# Armed Forces Consider incentives to keep soldiers fit



## Bluebulldog

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/armed-forces-considers-incentives-to-keep-soldiers-fit-1.2602857

"Most soldiers are passing new fitness test, but military wants them to strive for higher standards"

Interesting read. Funny how getting the level that gave you a pass for two years was said to be counter-intuitive.


----------



## PMedMoe

> consulting with the director of heritage and history on what medals, coins or pins could be given out.



Oh, yippee.....   :

Edit to add:  Loving all the "in the old days" comments on there.   :warstory:


----------



## horatio749

We were asked this question when I did my FORCE test a month or so ago. 
Pretty sure most of the "incentives" were things like, time off, PDR Points, even money.


----------



## dangerboy

I replied you should get nothing, it is part of your job.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

dangerboy said:
			
		

> I replied you should get nothing, it is part of your job.



 :goodpost:


----------



## DAA

dangerboy said:
			
		

> I replied you should get nothing, it is part of your job.



I guess my vote for "beer mugs" is out the window.......


----------



## PuckChaser

horatio749 said:
			
		

> We were asked this question when I did my FORCE test a month or so ago.
> Pretty sure most of the "incentives" were things like, time off, PDR Points, even money.



Was "not losing your job" one of the options? Because it should be the only one. If you can't be professional enough to stay fit for your job, then you shouldn't be a professional soldier.


----------



## Robert0288

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Was "not losing your job" one of the options? Because it should be the only one. If you can't be professional enough to stay fit for your job, then you shouldn't be a professional soldier.


 :goodpost:  Exactly this.



> "The FORCE evaluation is essentially the* minimum *   standard for the universality of service...."
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/armed-forces-considers-incentives-to-keep-soldiers-fit-1.2602857


----------



## Haggis

Vitriolic..... rant..... building.

Must.....not.... type...... what.... I'm...... thinking.........


Hulk.....very....angry........


----------



## Armymedic

CAF members forget that this is meant to determine the baseline, the minimum standard, of fitness for ALL members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

There should be no additional incentives. 

If people want to show off their fitness level, then let them pursue other means: inter unit sports and other sponsored events or non-CAF events like Tough Mudder or Mud Run. Nothing prevents units from having their own internal fitness competitions with compensation for good performance.


----------



## Ayrsayle

We've been this discussion in the office over the last few weeks.

The reality of the situation is that as long as a solider meets the "minimal" standard, there is very little incentive (outside of personal pride) to reach any other standard.  The FORCE Test will have more successful members, but by and large will decrease the overall levels of fitness within the military.

There is very little (In my opinion, nothing) from a command perspective to motivate soldiers to improve beyond the minimum standard.  Most of the suggestions were along the lines of "Have specific Environment/trade requirements for PT rather then only the FORCE test"  Shiny brass isn't really going to motivate a significant amount of pers above that who are already motivated.


----------



## brihard

Find Cpl Bloggins, and hire him into a sub-branch of the Public Affairs world to be named the "Fitness Assessment Test Appraisal / Stigmatic Shaming" det. All FORCE or other fitness tests will be be filmed and streamed online, with personnel identified by name and unit, with uncensored commentary enabled. One combat arms company at a time will rotate on a monthly basis through being tasked to spend an hour a day watching and commenting on the videos in lieu of staring at lockers. CF members will be required to review any public comments received on their fitness tests on a monthly basis.


----------



## dimsum

Rider Pride said:
			
		

> CAF members forget that this is meant to determine the baseline, the minimum standard, of fitness for ALL members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
> 
> There should be no additional incentives.
> 
> If people want to show off their fitness level, then let them pursue other means: inter unit sports and other sponsored events or non-CAF events like Tough Mudder or Mud Run. Nothing prevents units from having their own internal fitness competitions with compensation for good performance.



Exactly.  

Also, does the CAF sponsor or reimburse big events like triathlons, marathons (not just Army/AF Runs), etc?  Usually a marathon costs about $120-150; having the CAF reimburse members who do it may be an incentive and promote the CAF to the public (if wearing a CAF jersey or similar) at something like the BMO Vancouver Marathon or the Comox Snow to Surf competition.

At least for running events, the ADF will sponsor any marathon provided the member wears an official ADF running shirt.


----------



## George Wallace

It is all about the 'bling'.

Sound familiar?


----------



## dapaterson

Why do we need national direction on something like this?  Why not employ, oh, leadership at the unit level?

Let Commanding Officers come up with incentives that will be meaningful to their own troops.  A day of short?  Recognition within the unit?  First pick of some jammy goes?  All kinds of things a CO can do.


----------



## ballz

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Why do we need national direction on something like this?  Why not employ, oh, leadership at the unit level?
> 
> Let Commanding Officers come up with incentives that will be meaningful to their own troops.  A day of short?  Recognition within the unit?  First pick of some jammy goes?  All kinds of things a CO can do.



You can reward fit people all you want, but from what I've seen the fat lazy folks are more than happy to come to work and sit around and do nothing all day. They won't be motivated by a day off, they won't be motivated by a gucci course because they are too lazy to go on it anyway, and they don't care about recognition from the unit because they are happy to stay as a Cpl or MCpl because the responsibility of being in a leadership role also takes more energy than they are comfortable exerting, so being in a rifle company with a med chit so they can't be forced to do PT is about as jammy a go as they can dream of.

The only way to fix it is to raise the minimum fitness level, as it is the *bottom* of the fitness barrel that needs to be motivated, not the middle or the top. Probably a different "bona fide occupational requirement" ie a better fitness test for certain trades like the infantry where the case can be clearly made that the current standard is not enough. And an easier system for kicking people out...


----------



## dapaterson

ballz said:
			
		

> And an easier system for kicking people out...



DAOD 5019-4.  Follow the steps.


----------



## ballz

Oh, I'm familiar with it ... it is not an easy process though, it can take years and that's why it rarely happens..


----------



## Transporter

ballz said:
			
		

> You can reward fit people all you want, but from what I've seen the fat lazy folks are more than happy to come to work and sit around and do nothing all day. They won't be motivated by a day off, they won't be motivated by a gucci course because they are too lazy to go on it anyway, and they don't care about recognition from the unit because they are happy to stay as a Cpl or MCpl because the responsibility of being in a leadership role also takes more energy than they are comfortable exerting, so being in a rifle company with a med chit so they can't be forced to do PT is about as jammy a go as they can dream of.
> 
> The only way to fix it is to raise the minimum fitness level, as it is the *bottom* of the fitness barrel that needs to be motivated, not the middle or the top. Probably a different "bona fide occupational requirement" ie a better fitness test for certain trades like the infantry where the case can be clearly made that the current standard is not enough. And an easier system for kicking people out...



I understand the point you're trying to make, but I think you're over generalizing just a tad. I know some really fit guys who are dumber than a bag of hammers and are quite content to do the bare minimum within their trade. Conversely, I know some minimum-fitness types who are smarter than the leaders who lead them and take pride in the job they do every day. None are in rifle companies though and I do agree that the minimum fitness level could be raised a notch.


----------



## donaldk

ballz said:
			
		

> Oh, I'm familiar with it ... it is not an easy process though, it can take years and that's why it rarely happens..



Agreed.  I have a couple very well staffed ARs last fall and still await final dispositions from DMCA 2 & DPM Secur 2.


----------



## ballz

Transporter said:
			
		

> I understand the point you're trying to make, but I think you're over generalizing just a tad. I know some really fit guys who are dumber than a bag of hammers and are quite content to do the bare minimum within their trade. Conversely, I know some minimum-fitness types who are smarter than the leaders who lead them and take pride in the job they do every day. None are in rifle companies though and I do agree that the minimum fitness level could be raised a notch.



Sorry, didn't mean to infer that all overweight people are useless or unintelligent or that all fit people are full of initiative. I'm no athlete myself, not afraid to admit it.

Physically fit pers that are not so sharp and content to do the bare minimum usually still go on field ex's, they still do PT, they still conduct maintenance tasks, etc, and if a Sect Comd tells them do something they do it, although sometimes it requires extra supervision from the SNCOs, but that's their job and they can ensure it gets done despite the pain in the a$$. And if still to no avail, the CoC can use remedial measures and generally speaking it works, or the person is it eventually pushed out.

But with physical fitness, they can play the medical system to their advantage and they often do. Between TCATS, med chits, back on TCATs, etc, they often aren't available for field ex's, they can't do the most basic tasks due to their restrictions, they can't do PT testing, etc. It's not an easy nut to crack. Putting them on IC does not usually result in them getting in shape, it results in them getting more med chits. An even tougher thing to deal with when they are a MCpl or Sgt (don't ask me how) and you have to rely on *them* to get their subordinates to complete something.

This stuff is a common problem in my battalion and I don't think we're the only battalion dealing with it, it's as frustrating as anything else I've encountered.


----------



## DAA

ballz said:
			
		

> Sorry, didn't mean to infer that all overweight people are useless or unintelligent or that all fit people are full of initiative. I'm no athlete myself, not afraid to admit it.
> 
> This stuff is a common problem in my battalion and I don't think we're the only battalion dealing with it, it's as frustrating as anything else I've encountered.



Keep in mind, that the FORCE Testing is "universal" and applicable to all CF occupations, nothing more.

The problems that you see are more geared to your employment location/occupation and are to be expected.

Not sure just how the respective environments are going to respond but time will tell.


----------



## ballz

DAA said:
			
		

> Keep in mind, that the FORCE Testing is "universal" and applicable to all CF occupations, nothing more.
> 
> The problems that you see are more geared to your employment location/occupation and are to be expected.
> 
> Not sure just how the respective environments are going to respond but time will tell.



Ack, like I said, an argument needs to be made for a higher level of fitness as a bona fide occupational requirement for certain trades.

For the infantry, our brigade is making the BFT as a part of the IBTS so that you still have to do it, but the BFT has been around for a while and it clearly wasn't accomplishing what I'm am advocating for. A BFT with FFO including frag vest and plates, with a 50 lbs ruck, would be a good start.

EDIT: A cardio component added to the FORCE test wouldn't be a bad idea either.


----------



## dapaterson

It's actually the Army Commander who has directed that the Load Bearing March be introduced into IBTS.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

dapaterson said:
			
		

> It's actually the Army Commander who has directed that the Load Bearing March be introduced into IBTS.



And that will probably be the first thing dropped form IBTS from some Reserve Units....


----------



## dapaterson

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> And that will probably be the first thing dropped form IBTS from some Reserve Units....



Army commander direction for the Reserves on the "Load Bearing March" (LBM) is that it is not required, but recommended (more or less).  It's also not required for the Army HQ and other, non-deployable HQs (such as Div and CADTC).


----------



## McG

Before we go too far down the path of creating yet another thread on why higher minimum standards are required, let's look at the CAF's goal here.  How do we motivate people to go beyond the minimum level of fitness (whatever it may happen to be)?

Education probably has a role.  Are our mess halls providing enough healthy options in comparison to the fatty or sugary options?  Do the IMPs need a Maple desert guaranteed to give instant diabetes?

What more should the CAF do?


----------



## quadrapiper

MCG said:
			
		

> Before we go too far down the path of creating yet another thread on why higher minimum standards are required, let's look at the CAF's goal here.  How do we motivate people to go beyond the minimum level of fitness (whatever it may happen to be)?
> 
> Education probably has a role.  Are our mess halls providing enough healthy options in comparison to the fatty or sugary options?  Do the IMPs need a Maple desert guaranteed to give instant diabetes?
> 
> What more should the CAF do?


Shutting down the deep fat fryer in the messes would be a start: using Nelles as an example, there's plenty of healthy and healthier options available, but you still get chicken strips, fries, and so on served.

As far as the IMPs - are those supposed to be consumed only by personnel doing high-intensity tasks, or would it make sense to reduce the calorie count in the "default" pack and develop a "high intensity" supplementary issue?

As far as motivation, I think more stick is called for: the individual that's always been motivated to ensure they're fit for task will continue to hit the gym, run, and so on regardless of carrots (though giving something at the unit level can't hurt); the slug might shift themselves if there's a real, short-term potential for being released, demoted, fined, or required to conduct onerous remedial training.


----------



## McG

"The stick" exists for those below the minimum standard, and I do not see any sort of rough encouragement coming for those who meet or exceed the standard.  Is fear the only sort of motivation we know to use?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Your own death or worse, the death of someone else because you are a fat knacker: that should be pretty good incentive:

“In the Army, fitness is not just a fad, it is life or death. An unfit, overweight soldier could hinder his comrades out on the ground and risk their lives.”

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/one-five-soldiers-royal-regiment-3152676


----------



## eliminator

Finally?

https://dfit-fgc.kinductdev.com/forceprofile

Word on the street is that Merit points/rewards are expected to be as follows (starting 1 Apr 2017):
a. Bronze (50th percentile): 1 merit
b. Silver (84th percentile): 2 merits & T-shirt
c. Gold (98th percentile): 2 merits & Gym Bag
d. Platinum (top 0.1 % of your age group): 2 merits & uniform Pin


----------



## PuckChaser

Oh goodie a T-shirt.


----------



## MJP

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Oh goodie a T-shirt.



If actually comes with points at the merit boards then the t-shirt is worth it.


----------



## TCBF

- Each occupation has its own medical category. Give each trade its own physical category. Failure to meet specs? No trade advancement. No leadership courses. NO WSE or acting rank. No component transfer.

-Why? Because you can be medically fit, but physically unfit, and vice versa.

- This would be a pers issue, not a med issue. No waivers.


----------



## Pieman

Money talks. Decent yearly bonus pay for people maintaining consistent strong physical performance.


----------



## Halifax Tar

So can you pass all the stations but fail on waist size ?


----------



## CombatMacguyver

eliminator said:
			
		

> d. Platinum (top 0.1 % of your age group): 2 merits & uniform Pin



Really?  For being in the top tenth of a percent you still only get 2 merits?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

And a Uniform Pin: You forgot the Uniform Pin.  [

Personally, I think I would work hard at staying at the gold level: A gym bag is a damn sight more useful than a pin.  :nod:


----------



## McG

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> So can you pass all the stations but fail on waist size ?


Yes.  That is the orange zone on the chart.


----------



## Halifax Tar

MCG said:
			
		

> Yes.  That is the orange zone on the chart.



Interesting.  I know this possibility is making some of my fellow sailors panic a little bit...


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Interesting.  I know this possibility is making some of my fellow sailors panic a little bit...



Really? Then I guess it's working


----------



## Harris

Glad it's a Reg force thing.   [  Merit points mean nothing to a reservist.  The bag would be nice though.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Harris said:
			
		

> Glad it's a Reg force thing.   [  Merit points mean nothing to a reservist.  The bag would be nice though.



Both Air and Naval Reservists are scored both locally and nationally with merit points counting towards promotion.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

So if the guy with a larger waste fails him for that portion but would have scored Gold because despite his size he killed the test will get no points while the guy with a passable waste gets points but only got bronze is a thing?


----------



## McG

That is how the chart works.
However, I have heard that the system will be trialed for a year with only the material rewards before a decision is made on promotion board points.


----------



## dapaterson

There is a new CANFORGEN out soon (if not now) with some details.  As of 01 Apr 2016, PSP will supervise all tests for the Reg F; they take on the Res F as well as of 01 Apr 2017.


----------



## armyvern

Pieman said:
			
		

> Money talks. Decent yearly bonus pay for people maintaining consistent strong physical performance.



Can't see that flying too far as it distinctly disadvantages the technical trades where pers may be fit and surpass the minimum, but will never be at the higher levels of those for whom the gym is a second home during duty hours.  We get our 5 days a week there, but that's at an hour maximum.  Many trades spend many more working hours at the gym than that. If we did same, you'd have nothing to do your jobs with.

Monetary incentives are always good ... as long as you can find the guy who's going to come in and do our tech jobs getting the kit procured, getting the bills paid, keeping the lights on, ordering and dealing with your ammo requirements etc etc while we hit the gym at the same frequency too.


----------



## MJP

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There is a new CANFORGEN out soon (if not now) with some details.  As of 01 Apr 2016, PSP will supervise all tests for the Reg F; they take on the Res F as well as of 01 Apr 2017.



Well Fuck.  It was nice for a while to not be beholden to their level of uselessness.


----------



## PuckChaser

MJP said:
			
		

> Well frig.  It was nice for a while to not be beholden to their level of uselessness.


They were losing a grip on the empire, had to firm it back up.

I had a friend (who is a BFTA) told he wasn't allowed to show another military member how to lift weights safely, and work together on a fitness program because it was considered "personal training", and only PSP could do that.


----------



## CombatMacguyver

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Can't see that flying too far as it distinctly disadvantages the technical trades where pers may be fit and surpass the minimum, but will never be at the higher levels of those for whom the gym is a second home during duty hours.  We get our 5 days a week there, but that's at an hour maximum.  Many trades spend many more working hours at the gym than that. If we did same, you'd have nothing to do your jobs with.
> 
> Monetary incentives are always good ... as long as you can find the guy who's going to come in and do our tech jobs getting the kit procured, getting the bills paid, keeping the lights on, ordering and dealing with your ammo requirements etc etc while we hit the gym at the same frequency too.



THIS!  I loved STARTING my daily workout at 16:15 whilst all the gunners had FINISHED around 13:00 and were long gone.  Their days were (and are) significantly shorter than mine.


----------



## Staff Weenie

I would absolutely love to see how PSP will ensure they cover all of the Reserve units across Canada. I'm in Ottawa, and it's bad enough - we can't get them out on a Saturday to run a FORCE eval for the unit.

We have a couple of Class A members who are trained to run the FORCE eval, but only for potential Recruits, not serving unit members.

Antoher useless Empire is being built by folks that I can replace with a Class A.....


----------



## CBH99

Legitimate question - how are they qualified to run a FORCE test for potential new recruits, but not already sworn members?


----------



## Lumber

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> So can you pass all the stations but fail on waist size ?



I sat through one of the presentation with PSP and there were a lot of questions asked. 

The standard for "Pass/Fail" is still the same. You cannot fail your FORCE test by having a waste that is too big. 

The whole thing is know as the "FORCE Fitness Profile", and it has two components, making up the x and y axis of a graph.

On the Y axis is your Operational Fitness. They could not tell us how the scores are calculated, but each one of the tests is scored out of 100, and your score is also determine by your age group (so a 26 year old getting 35seconds on the rushes will have a different score than a 40 year old with the exact same time). The higher your overall score, the higher on the y-axis you get. As of TODAY, they have determined what the scores for Platinum, Gold, Silver, and Bronze will be. HOWEVER, their intention is that only 50% of the Forces will get Bronze or higher, everyone else will be below that level. SO, if after year one of this system, 65% of the Forces gets Bronze or higher, they will increase the minimum score for Bronze. They will continue to do this each year, and the expectation is that be year 3, roughly half the Forces will get Bronze or higher, and half will not. This does not mean that those below Bronze have "failed", they have simply not achieved any of the incentive levels, and thus get no merit points (or T-Shirts...). 

On the X axis is your Health Related Fitness. This is where the waist circumference comes in. They didn't elaborate much on this. I don't know how it's scored, or if they factor anything else like age, height, weight, body type, etc. All I know is that it basically devides the entire graph into three parts. Half the graph is "Low Health-Realted Fitness", one quarter is "Medium Health-Related Fitness", and the far right 25% is "high-health related fitness". The only one that actualyl matters is the Low section, because if you fall in the low section, you aren't elligble for the incentive levels, no matter how well you actually perform on the FORCE test.

Oh by the way, here's a picture!

EDIT: I found the dfit website has a much better graph...

https://dfit-fgc.kinductdev.com/forceprofile


----------



## Lumber

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Legitimate question - how are they qualified to run a FORCE test for potential new recruits, but not already sworn members?



Legitimate answer:

For new recruits, the only requirement is that they pass the FORCE test.

For others in the forces (LS/Lt(N) and above), there are merit points at stake. Ergo, they want unbiased, qualified people supervising the test.

FORCE evaluators will still be on hand to help administer the test, but they will be overseen by PSP.

Did I mention they are also going to be using tablets to keep track of scores?


----------



## dapaterson

If the CoC can not be trusted to run fitness tests then the institution failed in selecting them as leaders.


----------



## Lumber

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If the CoC can not be trusted to run fitness tests then the institution failed in selecting them as leaders.



You don't think there a few people out there who would write down a score 2 seconds less than the actual score knowing it would give their buddy who just did the sand bag drag an extra merit point on his PER?


----------



## MJP

Lumber said:
			
		

> You don't think there a few people out there who wouldn't write down a score 2 seconds less than the actual score knowing it would give their buddy who just did the sand bag drag an extra merit point on his PER?



My PER counts for a bunch of merit points and I trust my CoC to do it properly, same standard should be for PT test.  PSP is a friction point not an enabler.


----------



## dapaterson

Again, a leadership issue,  not solved with overpaid gym rats.  If the CoC can write PERs, which have a much greater career impact, why can't they evaluate fitness as well?


----------



## Harris

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> I would absolutely love to see how PSP will ensure they cover all of the Reserve units across Canada. I'm in Ottawa, and it's bad enough - we can't get them out on a Saturday to run a FORCE eval for the unit.
> 
> We have a couple of Class A members who are trained to run the FORCE eval, but only for potential Recruits, not serving unit members.
> 
> Antoher useless Empire is being built by folks that I can replace with a Class A.....



Interesting.  I wonder who ordered that?  I just did mine today with my Unit Qual guy (one of three).  They do everyone in the Unit and for many other pers on Camp as well.  No PSP in sight.


----------



## Harris

Lumber said:
			
		

> You don't think there a few people out there who would write down a score 2 seconds less than the actual score knowing it would give their buddy who just did the sand bag drag an extra merit point on his PER?



And PSP is exempt from this?  Oh I get it, they have no friends.   [Xp


----------



## George Wallace

Harris said:
			
		

> And PSP is exempt from this?  Oh I get it, they have no friends.   [Xp


 [
You beat me to it.


----------



## Lumber

Harris said:
			
		

> Interesting.  I wonder who ordered that?  I just did mine today with my Unit Qual guy (one of three).  They do everyone in the Unit and for many other pers on Camp as well.  No PSP in sight.



Apparently it was the Armed Forces Council who decreed that PSP SHALL be present for ALL FORCE test.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Again, a leadership issue,  not solved with overpaid gym rats.  If the CoC can write PERs, which have a much greater career impact, why can't they evaluate fitness as well?





			
				MJP said:
			
		

> My PER counts for a bunch of merit points and I trust my CoC to do it properly, same standard should be for PT test.  PSP is a friction point not an enabler.



After some introspection, I would like to retract and clarify. The PSP could not tell us WHY the council wanted them at every test. The whole merit thing is just the best reasoning those of us in attendance could come up with at the time.

Please do not take that reasoning, and my statement, as fact.

Thanks.


----------



## armyvern

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There is a new CANFORGEN out soon (if not now) with some details.  As of 01 Apr 2016, PSP will supervise all tests for the Reg F; they take on the Res F as well as of 01 Apr 2017.



Don't see the CANFORGEN on the website yet, but I just recd it into my inbox.

Stay tuned for it at this link -  http://vcds.mil.ca/vcds-exec/pubs/default-eng.asp?year=2016&type=active

Interesting to note that Para 5 contains the following statement:  

UNCLAS CANFORGEN 052/16 CMP 031/16



> ALL TESTING FOR THE REGULAR FORCE WILL BE LED
> BY PSP FITNESS PERSONNEL  AND SUPPORTED BY UNIT FITNESS EVALUATORS.
> ALL FITNESS EVALUATORS WILL NEED TO REQUALIFY BY 30 JUNE 2016.  THE
> FITNESS PROFILE WILL BE IMPLEMENTED FOR THE RESERVE FORCE ON 01
> APRIL 2017, UNTIL WHICH TIME RESERVE FORCE PERSONNEL WILL CONTINUE
> TO PERFORM THE FORCE EVALUATION AS PER THE FORCE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL
> MANUAL



Underlining is mine ref "Regular Force and PSP tested".


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Lumber said:
			
		

> Legitimate answer:
> 
> For new recruits, the only requirement is that they pass the FORCE test.
> 
> For others in the forces (LS/Lt(N) and above), there are merit points at stake. Ergo, they want unbiased, qualified people supervising the test.
> 
> FORCE evaluators will still be on hand to help administer the test, but they will be overseen by PSP.
> 
> Did I mention they are also going to be using tablets to keep track of scores?



IF we can't trust NCO and Officers to administer a simple goddamn PT test, why are we sending them to do the business with ships, planes, tanks and explosives??

 :facepalm:    FMS


----------



## McG

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Can't see that flying too far as it distinctly disadvantages the technical trades where pers may be fit and surpass the minimum, but will never be at the higher levels of those for whom the gym is a second home during duty hours.


The disadvantage will be there when it comes to PER points.  Pers in those trades will not be scored against peers, but against infantrymen of the same age and gender.  And that infantry private who joined at 45?  He is competing for PER points not against his peers but against the brigade superintendent clerk.

We will have successfully taken a system that was scientifically designed to be a defensible requirement in court, and we will have transformed it to a system that again hands out career benefits on a discrimination of age and gender.


----------



## PuckChaser

Has anyone ever seen anyone finish the shuttle run in 28 seconds? That's what you need, according to the website, for 100/100. I would assume you'd need to be a NFL defensive back to make that time...


----------



## Ostrozac

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Has anyone ever seen anyone finish the shuttle run in 28 seconds? That's what you need, according to the website, for 100/100. I would assume you'd need to be a NFL defensive back to make that time...



Well, the top category (Platinum) is supposedly for the top 0.1%. That's what, about 60 Reg Force personnel? So you're not just looking for CISM Athlete and Assaulter levels of fitness -- you're looking for the top end of CISM Athletes and Assaulters.


----------



## BinRat55

Think i'll just slap the old 1990's Warrior pin on and be done with it! I was much more fit back then anyway!! Never got a gym bag, but crap-tons of blipsters!


----------



## armyvern

MCG said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> We will have successfully taken a system that was scientifically designed to be a defensible requirement in court, and we will have transformed it to a system that again hands out career benefits on a discrimination of age and gender.



Absolutely agreed.  Which just reinforces why it will never see a "financial benefit" side to it.  Lawsuits galore just like the BMI days.


----------



## c_canuk

I don't get the point of setting a minimum standard based on job requirements, then getting mad that too many people pass it. 

Wouldn't that be the point? to determine that the people you have can do the job?

If the minimum standard doesn't meet that, then raise the minimum standard until it does.

I've got enough on my plate that my 45-60 min of pt is all I have time for. 

1- morning prep/breakfast
.5 - commute
1-morning catch up
2.5 - action items 
1 - PD while eating lunch
2 - action items
1 - filing
1 - prep for next day/follow up
.5 commute
1 supper
2 time with my kids
1 French lessons
1 PT and shower
2 time with my wife
6.5 sleep

Weekends we go on hikes.

I'm glad some of you have jobs that don't require as much time as mine, but I find it unreasonable that people, who get to live at the gym in the afternoon, are stacking PT requirements against the rest of us who provide support to, or are the people actually doing the day to day work.

If we all take an extra hour to increase the standard, that's an hour less to devote to the job or our families. 

I'm working on my waistline, but I've always had a gut. I've always passed every PT requirement provided to me with room to spare.

As long as I meet the PT requirements, am competent in my work, and am medically fit, why does anyone care that I have love handles?

If we want to beef up standards, why not spend more resources on the range? How many people barely pass the PWT 1? There is an area that should really be focused on that has actual applications on the pointy end.


UPDATE:

Ran my last test numbers through the site with my current waist size, I'm a solid silver apparently... out of curiosity I kept upping the waist size to see what a fail was... 121 cm to get into fit but marginal health, and 200cm ( ) to get to drop out of silver into low health.

I assume that will get updated, I'm working on my waist and I'm no where near 121...


----------



## The Bread Guy

Dilbert (with only the slightest editing) rules!


----------



## daftandbarmy

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I don't get the point of setting a minimum standard based on job requirements, then getting mad that too many people pass it.
> 
> Wouldn't that be the point? to determine that the people you have can do the job?
> 
> If the minimum standard doesn't meet that, then raise the minimum standard until it does.
> 
> I've got enough on my plate that my 45-60 min of pt is all I have time for.
> 
> 1- morning prep/breakfast
> .5 - commute
> 1-morning catch up
> 2.5 - action items
> 1 - PD while eating lunch
> 2 - action items
> 1 - filing
> 1 - prep for next day/follow up
> .5 commute
> 1 supper
> 2 time with my kids
> 1 French lessons
> 1 PT and shower
> 2 time with my wife
> 6.5 sleep
> 
> Weekends we go on hikes.
> 
> I'm glad some of you have jobs that don't require as much time as mine, but I find it unreasonable that people, who get to live at the gym in the afternoon, are stacking PT requirements against the rest of us who provide support to, or are the people actually doing the day to day work.
> 
> If we all take an extra hour to increase the standard, that's an hour less to devote to the job or our families.
> 
> I'm working on my waistline, but I've always had a gut. I've always passed every PT requirement provided to me with room to spare.
> 
> As long as I meet the PT requirements, am competent in my work, and am medically fit, why does anyone care that I have love handles?
> 
> If we want to beef up standards, why not spend more resources on the range? How many people barely pass the PWT 1? There is an area that should really be focused on that has actual applications on the pointy end.
> 
> 
> UPDATE:
> 
> Ran my last test numbers through the site with my current waist size, I'm a solid silver apparently... out of curiosity I kept upping the waist size to see what a fail was... 121 cm to get into fit but marginal health, and 200cm ( ) to get to drop out of silver into low health.
> 
> I assume that will get updated, I'm working on my waist and I'm no where near 121...



You could have burned off 50 push ups in the time it took to type this note up


----------



## cld617

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Has anyone ever seen anyone finish the shuttle run in 28 seconds? That's what you need, according to the website, for 100/100. I would assume you'd need to be a NFL defensive back to make that time...



We have members at my unit who run <30sec rushes, <10sec drags, <40 second sandbag lifts. 

Platinum most certainly is not going to obtainable by only 60 members in the forces. I suspect the number to be more like a dozen or so per reasonably sized base, more at the larger army bases and areas with high concentrations of CISM athletes. As someone 3 points from platinum as of my last test if that calculator is to be considered accurate, it's really not as lofty of a goal for young fit pers as one might think. I for one am glad to see a system which rewards hard work, this coming from one of those tech trade members who supposedly isn't gifted with enough time to visit the gym to be competitive.  :

I also suspect any sort of incentive of PER points will not be decided on a mbrs position of platinum over gold. If you reach incentive levels, you'll likely be treated similar to anyone else in the incentive program.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> IF we can't trust NCO and Officers to administer a simple goddamn PT test, why are we sending them to do the business with ships, planes, tanks and explosives??
> 
> :facepalm:    FMS



The head of the PSP, a retired armour general (can't recall his name) briefed us on this in Shilo last year. He made it seem like he had personally driven the initiative, so this would appear to be a classic case of empire building.... what would we need the PSP for if we could just do it ourselves? The horror!


----------



## BinRat55

cld617 said:
			
		

> We have members at my unit who run <30sec rushes, <10sec drags, <40 second sandbag lifts.
> 
> Platinum most certainly is not going to obtainable by only 60 members in the forces. I suspect the number to be more like a dozen or so per reasonably sized base, more at the larger army bases and areas with high concentrations of CISM athletes. As someone 3 points from platinum as of my last test  if that calculator is to be considered accurate, it's really not as lofty of a goal for young fit pers as one might think. I for one am glad to see a system which rewards hard work, this coming from one of those tech trade members who supposedly isn't gifted with enough time to visit the gym to be competitive.  :
> 
> I also suspect any sort of incentive of PER points will not be decided on a mbrs position of platinum over gold. If you reach incentive levels, you'll likely be treated similar to anyone else in the incentive program.



Lol... Wow! What do you do with the "S" on your chest when you're NOT saving lives? I have to agree with Puck on this one! And you my friend, have absolutely ZERO right to toss that kind of insult to him...


----------



## Halifax Tar

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I don't get the point of setting a minimum standard based on job requirements, then getting mad that too many people pass it.
> 
> Wouldn't that be the point? to determine that the people you have can do the job?
> 
> If the minimum standard doesn't meet that, then raise the minimum standard until it does.
> 
> I've got enough on my plate that my 45-60 min of pt is all I have time for.
> 
> 1- morning prep/breakfast
> .5 - commute
> 1-morning catch up
> 2.5 - action items
> 1 - PD while eating lunch
> 2 - action items
> 1 - filing
> 1 - prep for next day/follow up
> .5 commute
> 1 supper
> 2 time with my kids
> 1 French lessons
> 1 PT and shower
> 2 time with my wife
> 6.5 sleep
> 
> Weekends we go on hikes.
> 
> I'm glad some of you have jobs that don't require as much time as mine, but I find it unreasonable that people, who get to live at the gym in the afternoon, are stacking PT requirements against the rest of us who provide support to, or are the people actually doing the day to day work.
> 
> If we all take an extra hour to increase the standard, that's an hour less to devote to the job or our families.
> 
> I'm working on my waistline, but I've always had a gut. I've always passed every PT requirement provided to me with room to spare.
> 
> As long as I meet the PT requirements, am competent in my work, and am medically fit, why does anyone care that I have love handles?
> 
> If we want to beef up standards, why not spend more resources on the range? How many people barely pass the PWT 1? There is an area that should really be focused on that has actual applications on the pointy end.
> 
> 
> UPDATE:
> 
> Ran my last test numbers through the site with my current waist size, I'm a solid silver apparently... out of curiosity I kept upping the waist size to see what a fail was... 121 cm to get into fit but marginal health, and 200cm ( ) to get to drop out of silver into low health.
> 
> I assume that will get updated, I'm working on my waist and I'm no where near 121...



Becuase it isnt really about your fitness its about how you look in a tunic.  The waist line measuring just proves that.


----------



## dapaterson

There is actually research that demonstrates that waist measurement is an excellent proxy for certain types of health.  I'll slag folks for sily things, but there actually is some merit to this.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Lumber said:
			
		

> HOWEVER, their intention is that only 50% of the Forces will get Bronze or higher, everyone else will be below that level. SO, if after year one of this system, 65% of the Forces gets Bronze or higher, they will increase the minimum score for Bronze. They will continue to do this each year, and the expectation is that be year 3, roughly half the Forces will get Bronze or higher, and half will not. This does not mean that those below Bronze have "failed", they have simply not achieved any of the incentive levels, and thus get no merit points (or T-Shirts...).



I can't see for the life of me what exactly the point of this is.  Why why WHY is the CAF full of this type of BS and ever-changing rank and all that crap lately?  



> On the X axis is your Health Related Fitness. This is where the waist circumference comes in. They didn't elaborate much on this. I don't know how it's scored, or if they factor anything else like age, height, weight, body type, etc. All I know is that it basically devides the entire graph into three parts. Half the graph is "Low Health-Realted Fitness", one quarter is "Medium Health-Related Fitness", and the far right 25% is "high-health related fitness". The only one that actualyl matters is the Low section, because if you fall in the low section, you aren't elligble for the incentive levels, no matter how well you actually perform on the FORCE test.



Quasi-BMI?  BMI itself and alone is not a great tool, however it is still used as part of an overall fitness assessment tool for aircrew at least.  We do BMI every year along with 2 or 3 other factors for flying fitness.  Not sure of the details, maybe a Med type can explain but I believe the overall assessment is for Metabolic Syndrome X.   :dunno:

Waist circumference alone is not necessarily a great overall tool, but can be a good indicator of fitness (not the ability to pass the FORCE test; the 2 are not related IMO).  IMO the only people who are going to complain about the waist circumference are the same ones who complain about mandatory unit PT, and don't do personal PT.   :2c:


----------



## Halifax Tar

No doubt.  And smoking causes cancer.  But if you meet the required standard, i.e. the FORCE test, then why take a waist measurement ?  

I have been a rugby player for 25 years now.  I know some very large men who can move around a rugby pitch for 80 minutes, at pace, driving in scrums, rucks, tackling, being tackled, whose waist line is no indication of what they are capable of and regularly preform physically or fitness wise.  Hell I am one of them. 

And I would put the fitness required for Rugby up against any sport out there and head and shoulders above what the CAF teaches and provides.


----------



## cld617

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Lol... Wow! What do you do with the "S" on your chest when you're NOT saving lives? I have to agree with Puck on this one! And you my friend, have absolutely ZERO right to toss that kind of insult to him...



Sensitive much? That was not a commented directed towards him, simply a lack of desire to multiquote. It was directed at the posters who've used their position as a support trade to argue this gives some sort of advantage to combat arms.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> No doubt.  And smoking causes cancer.  But if you meet the required standard, i.e. the FORCE test, then why take a waist measurement ?
> 
> I have been a rugby player for 25 years now.  I know some very large men who can move around a rugby pitch for 80 minutes, at pace, driving in scrums, rucks, tackling, being tackled, whose waist line is no indication of what they are capable of and regularly preform physically or fitness wise.  Hell I am one of them.
> 
> And I would put the fitness required for Rugby up against any sport out there and head and shoulders above what the CAF teaches and provides.



IMO, there is not necessarily a direct correlation between (1) a members' ability to do things like rugby, or the FORCE test, EXPRES test, BFT, 2 x 10s etc and (2) the members actual 'medical fitness'  state.

I've known at least one army type who was EXTREMELY overweight but who passed the BFT every year.  There was NO way he was medically fit though.  Not everyone who can pass the FORCE test is "fit", let's face it.  

Is this waist measurement the best tool?  Hell no.  It is one that can be done to everyone, though, by some PSP staffer and entered on a piece of paper.  Fact of the matter is, on average, fit people (in the medical and PT sense) do not have extremely large waists.  So, this is a XX % tool used to get to that "no more than 50% shall be bronze!" bs or something.


----------



## armyvern

cld617 said:
			
		

> I for one am glad to see a system which rewards hard work, this coming from one of those tech trade members who supposedly isn't gifted with enough time to visit the gym to be competitive.  :



You know what? I work hard too; only some of that occurs at the gym.

Come one over and clear up our end-FY contracts and LPOs for us red trade people, get all the other major EX prep shit done, the reports written, Material Attestations done, Material Accountability Reports done, link up on my behalf with the Auditor General's folks who are here today, etc etc and I'll be more than happy to take your spot in the gym.   :

"Gifted" my butt.  Hard work is rewarded, but hard work doesn't happen only in the gym.  Some of us work hard every day paying the bills etc just to keep those lights on in the gym.

I've been married to 2 X Combat Arms guys now and I can assure you that they were afforded many more hours at the gym than I or my co-horts are by virtue of the fact they weren't required to work hard at desks for the same number of hours that I am to do their primary jobs.


----------



## armyvern

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I can't see for the life of me what exactly the point of this is.  Why why WHY is the CAF full of this type of BS and ever-changing rank and all that crap lately?



Because the troops want bling.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> No doubt.  And smoking causes cancer.  But if you meet the required standard, i.e. the FORCE test, then why take a waist measurement ?
> 
> I have been a rugby player for 25 years now.  I know some very large men who can move around a rugby pitch for 80 minutes, at pace, driving in scrums, rucks, tackling, being tackled, whose waist line is no indication of what they are capable of and regularly preform physically or fitness wise.  Hell I am one of them.
> 
> And I would put the fitness required for Rugby up against any sport out there and head and shoulders above what the CAF teaches and provides.



This.... times 100


----------



## BinRat55

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You know what? I work hard too; only some of that occurs at the gym.
> 
> Come one over and clear up our end-FY contracts and LPOs for us red trade people, get all the other major EX prep crap done, the reports written, Material Attestations done, Material Accountability Reports done, link up on my behalf with the Auditor General's folks who are here today, etc etc and I'll be more than happy to take your spot in the gym.   :
> 
> "Gifted" my butt.  Hard work is rewarded, but hard work doesn't happen only in the gym.  Some of us work hard every day paying the bills etc just to keep those lights on in the gym.
> 
> I've been married to 2 X Combat Arms guys now and I can assure you that they were afforded many more hours at the gym than I or my co-horts are by virtue of the fact they weren't required to work hard at desks for the same number of hours that I am to do their primary jobs.



 :goodpost:


----------



## ballz

MCG said:
			
		

> The disadvantage will be there when it comes to PER points.  Pers in those trades will not be scored against peers, but against infantrymen of the same age and gender.  And that infantry private who joined at 45?  He is competing for PER points not against his peers but against the brigade superintendent clerk.
> 
> We will have successfully taken a system that was scientifically designed to be a defensible requirement in court, and we will have transformed it to a system that again hands out career benefits on a discrimination of age and gender.



I dunno how other trades work, but in the infantry you are only ranked against other infantrymen until you are a MWO. So no 45 year old Corporals (Privates not receiving PERs and all) will be ranked against clerks, they will be ranked against other infanteers. And for us, at least, if your age is affecting your physical fitness, it is also affecting your performance, so there is merit in having a physically fit person get extra merit points. But, I agree that not all trades should value physical fitness the same.

I suspect they will account for gender. If the 50th percentile gets you bronze, it will probably be the 50th percentile of your gender. Although they may not have to considering the FORCE test was designed based on BFORs.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> There is actually research that demonstrates that waist measurement is an excellent proxy for certain types of health.  I'll slag folks for sily things, but there actually is some merit to this.



A much better measurement for indicating health risks is the hip:waist ratio. This would take about an extra 2 seconds to measure and the merit behind it would multiply.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> IMO the only people who are going to complain about the waist circumference are the same ones who complain about mandatory unit PT, and don't do personal PT.   :2c:



As I said above, a hip:waist ratio is a much better figure. It considers the overall body type (if you have a thick pelvis, that is body type related, not fitness related).

I swim at 6:15am on Mondays and Wednesdays, and started our unit's martial arts club in which I participate in twice a week. This in addition to morning PT 4-5 times a week. I also compete in triathlons in the summer time, aiming for 3 this season (or two and 1x half-marathon). I don't know what waist measurement puts you into the orange category, but I will likely be one of the ones complaining about the waist measurement since my scores will almost certainly be high enough for at least a bronze if not silver. Make it hip:waist ratio, and I wouldn't complain as it takes into account that I am more wide than tall.


----------



## Lumber

I was just playing around with dfit calculator and noticed something interesting.

I put in the lowest score (highest times) you can get for each of the 4 tests. 
At my age (29), if my waist is 117cm I pass, but my "star" is right on the pass/fail line. If I Increase my waist to 118cm, I fail. 

What is interesting is that, keeping all other values constant, if I change my age, it increases my health-related fitness.

So, a 55 year old with those same times can have a 147cm waist and still be consdiered "health-realtedly fit", but a 29 year old with a 118cm waist is "health-relatedly unfit."

I guess they factored in the extra weight that comes with the promotion to PO2... >


----------



## donaldk

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You know what? I work hard too; only some of that occurs at the gym.
> 
> Come one over and clear up our end-FY contracts and LPOs for us red trade people, get all the other major EX prep crap done, the reports written, Material Attestations done, Material Accountability Reports done, link up on my behalf with the Auditor General's folks who are here today, etc etc and I'll be more than happy to take your spot in the gym.   :
> 
> "Gifted" my butt.  Hard work is rewarded, but hard work doesn't happen only in the gym.  Some of us work hard every day paying the bills etc just to keep those lights on in the gym.
> 
> I've been married to 2 X Combat Arms guys now and I can assure you that they were afforded many more hours at the gym than I or my co-horts are by virtue of the fact they weren't required to work hard at desks for the same number of hours that I am to do their primary jobs.



Hope all went well with the OAG folks on your end, got them teed up first thing at one of my contractor's warehouses tomorrow (not the contractor thought that I would greatly desire for OAG to rip an a--hole wide open).  After that I will be overseeing the comedy-fest of Lockheed Martin loading flatbeds at MATTs (finding palettes apparently is rocket science and Christmas tree tags are out of season)... thankfully over to BLOG to deal with the receipt of that mess :blotto:  Well I'll get some walking/climbing in for morning PT at the warehouse and maybe some weightlifting at the MATTs offload  :camo:.


----------



## cld617

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You know what? I work hard too; only some of that occurs at the gym.
> 
> Come one over and clear up our end-FY contracts and LPOs for us red trade people, get all the other major EX prep crap done, the reports written, Material Attestations done, Material Accountability Reports done, link up on my behalf with the Auditor General's folks who are here today, etc etc and I'll be more than happy to take your spot in the gym.   :
> 
> "Gifted" my butt.  Hard work is rewarded, but hard work doesn't happen only in the gym.  Some of us work hard every day paying the bills etc just to keep those lights on in the gym.
> 
> I've been married to 2 X Combat Arms guys now and I can assure you that they were afforded many more hours at the gym than I or my co-horts are by virtue of the fact they weren't required to work hard at desks for the same number of hours that I am to do their primary jobs.



Your job includes physical fitness, please refer to chapter 22 of the CDS's guidance to Commanding Officers if you disagree with me. I also have trade related duties which must be completed during work hours, they most certainly do not afford me daily PT. Therefore I make up the difference on my own time, as anyone else should if they fall short of the recommended 5x a week (again, from the CDS). 

No one is taking your birthday away if you chose to go home at the end of the day and not to the gym. Also, no one has come out with directives on which incentive level is required for whatever the chosen incentive will turn out to be. Currently the requirements for obtaining a bronze incentive level are not high at all. Failing to meet this level is indicative of someone who isn't putting in any sort of extra effort.


----------



## McG

ballz said:
			
		

> I dunno how other trades work, but in the infantry you are only ranked against other infantrymen until you are a MWO. So no 45 year old Corporals (Privates not receiving PERs and all) will be ranked against clerks, they will be ranked against other infanteers. And for us, at least, if your age is affecting your physical fitness, it is also affecting your performance, so there is merit in having a physically fit person get extra merit points. But, I agree that not all trades should value physical fitness the same.


That is not how this is going to work where points are awarded by age and gender.  The infantry promotion board will still only look at infantrymen.  However, the board will not see details of fitness test results - it will only see who is awarded points.  In that system, the 45 year old corporal who joined late and was blown away by all his peers at the test may still get fitness points because he is not being compared to his peers for those points.  Instead, he is compared to the 45 year old CSM, the 47 year old Bde Sup Clk, and many others who are neither his rank nor occupation.


----------



## George Wallace

cld617 said:
			
		

> Your job includes physical fitness, please refer to chapter 22 of the CDS's guidance to Commanding Officers if you disagree with me. .........



Oh YES!  This should be good.    op:


----------



## ballz

MCG said:
			
		

> That is not how this is going to work where points are awarded by age and gender.  The infantry promotion board will still only look at infantrymen.  However, the board will not see details of fitness test results - it will only see who is awarded points.  In that system, the 45 year old corporal who joined late and was blown away by all his peers at the test may still get fitness points because he is not being compared to his peers for those points.  Instead, he is compared to the 45 year old CSM, the 47 year old Bde Sup Clk, and many others who are neither his rank nor occupation.



I'm not sure I'm following your concern. Are you saying everyone is going to be scored IAW their age and gender?

So a 45 year old is going have an easier standard than a 25 year old, therefore a 25 year old who is actually more fit may not receive merit points when the less fit 45 year does (because he ranks higher in his age category)?

Or, another example, that females will rank amongst other females, so the female infanteer is going to more merit points than the male infanteer, even though he is substantially fitter than she is, but she ranks higher within her gender?

Are points being awarded by age / gender? I was thinking that the FORCE test, given its "universal standard" that they would be scoring based upon the total pool of CAF members, not within age / gender categories.


EDIT: Oh boy.... I just played around with it and I see your concern. Wowzers, this is a bigger boondoggle than our boots...


----------



## OldSolduer

Here's a strategy that might work:

"Pass your PT tests or you're out."

Ok I'm just being an a$$ now....


----------



## Lumber

ballz said:
			
		

> Are points being awarded by age / gender? I was thinking that the FORCE test, given its "universal standard" that they would be scoring based upon the total pool of CAF members, not within age / gender categories.



Age AND gender.


----------



## George Wallace

ballz said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I'm following your concern. Are you saying everyone is going to be scored IAW their age and gender?
> 
> So a 45 year old is going have an easier standard than a 25 year old, therefore a 25 year old who is actually more fit may not receive merit points when the less fit 45 year does (because he ranks higher in his age category)?
> 
> Or, another example, that females will rank amongst other females, so the female infanteer is going to more merit points than the male infanteer, even though he is substantially fitter than she is, but she ranks higher within her gender?



Deja vu......What is old is new again.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

So..... That one standard PT test thing went well for a while. So did someone book the gravel pits for after the BFT? I'm just curious..


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

ballz said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I'm following your concern. Are you saying everyone is going to be scored IAW their age and gender?
> 
> So a 45 year old is going have an easier standard than a 25 year old, therefore a 25 year old who is actually more fit may not receive merit points when the less fit 45 year does (because he ranks higher in his age category)?
> 
> Or, another example, that females will rank amongst other females, so the female infanteer is going to more merit points than the male infanteer, even though he is substantially fitter than she is, but she ranks higher within her gender?
> 
> Are points being awarded by age / gender? I was thinking that the FORCE test, given its "universal standard" that they would be scoring based upon the total pool of CAF members, not within age / gender categories.
> 
> 
> EDIT: Oh boy.... I just played around with it and I see your concern. Wowzers, this is a bigger boondoggle than our boots...



I agree... they took a system that was designed to be a single standard and have managed to turn it back into the old beep test complete with levels and different standards. If they wanted to have a "contest" so that people could wear fun patches and your boss could get a flag (The future 3 Div prize for top unit) than ok, if we must, but attaching merit points to it when there's clear double standards is BS.

Now it's time to bring the staff officer patch back! And a masters degree patch! If our DEU's don't let everyone know every single thing we've done by the end of FY 18 than we've failed as an organization.


----------



## MJP

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> , but attaching merit points to it when there's clear double standards is BS.
> 
> Now it's time to bring the staff officer patch back! And a masters degree patch! If our DEU's don't let everyone know every single thing we've done by the end of FY 18 than we've failed as an organization.



The age sex thing is BS,  should be a pretty clear you achieve this standard and you get 1 point, you get a higher standard you get 2.  If only we did something similar like I don't know how we treat french profiles.


----------



## SupersonicMax

MJP said:
			
		

> The age sex thing is BS,  should be a pretty clear you achieve this standard and you get 1 point, you get a higher standard you get 2.  If only we did something similar like I don't know how we treat french second language profiles.



Off Topic:  FTFY!

On Topic:  I can't believe we went from a gender/age dependent system to a gender/age neutral system back to a gender/age dependent system.  Granted, it's only for points on a board but still creates some inequalities.

Set a standard.  If you don't achieve it, you get kicked out (after, of course, a period remedial training and unsuccessful re-attempts).  If you pass, you get to keep your job.  Let Commanders decide of incentives for their airmen(airwomen)/soldiers/sailors.  It seems we remove more and more responsibilities from those in charge and try to get one size-fit all solutions to everything....  Not exactly the most efficient and effective way to do business....


----------



## daftandbarmy

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Off Topic:  FTFY!
> 
> On Topic:  I can't believe we went from a gender/age dependent system to a gender/age neutral system back to a gender/age dependent system.  Granted, it's only for points on a board but still creates some inequalities.
> 
> Set a standard.  If you don't achieve it, you get kicked out (after, of course, a period remedial training and unsuccessful re-attempts).  If you pass, you get to keep your job.  Let Commanders decide of incentives for their airmen(airwomen)/soldiers/sailors.  It seems we remove more and more responsibilities from those in charge and try to get one size-fit all solutions to everything....  Not exactly the most efficient and effective way to do business....



The problem with that approach is, of course, that (with a few exceptions) the CAF would be left leaderless from the rank of about LCol/ MWO upwards within about 6 months.

Then again, maybe that's not a problem


----------



## MJP

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Off Topic:  FTFY!



Good Catch



			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Set a standard.  If you don't achieve it, you get kicked out (after, of course, a period remedial training and unsuccessful re-attempts).  If you pass, you get to keep your job.  Let Commanders decide of incentives for their airmen(airwomen)/soldiers/sailors.  It seems we remove more and more responsibilities from those in charge and try to get one size-fit all solutions to everything....  Not exactly the most efficient and effective way to do business....



Imagine if we had promotion scrits for each trade and some formalized group of senior leadership from that trade too set those scrits yearly.   Then those same(ish) people sat down and assessed people in that trade against that scrit within some kind of over-arching guidelines.  Craziness!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

*EVERYONE LISTEN UP!

Yes we have super ninja's and we have sloths.  Lets keep this thread factual and not full of either self-bragging or insulting other trades.
Thank you,
Bruce
army.ca staff*


----------



## OldCrow937

Hi all ! Nobody special here just another Operator... and two shiny penny's about to get rubbed together so here go's !

I was involved in the initial testing and trials for the FORCE testing phase #2 , which included 3 weeks of testing in Halifax.

I am in trade that is geared towards higher intellect then muscle mass... but motivated to stay fit I had worked hard to complete a ships diver course and make a great excuse to have to keep running and lifting in between learning new fire control radar parametric's!
The year previous to the FORCE being introduced I had been "exempt" from doing an Express test , I always viewed this as my free pass skipping a yearly test based on my personal motivation to be above the minimum standard for physical fitness, but I had seen quite a few other trades being restricted on how much gym time or PT time they could get during working hours vs my own sections... 

Which leads me to think that having +2 points on your PER is not really a great thing for having achieved a higher physical test score, considering the clerks on board during our refit were never allowed off the boat and would have to do all training outside of regular hours vs the combat section whom didn't have any gear to use on board having hours to play floor hockey and lift mad weight.

The fact is the forces has a minimum standard and I think its great they want to encourage members to achieve "more" I know that from a unit level our CO had gave 1 day off to the top 10 members when the FORCE first arrived and you can bet your bottom dollar people were chucking sandbags faster then the usual suspects could eat duff during stand easy ! IT WORKED! We had a full blown competition on our hands and it was marvelous!

I know some will argue that its our job , and don't reward doing your job... but going above the basal level and reaching for more... your darn right to want to reward that... 
because when your in the thick of things..... DO YOU WANT MEMBERS DOING THE BARE MIN? 

NO! 

YOU WANT THEM GOING ALL OUT!  
TRAIN LIKE YOU FIGHT!!! 
ESPRIT DE CORPS BABY! 


....drops mic!


----------



## Jarnhamar

Deployments.  We need to start sending out non CANSOFCOM members on some meaningful deployments.  Not annual check in the box trips to Wainwright or Dog and pony shows.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

In this day and age, new deployment will likely come with a blue beret and retarded, useless ROE.  If I was still in the green machine, I'd be thinking "pass!" on that gig.


----------



## daftandbarmy

OldCrow937 said:
			
		

> Hi all ! Nobody special here just another Operator... and two shiny penny's about to get rubbed together so here go's !
> 
> I was involved in the initial testing and trials for the FORCE testing phase #2 , which included 3 weeks of testing in Halifax.
> 
> I am in trade that is geared towards higher intellect then muscle mass... but motivated to stay fit I had worked hard to complete a ships diver course and make a great excuse to have to keep running and lifting in between learning new fire control radar parametric's!
> The year previous to the FORCE being introduced I had been "exempt" from doing an Express test , I always viewed this as my free pass skipping a yearly test based on my personal motivation to be above the minimum standard for physical fitness, but I had seen quite a few other trades being restricted on how much gym time or PT time they could get during working hours vs my own sections...
> 
> Which leads me to think that having +2 points on your PER is not really a great thing for having achieved a higher physical test score, considering the clerks on board during our refit were never allowed off the boat and would have to do all training outside of regular hours vs the combat section whom didn't have any gear to use on board having hours to play floor hockey and lift mad weight.
> 
> The fact is the forces has a minimum standard and I think its great they want to encourage members to achieve "more" I know that from a unit level our CO had gave 1 day off to the top 10 members when the FORCE first arrived and you can bet your bottom dollar people were chucking sandbags faster then the usual suspects could eat duff during stand easy ! IT WORKED! We had a full blown competition on our hands and it was marvelous!
> 
> I know some will argue that its our job , and don't reward doing your job... but going above the basal level and reaching for more... your darn right to want to reward that...
> because when your in the thick of things..... DO YOU WANT MEMBERS DOING THE BARE MIN?
> 
> NO!
> 
> YOU WANT THEM GOING ALL OUT!
> TRAIN LIKE YOU FIGHT!!!
> ESPRIT DE CORPS BABY!
> 
> 
> ....drops mic!



I agree.

So then why do we set the fitness bar so low, officially, through something like the FORCE test then give people a shiny badge for it? 

We are rewarding mediocrity, and devaluing 'bling', in a concurrent fashion.

(Places mike carefully back on it's stand messing about with the on/off switch... annoying feedback causes noticeable wincing in the audience...)


----------



## rmc_wannabe

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I agree.
> 
> So then why do we set the fitness bar so low, officially, through something like the FORCE test then give people a shiny badge for it?
> 
> We are rewarding mediocrity, and devaluing 'bling', in a concurrent fashion.



I think the spirit of the FORCE test is good, however I see this as they set the bar too low to begin with, and were interrupted by the political correctness crowd when they tried to raise it.

"What do you mean its too easy? Older folks/women don't find it too easy! We can't make them to feel inferior...."

Hence you have a low standard that has been bastardized and mutated into a tier system. The whole reason we got rid of the EXPRESS test.

What should have happened was they trial the FORCE test for 2 years, accumulate the scores from EVERYONE in the CAF (not just trial groups) and then average out the scores. Make the mean score the baseline and provide incentives for being above the baseline. That solves the mediocrity and maintains one standard regardless of age or gender.

But ofcourse, that would be too easy

 :facepalm:


----------



## cld617

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> I think the spirit of the FORCE test is good, however I see thisbas theyvset the bar too low to begin with, and were interrupted by the political correctness crowd when they tried to raise it.
> 
> "What do you mean its too easy? Older folks/women don't find it too easy! We can't make them to feel inferior...."
> 
> Hence you have a low standard that has been bastardized and mutated into a tier system. The whole reason we got rid of the EXPRESS test.
> 
> What should have happened was they trial the FORCE test for 2 years, accumulate the scores from EVERYONE in the CAF (not just trial groups) and then average out the scores. Make the mean score the baseline and provide incentives for being above the baseline. That solves the mediocrity and maintains one standard regardless of age or gender.
> 
> But ofcourse, that would be too easy
> 
> :facepalm:



So then you're left with half the population, who fell below the median who actually did try and simply cannot complete the test to a level to get them above average. I'm telling you right now, the 105lb 50 year old female RMS clerk who is stellar at her job, is not going to pull that stack of sandbags quick enough to be in the top 50%. She needs to be ranked against her peers, not 20 year old men who offset that average out of reach for her. 

Everyone shouldn't get a participation ribbon, but people shouldn't have an advantage just for being young either. The only fair way to assess a mbrs effort wrt physical fitness is to evaluate them to their peers. In the end that's what an incentive is supposed to be about, rewarding hard work.


----------



## Jarnhamar

We shouldn't go back to a gender based test but age categories makes sense.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> In this day and age, new deployment will likely come with a blue beret and retarded, useless ROE.  If I was still in the green machine, I'd be thinking "pass!" on that gig.



I was thinking (hoping) more platoon and company sized mini deployments or training missions.


----------



## armyvern

cld617 said:
			
		

> Your job includes physical fitness, please refer to chapter 22 of the CDS's guidance to Commanding Officers if you disagree with me. I also have trade related duties which must be completed during work hours, they most certainly do not afford me daily PT. Therefore I make up the difference on my own time, as anyone else should if they fall short of the recommended 5x a week (again, from the CDS).
> 
> No one is taking your birthday away if you chose to go home at the end of the day and not to the gym. Also, no one has come out with directives on which incentive level is required for whatever the chosen incentive will turn out to be. Currently the requirements for obtaining a bronze incentive level are not high at all. Failing to meet this level is indicative of someone who isn't putting in any sort of extra effort.



I am quite well aware of what my job includes, and also am well aware of the CDS' Guideance to Commanding Officers.  My duties are no longer trade-related.  

You seem to be rotating in a circle of "only elite fitness" is indicative of a good soldier and their ability to perform well, even exceptionally well.  Fitness is but one indicator of that despite what your mindset (and posting history) seems to indicate is your own belief.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

cld617 said:
			
		

> So then you're left with half the population, who fell below the median who actually did try and simply cannot complete the test to a level to get them above average. I'm telling you right now, the 105lb 50 year old female RMS clerk who is stellar at her job, is not going to pull that stack of sandbags quick enough to be in the top 50%. She needs to be ranked against her peers, not 20 year old men who offset that average out of reach for her.



The enemy won't care about these types of considerations...and _they_ are the ones who we should be thinking about, not the "PC lets not offend anyone" crowd.


----------



## armyvern

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The enemy won't care about these types of considerations...and _they_ are the ones who we should be thinking about, not the "PC lets not offend anyone" crowd.



I'm having a hard time grasping onto any concept whereby our enemy actually gives a hoot whether or not we hand out bling for fitness or how we go about determining who gets the bling.


----------



## dapaterson

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> I think the spirit of the FORCE test is good, however I see this as they set the bar too low to begin with, and were interrupted by the political correctness crowd when they tried to raise it.
> 
> "What do you mean its too easy? Older folks/women don't find it too easy! We can't make them to feel inferior...."
> 
> Hence you have a low standard that has been bastardized and mutated into a tier system. The whole reason we got rid of the EXPRESS test.
> 
> What should have happened was they trial the FORCE test for 2 years, accumulate the scores from EVERYONE in the CAF (not just trial groups) and then average out the scores. Make the mean score the baseline and provide incentives for being above the baseline. That solves the mediocrity and maintains one standard regardless of age or gender.
> 
> But ofcourse, that would be too easy
> 
> :facepalm:



Here's a great idea.  Investigate the intent of the FORCE test (not the incentives).  Determine whether it meets that intent.

Then come online and rage.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'm having a hard time grasping onto any concept whereby our enemy actually gives a hoot whether or not we hand out bling for fitness or how we go about determining who gets the bling.



They don't.  They just want to be able to get to us, and kill us.  Publicly and brutally (IMO).  Then they can "post it on their FB page".  They are patient and preparing for the battle 20 years from now, 10 years from now, and today.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Our lack of purpose is causing us to piss around with half-ass rewards, silly patches, shitty equipment projects and weak recruiting requirements.


----------



## RedcapCrusader

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Our lack of purpose is causing us to piss around with half-ass rewards, silly patches, shitty equipment projects and weak recruiting requirements.



Almost feels like we need a war just to keep us from doing stupid sh*t and our highers from making stupid sh*t decisions.


----------



## daftandbarmy

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'm having a hard time grasping onto any concept whereby our enemy actually gives a hoot whether or not we hand out bling for fitness or how we go about determining who gets the bling.



This. 

This x 100.


----------



## cld617

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I am quite well aware of what my job includes, and also am well aware of the CDS' Guideance to Commanding Officers.  My duties are no longer trade-related.
> 
> You seem to be rotating in a circle of "only elite fitness" is indicative of a good soldier and their ability to perform well, even exceptionally well.  Fitness is but one indicator of that despite what your mindset (and posting history) seems to indicate is your own belief.



There is nothing elite about achieving the top incentive level of this fitness test, nor is there any indication to suggest that only the top level will result in some form of a incentive "reward". 

It's also the only indicator relevant to this topic , as it's one facet of your job that is the center of this discussion. I work hard at my job, but I don't have a second language profile nor am I doing an post-secondary courses on my own after hours. By your rationale, it's unfair that mbrs who can tick these boxes as they're in a position which affords them the opportunity to pursue said extras, do you feel the same about them as well as fitness?


----------



## armyvern

cld617 said:
			
		

> There is nothing elite about achieving the top incentive level of this fitness test, nor is there any indication to suggest that only the top level will result in some form of a incentive "reward".
> 
> It's also the only indicator relevant to this topic , as it's one facet of your job that is the center of this discussion. I work hard at my job, but I don't have a second language profile nor am I doing an post-secondary courses on my own after hours. By your rationale, it's unfair that mbrs who can tick these boxes, do you feel the same about them as well as fitness?



For starters, I never posted that it was "unfair" to award an incentive (or a "tick" as you call it).  

Actually, each of the items that you've listed are but "indicators".  None of them are singularly indicative of anything - even success, but taken as a whole, they certainly can "round out" an individual.  They are but several of many more things that good soldiers should have, but not possessing one of these should rule out someone as being a good soldier either.

As for "elite" - it is a matter of perspective.  Even those that fall below the bronze and are therefore deemed to be "below average" are for the cast majority of them going to be much more fit that their Canadian citizen peers.  

I also don't know where you are getting the idea that I am against fitness; I am not and I am fit.  As I said, it is not the be all and end all of what constitutes good soldiers and/or leadership.  I also stated that "by your posting history", you seem to place its value higher than other important things such as resiliency, experience, trade skills etc as you've brought it up in other threads.

Not even going to address your edit about "being in positions" ... it's irrelevant; I have Cpls with Masters and there's a Cpl PhD next to me.


----------



## PuckChaser

I was curious, so I put the fol values into the calculator:

Rushes: 40s
Sandbag: 1m
Shuttles: 2:30m
Drag: 15s
Waist: 86cm (34 inches)

It does account for age, and moves you up the line as you go.

17yo M - upper Bronze
30yo M - high Bronze
40yo M - mid Silver
50yo M - high Silver
59yo M - mid Gold

I tried to do the same with the female standards, but 17yo female with the same numbers was mid Gold and only moved to Platinum at 40yo.

So these standards do seem to take into account age group and gender, so when you gain Platinum standard, you're top 0.1% of your age group and gender. The only issue becomes when you compare a 50yo Cpl against a 21yo Cpl of the same gender. At that point, that 50yo Cpl is likely not going to see above Sgt at the absolute top end, so really their career isn't taking a huge hit.


----------



## McG

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> We shouldn't go back to a gender based test but age categories makes sense.


How can you endorse one of these and not the other?  It is saying the 45 year old cpl should get promotion points for a lesser performance than his peers.  That is not okay.

If points are assigned based on comparisons within a population, then it must be based on rank and occupation.


----------



## Jarnhamar

MCG said:
			
		

> How can you endorse one of these and not the other?  It is saying the 45 year old cpl should get promotion points for a lesser performance than his peers.  That is not okay.
> 
> If points are assigned based on comparisons within a population, then it must be based on rank and occupation.



I was including thoughts on qualifying for the CAF/specific trades that have physical fitness requirements along and not just shiny force badges. I don't agree with PER points being awarded.

Reason being about gender is that a 20 year old female can be just as fit if not more than a 20 year old male. We shouldn't give women a weaker fitness standard be in joining the CAF, qualifying for DHTC or getting a gold badge star.   It's a far out in left field scenario but if we award PER points for certain levels of fitness including based off gender what happens when a physical male soldier who identifies as female beats out a physically female soldier and gets promoted before her thanks to that PER point?  It's best for everyone to keep standards genderless.

As for age I see how it may seem hypocritical. Peoples bodies, male or female (or in between) get old. I think it's unrealistic to hold a 20 year olds level of fitness to a 50 year olds level.   A 50 year olds "high" level of fitness will be fairly easily eclipsed by that 20 year olds. 

I agree in part about occupation. People seem to think combat arms, especially infantry, have an easier chance at getting in shape.  I would argue that it comes down more to schedule. Someone who has a relatively routine 8-4 schedule will be able to do PT and work out more regularly than someone whos schedule is always changing. I don't think I've had 3 consecutive days of the same timing in the morning in the last 3 weeks. Skipping meals to goto the gym and going late to get a work out in are pretty detrimental.  Occupation comes into play but specifically someones routine and schedule.


----------



## ballz

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I was including thoughts on qualifying for the CAF/specific trades that have physical fitness requirements along and not just shiny force badges. I don't agree with PER points being awarded.
> 
> Reason being about gender is that a 20 year old female can be just as fit if not more than a 20 year old male. We shouldn't give women a weaker fitness standard be in joining the CAF, qualifying for DHTC or getting a gold badge star.   It's a far out in left field scenario but if we award PER points for certain levels of fitness including based off gender what happens when a physical male soldier who identifies as female beats out a physically female soldier and gets promoted before her thanks to that PER point?  It's best for everyone to keep standards genderless.
> 
> As for age I see how it may seem hypocritical. Peoples bodies, male or female (or in between) get old. I think it's unrealistic to hold a 20 year olds level of fitness to a 50 year olds level.   A 50 year olds "high" level of fitness will be fairly easily eclipsed by that 20 year olds.



This is a results-oriented profession This is supposed to be a results-oriented profession. It is a young man's game, it's that simple. Your line of thinking is what is leading us down the road of having less capable human beings promoted before more capable human beings (in theory, with everything else equal, of course).

There is already valid complaints of the utility of having 55 year old RSMs that can't keep up with 90% of the Battalion. I may actually lose my lunch if I know some of these guys are getting merit points for physical fitness.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I agree with you Ballz, that we are supposed to be a results-oriented profession.

However, we have to be careful when talking about fitness not to equate strength with it.

Let me give you an example: I have a good friend who is a marathon-maniac. You know the type. He runs in an organized marathon every week-end - no bull. He weighs about 50 kilos and there isn't a gram of fat on him. His cardio is without peer. A fitter person you could hardly find. But don't ask him to bench even his own weight. No arm muscles at all. I, on the other hand, can still bench 120 kilos at near 60, but because my knees are shut, have seriously let my cardio slip. So who is fit and who isn't? The reality is that fitness is a relative matter - relative to one's own self and not a measurably comparable matter (think here of a man 2 meters tall running a kilometre race in seven minutes. Is he in better shape [fitter] than a 1,65 man running the same distance in 7:15 minutes? Or do the legs length have something to do with it?)

Now, if you translate this to CF wide, you find that everyone benefits from good fitness - as it relates to one's own body. But not all tasks we do require the same strength or speed, which is why different trades have different requirements. A fit AVS doesn't have to be able to keep up with a sapper in strength, nor does he have to have the speed of a light-infanteer.

I will grant everyone that finding a single measuring method to evaluate fitness is difficult, and will always raise some form of complaint.

P.S.: If someone is still a corporal at 50, I very much doubt he is competing with 20 year old ones for promotion to master corporal.  [


----------



## Jarnhamar

ballz said:
			
		

> This is a results-oriented profession This is supposed to be a results-oriented profession. It is a young man's game, it's that simple. Your line of thinking is what is leading us down the road of having less capable human beings promoted before more capable human beings (in theory, with everything else equal, of course).
> 
> There is already valid complaints of the utility of having 55 year old RSMs that can't keep up with 90% of the Battalion. I may actually lose my lunch if I know some of these guys are getting merit points for physical fitness.



It definitely is a young mans persons game.  Peoples bodies age and outside of necormancy there isn't anything we can do about that.  Fitness is extremely important for a number of reasons, especially so in our trade, however giving a single,no kids, super fit soldier (just an example) points to be promoted over someone older, not as fit but who may have leadership strengths in a number of other areas (which don't show up as PER bubbles) might back fire.  
Offline I could give you some examples of young leaders at your work who don't give a fuck for anyone but themselves. They're super fit and all they wanna know is when is their next high speed cool course. Compare that to their peers who may be 10 years older, not fitness rockstars but know the names of their soldiers spouses, children, birth days and level of education. 

Leaders need to be fit but the fittest leaders don't make the best leaders IMO.

*just to add,  I would support per points  for fitness if in order to get promoted we were tested/given an exam like I believe the US military does.


----------



## armyvern

ballz said:
			
		

> This is a results-oriented profession This is supposed to be a results-oriented profession. It is a young man's game, it's that simple. Your line of thinking is what is leading us down the road of having less capable human beings promoted before more capable human beings (in theory, with everything else equal, of course).



_*Some*_ jobs are a young man's game.  Some jobs require other skillsets than physical prowess.  Some jobs require experience, analytical skills, mental agility etc etc etc.  

"Less capable" people shouldn't be being promoted the way the system stands right now with "all things being equal" as per the FORCE test and PER scoring having nothing about age, sex etc etc coming into play (it rates your performance and your potential); unless you are advocating for, _in theory_, only those being young and holding great physical prowess being recognized and employed in this "young man's game". 




> There is already valid complaints of the utility of having 55 year old RSMs that can't keep up with 90% of the Battalion. I may actually lose my lunch if I know some of these guys are getting merit points for physical fitness.



Hope that you are doing as well as most of them after a full career of pounding your own body as they have done and hitting 55 YOA.  It'd make you lose your lunch?  Why?  It's not like it's going to get them promoted now is it?


----------



## ballz

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> However, we have to be careful when talking about fitness not to equate strength with it.



Strength is one tenant of fitness. There are numerous theories on what constitutes "fitness," the one I ascribe to has "speed, strength, and endurance" as the 3 cornerstones. Other things, such as power, are combination of two cornerstones (in this case, speed + strength).

If we were going to have a one-size fits all test, I would argue it should test the three basic cornerstones. Someone who possesses a mediocre level of all three is a pretty functional individual. Since day one of the FORCE test, my complaint about it was that it did not have any endurance factored into it. Add an endurance component, and the test ain't so bad (other than the bar being a wee bit low, but I digress).

No doubt that different jobs are heavier on different cornerstones than others, just like different sports are heavier on different cornerstones than others. A marathon runner and Olympic lifter are both fit, just in different cornerstones. It is a pipe dream, of course, that each job has its own fitness test (not that I think it would that difficult to implement.... its just that this institution is incapable of making any kind of meaningful change).


----------



## caocao

:goodpost:

This was meant for Jarnhamar's post!


----------



## ballz

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> "Less capable" people shouldn't be being promoted the way the system stands right now with "all things being equal" as per the FORCE test and PER scoring having nothing about age, sex etc etc coming into play (it rates your performance and your potential); unless you are advocating for, _in theory_, only those being young and holding great physical prowess being recognized and employed in this "young man's game".



I'm not sure what it is you are trying to say here. I would much rather leave the system as it is now, than start giving out merit points based on age and gender.

Physical fitness shouldn't require merit points to be factored into performance. It will show in people's performance in their physical fitness is not high enough for their job.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Hope that you are doing as well as most of them after a full career of pounding your own body as they have done and hitting 55 YOA.  It'd make you lose your lunch?  Why?  It's not like it's going to get them promoted now is it?



No, not CWOs. But we have WOs and MWOs in similar boats, and it very well could see them promoted over people that are younger and more capable. We currently seem incapable of acknowledging that maybe WO X or MWO Y has slowed down so much that it is affecting his performance to the point that younger, fitter people should be moving ahead of them.

You can be offended by my comment about 55 year old RSMs if you want, but that is a matter of perspective as it sure isn't meant to shame anyone. There is no shame meant in the comment, only reality. There is no shame in having worn your body out to the point that you can't keep up any more, in fact I would say its worthy of a solid kudos and thank you (which is why we have things like CDs). But we shouldn't be afraid to acknowledge that reality, either.


----------



## ballz

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It definitely is a young mans persons game.  Peoples bodies age and outside of necormancy there isn't anything we can do about that.  Fitness is extremely important for a number of reasons, especially so in our trade, however giving a single,no kids, super fit soldier (just an example) points to be promoted over someone older, not as fit but who may have leadership strengths in a number of other areas (which don't show up as PER bubbles) might back fire.
> Offline I could give you some examples of young leaders at your work who don't give a frig for anyone but themselves. They're super fit and all they wanna know is when is their next high speed cool course. Compare that to their peers who may be 10 years older, not fitness rockstars but know the names of their soldiers spouses, children, birth days and level of education.
> 
> Leaders need to be fit but the fittest leaders don't make the best leaders IMO.
> 
> *just to add,  I would support per points  for fitness if in order to get promoted we were tested/given an exam like I believe the US military does.




I'm thinking people are taking my comments as saying "we should promote people based on fitness."

I actually don't think we should have points for fitness on a PER at all. Like I said above, your physical fitness as it applies to your job should show in your performance.

However, if we are going to give points based on fitness, then we have to do it based on results, not age and gender.

EDIT: And I don't need examples, I work with enough glue bags that are too busy being a professional athlete to be at their desk when the rest of their peers are relying on them to be effective at their job.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

ballz said:
			
		

> However, if we are going to give points based on fitness, then we have to do it based on results, not age and gender.



And, I think this is where we have a disagreement, Ballz.

You try to equate a single objective measurement with  single objective level of fitness. 

It doesn't work that way. Fitness is a relative measure, in relation to one's own body, and so is a subjective matter. To compare one's fitness with someone else's you must by definition create discriminatory categories that lets you compare "apples to apples". Of course there is a limit to all the various "discriminatory" distinctions you can make, but it is clearly and unambiguously established that at the very least gender and age categories are basic such categories that influence fitness comparisons.

Basically, if a single objective measure was the norm, you would have to conclude that women Olympic athletes in track are less fit than men Olympic track athletes because none of them could compete against the men in the same distance. I would not make that argument, and believe it would be totally false.

Similarly, there is no way that a 20 year old man running the mile-and-a-half in ten minutes is as fit as a 50 years old man running it in exactly the same time.

That is all we are saying: if you wish to measure fitness - an individual characteristic - you have to do it in a way that is a fair comparison on the basis of individual circumstances, and the current state of scientific knowledge says that means age and gender categories apply.

Measuring an individual's fitness has nothing to do with evaluating if they can perform a specific objective task. 

Here's another way of looking at it: Think of all the NHL players that retire around 36-37-38 years of age. I would venture that every one of them  - top athletes - would hit "super-platinum" in fitness if we had such category. Yet they retire because they can't keep up with the objective level of performance achieved by the younger players. Yet, these younger players are no more nor less fit than the retiring player. It's just plain age that slows the body down - that's all.

In the CF generally we want fit people, not physically performing members. This second aspect, physical performance, is where specific trades requirements can come into play.


----------



## daftandbarmy

If you take a look at the fitness requirements for recruits joining the British Army, they have the same tests regardless of trade, but a sliding performance scale based on whether you are going for the Parachute Regiment etc.

http://www.army.mod.uk/join/Getting-yourself-ready.aspx

This seems to make sense. Especially since they don't give out bling for doing your job e.g., being fit to fight within your trade requirements IMHO.


----------



## ballz

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> You try to equate a single objective measurement with  single objective level of fitness.
> 
> It doesn't work that way.



Are we results-oriented? Then it does work that way.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Fitness is a relative measure, in relation to one's own body, and so is a subjective matter. To compare one's fitness with someone else's you must by definition create discriminatory categories that lets you compare "apples to apples".



You are speaking as if these are facts and I am not so sure you should. I just looked up the definition of fitness and it doesn't mention any of this.

the condition of being physically fit and healthy.
"disease and lack of fitness are closely related"
synonyms:	good health, strength, robustness, vigor, athleticism, toughness, physical fitness, muscularity; More
the quality of being suitable to fulfill a particular role or task.
"he had a year in which to establish his fitness for the office"
synonyms:	suitability, capability, competence, ability, aptitude; 

Doesn't say anywhere in there about "relative to other people of the same age or gender."



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Basically, if a single objective measure was the norm, you would have to conclude that women Olympic athletes in track are less fit than men Olympic track athletes because none of them could compete against the men in the same distance. I would not make that argument, and believe it would be totally false.



I could certainly make the argument if I had to go win a track competition that doesn't have gender categories (aka combat), than the male who has a better time on that distance would be more suitable to fill that task, ergo, he is more physically fit.



> Measuring an individual's fitness has nothing to do with evaluating if they can perform a specific objective task.



See definition of fitness above. Also, see the whole point of the "FORCE Program" (its not just a fitness test, its a program). _Fitness for Operational Requirements_ of CAF Employment.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Here's another way of looking at it: Think of all the NHL players that retire around 36-37-38 years of age. I would venture that every one of them  - top athletes - would hit "super-platinum" in fitness if we had such category. Yet they retire because they can't keep up with the objective level of performance achieved by the younger players. Yet, these younger players are no more nor less fit than the retiring player. It's just plain age that slows the body down - that's all.



This is a great example, because a professional sports team is a results-oriented organization. Notice that they don't care if someone is "fit for their age category" or not. They care if the person is fit for their job on the ice. Some _positions_ tend to have higher retirement ages due to physical / mental attributes of their position being different (defencemen tend to stay in the league longer than forwards, goalies tend to be older than defenceman), much like different trades in the CAF have different physical / mental attributes.  



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> In the CF generally we want fit people, not physically performing members. This second aspect, physical performance, is where specific trades requirements can come into play.



I disagree that we don't want physically performing members. That is exactly what I want no matter what trade. I want high-performers.

I will agree to disagree on this entire thing as my opinion is unchanged and I suspect it will stay that way. I understand your the argument for age / gender, I simply disagree with it. A results-oriented organization should promote people based on results.

My opinion, physical fitness incentives should not have been mixed with the promotion system (which is already faulty). If they are going to go down that road though, then they should not be discriminating on age / gender.

Agree to disagree.  eace:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I agree to disagree with you, Ballz  

I will just add two little things, if I may.

First, you say: "_A results-oriented organization should promote people based on results_." And we do. It's just that physical fitness is but one aspect that must be considered in determining what constitutes achieving the results.

Second, I believe your views to be based on an army-centric, I would almost say infantry-centric, view of physical fitness and its role in the military. 

I am Navy (unabashedly Navy, sorry all!). Good general fitness of my seamen is important - it helps them cope with the physical demands of the job, which are more related with stamina and sleep deprivation than anything else. But it makes no difference to me if one of my sonar operators, for instance, can run the mile in six minutes as compared to another one who runs it in six and a half. On board the ship, running is not allowed, and he lives fifty meters from his work station, where he sits and listens. I would be much more displeased with him if I found out he was blasting heavy rock music at full volume into his ears to the point of causing permanent damage.


----------



## ballz

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I am Navy (unabashedly Navy, sorry all!). Good general fitness of my seamen is important - it helps them cope with the physical demands of the job, which are more related with stamina and sleep deprivation than anything else. But it makes no difference to me if one of my sonar operators, for instance, can run the mile in six minutes as compared to another one who runs it in six and a half. On board the ship, running is not allowed, and he lives fifty meters from his work station, where he sits and listens. I would be much more displeased with him if I found out he was blasting heavy rock music at full volume into his ears to the point of causing permanent damage.



I very much agree with this, this why I said that physical fitness should show in your performance (the same way, IMO, that experience does). It is a force multiplier so to speak. 

Cpl X in the infantry is smart but he's not that physically fit. By the time he occupies the defensive position, he's too dragged out to put his full focus into his next tasks, so they aren't completed as well as he's capable of. His effectiveness score is ES, he may be mastered if he was fit, because he'd be better at completing his tasks when he's tired, but nobody knows that.

Perhaps Cpl Y is not as sharp, but he is physically fit. He'd probably only be "standard," but because he is not tired / dragged out by the time he gets to his trench, he is performing just as well as Cpl X so he ends up with an ES as well... His fitness is a force-multiplier for him, making him perform as well as those that are smarter than him because he's not as tired and more able to focus and stay disciplined.

As I said this is inherent to his performance, it doesn't require its own category or extra merit points. But we do a very poor job of recognizing this in the infantry, since we spend most of the time in garrison and true strengths of physical fitness really come out during hard field time (a contrast to those in the Navy who actually spend a lot of time on a ship in their actual operating environment).

Now that we are going to have merit points for fitness, your example of a sonar operator, he may be passed by another sonar operator who is very physically fit but not as a sharp. His fitness wouldn't result in him getting higher "effectiveness" scores, since the job isn't physically demanding and his extra physical fitness wouldn't multiply his performance and make him go from "standard" to "mastered".... but now he's passing people anyway. 

We just can't win...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I think I'm beginning to see that we have been talking at cross-purpose here Ballz. I believe I see your point.

You do not take issue with the fact that a person's level of fitness is an individual characteristics, maybe not even with the fact that people achieving higher levels of fitness could be recognized and even get some "bling" for it as a means to encourage improving one's individual fitness. Your issue is with the actual level of fitness being given specific credits towards PEER points, when fitness is not a task, but rather an enabler in one's task, in a task oriented employment. Basically, you are saying since good fitness is something that helps you effect your task, you should only be judged on the final result of how well you perform it, not on every piece of the puzzle that underlies it.

If I could paraphrase using a Navy example: You would oppose PEER points being given to MARS officers for a test measuring how fast they can perform speed-time-distance mental calculations when the task one seeks to measure is how well they actually handle the navigation of the ship and shipboard emergencies.

Thus, I believe you are:

1) in favour of a basic physical fitness standard for all and at all time, even though you believe the current one (FORCE) is too low [a debatable but perfectly valid opinion for one to hold];
2) in favour of higher physical standards by trade, as required for the trade, these standards being, again "for all and at all times" for people in those trades;
3) any method that would encourage more people to get more fit; 

so long, however, as the actual individual measurement of one's fitness is NOT a graded measurement for purpose of garnering points towards one's promotion.

Did I get you right?


----------



## ballz

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> You do not take issue with the fact that a person's level of fitness is an individual characteristics, maybe not even with the fact that people achieving higher levels of fitness could be recognized and even get some "bling" for it as a means to encourage improving one's individual fitness.



If they want to use incentives to encourage people to be fit, by all means they have my support, I created my own incentive program within my platoon for the same reason.

And at risk of sounding like a hypocrite here, I "discriminated" based on weight. There was a strength component to the test (bench, squat, and deadlift) and the "goal" weights were based on a person's bodyweight. Because we can't expect the average 150 lb person to lift as much as the average 250 lb person (just like we can't expect the average woman to lift as much as the average man, or the average 70 year old to lift as much as the average 30 year old).

Of course, the incentive I offered was not a pin or a medal, it was something else, but anywho... the important part being... no one was going to receive extra points or be ranked higher in the merit boards based on my incentive test.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Your issue is with the actual level of fitness being given specific credits towards PEER points, when fitness is not a task, but rather an enabler in one's task, in a task oriented employment. Basically, you are saying since good fitness is something that helps you effect your task, you should only be judged on the final result of how well you perform it, not on every piece of the puzzle that underlies it.



Correct. 

I take the same view with "experience." It's a force multiplier. If you are a smart person you will do well at a task. If you are a smart person with experience, you should do better at "x" task than a smart person with no experience. If someone is so smart that he does the task better than you despite having no experience, he still deserves a higher score on that task.

If you are not very smart but have lots of experience, you will still probably do pretty shitty at any given task, so there should be no points explicitly for "experience," as your experience should show through in the 16 performance criteria we already have... if it doesn't make you better at any of those 16 things, maybe the experience wasn't all that valuable.....



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> You would oppose PEER points being given to MARS officers for a test measuring how fast they can perform speed-time-distance mental calculations when the task one seeks to measure is how well they actually handle the navigation of the ship and shipboard emergencies.



I'd most likely oppose that idea, yes. Judge him on his ability to do his job. If quick speed-time-distance mental calculations are important and he's not very good at them, it will show during the course of his duties. Or maybe not, maybe he finds a way to be effective without them. In that case, the test would have done him an injustice.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Thus, I believe you are:
> 
> 1) in favour of a basic physical fitness standard for all and at all time, even though you believe the current one (FORCE) is too low [a debatable but perfectly valid opinion for one to hold];



Correct


			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> 2) in favour of higher physical standards by trade, as required for the trade, these standards being, again "for all and at all times" for people in those trades;



Correct, although its feels like a pipe dream.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> 3) any method that would encourage more people to get more fit;
> 
> so long, however, as the actual individual measurement of one's fitness is NOT a graded measurement for purpose of garnering points towards one's promotion.



Correct. I think PT incentives are great... but our promotion system already heavily favours credentialism over merit. Points for PT is essentially credentialism applied to physical fitness.


----------



## ModlrMike

I've always wondered what our standards mean. What does 51 seconds in the shuttles represent for example? How does it compare to the CF, or the Canadian population as a whole? 

I think for fitness standards to have any real validity, there should be some reference point. For example: does 19 pushups represent the 70th percentile, or the 30th? Exactly how fit are we expected to be?

The new PSP tool shows how we compare against each other, but would be nice to see how our various requirements were arrived at, and what our fitness standards truly mean in the wider context.


----------



## dapaterson

There were numerous briefings on FORCE at its initial implementation.  The tasks and standards were set based on their correlations to military tasks that all CAF members must be able to perform.


----------



## ModlrMike

I realize that, and I know that it puts all military folks in the 100th percentile, but how did we arrive at the time requirements?


----------



## dapaterson

FORCE is a simulation of the six core tasks all military pers must be able to do.  Those six tasks all have associated standards.  The FORCE standards are intended as predictors of the ability to meet the minimum standards of those six core tasks.

It is not a combat fitness evaluation, or a firefighter fitness evaluation, or a battle readiness evaluation - it is designed only to answer the question "Does this person have a fitness level that meets the CAF minimum standard?"


----------



## Jarnhamar

Interesting shift in results when you take the fitness profile thing on DFit.ca and change your gender from male to female.

And why isn't there an option for transgendered CF members?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Interesting shift in results when you take the fitness profile thing on DFit.ca and change your gender from male to female.
> 
> And why isn't there an option for transgendered CF members?



So, we now again have an EXPRES test standard, but just different test exercises.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Rumint has it there will be a 5km timed forced March before members take tests


----------



## PuckChaser

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> And why isn't there an option for transgendered CF members?



Do you feel harassed?  :stirpot:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I thought he meant army people who OTd to the Air Force.   rancing:


----------



## PuckChaser

I might just show up in a flightsuit to work on Monday and tell everyone I self identify as Air Force today....


----------



## Terrier

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Rumint has it there will be a 5km timed forced March before members take tests



The 5Km march you're hearing about is a 70lb ruck march, followed by a full kit (minus ruck, ) force test. Not timed at all, but has to be done consecutively. This will be the pre-deployment test.


----------



## PuckChaser

Terrier said:
			
		

> The 5Km march you're hearing about is a 70lb ruck march, followed by a full kit (minus ruck, ) force test. Not timed at all, but has to be done consecutively. This will be the pre-deployment test.



Is this official yet, or still idea stage? I've heard the rumint that it was BFT distance, with extended time and then the FFO FORCE test afterwards. Nobody with the rumint knew if the FORCE (or ruck) included plates.


----------



## Terrier

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Is this official yet, or still idea stage? I've heard the rumint that it was BFT distance, with extended time and then the FFO FORCE test afterwards. Nobody with the rumint knew if the FORCE (or ruck) included plates.



I'm not sure if it's official yet to be honest. We were definitely told 5 Km, and am FFO FORCE test not timed. That being said, I don't know / remember if the march itself had a time attached to it, and I'm not sure about plates either.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Is this official yet, or still idea stage? I've heard the rumint that it was BFT distance, with extended time and then the FFO FORCE test afterwards. Nobody with the rumint knew if the FORCE (or ruck) included plates.



The head of the PSP briefed last year in Shilo that it was going to be a timed 5km right into the FORCE test... 

I guess all that time/money invested in the science behind the force test wasn't strong enough to demolish the PSP empire.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Must be an army PT test.


----------



## Lumber

If this is only for deployments, I'm assuming, and hoping, they mean army deployments.

Anyone know if RMC is still managing to dodge all the back-and-forth kerfufflery?


----------



## PuckChaser

The rumint mill said it would become the CJOC deployment test, but we'll see what happens.


----------



## Lumber

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The rumint mill said it would become the CJOC deployment test, but we'll see what happens.



Well, I suppose it does make sense to have one common standard accross the board... Except for age and gender...


----------



## Shrek1985

I think if there are incentives like this, then we will be going back to the nonsense of standards on how every part of the FORCE test is done.

Oh yeah? You only *thought* you picked that sandbag up, propperly; but your back wasn't totally straight, so I docked you twelve sandbag lifts; you fail.

Oh sorry; you didn't drag that casualty right; you didn't pepper-pot *correctly*.

Can't wait.


----------



## SupersonicMax

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The rumint mill said it would become the CJOC deployment test, but we'll see what happens.



Not really a relevant fitness evaluation for people not expected to wear a FFO or even walk long distances with a load on deployment.

What would an eval like this mean for an AVN tech deployed to a friendly location supporting aircraft flying combat operations?


----------



## PuckChaser

I can see the rationale based around an Afghan-centric Op, where there is a threat of indirect fire, or worst-case scenario ground attack. You're never going to get a perfect test for everyone, but getting wrapped up in the specifics defeats the purpose of the test: if you're fit, it's relatively easy to complete, regardless of trade.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

ballz said:
			
		

> There is already valid complaints of the utility of having 55 year old RSMs that can't keep up with 90% of the Battalion. I may actually lose my lunch if I know some of these guys are getting merit points for physical fitness.



Well then, 10% of the battalion should be freakin' ashamed of themselves....


----------



## armyvern

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Well then, 10% of the battalion should be freakin' ashamed of themselves....



LMAO; absolutely perfect.

I'd be more gagging about the 10% who can't keep up with the 55 YO RSM.


----------



## Lumber

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> LMAO; absolutely perfect.
> 
> I'd be more gagging about the 10% who can't keep up with the 55 YO RSM.



Then please don't come with your 55 y.o. RSM to a Navy FORCE test. You'll down right choke to death when you see how many of us wouldn't be able to keep up with him.


----------



## ballz

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Well then, 10% of the battalion should be freakin' ashamed of themselves....



The old boys clubs of the army should be ashamed of itself for ever letting these kind of people represent us as best we have to offer. The (at the time) DSM of 2 RCR failed the FORCE test when it first came out (and wasn't, that year if you remember, the required physical test across the CAF), right before getting promoted to CWO. I suppose you've got some witty retort to excuse that, too?

Give me a fucking break with the excuses as to why we can't have fit CSMs and RSMs to lead troops. The old boys club sure doesn't need something like age/gender category to encourage it to keep moving their own buddies forward while the relatively young, fit, eager and capable pers are forced to wait until they are also old, slow, and don't care anymore. So why encourage it?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I'll give you a witty retort............if I'm in the OP all I give a flying rats ass about is that the ammo is at the gun position and the troops are disciplined and fed enough to give me the fire power when and where I need it.

This is what I want......when I was a M/Bdr I certainly did not expect to see the RSM/ BSM running with us, [if he wanted to then great] but leading the troops, which included fitness, was MY job,.......and he led the rank higher that led me.


----------



## armyvern

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I'll give you a witty retort............if I'm in the OP all I give a flying rats ass about is that the ammo is at the gun position and the troops are disciplined and fed enough to give me the fire power when and where I need it.
> 
> This is what I want......when I was a M/Bdr I certainly did not expect to see the RSM/ BSM running with us, [if he wanted to then great] but leading the troops, which included fitness, was MY job,.......and he led the rank higher that led me.



Bingo.


----------



## BinRat55

ballz said:
			
		

> The (at the time) DSM of 2 RCR failed the FORCE test when it first came out (and wasn't, that year if you remember, the required physical test across the CAF), right before getting promoted to CWO. I suppose you've got some witty retort to excuse that, too?



Just an interesting aside, but every fitness test I have seen instituted with a time constraint, I have heard the time was lowered (or raised) due to some high ranking officer NOT being able to meet it. For example, the Gen Waters competition - we were told that it was originally supposed to be 10 miles in 2 hours, but some General in Edmonton did it in 2:30... so we had to do it in 2:40. The Warrior competition - that 3.2Km run for gold? Yea, apparently it was 19 mins to pass until a General couldn't do it in under 24 so then we had 25 mins...

What do they call it? Urban legend?


----------



## Arty39

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Just an interesting aside, but every fitness test I have seen instituted with a time constraint, I have heard the time was lowered (or raised) due to some high ranking officer NOT being able to meet it. For example, the Gen Waters competition - we were told that it was originally supposed to be 10 miles in 2 hours, but some General in Edmonton did it in 2:30... so we had to do it in 2:40. The Warrior competition - that 3.2Km run for gold? Yea, apparently it was 19 mins to pass until a General couldn't do it in under 24 so then we had 25 mins...
> 
> What do they call it? Urban legend?


3.2km run in 19 minutes is not a fast time at all.


----------



## ballz

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> when I was a M/Bdr I certainly did not expect to see the RSM/ BSM running with us, [if he wanted to then great] but leading the troops, which included fitness, was MY job,.......and he led the rank higher that led me.



There is obviously some hurt feelings about the idea that someone's fitness might actually make them ineffective at their job, even if they have a ton of experience, but that is reality. So at what rank does "lead from the front" give way to "do as I say, not as I do?" Do you really think it would be acceptable for someone in a leadership position, whether an Officer or a Warrant Officer, to say "pfff fitness? that's a Sgt or MCpls job." Our troops expect more of their leadership, as they should. 



			
				BinRat55 said:
			
		

> What do they call it? Urban legend?



I'm not sure what the point of this post is except to insinuate that I'm either telling tales or perpetuating myths. Either which way, I could care less if everyone wants to bury their head in the sand about it, I was at the unit when it happened and it was the laughing stock of 2 CMBG for a month(until someone else screwed up, as per SOP).


----------



## dapaterson

Arty39 said:
			
		

> 3.2km run in 19 minutes is not a fast time at all.



With FFO?


----------



## Journeyman

ballz said:
			
		

> ..... it was the laughing stock of 2 CMBG for a month.


Oh, go on, most of 2CMBG doesn't even know there's a 2nd Bn.    >


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

ballz said:
			
		

> There is obviously some hurt feelings about the idea that someone's fitness might actually make them ineffective at their job, even if they have a ton of experience, but that is reality. So at what rank does "lead from the front" give way to "do as I say, not as I do?" Do you really think it would be acceptable for someone in a leadership position, whether an Officer or a Warrant Officer, to say "pfff fitness? that's a Sgt or MCpls job." Our troops expect more of their leadership, as they should.
> 
> I'm not sure what the point of this post is except to insinuate that I'm either telling tales or perpetuating myths. Either which way, I could care less if everyone wants to bury their head in the sand about it, I was at the unit when it happened and it was the laughing stock of 2 CMBG for a month(until someone else screwed up, as per SOP).



You need to be more specific perhaps. There are lots of jobs in the army that dont need specifically high levels of fitness... doctors, dentists, pharmacists, clerks, sup techs, avn techs, etc etc.

If you're just talking about an inf Bn than offset that.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

ballz said:
			
		

> There is obviously some hurt feelings about the idea that someone's fitness might actually make them ineffective at their job, even if they have a ton of experience, but that is reality.



PROOF RIGHT NOW!!!
Cough it up .............



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> So at what rank does "lead from the front" give way to "do as I say, not as I do?" Do you really think it would be acceptable for someone in a leadership position, whether an Officer or a Warrant Officer, to say "pfff fitness? that's a Sgt or MCpls job." Our troops expect more of their leadership, as they should.



I guess you do everyone's job in your outfit??   Sgt's and M/Cpl's are just there for show???  Don't worry, someday you will be trusted with more then one thing to worry about, maybe. >




			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what the point of this post is except to insinuate that I'm either telling tales or perpetuating myths. Either which way, I could care less if everyone wants to bury their head in the sand about it, I was at the unit when it happened and it was the laughing stock of 2 CMBG for a month(until someone else screwed up, as per SOP).



Don't know, don't care......the military hasn't been my circus or my monkeys for a long time.
I do know that if I had ever let one 'funny' incident torment me like that then my 10 years would have seemed like an eternity....


----------



## BinRat55

dapaterson said:
			
		

> With FFO?



Yes - the 3.2 run was FFO (with weapon) so, yea - 19 mins was a bit difficult. Not impossible mind you - I was with a guy (Vern knows him as "Clutch") who managed it in 15.


----------



## BinRat55

ballz said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what the point of this post is except to insinuate that I'm either telling tales or perpetuating myths. Either which way, I could care less if everyone wants to bury their head in the sand about it, I was at the unit when it happened and it was the laughing stock of 2 CMBG for a month(until someone else screwed up, as per SOP).



Of course not - I said "interesting aside"... I know the DCO to which you are refering.


----------



## Journeyman

I've GOT to read more slowly.  I seriously stumbled at... 





			
				BinRat55 said:
			
		

> .... I was with a guy (Vern....


    

Now, I don't claim to be an expert at anatomy & physiology, but.....


[I now return you to your bi-polar, 'all or nothing' discussion of fitness.   )


----------



## BinRat55

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I've GOT to read more slowly.  I seriously stumbled at...
> 
> Now, I don't claim to be an expert at anatomy & physiology, but.....
> 
> 
> [I now return you to your bi-polar, 'all or nothing' discussion of fitness.   )



Lol - You now have ME at a loss here - I once ran the 3.2 with a guy named Clutch. Vern knows him well... I DID place a bracket around this...


----------



## ballz

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Oh, go on, most of 2CMBG doesn't even know there's a 2nd Bn.    >



Well, I can't argue against a fact....



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> PROOF RIGHT NOW!!!
> Cough it up .............



Can't tell how serious you are being at this point, but the fact that we have established BFORs (the FORCE test) is proof. We can literally go to court and say "because this person couldn't achieve x,y,z, he is not capable of doing his job anymore and therefore was released."

That's without adding in that in a leadership position, part of your job description being to "lead," you can't "lead" in the physical fitness aspect if you can't make it out of the parking lot on a group run.



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I guess you do everyone's job in your outfit??



Wtf are you even talking about?



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Don't know, don't care......the military hasn't been my circus or my monkeys for a long time.
> I do know that if I had ever let one 'funny' incident torment me like that then my 10 years would have seemed like an eternity....



Never said its tormenting me, just a great example of someone unfit to lead or be promoted, but was promoted anyway. Since ultimately that's what the discussion is about right, how much is/should physical fitness be tied to performance and promotions?



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> You need to be more specific perhaps. There are lots of jobs in the army that dont need specifically high levels of fitness... doctors, dentists, pharmacists, clerks, sup techs, avn techs, etc etc.
> 
> If you're just talking about an inf Bn than offset that.



It's all relative. If we expect high levels of fitness from our subordinates, our leadership should reflect that. Aka SNCOs, WOs, and Officers should be leading from the front on that expectation. If your in a unit where physical fitness doesn't have as high an impact on your performance, and the expectation is that you have a maintain a "moderate" level of fitness, then your leadership should be at least "moderately" fit. A leader that is drastically less fit than his subordinates should be an outlier.

In neither situation should your leadership be so unfit that they lose their credibility, but be excused for it because they aren't the ones doing the lifting any more, or simply because "they're old now, so we can't expect that of them." Again, this is a results-based profession, _promotions based on merit (which I keep getting told that is what they are based on, although I know better by now) would see younger, fitter people getting promoted ahead of their older counterparts long before DSMs fail a FORCE test._

Back onto the topic at hand, this points given out by age/gender category thing throws a wrench into the italicized bit.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

NO ONE is a bigger pusher of physical fitness then I.......still doing at least one Tough Mudder and a few smaller obstacle courses this summer. 

SHAMELESS PLUG TIME.......http://muddygrape.com   .......I will be the volunteer directing you where to park before I go do my run.  Support Special Olympics.   SHAMLESS PLUG ENDS.

I also play competitive volleyball in the same league I have been in since 1989.   I didn't practice back then, and yet I could jump through the roof and spike at will.  Now at 55 I practice a ton, I also run and lift a whole lot more then I did in those days, but guess what?........... I am not even close to the same player I was back then.

So I guess in your eyes I can't be a leader????


----------



## Lumber

ballz said:
			
		

> Again, this is a results-based profession, _promotions based on merit (which I keep getting told that is what they are based on, although I know better by now) would see younger, fitter people getting promoted ahead of their older counterparts long before DSMs fail a FORCE test._
> 
> Back onto the topic at hand, this points given out by age/gender category thing throws a wrench into the italicized bit.



I think the reason for this is a disconnect between two different goals; we can't get our priorities straight.

On the one hand, we want the best people to get promoted. This is why we came up with the FORCE test and removed commenting about fitness from the PER. As long as you were physically fit, your promotion could be based on your actual performace. Like you said earlier, fitness acts as a multiplier. The fitter you are, the likelier you are to perform at a higher level at all time.

On the other hand, however, there is a big push from all directions to place healthy and fitness as a top priority in the CAF. While these two goals are not mutually exclusive, the way that they are implementing the new incentive program makes it lean that way. They did a survey, which you may have particpated, and asked everyone what kind of incentives we would like. Overwhelmingly, people said that they wanted PER points. Someone, somewhere, said, Ok! If this is going to get people be more active and push themselves, so be it!

And in this regard, the FORCE test incentive levels, which discriminate based on age and sex, actually do a good job. If you look at being healthy and fit as reaching toward your individual maximum potential then you have to discriminate; a female has to try a lot harder to bench press 225lbs than a male does. A 22 year old has to put in a lot less effort to maintain peak physical condition than a 55 year old; both could spend 10 hours a week at the gym, and still the 22 year old would likely be stronger and faster. Aging leads to a decline in muscle mass, as neurons supplying the muscles begin to die. Aerobic capacity declines with age, regardless of how fast you are. Maximum heart rate drops by about a beat per year.

For military-results based testing, you can't discriminate, but for health and fitness related testing, you have to. We're trying to do both at the same time and as a result, no one is happy.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I like the FORCE test. There I said it!

I can't get younger but if I can grow boobs I'll be pushing platinum. 

But really having core physical activities that relate to what we could do on the job seems more relative than running rucking and push-ups.


For me as I mentioned deploying somewhere other than Wainwright or a dog and pony show would be good incentive to stay fit.  On top of that I'd be motivated if I felt the military, and though that me, wasn't treated like a business.

Mini-rant
At the beginning of this thread someone used the examples of two corporals in a defensive position.
My song and dance is that those corporals are wearing 
-a shitty tacvest that's designed for coffee-shop peacekeeping missions.
-a 15-20 pound (empty) rucksack that's basically a giant kitbag on your back.
-new desert boots that are exploding at the seams after 2 weeks of garrison use.

They flew to Wainwright (or where ever) with new expensive giant mob box's that are too big to fit under a standard issue cot   new expensive mini-mob box's that are small to fit much gear. they were driven to the position in a giant MSVS which will never deploy overseas or an LSVW/MLVW which we were "replacing" 20 years ago.

They were probably fresh off another exercise and told they wouldn't be going to Wainwright but were put on at the last minute because their peers went over to the CDU with some kind of bobo and the doctors gave them a _live life at own pace_ chit.

So if you want to give me (or dudes like me)  incentive to stay fit then issue us high quality gear designed to kick ass and not make a Canadian company $$$. Send me somewhere where fitness could be the deciding factor whether I see my family again or not. Or at least deploy me somewhere where I don't feel like my purpose is to give someone a check in the box.


----------



## ModlrMike

Lumber said:
			
		

> I think the reason for this is a disconnect between two different goals...



This is the important bit... we're trying to compare apples and oranges, and I think that it comes down to an incorrect interpretation.

On one hand we have a required skill to be completed in a required time - for everyone regardless of age and gender. This is as it should be.

On the other hand, we have a sliding scale that correlates one's performance based on biology. This is also as it should be because life is lived on a slope that goes rapidly downhill. We can reduce the angle of the slope, but we can never eliminate it.

The two things are unrelated. 

While everybody must be able to do the same tasks within the give parameters is quite reasonable and just. To expect a 55 year old man or woman to be able to perform to the exact same measure at a 20 year old man or woman is nonsense.  That being said, it's entirely possible for the 55 year old to have better overall fitness even if the test times are greater than the 20 year old. Personally, I'm much more concerned about the 20 year old who can't keep up with the 55 year old than the reverse.

You think the PT test is too easy? Good for you; keep up with your fitness.

You think the PT test is too hard? Get your sh!t together or GTFO.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> You think the PT test is too easy? Good for you; keep up with your fitness.
> 
> You think the PT test is too hard? Get your sh!t together or GTFO.



Best summary of the PT test/U.O.S. fitness evaluation in any thread yet.   :goodpost:


----------



## ballz

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> So I guess in your eyes I can't be a leader????



None of that tells me anything really as it's really all relative to your peers, or in the case of being in a leadership position, to your subordinates as well. I don't know you, you may have enough left to be a great leader on an Olympic volleyball team for all I know, or maybe Master's volleyball team, or maybe only a recreational volleyball team. I do know the senior leadership we've had over the last 4 years at my Battalion, and I have a pretty good idea of which ones were effective and which ones weren't, and I know which ones set a positive example for the troops and which ones lacked credibility for a myriad of reasons (some not related to physical fitness at all).

But each of those teams (olympic, master's, recreational, etc) is going to require a different threshold of physical fitness / skill and without it, a Team Captain for any of those teams would be much less effective if his physical ability and skill has deteriorated to a certain point that he is facing a credibility issue. And the executive all the way down to the coach would also face a credibility issue from the team (the rank and file troops, so to speak) for continuing to have a Team Captain that is now ineffective, or has a bunch of people below him that would be much more effective at being the Team Captain.

This comes down to an issue with both how we promote people and also how we employ them.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> For military-results based testing, you can't discriminate, but for health and fitness related testing, you have to. We're trying to do both at the same time and as a result, no one is happy.



Agreed.



			
				ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The two things are unrelated.



Agreed, but now they've made them related, hence some heated discussion :nod:


----------



## a_majoor

I'm going to come at this from a different angle. Much of why we do as PT to get fit is relatively ineffective, or done so poorly as to unmotivated most people. I have been around long enough that I remember when PT was _always_ a morning run, and have seen the evolution of fitness tests, the gold,silver, bronze pins and virtually everything else.

PT should be multifunctional (I have posted in the past that the training regime for modern Pentathelon might be a good starting point, since it trains for a wide variety of conditions). We have plenty of time (and given further cuts to ammunition, training etc. we will have still more until 2019), so that does not have to be an issue, Troops generally like a challenge, so instituting more challenges like Ironman, Tough Mudder, the Spartan run etc. can be part pf the yearly plan.

If there are time pressures, there are series of exercises in a book called The Four Hour Body{/color] which claim a very high level of efficiency (i.e. 4 hr/week) to make dramatic changes in strength and endurance. I doubt that anyone can say they don't have the time to do 75 kettle bell swings twice a week and myotatic crunches (starting at .page 162 in the hardcover edition).

The main point is if *we* are serious about fitness, then we need to train for fitness in a serious manner.

And I also stand by the idea that there should be no exemptions in the PT test. That C-6 don't magically stop weighing 11Kg just because you are (insert age/gender/element here), so everyone needs to be able to pack the support weapons, platoon ammunition, platoon stores etc. and not just pass on the tough jobs to the few who are capable of doing them.


----------



## armyvern

ballz said:
			
		

> But each of those teams (olympic, master's, recreational, etc) is going to require a different threshold of physical fitness / skill and without it, a Team Captain for any of those teams would be much less effective if his physical ability and skill has deteriorated to a certain point that he is facing a credibility issue. And the executive all the way down to the coach would also face a credibility issue from the team (the rank and file troops, so to speak) for continuing to have a Team Captain that is now ineffective, or has a bunch of people below him that would be much more effective at being the Team Captain.
> 
> This comes down to an issue with both how we promote people and also how we employ them.



Right - I'll actually agree with this reasoning.  The issue with it though is that it is not applicable.  That Olympic volleyball team needs to perform at volleyball.

A 55 yo RSMs job is to perform at many things, not just running.  An RSM also needs to be adept and well-rounded at strategic thinking and tasks amongst others and a whole lot of that shit comes with breadth of experience and time in. 

I once had a QM who insisted he needed to actually work at every position in clothing stores "to know what the troops do if he were to lead them properly".  THAT Sir, is NOT your job.  Those troops (or RSMs later on) have more job knowledge between 5 of them than you will ever possess in your career.  You do not have enough time left to serve on your contract to ever learn what they and their 100 years of service combined know.  Lead us - you do not need to be us.  

It took that RSM 25-30 years to gain the knowledge, experience and expertise he has .... he has made it to a position that only 1% of non-commissioned members make it to.   I respect that.  If, at the  end of the day, a 55yo Infantry RSM's knees are so shot after doing his job for that many years pounding his body. GOOD on him. I do hope, that if you one day achieve that rank level you'd have had time to grasp that concept.


----------



## daftandbarmy

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Right - I'll actually agree with this reasoning.  The issue with it though is that it is not applicable.  That Olympic volleyball team needs to perform at volleyball.
> 
> A 55 yo RSMs job is to perform at many things, not just running.  An RSM also needs to be adept and well-rounded at strategic thinking and tasks amongst others and a whole lot of that crap comes with breadth of experience and time in.
> 
> I once had a QM who insisted he needed to actually work at every position in clothing stores "to know what the troops do if he were to lead them properly".  THAT Sir, is NOT your job.  Those troops (or RSMs later on) have more job knowledge between 5 of them than you will ever possess in your career.  You do not have enough time left to serve on your contract to ever learn what they and their 100 years of service combined know.  Lead us - you do not need to be us.
> 
> It took that RSM 25-30 years to gain the knowledge, experience and expertise he has .... he has made it to a position that only 1% of non-commissioned members make it to.   I respect that.  If, at the  end of the day, a 55yo Infantry RSM's knees are so shot after doing his job for that many years pounding his body. GOOD on him. I do hope, that if you one day achieve that rank level you'd have had time to grasp that concept.



And if he/ she is a fat knacker wearing CADPAT size 'Moo Moo', or of they can't pass the simple tests we have in place right now just like their soldiers, unless they have a category of some kind no one will respect them even though they have all that important experience. 

Right?


----------



## ModlrMike

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> And if he/ she is a fat knacker wearing CADPAT size 'Moo Moo', or of they can't pass the simple tests we have in place right now just like their soldiers, unless they have a category of some kind no one will respect them even though they have all that important experience.
> 
> Right?



One hopes.


----------



## armyvern

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> And if he/ she is a fat knacker wearing CADPAT size 'Moo Moo', or of they can't pass the simple tests we have in place right now just like their soldiers, unless they have a category of some kind no one will respect them even though they have all that important experience.
> 
> Right?



Except he has passed his tests - save for the one trial FORCE test (which quite a few people failed as they just didn't get it- that's why it was given a test year.  This RSM did pass his actual fitness test that year).  And, when they fail their tests the very same measures are taken ref admin etc as are taken with all members of the CAF.  I fail to see what the issue is.


----------



## ballz

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> That Olympic volleyball team needs to perform at volleyball.



And at Infantry Battalion, the Bn needs to perform at Infanteering. If you can't, you need to get moved into other roles.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> A 55 yo RSMs job is to perform at many things, not just running.  An RSM also needs to be adept and well-rounded at strategic thinking and tasks amongst others and a whole lot of that crap comes with breadth of experience and time in.



Our RSMs, regardless of age, are there to worry about discipline, duties, drills, dress, and deportment. This is a leadership position above all else. Their expertise is in soldiering skills. For most soldiering skills, whether they are done in a crap state or an excellent state, it comes down to discipline, and discipline starts to degrade when you're cold, tired, dragged out, physically exhausted, etc. All things that being physically fit helps you endure and remain disciplined. 

Imagine being the cold, wet, tired, and pissed off MCpl who just gets hauled aside for a personal conversation with the Pl 2IC because your section's defensive position is a mess. The cam and concealment hasn't been changed in 4 days, the range cards are done incorrectly, the fields of fire are cleared in a half-assed manner, and your troops are spending more time sleeping than improving the position. In that moment, how much do you care that the Pl 2IC has been digging trenches since you were in high school? The truth is, you don't give a rats ass. All you care about is whether your Pl 2IC can back up his words right now. 

If he is the Pl 2IC who continuously dodges out of PT, and when he doesn't he falls out before the Pl is out of the parking lot, but yet can always be found between the unit canteen and the smoke pit, he is not going to have the credibility to correct your work and keep you honest / disciplined.

If he is the Pl 2IC who is always present at PT, who despite his years of experience seems to still give a fuck on a daily basis and manages to stay with the Pl for the entirety of that run despite that stupid Officer's marathon legs, and you genuinely respect him and find him a credible person, he is going to have the credibility in your mind to correct your work and send you off to do a better job, and you're going to be happy to work harder for him.

This is no different for an RSM inspecting CSM's coy position for effective soldiering skills, or a CSM inspecting a Pl 2ICs for the same thing.  Or if the RSM is walking around with the CO and inspecting a particular Platoon that day and is speaking directly to the MCpl who's section he determines has a sub-par position due to their lack of discipline.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> It took that RSM 25-30 years to gain the knowledge, experience and expertise he has .... he has made it to a position that only 1% of non-commissioned members make it to.   I respect that.  If, at the  end of the day, a 55yo Infantry RSM's knees are so shot after doing his job for that many years pounding his body. GOOD on him. I do hope, that if you one day achieve that rank level you'd have had time to grasp that concept.



No one is slagging him or saying that it's not "good on him." But he is being employed in the wrong position / role (in the context we are speaking of now, RSM of an Infantry Battalion) if his physical ability has degraded to the point that he's nearly in a wheelchair.

This is not a matter of me not having enough time to understand how it works. Your last comment sounds very much like "I have lots of experience, thus, you just don't understand yet," one of the more dangerous attitudes in our institution. I am catching exactly what you are pitching, I simply disagree with it, so you can hold back the comments that suggest I am just too inexperienced to understand. Your point is not very complex or hard to grasp.



			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> And if he/ she is a fat knacker wearing CADPAT size 'Moo Moo', or of they can't pass the simple tests we have in place right now just like their soldiers, unless they have a category of some kind no one will respect them even though they have all that important experience.
> 
> Right?



Apparently not, we just haven't had enough time to grasp it yet. :


----------



## ballz

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Except he has passed his tests - save for the one trial FORCE test (which quite a few people failed as they just didn't get it- that's why it was given a test year.  This RSM did pass his actual fitness test that year).  And, when they fail their tests the very same measures are taken ref admin etc as are taken with all members of the CAF.  I fail to see what the issue is.



Must just be an Infantry thing, but when our troops are told "the bare minimum is not good enough" by their CSMs and RSMs and basically every leadership position that exists, and hear them talk about how the fitness test is easy and they should all be embarrassed if they can't achieve it, they expect that he also does more than just the bare minimum. Crazy thought process they have, right?

The issue is actually that the current "incentive" program now encourages more of the shitty RSMs that we are speaking of, and less of the better ones that we all long for.


----------



## armyvern

ballz said:
			
		

> And at Infantry Battalion, the Bn needs to perform at Infanteering. If you can't, you need to get moved into other roles.
> 
> Our RSMs, regardless of age, are there to worry about discipline, duties, drills, dress, and deportment. This is a leadership position above all else. Their expertise is in soldiering skills. For most soldiering skills, whether they are done in a crap state or an excellent state, it comes down to discipline, and discipline starts to degrade when you're cold, tired, dragged out, physically exhausted, etc. All things that being physically fit helps you endure and remain disciplined.
> 
> Imagine being the cold, wet, tired, and pissed off MCpl who just gets hauled aside for a personal conversation with the Pl 2IC because your section's defensive position is a mess. The cam and concealment hasn't been changed in 4 days, the range cards are done incorrectly, the fields of fire are cleared in a half-assed manner, and your troops are spending more time sleeping than improving the position. In that moment, how much do you care that the Pl 2IC has been digging trenches since you were in high school? The truth is, you don't give a rats ass. All you care about is whether your Pl 2IC can back up his words right now.
> 
> If he is the Pl 2IC who continuously dodges out of PT, and when he doesn't he falls out before the Pl is out of the parking lot, but yet can always be found between the unit canteen and the smoke pit, he is not going to have the credibility to correct your work and keep you honest / disciplined.
> 
> If he is the Pl 2IC who is always present at PT, who despite his years of experience seems to still give a fuck on a daily basis and manages to stay with the Pl for the entirety of that run despite that stupid Officer's marathon legs, and you genuinely respect him and find him a credible person, he is going to have the credibility in your mind to correct your work and send you off to do a better job, and you're going to be happy to work harder for him.
> 
> This is no different for an RSM inspecting CSM's coy position for effective soldiering skills, or a CSM inspecting a Pl 2ICs for the same thing.  Or if the RSM is walking around with the CO and inspecting a particular Platoon that day and is speaking directly to the MCpl who's section he determines has a sub-par position due to their lack of discipline.
> 
> No one is slagging him or saying that it's not "good on him." But he is being employed in the wrong position / role (in the context we are speaking of now, RSM of an Infantry Battalion) if his physical ability has degraded to the point that he's nearly in a wheelchair.
> 
> This is not a matter of me not having enough time to understand how it works. Your last comment sounds very much like "I have lots of experience, thus, you just don't understand yet," one of the more dangerous attitudes in our institution. I am catching exactly what you are pitching, I simply disagree with it, so you can hold back the comments that suggest I am just too inexperienced to understand. Your point is not very complex or hard to grasp.
> 
> Apparently not, we just haven't had enough time to grasp it yet. :



No, as you move up in rank, your job becomes less technical and more strategic. 

Down in the trenches, it is your Pl WO and Pl Comds job to lead you.  It is your Comd Team's (CO and RSM) to lead them amongst their many other duties and responsibilities. 

I am well aware of what constitutes an RSM's duties; I am one - which do not include being the 2nd fastest runner in the Regiment (with the CO always being first of course).  What I am getting from all of your posts is that only the 2nd fastest runner in the Regiment is able/eligible to fill an RSM position ... all other skills required be damned.  

Did he pass his fitness test?  

You can take it for what it's worth, rounded down to zero because we don't do pennies anymore, but I agree that we need to be fit and we need to consider fitness as basic requirements for soldiering, but the young 21 yo who is the 2nd fastest runner in the Regiment today will not be so by the time he is the RSM and, I'd suspect, neither will any of the others.  There will always be younger and fitter troops capable of running faster than the RSM, CSMs, WOs, Sgts etc etc etc ...Such is the way of life.


----------



## QV

Fitness is much more than who has the best cardio.


----------



## armyvern

ballz said:
			
		

> Must just be an Infantry thing, but when our troops are told "the bare minimum is not good enough" by their CSMs and RSMs and basically every leadership position that exists, and hear them talk about how the fitness test is easy and they should all be embarrassed if they can't achieve it, they expect that he also does more than just the bare minimum. Crazy thought process they have, right?
> 
> The issue is actually that the current "incentive" program now encourages more of the shitty RSMs that we are speaking of, and less of the better ones that we all long for.



It's certainly not an infantry thing.  The CAF simply "has" a minimum standard that all pers are required to achieve.  Everybody should strive to improve upon that and get better.  But, as you age, physics is against you as has already been explained by another in this thread.


----------



## armyvern

QV said:
			
		

> Fitness is much more than who has the best cardio.



I agree; I'd also state that the ability to run far and fast is not the only valid indicator of cardiovascular fitness.

I've never been a runner - I am a plodder. But I grew up a competitive swimmer and keep up swimming ... one of my Captains once told me during an O Gp that I needed to improve my cardio because I couldn't keep up with him on runs (because I was a competitive swimmer, the cartilage in my knees is screwed, but I can still hump my ruck with the lot of them [no impact on knees!]).  I challenged him to laps in the pool.  Our next PT session was in the pool ... guess what happened. He didn't bring up my lack of cardio any more and my fellow troops had a great snicker.


----------



## ballz

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> What I am getting from all of your posts is that only the 2nd fastest runner in the Regiment is able/eligible to fill an RSM position ... all other skills required be damned.



Then you are not catching what I am pitching *at all.*

As long as they are competent, the RSM, CSM, and even Pl 2IC could probably get away with being the 80th-85th percentile on any given activity, since on any given activity, only about 15% of pers fall out. That's it, that's all they need to do to maintain their credibility. If it's one of those retarded runs where 50% fall out, no one will actually care. This is a matter of maintaining credibility, not winning a fitness competition.

But when the CO and RSM decide to join my platoon for a run, and I have the Pl 2IC running up to ask me to slow down because the RSM is falling out and we haven't made it 1km yet, and no one else has fallen out.... then there is a serious inability to lead from the front due to credibility issues. And there is not a single troop that doesn't notice.

So all of these posts are not about promoting people to CWO based on their fitness, they are about not promoting someone to WO or MWO or CWO (or Maj, or LCol, or Col, for that matter) if they are at the 99th percentile of fitness and won't have the credibility required amongst the troops we expect them to lead.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> No, as you move up in rank, your job becomes less technical and more strategic.
> 
> Down in the trenches, it is your Pl WO and Pl Comds job to lead you.  It is your Comd Team's (CO and RSM) to lead them amongst their many other duties and responsibilities.



Seriously? When were you a Pl 2IC, CSM, or RSM in an Inf Bn? I don't want to get out the yard-sticks and start measuring egos here, but I really don't need to be told the duties of the RSMs, DSMs, Ops SMs, CSMs, Pl 2ICs, etc, in an Infantry Battalion. My jobs (in an Inf Bn) up to this point have gotten me to know them quite well, and I've seen them done well and I've seen them done poorly. The Battalion, not even the CO, is focussed with strategic levels (although the CO must have the strategic goals in the back of his brain). The Battalion is focussed at the operational level down to the tactical level. It's *mostly* the tactical level.


----------



## daftandbarmy

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Except he has passed his tests - save for the one trial FORCE test (which quite a few people failed as they just didn't get it- that's why it was given a test year.  This RSM did pass his actual fitness test that year).  And, when they fail their tests the very same measures are taken ref admin etc as are taken with all members of the CAF.  I fail to see what the issue is.



Agreed. He's passed the official tests, well done, carry on!


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

ballz said:
			
		

> Seriously? When were you a Pl 2IC, CSM, or RSM in an Inf Bn? I don't want to get out the yard-sticks and start measuring egos here, but I really don't need to be told the duties of the RSMs, DSMs, Ops SMs, CSMs, Pl 2ICs, etc, in an Infantry Battalion. My jobs (in an Inf Bn) up to this point have gotten me to know them quite well, and I've seen them done well and I've seen them done poorly. The Battalion, not even the CO, is focussed with strategic levels (although the CO must have the strategic goals in the back of his brain). The Battalion is focussed at the operational level down to the tactical level. It's *mostly* the tactical level.



Ok. First, infantry battalions ONLY work at the tactical level, not operational. A BG is a sub-portion of Bde/Bde Gp, which is itself TACTICAL level.  Operational begins at Divisional level (RC(S) was operational level in A-STAN,TFK was tactical).



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> If it's one of those retarded runs where 50% fall out, no one will actually care. This is a matter of maintaining credibility, not winning a fitness competition.



Second, dont use "retarded" as an adverb. It takes away from your argument as you appear uneducated. 

Third- You are arguing about fitness across the board, so Vern is simply trying to state that falling out of a run is, largely, irrelevant for many trades. Since you are clearly so offended that she would dare to say what an infantry Sr NCO does than you should stop broadly saying what you think any other trade should do.


----------



## ballz

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Ok. First, infantry battalions ONLY work at the tactical level, not operational. A BG is a sub-portion of Bde/Bde Gp, which is itself TACTICAL level.  Operational begins at Divisional level (RC(S) was operational level in A-STAN,TFK was tactical).
> 
> Second, dont use "retarded" as an adverb. It takes away from your argument as you appear uneducated.



On point. The CO does concern himself with the operational level, however, but the point that it is tactical vice strategic is essentially what I was pointing out anyway.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Third- You are arguing about fitness across the board, so Vern is simply trying to state that falling out of a run is, largely, irrelevant for many trades. Since you are clearly so offended that she would dare to say what an infantry Sr NCO does than you should stop broadly saying what you think any other trade should do.



This is not as on point. I am arguing about the level of fitness required for someone in a leadership position. Leadership is not trade-specific, but the level of physical fitness required for each trade is. I have stated numerous times that it is all relevant to who you are leading. If you're in a trade where physical fitness has absolutely zero value (which I would argue there are none), then I guess you can get away with having leadership that also has zero levels. If you are in a trade that values a high level of physical fitness because it affects the effectiveness of your unit, then you should obviously demand your leadership is of a high enough level of physical fitness to remain credible.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> It's all relative. If we expect high levels of fitness from our subordinates, our leadership should reflect that. Aka SNCOs, WOs, and Officers should be leading from the front on that expectation. If your in a unit where physical fitness doesn't have as high an impact on your performance, and the expectation is that you have a maintain a "moderate" level of fitness, then your leadership should be at least "moderately" fit. A leader that is drastically less fit than his subordinates should be an outlier.
> 
> In neither situation should your leadership be so unfit that they lose their credibility



All this coming back to the original point, that tying merit points to fitness relative to one's age group is a step backwards and in the wrong direction. And we can beat this further to death, I am not likely to change my mind on that matter. :deadhorse:


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

ballz said:
			
		

> On point. The CO does concern himself with the operational level, however, but the point that it is tactical vice strategic is essentially what I was pointing out anyway.
> 
> This is not as on point. I am arguing about the level of fitness required for someone in a leadership position. Leadership is not trade-specific, but the level of physical fitness required for each trade is. I have stated numerous times that it is all relevant to who you are leading. If you're in a trade where physical fitness has absolutely zero value (which I would argue there are none), then I guess you can get away with having leadership that also has zero levels. If you are in a trade that values a high level of physical fitness because it affects the effectiveness of your unit, then you should obviously demand your leadership is of a high enough level of physical fitness to remain credible.
> 
> All this coming back to the original point, that tying merit points to fitness relative to one's age group is a step backwards and in the wrong direction. And we can beat this further to death, I am not likely to change my mind on that matter. :deadhorse:



Fair enough.

If your Bn CO is concerning himself with the operational level than I would suggest he doesn't understand what the operational level of war is, but that is for another thread I suppose.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Second, dont use "retarded" as an adverb. It takes away from your argument as you appear uneducated.



I am just going to pour a bit of gas on that fire here, just for fun.  [

Bird_Gunner45: In the sentence "_If it's one of those retarded runs where 50% fall out ..._", "retarded" is an adjective, which qualifies the noun "run", not an adverb. If one wishes to say someone else "appear uneducated", one should get it right oneself.  [


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I am just going to pour a bit of gas on that fire here, just for fun.  [
> 
> Bird_Gunner45: In the sentence "_If it's one of those retarded runs where 50% fall out ..._", "retarded" is an adjective, which qualifies the noun "run", not an adverb. If one wishes to say someone else "appear uneducated", one should get it right oneself.  [



That's fair. I stand by the initial comment though, minus the grammar mistake.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Actually folks I, and the great organization I fund raise and volunteer for, takes great offence at the 'R' word and that's the last I'll hear of it in this thread.
We can carry one with the discussion proper.

I am very serious here.
Bruce
army.ca staff


----------



## daftandbarmy

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Ok. First, infantry battalions ONLY work at the tactical level, not operational. A BG is a sub-portion of Bde/Bde Gp, which is itself TACTICAL level.  Operational begins at Divisional level (RC(S) was operational level in A-STAN,TFK was tactical).



Unless you happen to be an airborne battalion or a marine commando, or something like that, right?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Unless you happen to be an airborne battalion or a marine commando, or something like that, right?



Still tactical level....


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Still tactical level....



You are confusing pedantic semantic labelling of levels with impact.  An airborne Battalion may be working at the "tactical level", but like as not their impact will be operational or strategic.

As to whether or not there really is any validity to the cult school of thought that there is such a thing as the "operational level", I will leave that to others to tackle.

Signed,

A guy who has worked at all "levels", from micro-tactical to grand strategic


----------



## BinRat55

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> You are confusing pedantic semantic labelling of levels with impact.  An airborne Battalion may be working at the "tactical level", but like as not their impact will be operational or strategic.
> 
> As to whether or not there really is any validity to the cult school of thought that there is such a thing as the "operational level", I will leave that to others to tackle.
> 
> Signed,
> 
> A guy who has worked at all "levels", from micro-tactical to grand strategic



 :highjack:


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

Getting back on topic, when we had to fill out questionaires on incentives, there was an option that different incentive levels be given things like short days.

I just want to say I fully support that since I think it's a more tangable benefit. No doubt the increased PER points thing will be hijacked so every gigantic MWO that's god's gift to the trade won't be left behind by the few senior personnel that do put actual care and effort into their fitness and appearance. 

I can see that sentiment even showing up here, on the story of why the RSM should be allowed to fall out on PT. I never thought this was acceptable. If it's fitness related (ie I'm too fat) then you need to use that after 4pm time to get themselves back to a level where they're not subject of giggles and whispers. If it's injury then they should be on a med chit just like every other soldier giving them limitations and a return to full duty timeline. If it's "my knees/back are shot and never getting better" then they should consider that a sign they should retire. 

Nobody is irreplaceable. For every MWO with 25 years experience there's a WO with 22 years waiting in the wings. For every WO with 22 years, there's a Sgt with 18 years and so on.


----------



## Lumber

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Getting back on topic, when we had to fill out questionaires on incentives, there was an option that different incentive levels be given things like short days.
> 
> I just want to say I fully support that since I think it's a more tangable benefit. No doubt the increased PER points thing will be hijacked so every gigantic MWO that's god's gift to the trade won't be left behind by the few senior personnel that do put actual care and effort into their fitness and appearance.
> 
> I can see that sentiment even showing up here, on the story of why the RSM should be allowed to fall out on PT. I never thought this was acceptable. If it's fitness related (ie I'm too fat) then you need to use that after 4pm time to get themselves back to a level where they're not subject of giggles and whispers. If it's injury then they should be on a med chit just like every other soldier giving them limitations and a return to full duty timeline. If it's "my knees/back are shot and never getting better" then they should consider that a sign they should retire.
> 
> Nobody is irreplaceable. For every MWO with 25 years experience there's a WO with 22 years waiting in the wings. For every WO with 22 years, there's a Sgt with 18 years and so on.



Maybe we should have different standards. As an Above Water Warfare Director, I'm trained to play a video game, and I'm tnt even exaggerating. A frigate's entire suite of weapons and sensors are operated using the Combat Management System (CMS), which is controlled via one of several Multi-Function Workstations (MFWs). Essentially, the MFW is a 3-screen video game console. I see little red symbols on the screens coming toward my ship and I click on them and then I blow them up. 

Obviously, it's a lot more complicated than that, but the important thing here is that I do all of this sitting in a comfy chair using a keyboard and mouse. Your ability to do this job has everything to do with you ability to handle multiple inputs at once, process data quickly, make quick tactical decisions, execute them, all the while you are giving orders to your team while simultaneously briefing the ORO/CO. None of this requires me to be able to run 10km, lift or carry heavy weights, etc. 

Trust me when I say I would much rather have an out-of shape slob sitting in the SWC chair than some super-fit sports all-star, as long as that slob has consistently shown that he is better and _faster_ at tactically employing the ship's weapons and sensors. If you've ever had to sit through and watch (or participate in) an above water warfare exercise (especially at CFNOS where the tempo/standard is high), you'll have seen the difference between a SWC who knows how to defend the ship and one who doesn't. You don't need to see the guy doing his job, you can listen to him on the internal net, and watch his actions on the repeat of his console. Is the guy behind that voice fat and slow? Or is he super lean and fit? I can't tell! And I don't care! Just shoot down the missiles, please.

Nonetheless, physical fitness is a force multiplier, and I would rather have a super-fit SWC defending the ship than a fat-slob, assuming that both these individuals are otherwise equally skilled; the more fit person is going to be able to handle the stress of combat (and lack of sleep inherent with ship-borne duties) for a much greater time. 

So what the hell does any of this have to do with incentive levels? It goes back to what I said in an earlier post about trying to do two things at once and screwing up both. People should be promoted on the ability to do their job, not on the physical fitness level. By incorporating merit points into the incentive levels, you give an advantage to those who are more physically fit; someone who's performance is lower could be ranked equally with someone with a higher performance, because their fitness merit points bumped them up just that much.

Physical fitness should be a leadership responsibility tailored to individual units; combat arms unit should given greater priority to it over air maintenance wings; Pilots should be pushed harder than Stokers, etc.

TL;DR - Short days, T-Shirts, Pins or even Medals would all be better incentives than Merit Points.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I hear you Lumber.

But I think you are back to the difference between "general fitness", which is a health matter and is relative (which is why there are categories of age and gender), and a specific physical capacity  - objective -test, which ought to be job specific.

That slob sitting in the SWC chair need not be able to run 10 Km with an infanteer, but you will damn happy he has basic fitness if your ship is hit by a missile and he has to lift the console off your legs in a smoke filled ops room and drag your butt on deck to abandon ship.

If those "merit" points for fitness are Forces wide, however, I think the whole opposition to it thing here may be an over reaction. If Force wide, I am almost willing to bet that it will turn out that way: the large majority of the people in the top category will come from the infantry, and in any given trade, for the remainders, there will be little to distinguish one person from another. In other words, in any given trade, when it comes to promotion, the effect of these points will be negligible because most people in that trade will generally have a similar level of fitness.


----------



## BinRat55

I think the most important "incentive" in keeping a soldier fit is a job. In my opinion we have the Universality of Service for a reason. This is like the baseline. We obviously want to be better than that, try harder and not go through our career on cruise control, but the UofS is still the basis of fitness - what every soldier in the CAF should be able to accomplish no matter what trade.

Now, just like Lumber said (by the way - waaay cool explanation on what you do) the different standards could be employed over and above depending on the trade. As long as the soldier meets the UofS. Either that, or raise the UofS criteria...

But circling back to my original statement - a job - well, we all know what happens when we can't meet the criteria of the UofS don't we? Those who want to serve with stay reasonably fit (the part of being fit that's in their control at least...)

Lumber's job is cool. Just want to say that again! Too bad you have to be on a ship over thousands of feet of water!!


----------



## ProPatria05

To add to what Oldgateboatdriver is saying (if I may) - being physically fit is not so much about what abilities you need for your job when things are going as planned, but rather what abilities you need to have when things have taken a giant turn south. I argue that in ANY military occupation, that 'worst scenario' will involve the need to be physically fit to survive and help others do the same.

Besides, why can't a soldier/sailor/airman be both intellectually and physically fit? Does the former preclude the latter?


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

Lumber said:
			
		

> Maybe we should have different standards. As an Above Water Warfare Director, I'm trained to play a video game, and I'm tnt even exaggerating. A frigate's entire suite of weapons and sensors are operated using the Combat Management System (CMS), which is controlled via one of several Multi-Function Workstations (MFWs). Essentially, the MFW is a 3-screen video game console. I see little red symbols on the screens coming toward my ship and I click on them and then I blow them up.
> 
> Obviously, it's a lot more complicated than that, but the important thing here is that I do all of this sitting in a comfy chair using a keyboard and mouse. Your ability to do this job has everything to do with you ability to handle multiple inputs at once, process data quickly, make quick tactical decisions, execute them, all the while you are giving orders to your team while simultaneously briefing the ORO/CO. None of this requires me to be able to run 10km, lift or carry heavy weights, etc.
> 
> Trust me when I say I would much rather have an out-of shape slob sitting in the SWC chair than some super-fit sports all-star, as long as that slob has consistently shown that he is better and _faster_ at tactically employing the ship's weapons and sensors. If you've ever had to sit through and watch (or participate in) an above water warfare exercise (especially at CFNOS where the tempo/standard is high), you'll have seen the difference between a SWC who knows how to defend the ship and one who doesn't. You don't need to see the guy doing his job, you can listen to him on the internal net, and watch his actions on the repeat of his console. Is the guy behind that voice fat and slow? Or is he super lean and fit? I can't tell! And I don't care! Just shoot down the missiles, please.
> 
> Nonetheless, physical fitness is a force multiplier, and I would rather have a super-fit SWC defending the ship than a fat-slob, assuming that both these individuals are otherwise equally skilled; the more fit person is going to be able to handle the stress of combat (and lack of sleep inherent with ship-borne duties) for a much greater time.
> 
> So what the hell does any of this have to do with incentive levels? It goes back to what I said in an earlier post about trying to do two things at once and screwing up both. People should be promoted on the ability to do their job, not on the physical fitness level. By incorporating merit points into the incentive levels, you give an advantage to those who are more physically fit; someone who's performance is lower could be ranked equally with someone with a higher performance, because their fitness merit points bumped them up just that much.
> 
> Physical fitness should be a leadership responsibility tailored to individual units; combat arms unit should given greater priority to it over air maintenance wings; Pilots should be pushed harder than Stokers, etc.
> 
> TL;DR - Short days, T-Shirts, Pins or even Medals would all be better incentives than Merit Points.



I couldn't disagree more. Yes we all have trades, I'm a network administrator, my job could not be any more sedentary. That said, I'm also a soldier and I need to be prepared to complete all the tasks that could be asked of me on short notice and with great urgency. Can I be 500 lbs in a wheelchair and program a network? Yes, no problem. Can I be out of shape and help build my camp, run concertina wire, help with the defense of a camp, offload supplies from a truck or any other non-trade related task that may be assigned to me at any time? No. 

Fitness level is a definite sign of your ability to adapt to mental stress and physical rigors that anyone in uniform can be called to at any time.

Your Warfare Director at any time could be required provide first aid or manually extract injuried personnel from his area in case of disaster or emergency. I'm not a sailor, but could he not be required to assist in a firefighting effort in his section of the boat in an emergency? The sailors I do know tell me that can be incredibly physically demanding. When your on shore you can be called to duty any time to provide assistance to domestic operations like during the icestorm, every year during the forest fire season, or during a flood.

As far as deciding between a slob that's good at their job and a fit person that's bad at their job, that's just a false binary statement. Can I be good at my job and be able to run 10 KM (which really should be trivial for anyone in the military)? Yes absolutely, it's a false dichotomy. I'd rather the slob that's good at their job start doing something, anything to improve their physical fitness. I mean, the FORCE test already is a joke of a standard, the vast majority can and should have no problem doing the lift and the shuttle in less than half the allotted time. Unless someone has a coordination mixup (forgetting to pick up your hands) they should have no problem with the rushes and be at least 10 seconds ahead. The drag, save those who are shorter and lighter, should be no problem as you're just walking backwards with weight. If you can't do that then you likely can't pull me out of danger if I'm in need of extraction. That's a concern. The fit guy should learn to do his job better. 

Not only that, it's a dress and deportment issue. When I see people out in public in uniform with a belly that enters a room well before the head or a gut that hands well below the belt it's embarrassing that they're wearing the same uniform as me, and that they are negatively impacting the public's perception of the military by their lack of care for themselves.


----------



## dapaterson

"Fit" is a subjective standard.  It is a question of degree.

It's also a question of the military role of the individual.  Not every individual is sitting on or by their ruck, waiting to be called to do their military job.  Many are already employed in it, day to day, and already working long hours trying to keep up.  Should we close supply another hour each day so Sup Techs can spend time in the gym?  Should pay & claims be delayed so RMS clerks can do more crossfit?  Does that mean we increase the number of support personnel so they will be able to both complete their work and maintain a higher level of fitness?


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> I think the most important "incentive" in keeping a soldier fit is a job. In my opinion we have the Universality of Service for a reason. This is like the baseline. We obviously want to be better than that, try harder and not go through our career on cruise control, but the UofS is still the basis of fitness - what every soldier in the CAF should be able to accomplish no matter what trade.
> 
> Now, just like Lumber said (by the way - waaay cool explanation on what you do) the different standards could be employed over and above depending on the trade. As long as the soldier meets the UofS. Either that, or raise the UofS criteria...
> 
> But circling back to my original statement - a job - well, we all know what happens when we can't meet the criteria of the UofS don't we? Those who want to serve with stay reasonably fit (the part of being fit that's in their control at least...)
> 
> Lumber's job is cool. Just want to say that again! Too bad you have to be on a ship over thousands of feet of water!!



If what you consider appropriate is achieving the bare minimum standard (in anything, job knowledge, education, physical fitness or even volunteering for secondary duties) then I don't see any issue with a PER reflecting your "good-enough" approach.

Right justified PERs are intended for those that strive for excellence.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

dapaterson said:
			
		

> "Fit" is a subjective standard.  It is a question of degree.
> 
> It's also a question of the military role of the individual.  Not every individual is sitting on or by their ruck, waiting to be called to do their military job.  Many are already employed in it, day to day, and already working long hours trying to keep up.  Should we close supply another hour each day so Sup Techs can spend time in the gym?  Should pay & claims be delayed so RMS clerks can do more crossfit?  Does that mean we increase the number of support personnel so they will be able to both complete their work and maintain a higher level of fitness?



Yes. 

My current unit is about as operationally busy as you can find anywhere in the military, I believe we only lag behind CANSOFCOM in how many and how often we are deployed operationally. We are, by no means, sitting on our rucksacks. Our CoC makes fitness a priority because without it we would not be able to deploy the number of people we do in the roles we do. PT is mandated from the top levels down to the privates. 5 days a week, with the CO leading Friday PT most weeks.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Right justified PERs are intended for those that strive for excellence.



Bingo! Give that man a cigar!

Anybody ever heard the old latin dictum: _Mens sana in corpore sano_ 

Fit mind in a fit body: Can anyone argue that this is not something the military, of all people, should strive for?

Many years ago, I had to send about twenty of my sailors (including a Lt(N), two PO2 and one PO1) to assist in the Winnipeg flood. Their duties was boat handling, maintenance, and assistance with transport of sandbags. Do you think they could have done it as out-of-shape slobs? I don't think so. But even more important, when they came back one of them told me that the most important aspect of the military intervention he had noted while there was that whenever the military showed up at a location where sand bag walls were going up, our main contribution was pushing the civilians by example: When military showed up, we would simply work at the wall constantly, methodically and with stamina until the job was completed, and it motivated the civilians to do the same and not quit until it was done - regardless of exhaustion, boo-boos and other ills.


----------



## armyvern

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Bingo! Give that man a cigar!



That's how the dots work.  Fitness isn't even one of them.  Do we add the caveat after every AF and PF, "Job knowledge, but only if one surpasses the minimum standard in fitness", "Written Communication, but only if one surpasses the minimum standard in fitness" ... etc etc etc


Ahhhh, CFJSR - loved that place!  Great posting it was.


----------



## daftandbarmy

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Yes.
> 
> My current unit is about as operationally busy as you can find anywhere in the military, I believe we only lag behind CANSOFCOM in how many and how often we are deployed operationally. We are, by no means, sitting on our rucksacks. Our CoC makes fitness a priority because without it we would not be able to deploy the number of people we do in the roles we do. PT is mandated from the top levels down to the privates. 5 days a week, with the CO leading Friday PT most weeks.



Excellent! Please clone that and distribute widely.


----------



## dapaterson

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Right justified PERs are intended for those that strive for excellence.



No.

Many strive for it.  If they cannot achieve it, though, then we may be rewarding mediocrity.  "Nice guy, tries hard" does not mean right justified.


----------



## Arty39

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> If what you consider appropriate is achieving the bare minimum standard (in anything, job knowledge, education, physical fitness or even volunteering for secondary duties) then I don't see any issue with a PER reflecting your "good-enough" approach.
> 
> Right justified PERs are intended for those that strive for excellence.


What's the breakdown for the PER points? I understand how the Bronze-Platinum scale works for the Force Test.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> That's how the dots work.  Fitness isn't even one of them.  Do we add the caveat after every AF and PF, "Job knowledge, but only if one surpasses the minimum standard in fitness", "Written Communication, but only if one surpasses the minimum standard in fitness" ... etc etc etc



Not currently, but it looks like that's the intent with the new bronze, silver, gold and platinum levels. Not sure if there will be a different dot category, if it will be noted in the narrative (I doubt, since they've stressed it's the dots that count now) or if it will be additional points on national trade merit boards (outside of the PERs, kind of like how education or 2nd language scores factor in). They did say there will be "points" so not sure where they are allocated.

I think this is a good change nonetheless, but a little more info would be good.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Excellent! Please clone that and distribute widely.



I would but I wouldn't want to replicate some of the foolishness. 

Best to reformat and build from the chassis up.


----------



## armyvern

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Excellent! Please clone that and distribute widely.



His current Unit is also a Pri 2 Operational Unit that is manned full up.

Some Units outside of those SOF and Joint Units are sitting well below the full up strength or even a workable strength.  There's a Unit out here that's short 40+ pers of just one trade (Sup) at the Pte/Cpl level (a red trade).  And my current Unit that consists of 15 different trades is at 71% effective strength.  The staffing process to try to hire for the many civilian vacancies that we also have hampers at each and every turn possible.

The reality of the CAF is there is no such thing as a "we do, so you can too".  It doesn't work that way.  Much like boots - one size does _*not*_ fit all.


----------



## CountDC

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> But circling back to my original statement - a job - well, we all know what happens when we can't meet the criteria of the UofS don't we?



They get a low risk assessment from the med side and the CO does a letter stating he will retain without restrictions.........or is that only here?

My problem with the run and lift your hands is ever time I have done it the person administrating the test has stood at one end.  When I have been at the far end they ding me for not lifting my hands even though I do every time (not sure if bad eyes, too quick or not high enough to be seen at distance).  Not the only one to have this issue either.  They have to get in a better position to see or have two spotters.

PSP staff have been known to give in to different influences over the years.  Once I attempted the expres test while sick and failed by 2 push ups.  The gentleman doing the test asked if a promotion would be affected before he completed the paperwork indicating the fail.  He was ready to give me the pass if it had as I had tried hard even though it was clear I was sick.  Rollie Pollie CWOs that could barely walk across a parade square some how magically became extremely fit, blasted the tests including BMI with no problems (know one that had lunch at the tavern with the PSP supervisor every year. hmmm). 

I didn't vote merit points.   I support units setting their own merits such as a short day for mbrs that meet a given criteria stated prior to the test such as top 20%, etc.


----------



## PuckChaser

Smack the ground with your hands so it makes a loud noise when you get up, they can't say you didn't lift your hands if it makes noise.


----------



## OldSolduer

Arty39 said:
			
		

> 3.2km run in 19 minutes is not a fast time at all.



Hey - speak for yourself. It may not be fast to you BUT to the 18 year old who has done nothing but play video games and hang out with his friends who has decided to join up its a huge accomplishment.

Not all of us need to be CSOR or JTF2 fit, just as not all of us can compete in athletic events at a national or international level.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Hey - speak for yourself. It may not be fast to you BUT to the 18 year old who has done nothing but play video games and hang out with his friends who has decided to join up its a huge accomplishment.
> 
> Not all of us need to be CSOR or JTF2 fit, just as not all of us can compete in athletic events at a national or international level.



The minimum standard used to be 12 minutes to do a 2.4km run. Now I'm not a math wiz by any means, but I'll leave it to you to determine what the minimum standard pace would be over 3.6 km.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> His current Unit is also a Pri 2 Operational Unit that is manned full up.
> 
> Some Units outside of those SOF and Joint Units are sitting well below the full up strength or even a workable strength.  There's a Unit out here that's short 40+ pers of just one trade (Sup) at the Pte/Cpl level (a red trade).  And my current Unit that consists of 15 different trades is at 71% effective strength.  The staffing process to try to hire for the many civilian vacancies that we also have hampers at each and every turn possible.
> 
> The reality of the CAF is there is no such thing as a "we do, so you can too".  It doesn't work that way.  Much like boots - one size does _*not*_ fit all.



My trade subocc (IST) manning is sitting around 45%, and my current workplace is not doing much better. If you make it a priority it will get done. If you convince yourself you're fat because your busy then don't expect that to change.


----------



## OldSolduer

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> The minimum standard used to be 12 minutes to do a 2.4km run. Now I'm not a math wiz by any means, but I'll leave it to you to determine what the minimum standard pace would be over 3.6 km.



My fastest 2.4 Km was 9:30 seconds when I was 18.

Not every one is a runner, nor is every one an Olympic level anything. 

I'm 59 years old. I run about a 6 minute Km. I passed the FORCE test despite the TCat that said I shouldn't do it. 

If you pass the FORCE test, the minimum standard, that's good. Improve on it.


----------



## ballz

dapaterson said:
			
		

> It's also a question of the military role of the individual.  Not every individual is sitting on or by their ruck, waiting to be called to do their military job.  Many are already employed in it, day to day, and already working long hours trying to keep up.  Should we close supply another hour each day so Sup Techs can spend time in the gym?  Should pay & claims be delayed so RMS clerks can do more crossfit?  Does that mean we increase the number of support personnel so they will be able to both complete their work and maintain a higher level of fitness?



Most of the leadership just doesn't care enough to support their troops in being physically fit, and are too caught up in things that *don't matter* to do things that will help foster better physical fitness.

My OC this year wasn't happy with the PT in our coy. He wasn't wrong. We did PT every day, but there were other problems to say the least. There was no enthusiasm, it often felt like a burden (and it was), and we made it that way through our own doing.

He made some small changes, like allowing us to be in PT gear at work if it was because we were doing a 2nd work-out at lunch. We attended coy O-groups in PT kit because we just did morning PT and were planning to go again at lunch. We left work early in PT kit to go do another work-out. We set up the mats and left them out for everyone to use (as opposed to them being locked away in the QM) so that they were easy to access. I went from doing PT once a day, to doing PT twice a day, and someone I had more time on my hands than ever. I've been doing PT 8-10 times a week for the couple of months now and I enjoy it more than I ever did.

Low and behold, the OC deploys and before he made it to the airport the DCO starts asking why we are in PT kit in the middle of the day (this had been going on for 2-3 months prior without a peep). The OC comes back and the DCO starts asking him why we are going to Officer's coffee in PT kit (which is in our own rest easy and is at 9:30 in the morning... I'm in PT kit cause I just finished a 10km run, didn't see you out on the trails) and tells him its inappropriate and the same old stuff. Mind you, I've never seen this DCO do PT, except Officer's pool PT that one time where he hung onto the side while the rest of us treaded water. Guess he has more important things to worry about it.

The DSM started hopping up and down to get the mats put away (despite the fact that they were now being used about 3 times a day, and by a lot more people than just my company simply because they were accessible). Glad he lost that one as it sure is a waste of $8500 worth of mats to lock them away (like they had been for 2 years).

I am sure there are people hopping up and down about how unprofessional wearing PT after 0900 was, about to respond to me as if I've just burned a Qu'ran, but I don't care if a supply tech wears PT kit while they exchange my combats, and I don't care if my subordinates do day-to-day work in PT kit because they are between workouts. The results spoke for themselves, and the same old crowd showed up to try and stifle any progress.


----------



## armyvern

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> My trade subocc (IST) manning is sitting around 45%, and my current workplace is not doing much better. If you make it a priority it will get done. If you convince yourself you're fat because your busy then don't expect that to change.



That's because you Signals types now have a shit tonne in the training system who don't even know what sub occ they are going to be when they join these days.  You have the numbers --- just not against the sub occs.  Are the Signallers there still leaving at 1130 for lunch and returning 1330ish and then heading home for the evening ~ 1500ish leaving only the RQ/SQ and RM Tp vehicles sitting in the parking lot?  If not, that's a change because that's how it was my entire 5 years there.

My priority is supporting operations and a the current Brigade Ex happening here.  My troops need to sleep sometime.  This ain't K-Town and it's non-comparable.  Anyway, supper is done ... must head back to work.


LOL; am back at work and have an email from the last place that I belonged to head hunting pers ... shall send it off to the pers at JSR who replaced me because I got no one.


----------



## PuckChaser

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> That's because you Signals types now have a crap tonne in the training system who don't even know what sub occ they are going to be when they join these days.  You have the numbers --- just not against the sub occs.  Are the Signallers there still leaving at 1130 for lunch and returning 1330ish and then heading home for the evening ~ 1500ish leaving only the RQ/SQ and RM Tp vehicles sitting in the parking lot?  If not, that's a change because that's how it was my entire 5 years there.



Thats hilarious, considering the Op tempo of signallers everywhere. Probably the same 100 fit guys constantly deploying, everyone else copulating the proverbial pooch. Seems like Kingston has a massive amount of PYs invested in manning Div HQs that don't deploy, instead of pushing Sigs resources out to the main effort of the CA: CMBGs.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

:duel:  :Jedi: 


op:


----------



## armyvern

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Thats hilarious, considering the Op tempo of signallers everywhere. Probably the same 100 fit guys constantly deploying, everyone else copulating the proverbial pooch. Seems like Kingston has a massive amount of PYs invested in manning Div HQs that don't deploy, instead of pushing Sigs resources out to the main effort of the CA: CMBGs.



Nope, the deployments were spread pretty evenly over that Regiment ... and they don't man Div HQ.  We have supported Div HQ on JOINTEX however, but nary a PY belongs to them.  Nor did JSR grow a single PY due to the stand up of 1 Can Div HQ (but I'm quite positive you knew that already).


----------



## PuckChaser

Doesn't mean it didn't have too many PYs already. When you can put a giant capability into a unit and not grow it's PYs, maybe you have too many PYs.

That's besides the thread topic though.


----------



## BinRat55

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> The minimum standard used to be 12 minutes to do a 2.4km run. Now I'm not a math wiz by any means, but I'll leave it to you to determine what the minimum standard pace would be over 3.6 km.



Slow down - the 3.2 Km in 19 mins was in reference to the old Warrior Training - 3.2 Km in FULL BATTLE RATTLE... 19 mins was a good time.


----------



## Pusser

I am wholly opposed to PER points as an incentive for fitness and question why we need fitness testing at all.  The problem with fitness testing is that it is punitive by nature (i.e. the consequences of failing the test are published in great detail).  Providing PER points as an "incentive" for doing well can actually be seen as negative reinforcement (which is generally considered bad) because everyone will only concentrate on what they're not getting if they don't do as well on the test as perhaps they should.

The problem with fitness in the CF stems from the lack of a universal culture of fitness.  Granted, many units (mostly it seems, in the combat arms) are very good at it and unfit personnel are quickly identified and dealt with.  However, for most of us, the last time we were in a unit that treated fitness seriously was in basic training (i.e. we ran the crap out of you for 8-13 weeks and then stopped).  This doesn't make sense.  If we had a culture where fitness training was an integral part of being in the CF and included in the daily routine, we wouldn't have this problem.  However, this is not the case.  For the most part, fitness is a personal responsibility and although we've gotten better over the past decade or so (e.g. we can actually take time out of the work day to go to the gym), there are still too many people in leadership positions who do not support the program (i.e. make it difficult for subordinates to train).  If we had a system where everyone, at every rank level and without exception (barring injury, illness, etc) had a required military duty to do some form of effective PT every day, then the entire CF would be in much better shape.  However, right now, we have more serious discussions about parking spaces on bases than about the lack of places to lock up a bicycle or adequate facilities for personnel to keep their uniforms so they can run/cycle to work.


----------



## armyvern

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Doesn't mean it didn't have too many PYs already. When you can put a giant capability into a unit and not grow it's PYs, maybe you have too many PYs.
> 
> That's besides the thread topic though.



Nope; that's why they are a Pri 2 - we needed that many PYs to keep up with the sheer Op tempo we had going on around the world.  Over 9000 troops over the years just to A-Stan from that Unit.  Gun Camps, JOINT EXs and Herpes Hermes associated took over post the big-PY eating tour.  They certainly earn their LDA being gone 6+ months per year on various of all the tasks.


----------



## armyvern

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Slow down - the 3.2 Km in 19 mins was in reference to the old Warrior Training - 3.2 Km in FULL BATTLE RATTLE... 19 mins was a good time.



19 minutes was _very_ slow if you were Clutch.  F'n guy. What was he - a 14:06 or something like that.   :-\


----------



## BinRat55

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> 19 minutes was _very_ slow if you were Clutch.  F'n guy. What was he - a 14:06 or something like that.   :-\



Holy CRAP I know - he blew by me at the 1K mark - thought I was in a mini tornado (a Clutch-nado?) Lol! Yea - put on helmet. Go.


----------



## Lumber

Pusser said:
			
		

> If we had a system where everyone, at every rank level and without exception (barring injury, illness, etc) had a required military duty to do some form of effective PT every day, then the entire CF would be in much better shape.



First , I think a few the heads of a few combat arms types on here exploded. You mean to imply that an hour of PT everyday _isn't_ already mandatory???

Second, let's talk about results. I mentioned in my last post about wanting a fat-slob over a super-fit person sitting in the SWC chair (for those of you confused, that's Sensors and Weapons Controller). Now, fat-slob was hyperbole, as I still expect that member to be able to complete the FORCE test. If he can complete the FORCE test, than I expect him to be able to drag my unconscious body out of the Ops room when the super-fit but less competent guy misses the 2nd trail in a stream-raid and we just took a C-803 amidship. I just think, in this scenario specifically, that technical competency carries more weight than physical competency. And unlike many of you, I think the FORCE test does a good enough job of determining whether my ship mates will be able to carry unconscious bodies through the ship.

As for PT every day? Let me put it this way. I work out 3 times a week, sometimes 2. None of these PT sessions are at work, although we did start playing ball hockey again, once a week. According to the DFit website, I reached the Silver incentive level. So why do I need to do PT every day? How about PT 3 times a week and an hour of cooking and cooking preparation twice a week so that I can show my subordinates how to eat healthy?


----------



## BinRat55

Lumber said:
			
		

> First , I think a few the heads of a few combat arms types on here exploded. You mean to imply that an hour of PT everyday _isn't_ already mandatory???



Nope!  :nod:



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> As for PT every day? Let me put it this way. I work out 3 times a week, sometimes 2. None of these PT sessions are at work, although we did start playing ball hockey again, once a week. According to the DFit website, I reached the Silver incentive level. So why do I need to do PT every day? How about PT 3 times a week and an hour of cooking and cooking preparation twice a week so that I can show my subordinates how to eat healthy?



I absolutely LOVE this suggestion!! We could get Gordon Ramsay or Micheal Smith for PD... or Kat Cora!!


----------



## BinRat55

I was being serious...


----------



## Lumber

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> I was being serious...



So was I! You can do PT twice a day, every day, but if your troops are going home and shoveling nothing but fast food and frozen dinners down their gullets, you're not going to see much improvement.


----------



## BinRat55

Lumber said:
			
		

> So was I! You can do PT twice a day, every day, but if your troops are going home and shoveling nothing but fast food and frozen dinners down their gullets, you're not going to see much improvement.



You are so right. Ever since I caught diabetes (yep. I caught it. there.) I have learned so much more about eating habits. I did the Top Fuel courses but they have nothing on good old experience teaching inexperience. I do love the suggestion because there are so many different things you can do and directions to go with it - all in the promotion of health. Have your unit buy a bench press, treadmill, bike. But instead of the TV and entertainment system, by a stove and fridge. Use it to teach your subordinates how to cook healthy!


----------



## BinRat55

Cue the Jim Carey voice in Dumb and Dumber - "I like it. I like it a lot."


----------



## Jarnhamar

Lumber said:
			
		

> So was I! You can do PT twice a day, every day, but if your troops are going home and shoveling nothing but fast food and frozen dinners down their gullets, you're not going to see much improvement.



Haybox meals. Lots of times you run out of the meat but there's cardboard boxes full of jolouis, caramilk cupcakes and all that crap.


----------



## BinRat55

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Haybox meals. Lots of times you run out of the meat but there's cardboard boxes full of jolouis, caramilk cupcakes and all that crap.



Yes, Joe Louies and Caramel Cupcakes - THATS what I caught diabetes from!!


----------



## Lumber

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Yes, Joe Louies and Caramel Cupcakes - THATS what I caught diabetes from!!



Don't forget le Pepsi! (the Farnham box lunches are still, to this day, my favourite!)


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Lumber said:
			
		

> Don't forget le Pepsi! (the Farnham box lunches are still, to this day, my favourite!)



Or the nutritious fare they stock in the canteens at various units.

Nothing like killing it during a 5 K and loading calories up with a McSweeney's danish and a Monster....


----------



## The Bread Guy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> ... there's cardboard boxes full of jolouis, caramilk cupcakes and all that crap ...


One man's junk food is another's "Industrial and Regional Benefits"  ;D


----------



## a_majoor

It is always bizarre to go to the mess and see the "healthy eating" signs on the table after you have passed a pop machine at the serving line...

The servers always load you up with the starches as well, but only a tiny serving of vegetables (OK, they are mostly steamed, but still....)

So we have a long way to go on the nutrition side as well.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Some Units outside of those SOF and Joint Units are sitting well below the full up strength or even a workable strength.



It's fun being in a unit that does op's all over the place, all the time _but_ is a lower VCDS Pri than recruiting centers and HQs and is always a few people short of a parade.   

And by fun, I mean_ not _fun.


----------



## cld617

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> As far as deciding between a slob that's good at their job and a fit person that's bad at their job, that's just a false binary statement. Can I be good at my job and be able to run 10 KM (which really should be trivial for anyone in the military)? Yes absolutely, it's a false dichotomy.



I wanted to add to this, as it couldn't be more spot on. Why is there a belief that if we go back to 2 per points for exemption, that it will result in the wrong people being promoted. The slobs aren't all stars at their jobs, and the fit people are not all plugs. If the unfit person is truly as good as people believe, write them up so that they are competitive at the board. If the fit individual is being promoted, it's likely because he is both fit and good at his job. 2 points isn't a big enough advantage to disregard the bulk of the rest of the points he earned by being good at his particular trade. 



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Some Units outside of those SOF and Joint Units are sitting well below the full up strength or even a workable strength.



SF Op is currently <80% manning, everyone is hurting. Being shiny and appealing doesn't result in perfect numbers, it just means you're higher up the manning priority list.


----------



## ModlrMike

It's important to remember that these are Potential points we're talking about. That's two points out of a total of 10 possible that are considered for Potential, on top of one's raw PER score. There are many factors that give you up to two points, in addition to fitness. There's language, posting history, posting preferences, education etc. One could get their 10 points without fitness being considered. That being said, these point only count as a percentage. Given the rank and trade, these 10 potential points could be rated at 30%-40%.

From a personal perspective, I don't agree with points for fitness. I think attaining the standard is sufficient. You don't pass your fitness, you don't go to the board... even if you're the shiniest star in the trade. Medical and other valid exemptions not included, of course.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Thucydides said:
			
		

> It is always bizarre to go to the mess and see the "healthy eating" signs on the table after you have passed a pop machine at the serving line...
> 
> The servers always load you up with the starches as well, but only a tiny serving of vegetables (OK, they are mostly steamed, but still....)
> 
> So we have a long way to go on the nutrition side as well.



Actually, the National Standardized Cycle Menu (NSCM) that is nationally mandated is quite strict on portion sizes and offers both vegetarian and healthy choice options (and one "local" option which is normally the unhealthy but desirable option). If you're getting too large a portion, advise your Food Svcs O... it'll help them with their costs too.

There's also a salad bar......


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

Lumber said:
			
		

> First , I think a few the heads of a few combat arms types on here exploded. You mean to imply that an hour of PT everyday _isn't_ already mandatory???
> 
> Second, let's talk about results. I mentioned in my last post about wanting a fat-slob over a super-fit person sitting in the SWC chair (for those of you confused, that's Sensors and Weapons Controller). Now, fat-slob was hyperbole, as I still expect that member to be able to complete the FORCE test. If he can complete the FORCE test, than I expect him to be able to drag my unconscious body out of the Ops room when the super-fit but less competent guy misses the 2nd trail in a stream-raid and we just took a C-803 amidship. I just think, in this scenario specifically, that technical competency carries more weight than physical competency. And unlike many of you, I think the FORCE test does a good enough job of determining whether my ship mates will be able to carry unconscious bodies through the ship.
> 
> As for PT every day? Let me put it this way. I work out 3 times a week, sometimes 2. None of these PT sessions are at work, although we did start playing ball hockey again, once a week. According to the DFit website, I reached the Silver incentive level. So why do I need to do PT every day? How about PT 3 times a week and an hour of cooking and cooking preparation twice a week so that I can show my subordinates how to eat healthy?



Why do you constantly assume the fit guy is always less competent? In my experience fitter people tend to be more competent not less so.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Haybox meals. Lots of times you run out of the meat but there's cardboard boxes full of jolouis, caramilk cupcakes and all that crap.



Maybe the caramilk cupcakes are left over because everyone else had the sense to skip over them.


----------



## armyvern

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> ...You don't pass your fitness, you don't go to the board... even if you're the shiniest star in the trade. Medical and other valid exemptions not included, of course.



It's already this way for the Loggies ... and not just for a "fail".  Result expired on date boards commence? Then no file goes to boards for you.

Less the exemption you point out.


----------



## dapaterson

cld617 said:
			
		

> SF Op is currently <80% manning, everyone is hurting. Being shiny and appealing doesn't result in perfect numbers, it just means you're higher up the manning priority list.



Very bad example.  Expansion plans for that occupation were poorly drafted and grossly overoptimistic.


----------



## PuckChaser

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Very bad example.  Expansion plans for that occupation were poorly drafted and grossly overoptimistic.



They're also allowed to fail a huge majority off their courses, something us in the regular army would like to do, but can't.


----------



## daftandbarmy

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Why do you constantly assume the fit guy is always less competent?



For the same reason blondes are supposed to be dumber?


----------



## BinRat55

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> ...If you're getting too large a portion, advise your Food Svcs O...



Too large WHAT? Advise who? Whoa dere whoa dere...



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> There's also a salad bar......



Last I checked, profanity and incoherent statements were not allowed on this board. That's it. Say it again and I am reporting you...

I will now adjourn for steak.


----------



## Lumber

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Why do you constantly assume the fit guy is always less competent? In my experience fitter people tend to be more competent not less so.



I'm not, quite the opposite, I'm saying that being fit does not imply that you are more competent. To me this seems obvious, but I have seen first hand more fit people being treated more favourably at work based on their fitness level, without taking into account their actual level of competency. 

Here's another Navy anecdote. I'm also a Ship's Team Diver, was a member of the ship's dive team for 4 years, and led it for 2 years. Anyone who has ever interacted with military divers, whether Combat Divers or Clearance Divers, knows that they are coo-coo for coco-puffs for fitness. Now, as ship's dive team, we're not so coo-coo, so I had a mixed bag of super-fit, average-fit, and minimum-fit divers. Who, in relation to their fitness level, do you think was the best diver on my team? Well, it was actually the least fit member of my team (remember, diver's don't have a separate fitness standard, all they need is the FORCE test). She was the last one to finish on a run and couldn't climb a ladder in full diving gear, but *every * time I put her in the water, I knew that she would be calm, collected, focused and able to safely perform whatever task I needed her to do. My biggest cluster-f**k was actually one of my most fit divers. Every time _he_ went in the water, you could almost guarantee he'd spend 15 second flapping on the surface until he realized he hadn't released enough ballast, he's get tangled in his lines, and he'd go forward when you wanted him to go aft. I would rather my whole dive team was super fit, because diving is a physically demanding job, but their fitness levels did not in any way determine (or indicate) how competent they were underwater.


----------



## Lumber

cld617 said:
			
		

> I wanted to add to this, as it couldn't be more spot on. Why is there a belief that if we go back to 2 per points for exemption, that it will result in the wrong people being promoted. The slobs aren't all stars at their jobs, and the fit people are not all plugs. If the unfit person is truly as good as people believe, write them up so that they are competitive at the board. If the fit individual is being promoted, it's likely because he is both fit and good at his job. 2 points isn't a big enough advantage to disregard the bulk of the rest of the points he earned by being good at his particular trade.



Realistic, I don't think it will result in a measurable frequency of the "wrong" people getting promoted. When two people of equal competency are being compared, then fitness level is a completely fair metric (among others) to use to differentiate between the cream of the crop. The people who are being sifted over at the merit board are all (or should be) very competent , so there shouldn't be any injustice. There is just the small possibility of someone with a lower performance score getting an overall better score because of his fitness level, and I'm simply of the mind that you shouldn't even be comparing him to others of higher competence. (it would be such a slim margin between them though, that I agree this shouldn't, in practice, occur)

Also, I feel that the other metrics are good enough (if not better) and that we don't need to use fitness level.


----------



## dapaterson

Much of this conversation ignores the elephant in the room: the bastardized performance assessment system where calling someone "Ready" for promotion is the kiss of death, so scores are grossly inflated across the board.  That, in turn, means seemingly minor changes to the other parts of scoring (such as fitness) will have disproportionate effect.  Board cutoffs are sometimes measured in fractions of points; one or two extra points for being a gym rat could be extremely significant.


----------



## BinRat55

I don't know how this fits, or even IF it fits here by a little story (true story):

Back in the early 90s, there was me and another Pte. Shortly after him being posted in to us, he was "recruited" for lack of a better term to play CISM Soccer. That young Pte travelled quite a bit over the next two years - Poland, Italy, Denmark, USA... I did a s*** ton of field time. He and I were promoted to Cpl together (accelerated by 6 months) We went our separate ways but kept in touch. Right after the promotion to Cpl, he began playing CISM Volleyball during the winter months. His 25 year career to date has him with zero operational tours, a dozen PER exemptions and about 25 mins in the trade (that one I exaggerated for effect!)

The result: He is an MWO with 5 medals on his chest. Amazing guy, very healthy - a guy you would want to run into you if you were anywhere in the world in trouble. Knows nothing of his trade - lucky to spell "Supply".

I think my point here might be to leave the "being fit" part out of the PER. I am a broken old Sr NCO who can't run the length of himself (medically related) but I guarantee you - I can out-supply anyone (well, maybe not Vern but I could give her a run for her money!) An honest, un-inflated assessment on a PER it all we need. If I can pepper pot or run in a jungle lane then there are other avenues for "inspiration"...


----------



## armyvern

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> I don't know how this fits, or even IF it fits here by a little story (true story):
> 
> Back in the early 90s, there was me and another Pte. Shortly after him being posted in to us, he was "recruited" for lack of a better term to play CISM Soccer. That young Pte travelled quite a bit over the next two years - Poland, Italy, Denmark, USA... I did a s*** ton of field time. He and I were promoted to Cpl together (accelerated by 6 months) We went our separate ways but kept in touch. Right after the promotion to Cpl, he began playing CISM Volleyball during the winter months. His 25 year career to date has him with zero operational tours, a dozen PER exemptions and about 25 mins in the trade (that one I exaggerated for effect!)
> 
> The result: He is an MWO with 5 medals on his chest. Amazing guy, very healthy - a guy you would want to run into you if you were anywhere in the world in trouble. Knows nothing of his trade - lucky to spell "Supply".
> 
> I think my point here might be to leave the "being fit" part out of the PER. I am a broken old Sr NCO who can't run the length of himself (medically related) but I guarantee you - I can out-supply anyone (well, maybe not Vern but I could give her a run for her money!) An honest, un-inflated assessment on a PER it all we need. If I can pepper pot or run in a jungle lane then there are other avenues for "inspiration"...



_That_ guy.   :

At least our section mates on the Hockey team were nice enough to bring us pizza and beer back to the field after their daily "practices" and games.  Funny that the swim team never had practices or meets during Exercises.  Damn ... we don't even have swim teams any more.


----------



## daftandbarmy

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Damn ... we don't even have swim teams any more.



Which means we should implement the swim test too as part of the FORCE program, right?


----------



## armyvern

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Which means we should implement the swim test too as part of the FORCE program, right?



I shudder to think.  It would have to be "who sinks slowest" to get the platinum (judging by some of the fine skills that I've seen while life guarding the Military swim test)!!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, back to a swim test would not be such a bad idea for the Navy:

If you had to do, every year or second year, the old "basic" test of jumping in the pool in coveralls, thread water for 10 minutes then swim to the end of the pool and back (about 40 meters) and hoist yourself - all by yourself - in the life-raft, I am willing to bet you would see a lot more sailors going out to exercise a lot more.

You may shoot first, Lumber.  :knights:


----------



## Lumber

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, back to a swim test would not be such a bad idea for the Navy:
> 
> If you had to do, every year or second year, the old "basic" test of jumping in the pool in coveralls, thread water for 10 minutes then swim to the end of the pool and back (about 40 meters) and hoist yourself - all by yourself - in the life-raft, I am willing to bet you would see a lot more sailors going out to exercise a lot more.
> 
> You may shoot first, Lumber.  :knights:



No rebuttal here; I've been playing water polo on-and-off for the past 8 years and I personally think it is the single best for of physical exercise. It's more strenuous than anything else out there, and doesn't effect your joints! Perfect for all the army guys complaining of bad knees and lower backs.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Lumber said:
			
		

> Perfect for all the army guys complaining of bad knees and lower backs.



No more worries about that anymore!  The new pants come with foam knee pads, aka "_*PER improvement kit, basic, replaceable*_"   ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, back to a swim test would not be such a bad idea for the Navy:
> 
> If you had to do, every year or second year, the old "basic" test of jumping in the pool in coveralls, thread water for 10 minutes then swim to the end of the pool and back (about 40 meters) and hoist yourself - all by yourself - in the life-raft, I am willing to bet you would see a lot more sailors going out to exercise a lot more.
> 
> You may shoot first, Lumber.  :knights:



I explained this test to a colleague who used to swim in the 'almost Canadian Olympic Team' category.

He deadpanned me and said: "I guess the military is putting a lot of faith in their unsinkable ships then, right?".


----------



## OldSolduer

I see a lot of complaints about pop machines, sweet desserts in hatbox meals etc.

You don't have to eat that stuff. No one is forcing you to buy pop etc. That's a choice.

Education is key. And it doesn't happen overnight.

And if you're running out of hatbox meals, then either you aren't serving correctly or you have not ordered enough rations.


----------



## Loachman

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> No more worries about that anymore!  The new pants come with foam knee pads, aka "_*PER improvement kit, basic, replaceable*_"



And they do wonders for one's posture when not so employed, obviously.


----------



## CountDC

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, back to a swim test would not be such a bad idea for the Navy:
> 
> If you had to do, every year or second year, the old "basic" test of jumping in the pool in coveralls, thread water for 10 minutes then swim to the end of the pool and back (about 40 meters) and hoist yourself - all by yourself - in the life-raft, I am willing to bet you would see a lot more sailors going out to exercise a lot more.
> 
> You may shoot first, Lumber.  :knights:



10 minutes?  Damn, frozen popsicle by then.    Best just to stay on the ship rather than waste all that energy for nothing.  I heard fat floats better than muscle but don't quote me on that - thinking that may be a bos'ns excuse.


----------



## SupersonicMax

CountDC said:
			
		

> 10 minutes?  Damn, frozen popsicle by then.    Best just to stay on the ship rather than waste all that energy for nothing.  I heard fat floats better than muscle but don't quote me on that - thinking that may be a bos'ns excuse.



I had to do the US Navy Swim Phys (which, amongst other things like the helo dunker) consists of swimming 100m in full flight gear with the lofe preserver deflated (flying suit, flight boots, g-pants, harness, life preserver, helmet, gloves), thread water for 10 minutes and inflate the life preserver orally (ie: no CO2 cartridge).

It was probably the most difficult physical test I have taken and probably the most relevant to what I do.


----------



## PuckChaser

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I had to do the US Navy Swim Phys (which, amongst other things like the helo dunker) consists of swimming 100m in full flight gear with the lofe preserver deflated (flying suit, flight boots, g-pants, harness, life preserver, helmet, gloves), thread water for 10 minutes and inflate the life preserver orally (ie: no CO2 cartridge).
> 
> It was probably the most difficult physical test I have taken and probably the most relevant to what I do.



25m into that swim I would have drowned. That's why I joined the Army. I have the buoyancy of a rock holding a lead chain.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 25m into that swim I would have drowned. That's why I joined the Army. I have the buoyancy of a rock holding a lead chain.



We can always use one more anchor  ;D


----------



## PuckChaser

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> We can always use one more anchor  ;D



I guess we all have a role to play in the defense of Canada.   8)


----------



## Eye In The Sky

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I guess we all have a role to play in the defense of Canada.   8)



I destroy box lunches!!


----------



## CountDC

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I had to do the US Navy Swim Phys (which, amongst other things like the helo dunker) consists of swimming 100m in full flight gear with the lofe preserver deflated (flying suit, flight boots, g-pants, harness, life preserver, helmet, gloves), thread water for 10 minutes and inflate the life preserver orally (ie: no CO2 cartridge).
> 
> It was probably the most difficult physical test I have taken and probably the most relevant to what I do.



Any chance that was in the North Atlantic in Jan?   We were given an estimate of 10 minutes before freezing on the Sea Env course when I did it back in 2000.  I know when we did the flood training even in the summer it was freezing. Maybe global warning has extended it by a few minutes.   ;D


----------

