part of Australia's Department of Defence. DSTO's role is to ensure the expert, impartial and innovative application of science and technology to the defence of Australia and its national interests.


----------



## PMedMoe

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The Australian Army has a different idea:
> 
> http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/news/6797/?print=true



The CF was looking at something like that years ago (anyone remember the ammo box lift?) but it never seemed to get off the ground.  No pun intended.


----------



## Pusser

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The Australian Army has a different idea:
> 
> http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/news/6797/?print=true



Hey, I'm all for it!  When do we start with the briefcase carry, repetitive typing, coffee capacity and Powerpoint endurance tests?   ;D


----------



## aesop081

Pusser said:
			
		

> Hey, I'm all for it!  When do we start with the briefcase carry, repetitive typing, coffee capacity and Powerpoint endurance tests?   ;D



Don't forget "banging your head on the wall for 5 minutes" and "fighting little old ladies for space on the bus to downtown" tests............


----------



## Sadukar09

I did the Reserve PT at the local YMCA, here's what the guy made me do:

Step test - Two flight of stairs, there will be music and a person telling you to follow the up up up down down down pattern. Each stage is three minutes long. Younger applicants (18-35 I presume) start at level four. To pass, you must finish level four and five. Older applicants start on level one. At level seven, you do both steps at the same time. For females, the speed is a bit slower. After each level, your heart rate will be taken for ten seconds. Your heart rate must be under a specific threshold in order to move on.

Hand grip - Hold the dynamometer at a forty-five degree angle from your body, then squeeze as hard as you can. Your arm must not move erratically, and you must not hold your breath. The person administering told me your maximum strength is generally reached around the three second mark.

Push ups - Not much to say, push ups. It's easier to do it if you put your feet apart. When I trained up for it, my feet were touching.

Sit ups - Hands to your cheeks. Sit ups only count when your shoulder (not head) reaches the matt, and your elbows to your knees. Therefore, don't put your hands behind your head, unless you wish a challenge of course.

Heart rate tests - I did it once at the beginning for finding my resting rate, twice after step test to see if I'm dying (nope). Finally one more time at the very end to confirm.


----------



## PMedMoe

Sadukar09 said:
			
		

> After each level, your heart rate will be taken for ten seconds. Your heart rate must be under a specific threshold in order to move on.



Which I always hated because they never took your starting heart rate into consideration.  



			
				Sadukar09 said:
			
		

> Push ups - It's easier to do it if you put your feet *apart*.



Say what?    ???


----------



## Sadukar09

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Say what?    ???








First one is easier according to him, and my own experiences. You spread your weight around a bit more. The pic is just a generalization, your legs shouldn't be that far apart.


----------



## HItorMiss

Feet must be together or they don't count on the express test (coopers test to for that matter). If the person testing you allowed you to do them with feet apart he is in violation of the PSP standard for the express test.


----------



## PMedMoe

Sadukar09 said:
			
		

> First one is easier according to him, and my own experiences. You spread your weight around a bit more. The pic is just a generalization, your legs shouldn't be that far apart.



Uh, yeah, I got that.  Thanks.   :

This is what I was referring to:



			
				BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Feet must be together or they don't count on the express test coopers test to for that matter). If the person testing you allowed you to do them with feet apart he is in violation of the PSP standard for the express test.


----------



## dapaterson

If you go to the PSP website, there are copies of the studies that lead to the adoption of the Expres test.  There's some interesting information there.

There are five common military tasks that all CF members are expected to be able to perform:  Land evacuation, sea evacuation, high/low crawl, trench dig, and sandbag carry.

The Expres standards were set this way: a large group was assessed on the five common tasks - sufficiently large to be statistically reliable, for males and female, and for different age groups.

Those who passed were then assessed using the Expres protocol.  The "PASS" mark for each group was set at the 95th percentile - that is, of those who could successfully complete the five common tasks, 95% would achieve that standard on the Expres test.

The Expres test is a predictor of success in the five common tasks.  It is less costly, requires less equipment and is faster to conduct than the full-up common military tasks evaluation.


----------



## Sadukar09

Ah oops.  :-[

Gonna have to talk with the guy administering my test then.


----------



## aesop081

Sadukar09 said:
			
		

> Ah oops.  :-[





> Military Experience:None
> Rank:Applicant


----------



## Sadukar09

I read so much on this site and I didn't know how to correctly do a push up.
 :facepalm:


----------



## HItorMiss

I will correct those things wrong with what your YMCA guy did here. I'm an instructor at CFLRS and I have seen the CF entry standards for the express test by PSP many times it is always the same no exceptions




			
				Sadukar09 said:
			
		

> Hand grip - Hold the dynamometer at a forty-five degree angle from your body, then squeeze as hard as you can. Your arm must not move erratically, and you must not hold your breath. The person administering told me your maximum strength is generally reached around the three second mark.



Arm must be no farther then 45 degrees and not touching the body. Arm cannot move at all once you begin to squeeze. If the arm moves the score is 0



			
				Sadukar09 said:
			
		

> Push ups - Not much to say, push ups. It's easier to do it if you put your feet apart. When I trained up for it, my feet were touching.



Already covered



			
				Sadukar09 said:
			
		

> Sit ups - Hands to your cheeks. Sit ups only count when your shoulder (not head) reaches the matt, and your elbows to your knees. Therefore, don't put your hands behind your head, unless you wish a challenge of course..



Hands are behind the ear not on the cheek fingers touching the head. If the hands move from that position that sit up doesn't count at all. If you start with hands on the cheek you didn't do a single proper sit up. Elbows must touch the top of the knee.

Your YMCA test adminester needs to check what he is giving/doing with the nearest local PSP. On Push ups alone he is way off.


----------



## Pusser

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Which I always hated because they never took your starting heart rate into consideration.



I loved the step test - I have a naturally slow heart rate.   

Having said that, I did my test today - @#*&! I hate that test!  I still maintain it's great for long-legged track stars, but sucks for us short-legged rugby players.  Nevertheless, that tick in the box is taken care of.

However, if we maintained a "culture of fitness," I still argue that we wouldn't need a test at all...


----------



## PMedMoe

Pusser said:
			
		

> I loved the step test - I have a naturally slow heart rate.



Not me.  Up to 80 bpm while sitting.  I contribute it to my fast metabolism.   ;D


----------



## buzgo

Pusser said:
			
		

> I loved the step test - I have a naturally slow heart rate.
> 
> Having said that, I did my test today - @#*&! I hate that test!  I still maintain it's great for long-legged track stars, but sucks for us short-legged rugby players.  Nevertheless, that tick in the box is taken care of.
> 
> However, if we maintained a "culture of fitness," I still argue that we wouldn't need a test at all...



You know, the shuttle run actually favours basketball and soccer players  - anyone who plays stop/go quick moving quick turning sports (like rugby?). Its not a "runners" test. Its an aerobic capacity test...


----------



## Haggis

It's long been recognized that although the science behind the EXPRES test and it's roots in the 5 CMFTE is still valid, the standard and the way we currently assess it needs to be updated.

Recent studies By D Fit have shown the the BFT is not a good indicator of fitness for battle, or even overall fitness.  In fact, the BFT only gets you to level 3 of cardiovascular exertion as compared against the 20 MSR.  I think we all know that the BFT is less about fitness and more about being a "gut check" and a measure of pain management.

There is currently a new study underway to set the next fitness requirements for the CF. It's called Project FORCE (*F*itness for *O*perational *R*equirements of *C*F *E*mployment). And, no, I have NO IDEA what the new standards will be.  The project is still quite new and that decision has not yet been made.   Although the project won't deliver a new test or standard before 2013, I've been told that the new test will look very different from what we do now.  It will, however deliver a new CF standard for physical fitness and, maybe, environmental standards, too.

Again, I do NOT know what the new standard will be or_ may _ be and NO I do NOT know what the new test _is/could be/will be_.  So don't ask.


----------



## McG

Until Project FORCE delivers (if it ever does), I believe the Army standard should be (needs to be) the LFCPFS + CF Express.  There are a number of large obese individuals who can throw on a ruck (a relatively light weight in comparison to their overall body mass) and "ruck-out" a BFT and thereby hide their physical inability to actually do the CFExpress (and the required tasks for with it is a statistical indicator).

... also, the two points at merit boards for an exempt standard should only be awarded in the first year.  In the second year, it should drop to one point (because one's fitness standard could very easily make that drop in a year) - if one wants to retain the two points, then one reattains an exempt standard in that second year.


----------



## dapaterson

Better fitness principle: Test every year (Expres).  You require a pass in all of your past three PERs to be eligible for promotion.  No pass this year?  Then it will be at least three years until your file hits the promotion boards.


...though if we are to retain the "Two points for exempt" I agree that it should degrade in year 2 to only one point...


----------



## Haggis

There are many people opting for the LFCPFS over the EXPRES for a number of reasons, many of which have already been discussed. An interesting reason is to avoid having to submit to a preliminary blood pressure check, which could disqualify them from the EXPRES test.

Recently, the VCDS published direction that the only acceptable fitness test within the VCDS Groups is the EXPRES test. There are provisions for those who need to do the LFCPFS (i.e. MP serving with Army units, Class B Reservists who parade with an Army unit, pre-deployment trg to name a few) but the bottm line is that everyone in the VCDS Gp WILL complete an EXPRES test.  Units are required to report quarterly on their success rates and the actions taken against those who fail/are not tested.  So, if you want the extra point on your PER in the VCDS Gp you'd better have an Incentive Exempt on your EXPRES test.

CMP has issued very similar direction for Reservists in the NDHQ PRL.  It would seem, on paper at least, that there is an increased interest and emphasis on fitness within Ottawa.


----------



## GnyHwy

Haggis said:
			
		

> Again, I do NOT know what the new standard will be or_ may _ be and NO I do NOT know what the new test _is/could be/will be_.  So don't ask.



Well then...this seems like a good opportunity for wild speculation, crazy rumours and opinion.

Project FORCE (Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment). 

My definition of the above would be: a soldier must have a level of fitness, for the place of their employment, that enables him/her to perform tasks for operations, or in support of operations.

Some examples would be:

Combat arms or support soldier - Is required to kick *** and take names when required.  Test would be much the same as we do now, plus a few other soldier type tasks; perhaps an EXERCISE or two.

Training establishment soldier - Is required to kick *** if necessary; mostly directed towards the combat arms or support soldiers.  Test would be doing PT once in a while, maybe with his/her course, but fitness should be focused on the ability to stay alert after long hours of reading policies, writing assessments, sifting through e-mail, coordinating support staff, retesting failures and listening to general whining.

Higher HQ soldiers - No kicking *** required, unless it's a hard fought argument.  Test would be, do PT if you have the time, but not required.  Efforts should be focused on the ability to have no life, sit through massive ppts, write massive ppts, the ability to research to back up said ppts, sifting through and trying to apply policy, and lastly organizing e-mail by daily deleting the "your inbox is full" message.  

I am sure I have forgot many for all soldier types, but that will do for now.

The only thing I see changing, is that people will not have to bullshit about their results anymore.


----------



## Scott

cypres78 said:
			
		

> I just want to make sure everyone understands the proper form to be used on the step test. Sadukar09 correct me if I'm wrong.



You can let it go anytime now, I think he's gotten the point.

Staff


----------



## McG

For those in the office:  http://vcds.mil.ca/cls/dmcs/FilesO/DMCS-69172.pdf


----------



## Pusser

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Better fitness principle: Test every year (Expres).  You require a pass in all of your past three PERs to be eligible for promotion.  No pass this year?  Then it will be at least three years until your file hits the promotion boards.
> 
> 
> ...though if we are to retain the "Two points for exempt" I agree that it should degrade in year 2 to only one point...



The trouble with this approach (as with any black & white or zero tolerance approach) is that there are several reasons one might not be able to pass an Expres Test in a given year that have nothing to do with one's level of fitness.  Whether one has a bad day and slips up or falls to the floor clutching one's chest, the test result is the same - FAIL - come back in three months.  That's ridiculous.  I had one subordinate who had already gotten exempt on the run, but then failed the test completely because he shifted his hand during the push-ups.  Where's the logic in that?   

The current testing regime is a negative, punitive approach, which I believe it counter-intuitive to the goal (i.e. overall fitness).  Instead creating a culture that encourages general fitness and a healthy lifestyle, it creates one where we train to pass the test (e.g. coaching sessions on how to turn on the shuttle run) and ignore everything else.  Why do we run the crap out of people on Basic Training and then stop?

If we had a proper culture of fitness where physical exercises was an integral part of every CF member's life, we wouldn't need a test at all.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Pusser said:
			
		

> The trouble with this approach (as with any black & white or zero tolerance approach) is that there are several reasons one might not be able to pass an Expres Test in a given year that have nothing to do with one's level of fitness.  Whether one has a bad day and slips up or falls to the floor clutching one's chest, the test result is the same - FAIL - come back in three months.  That's ridiculous.  I had one subordinate who had already gotten exempt on the run, but then failed the test completely because he shifted his hand during the push-ups.  Where's the logic in that?
> 
> The current testing regime is a negative, punitive approach, which I believe it counter-intuitive to the goal (i.e. overall fitness).  Instead creating a culture that encourages general fitness and a healthy lifestyle, it creates one where we train to pass the test (e.g. coaching sessions on how to turn on the shuttle run) and ignore everything else.  Why do we run the crap out of people on Basic Training and then stop?
> 
> If we had a proper culture of fitness where physical exercises was an integral part of every CF member's life, we wouldn't need a test at all.




More to the point, tests like our BFT do not mean that you're physically fit for battle. 

For example, I did the BFT last week in 1 hr 46 minutes, including the ridiculously easy 25m drag thing at the end. I'm in the infantry. Do I feel fit enough to tool up and participate in WW3? Nope. Not based on how fit I was when I was last on operations (more years ago than I care to think about these days!).

We need to rename it to something like: "The fitness test that - if you pass - means you're fit enough to start a proper battle fitness training program that will, after about 3 months of daily beastings up and down big hills etc with large packs and toturous gym sessions, mean you're probably ready to cross the LD and not collapse after the first quick attack".

IMHO, in the meantime, we should develop a proper 'battle' firtness test and do the right training required to pass it.


----------



## Jarnhamar

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> More to the point, tests like our BFT do not mean that you're physically fit for battle.
> 
> For example, I did the BFT last week in 1 hr 46 minutes, including the ridiculously easy 25m drag thing at the end. I'm in the infantry. Do I feel fit enough to tool up and participate in WW3? Nope. Not based on how fit I was when I was last on operations (more years ago than I care to think about these days!).
> 
> We need to rename it to something like: "The fitness test that - if you pass - means you're fit enough to start a proper battle fitness training program that will, after about 3 months of daily beastings up and down big hills etc with large packs and toturous gym sessions, mean you're probably ready to cross the LD and not collapse after the first quick attack".
> 
> IMHO, in the meantime, we should develop a proper 'battle' firtness test and do the right training required to pass it.



Out of shape overweight reservists who do not do any PT can pass the BFT. (Not in a 1h46m time mind you, to me that's pretty fast.)
I don't think it's a very good "fitness test" either.

Do you think the regular force gives it's members enough time to devote to proper fitness training? Is there a big enough emphasis on it?

Would we be shooting ourselves in the foot if we brought daily PT down to the section and individual level? An increased the standard?

Should we hold combat arms to a different standard than support trades?  I know soldier first and there are no more "front lines" but should we really hold a 47 year old postal clerk  to the same standard as a 22 year old infanteer?


----------



## Teeps74

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Out of shape overweight reservists who do not do any PT can pass the BFT. (Not in a 1h46m time mind you, to me that's pretty fast.)
> I don't think it's a very good "fitness test" either.
> 
> Do you think the regular force gives it's members enough time to devote to proper fitness training? Is there a big enough emphasis on it?
> 
> Would we be shooting ourselves in the foot if we brought daily PT down to the section and individual level? An increased the standard?
> 
> Should we hold combat arms to a different standard than support trades?  I know soldier first and there are no more "front lines" but should we really hold a 47 year old postal clerk  to the same standard as a 22 year old infanteer?



ROFL

Well, I like the kind of model that holds not only the individual responsible, but also the chain of command.  Should our Pl Comd's, Coy OCs et al be held accountable for the physical fitness of their men, I would suspect there would be a very serious change in our fitness mentality. In this model, there would either be unit PT or time made for individual PT to ensure that PER points are met. More importantly, soldiers would prevent injuries incurred in training and operations...

Yes, infantry should be at a different standard then other trades. Frankly, we are asked to do much much more then the other trades by our trade definition, our TORs. This one standard for all is well... Silly.


ETA: Completion of incomplete thoughts.


----------



## blacktriangle

I honestly PT should be on your own time for everyone, always. Meet up once a week for sports or team building/group activity. Some places do this already but I'd like to see it happen more. Don't make attendance mandatory etc. One year later, fitness test people and kick anyone that fails the hell out! It's PERSONAL fitness for a reason, put the onus on the member. 

CoC should have to give the time, member should have to give the effort...


----------



## Haggis

Spectrum said:
			
		

> CoC should have to give the time, member should have to give the effort...



The CDS Guidance to Commanding Officers (mandatory reading for EVERY CO), para 2203b reads (emphasis mine):

"Seek out every opportunity for CF members to include exercise in their work routines. *The mantras of “fitness on your own time” or “we don’t have time for fitness” are to be eliminated.* Given what we know of the power of daily fitness to increase morale, reduce stress, and improve work performance, it is incumbent upon us to be innovative in our approach when a formal fitness routine is impractical."


----------



## dapaterson

Haggis said:
			
		

> The CDS Guidance to Commanding Officers (mandatory reading for EVERY CO), para 2203b reads (emphasis mine):
> 
> "Seek out every opportunity for CF members to include exercise in their work routines. *The mantras of “fitness on your own time” or “we don’t have time for fitness” are to be eliminated.* Given what we know of the power of daily fitness to increase morale, reduce stress, and improve work performance, it is incumbent upon us to be innovative in our approach when a formal fitness routine is impractical."



That "CDS guidance to COs" has over 2203 paragraphs suggests the CDS needs to take a long, hard look at all the crap and BS that's being force-fed down the throats of our COs.


----------



## PuckChaser

dapaterson said:
			
		

> That "CDS guidance to COs" has over 2203 paragraphs suggests the CDS needs to take a long, hard look at all the crap and BS that's being force-fed down the throats of our COs.



Or is the system creating a culture that require some COs to be given that much guidance so they can do their jobs properly?


----------



## BDTyre

Spectrum said:
			
		

> I honestly PT should be on your own time for everyone, always. Meet up once a week for sports or team building/group activity. Some places do this already but I'd like to see it happen more. Don't make attendance mandatory etc. One year later, fitness test people and kick anyone that fails the hell out! It's PERSONAL fitness for a reason, put the onus on the member.
> 
> CoC should have to give the time, member should have to give the effort...



As a reservist, my regiment varies from training year to training year in terms of PT. I do various PT on my own time, every day of the week and I find it actually is a hinderance to do PT on a parade night. I don't see any benefit in doing an intense half hour workout one night a week when, for many of us, it wrecks our normal work out routine for a day or two afterwards.

In terms of the BFT - this shouldn't be an issue. I managed to pass it after a 3-week vacation in the UK (read: pub food) using a day pack and a ball weight for my load. Does that mean I'd be able to engage in a prolonged firefight? Not neccessarily.


----------



## blacktriangle

The CDS directive is great, but depending where you are, it is either unheard of, or ignored. 

The reserve side is another whole story, but I will say this: If a Class A soldier that parades once a week while balancing his non-military life can find a way to meet PT standards, there should no excuse for those that have chosen to make the CF a full time career. 

As to whether our standards even mean anything... I will leave that to people that know "what it takes" to succeed on operations. But I'd sure like to see everyone make the minimum as a start.  ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> ROFL
> 
> Well, I like the kind of model that holds not only the individual responsible, but also the chain of command.  Should our Pl Comd's, Coy OCs et al be held accountable for the physical fitness of their men, I would suspect there would be a very serious change in our fitness mentality. In this model, there would either be unit PT or time made for individual PT to ensure that PER points are met. More importantly, soldiers would prevent injuries incurred in training and operations...


For sure.  Less people would slip through the cracks. More accountability for MIR commandos and sickies who are medical ass thorns too. 


> Yes, infantry should be at a different standard then other trades. Frankly, we are asked to do much much more then the other trades by our trade definition, our TORs. This one standard for all is well... Silly.
> 
> ETA: Completion of incomplete thoughts.



Medics are out along side the infantry. They need to be on the same level as infantry if you ask me. At least field medics (I'm not sure how their org works for who goes to the field and who doesn't).

With the amount of time Combat arms will be on operations (say out for a week or a month at a time) we all have to have a higher standard since overall fitness will play a large roll when it comes to fatigue.



			
				Spectrum said:
			
		

> I honestly PT should be on your own time for everyone, always. Meet up once a week for sports or team building/group activity. Some places do this already but I'd like to see it happen more. Don't make attendance mandatory etc. One year later, fitness test people and kick anyone that fails the hell out! It's PERSONAL fitness for a reason, put the onus on the member.
> 
> CoC should have to give the time, member should have to give the effort...



Lots of *should's*. I absolutely love PT on my own and it feels like I get 300% gains with it over group PT.  Unfortunately way too many people would blow PT off for that extra hour or hour and a half in the morning.
-they could probably still reach the BFT standard and
-There doesn't seem to be any real repercussion for people who are grossly unfit.   
We can say "kick someone out who doesn't pass" but we know this is the CF and the chances of that happening are pretty slim.



			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> The CDS Guidance to Commanding Officers (mandatory reading for EVERY CO), para 2203b reads (emphasis mine):
> 
> "Seek out every opportunity for CF members to include exercise in their work routines. *The mantras of “fitness on your own time” or “we don’t have time for fitness” are to be eliminated.* Given what we know of the power of daily fitness to increase morale, reduce stress, and improve work performance, it is incumbent upon us to be innovative in our approach when a formal fitness routine is impractical."



It sounds like he is viewing fitness "on your own time" not as someone taking a work out routine and following it for custom fitness goals but in the context of people skipping PT.

The ol class B I worked out at home line.


----------



## aesop081

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> but in the context of people skipping PT.



It was intended as counter to "PT should be done outside normal duty hours as it interferes with unit activities" that you find in some areas of the CF.

Unfortunately, that is sometimes easier said than done, given the type of work being done in some units.


----------



## Haggis

dapaterson said:
			
		

> That "CDS guidance to COs" has over 2203 paragraphs suggests the CDS needs to take a long, hard look at all the crap and BS that's being force-fed down the throats of our COs.



The document is only 76 pages.  I've seen parade instructions with more detail.



			
				Spectrum said:
			
		

> The CDS directive is great, but depending where you are, it is either unheard of, or ignored.



I'd say that it's probably ignored.  It's clearly not unheard of as it is a command prerequisite that all COs, Reg F and P Res, read it and complete a certification that they have done so prior to being appointed as a CO.  (Whether they actually do read it is a different issue, but by completing the certification they can be held accountable for contravening it.)  Within NDHQ, where CF members routinely work for civiilians, it is widely held that this direction does not apply to civilian Directors/DGs as they are not CO's, per se (i.e. they do not have the powers of a CO under the NDA). 



			
				Spectrum said:
			
		

> The reserve side is another whole story, but I will say this: If a Class A soldier that parades once a week while balancing his non-military life can find a way to meet PT standards, there should no excuse for those that have chosen to make the CF a full time career.



The standard is not that high and there are other threads that dissect this in excruciatingly gory detail.  I completed a BFT and scored exempt on my EXPRES test while suffering from what I thought was a "chest cold".  Turned out it was pneumonia.


----------



## Pusser

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> It was intended as counter to "PT should be done outside normal duty hours as it interferes with unit activities" that you find in some areas of the CF.
> 
> Unfortunately, that is sometimes easier said than done, given the type of work being done in some units.



I am not convinced that as an organization, we have done enough in this area.  I think too many parts of the CF have simply looked at their current tasks and their current manpower and said we can't accommodate PT.  Instead, they should have looked into perhaps treating PT as another operational task (which it is) and reduced other tasks accordingly.  The problem is that PT is not high enough on the priority list and is too easily bumped.


----------



## aesop081

Pusser said:
			
		

> I am not convinced that as an organization, we have done enough in this area.  I think too many parts of the CF have simply looked at their current tasks and their current manpower and said we can't accommodate PT.  Instead, they should have looked into perhaps treating PT as another operational task (which it is) and reduced other tasks accordingly.  The problem is that PT is not high enough on the priority list and is too easily bumped.



I pretty much agree. Its just doesn't seem to be an "institutional value".

I don't see tasks ever decreasing, no matter what we are trying to fit in as another task though. Admittedly, some tasks are un-reduceable. I have already seen where troops work 16-hour days (with no way around it). Even the most stoic CO will not be able to make it 17 hours and still give the troops "off" time and that "off" time is, in certain environments, a legal requirement.

Changing the culture and putting the onus on individuals is, IMHO, a more workable solution than blanket direction from on high.


----------

