Army.ca Forums

The Recruiting Office => Physical Training & Standards => Topic started by: Cat on October 12, 2008, 18:17:48

Title: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CAF Employment ( FORCE )
Post by: Cat on October 12, 2008, 18:17:48
Just wanted to share a new rule that some may not yet be aware of. The CO of CFLRS has recently signed a new mandate requiring candidates to pass a minimum number of pushups in week zero of BMQ to continue regular training.

It's a great idea, but for some it means they will be joining RFT(the Recruit Fitness Training program) when they had not planned on going thorough this program as until recently you could outright fail any single strength component of the PT test in week zero and still continue training.

For females you must do five proper pushups and males must do 10, approximately half of the passing number.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: MikeL on October 12, 2008, 18:53:36
I'd be shocked if people trying to join the Military can't pass those weak standards... but than again I'm surprised people fail the Express Test.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: George Wallace on October 12, 2008, 18:55:15
I'd be shocked if people trying to join the Military can't pass those weak standards... but than again I'm surprised people fail the Express Test.

I'm surprised at the ages of those who fail, and the ages of those who pass.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Cat on October 12, 2008, 18:56:02
You'd be surprised, alot of people have issues with the pushups, either lack of upperbody strength or just bad form. Bad form (too wide hands or not low enough) are big issues.

Alot of the RFT program is under 35 from what I've seen, and most are their for their pushups and/or run(or in the case of the tiny people pushups/handgrip). The over 35s tend to be in their late 40s and are their for their run/pushups as well.

Edited for additional information/comments
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: canadian_moose on October 12, 2008, 19:50:03
Just wanted to share a new rule that some may not yet be aware of. The CO of CFLRS has recently signed a new mandate requiring candidates to pass a minimum number of pushups in week zero of BMQ to continue regular training.

It's a great idea, but for some it means they will be joining RFT(the Recruit Fitness Training program) when they had not planned on going thorough this program as until recently you could outright fail any single strength component of the PT test in week zero and still continue training.

For females you must do five proper pushups and males must do 10, approximately half of the passing number.


I thought it was 19 push ups for males and 10 push ups for females
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Cat on October 12, 2008, 19:57:33
The new rule repaces the continue training rule for BMQ (used to be you could fail one strength(pushups/situps or handgrip) in week zero,now  if you fail pushups you must have at least 5(female) or 10 (male) to continue training. You must pass the full standard by the end of the course or you go to RFT instead of graduating.

so if you fail

run= RFT
pushups (<5 / <10) = RFT
pushups (>5/>10) alone = continue training
situps(alone) = continue training
handgrip (alone) = continue training

or any two strengths = RFT

Does that make sense? keeping in mind that of course everyone must pass everything before they leave BMQ.


Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Celticgirl on October 12, 2008, 20:15:28
I think this is a good amendment. The standards are pretty low as it is, and I say this as someone who struggles greatly with push-ups. Ten push-ups for males or females is not a lot to ask, IMHO.

I am curious about something else...does anyone ever fail the sit-up or handgrip portion of the Expres?

I'm surprised at the ages of those who fail, and the ages of those who pass.

I'm also wondering what you meant by the above comment, George. Can you elaborate?
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Cat on October 12, 2008, 20:19:19
I think this is a good amendment. The standards are pretty low as it is, and I say this as someone who struggles greatly with push-ups. Ten push-ups for males or females is not a lot to ask, IMHO.

I am curious about something else...does anyone ever fail the sit-up or handgrip portion of the Expres?


CG - yes I've worked with several people who failed the handgrip portion, and it is one of the hardest things for people to improve if they fail by more then 10ish pounds. I've known a couple of people who failed the situps as well, usually because of weight/girth or one guy because he had damaged an abdominal muscle and it was very weak when he joined.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: George Wallace on October 12, 2008, 20:24:24
I'm also wondering what you meant by the above comment, George. Can you elaborate?

It usually comes as a shock to most new Instructors at how many young people are in such poor physical condition.  It is also seen at Cbt Arms units, where in the majority of cases, the older guys are out performing the young kids in PT.  There are exceptions, but in general, it is a very sad comment on the physical state of our 'youth' today........for the past twenty, or more,  years.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Celticgirl on October 12, 2008, 20:40:01
CG - yes I've worked with several people who failed the handgrip portion, and it is one of the hardest things for people to improve if they fail by more then 10ish pounds. I've known a couple of people who failed the situps as well, usually because of weight/girth or one guy because he had damaged an abdominal muscle and it was very weak when he joined.

Interesting. I imagine handgrip would indeed be hard to improve.

It usually comes as a shock to most new Instructors at how many young people are in such poor physical condition.  It is also seen at Cbt Arms units, where in the majority of cases, the older guys are out performing the young kids in PT.  There are exceptions, but in general, it is a very sad comment on the physical state of our 'youth' today........for the past twenty, or more,  years.

I thought that might be what you meant, but wasn't sure. Yes, there are lots of out-of-shape people, of all ages, but I agree that it's especially surprising to see how unfit many in the younger generations are now. 
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: George Wallace on October 12, 2008, 20:42:26
The Handgrip test is very easy to fail.  It requires one to adjust the device to their grip prior to doing the test.  Most do not.  Without adjusting the device to their grip, they will most likely fail the test.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Eye In The Sky on October 12, 2008, 20:56:07
I thought it was 19 push ups for males and 10 push ups for females

The requirements to pass the Week 0 PT test do not follow the exact requirements of the EXPRES test.  Previous standard is found here (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,57242.0.html).

Basically, the OP is stating that the previous standard of being able to fail the push up component of the strength test is now superseded with the requirements she stated for the Week 0 PT test for BMQ/IAP IAW with the new CO CFLRS (http://www.cflrs.forces.gc.ca/site/a_propos_elrfc/medias/biographie_e.asp).  Everything else should stand.

I'll check out the published SOP Tuesday and update as required.

However, some good information is also found here (http://www.cflrs.forces.gc.ca/site/soyez_prets/suggestion_e.asp).

Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Celticgirl on October 12, 2008, 21:25:44
The Handgrip test is very easy to fail.  It requires one to adjust the device to their grip prior to doing the test.  Most do not.  Without adjusting the device to their grip, they will most likely fail the test.

Does the staff assist candidates with this adjustment?
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Eye In The Sky on October 12, 2008, 21:40:42
Does the staff assist candidates with this adjustment?

The PSP staff will, but if they don't, make sure you ask them. (Your Course staff will likely be watching from the upper seating area).
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Celticgirl on October 12, 2008, 21:42:28
The PSP staff will, but if they don't, make sure you ask them. (Your Course staff will likely be watching from the upper seating area).

Good to know. I'll remember that, thanks.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Eye In The Sky on October 12, 2008, 21:58:08
To answer any further questions...specifically on the hand grip test, this following is taken from the CF EXPRES OPERATIONS MANUAL, 3rd Edition (http://www.rmc.ca/athletics/pe/EXPRES/CF_EXPRES_Operations_Manual_e.pdf).  I can't verify this is the latest version of the manual, however the information should be valid.

Any questions anyone has over how the tests are conducted should be able to be answered by reading this 17 page document, if you are so inclined.

For the hand grip portion of the test:

Hand Grip Protocol
59. Once the aerobic component has been completed, the muscular strength test is carried out. The handgrip measurement is an indicator of overall muscular strength. The following procedure will be used for all members:
a. Have the member grasp the dynamometer in the appropriate hand. The grip is taken between the fingers and the palm, at the base of the thumb. Adjust the grip of the dynamometer so the second joint of the fingers should fit snuggly under the handle and take the weight of the instrument. Lock the grip in place;
b. The dynamometer is held in line with the forearm at the level of the thigh, away from the body (at no more then a 45 degree angle), and then squeezed vigorously so as to exert maximum force. Have the member exhale while squeezing (to avoid build up of intrathoracic pressure);
c. During the test neither the hand nor the dynamometer should be allowed to touch the body or any other object. Measure both hands alternately allowing two trials per hand. Record scores for each hand to the nearest kilogram in Section E of DND 279;and
d. Record the best score for each hand under score. Then, add the best score for each hand and record as a single score, to the nearest “0.1kg” under “total”. Insert MPFS score in space marked MPFS.




Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: SupersonicMax on October 13, 2008, 00:32:38
Last PT test I did, I couldn't use the 45 degree thing.  I had to start in the vertical.  Was it administered correctly?
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Eye In The Sky on October 13, 2008, 00:39:04
Last PT test I did, I couldn't use the 45 degree thing.  I had to start in the vertical.  Was it administered correctly?

Honestly?  I have no idea.  I've had to do it both ways, at the same Fitness Center (Stad) but 2 different PSP staff members on the same staff, and the 2 EXPRES test were not even 3 months apart (1 in March at the end of the FY and the next was for my OT). 

I can't confirm that the 3rd Edition is the latest and greatest either. 
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: D3 on October 14, 2008, 10:52:39
This year during my express test we were told to find a comfortable angle and squeeze without movement.  Every other time before you were allowed to bring it down while squeezing....  When did that change?
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Wickes on October 14, 2008, 11:20:14
This year during my express test we were told to find a comfortable angle and squeeze without movement.  Every other time before you were allowed to bring it down while squeezing....  When did that change?

I'm not sure on the when, but the why (at least what the PSP staff told us this year) was that people were bumping the grip device on their thighs on the way down, giving an inaccurate result on the meter.

Whether this is fact or not I can't say.

And on Cat's and CG's comments about improving, it's not all that hard, all you need is a $5-10 spring handgrip.  Look for one with a bit of a harder wound spring.  They suck as far as actually working out your grip but it will be more than enough to get you over the Expres test requirement.

Cheers
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Eye In The Sky on October 14, 2008, 11:37:20
For those with DIN/IntraNet access, the CFLRS PT testing SOPs can be found here (http://cflrs.saint-jean.mil.ca/fichiers/index.cfm?no_lang=31&no_menu=10&no_smenu=15&no_ssmenu=16&CFID=54591&CFTOKEN=49760426) under the BMQ and IAP & BOTP online TPs (PO 104, Annex D, Appendix 1 for both TPs).

For those who do not have access, they are attached below.  Please note the dates on each documents on the bottom, center.



Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Buddy336 on October 16, 2008, 08:25:50
I am actually confirming that; the new rule is indeed in effect at CFLRS.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Cat on October 19, 2008, 23:20:53
New rule change...now it's 2 pushups for females to remain on a platoon and 4 or 5 for males to remain on a platoon

*twitch* I love my job :D
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: ArmyVern on October 19, 2008, 23:22:56
Two ******* pushups? That's it?  :-\
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Eye In The Sky on October 19, 2008, 23:24:36
Not only is it pathetic, its embarassing IMO.

But the worst part is...people will actually FAIL that.

Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Cat on October 19, 2008, 23:25:00
To start on a platoon - everyone is of course expected to pass at LEAST the minimum by the end of course...or off to RFT they go

:edit: I'm off to RFT tomorrow to get back into platoon shape after my lovely PAT experiance....as is now mandatory after any prolonged PAT visit.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Eye In The Sky on October 19, 2008, 23:26:49
Again I'll say that this is pathetic.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Cat on October 19, 2008, 23:29:40
I'm not disagreeing, but as I understand it there was a time when the only PT test was at the end of the course and if you failed you were out....I kinda like that idea to be honest...

When I got here you could fail outright (as in get 0) on any one strength portion and you were still good to go until the end of the course...how is this any worse then that?
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Eye In The Sky on October 19, 2008, 23:34:23
I'm not disagreeing, but as I understand it there was a time when the only PT test was at the end of the course and if you failed you were out....I kinda like that idea to be honest...

And when were you told that was?  And what would be the GD point to put someone thru all that training and pay them to have them fail a PT test at the end??   ::)

Quote
When I got here you could fail outright (as in get 0) on any one strength portion and you were still good to go until the end of the course...how is this any worse then that?

I am well aware of the PT testing process before this, I was an instructor at CFLRS before my current posting.  This is alittle better but still pathetic and still embarassing.  Full stop.

Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Cat on October 19, 2008, 23:35:15
And when were you told that was?  And what would be the GD point to put someone thru all that training and pay them to have them fail a PT test at the end??   ::)

I am well aware of the PT testing process before this, I was an instructor at CFLRS before my current posting.  This is alittle better but still pathetic and still embarassing.  Full stop.



in the 70s or 80s according to one of the ladies here who was in then...

The idea being no matter how you showed up your instructors andthe PERI staff would run you until you could pass the test
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on October 19, 2008, 23:42:17
2 pushups for females /  4 or 5 for males

Please, please, please, tell this old has-been that it isn't so..............I'm kinda hoping that will at least be my minimum nursing home entrance test.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Eye In The Sky on October 20, 2008, 00:00:25
I thought it would be worthy to do a comparison of our recruit fitness testing to, in this example, the US Air Force.  Thats right...not their Army or Marines...the Air Force.

From this (http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/airforcejoin/a/afbmt1_5.htm) website:

Getting in Shape
The final fitness test is done during the 4th week of training. That's not much time to get into shape (even though you'll be working out six days per week), so the Air Force recommends that recruits be able to meet the following minimum standards before reporting to basic training (Note: This isn't mandatory, but it'll make you life much easier):

Males

2 mile run: 19:16
1.5 mile run: 13:45
Push-Ups: 34
Sit-Ups: 38

Females

2 mile run: 22:43
1.5 mile run: 16:01
Push-Ups: 16
Sit-Ups: 38

Remember, the above standards are the MINIMUM recommended for when you FIRST ARRIVE at basic training. They are not the graduation standards (which are much more restrictive). Graduation standards can be found in Part 4 of this article.


And some more info on the US Air Force Recruit training PT standards, from here (http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/airforcejoin/a/afbasicpc.htm).

Graduation Requirements
The final fitness test is conducted at the end of the 4th WOT/beginning of the 5th WOT (prior to "Warrior Week"). To pass, recruits must meet the following MINIMUM physical fitness standards:

Males:

Two Mile Run - 16:45
1.5 mile Run - 11:57
Sit-Ups - 50 (in 2 minutes)
Push-Ups - 45 (in 2 minutes)

Females:

Two Mile Run - 19:45
1.5 Mile Run - 13:56
Sit-Ups - 50 (in 2 minutes)
Push-Ups - 27 (in 2 minutes)

Recruits who fail to meet the above standards can expect to be recycled for a minimum period of two weeks.


Warhawk Physical Fitness Award
Recruits who make the following MINIMUM standards qualify for the "Warhawk" Award:

Males:

Two Mile Run - 13:30
1.5 mile Run - 08:08
Sit-Ups - 80 (in 2 minutes)
Push-Ups - 75 (in 2 minutes)
Pull-Ups - 10

Females:

Two Mile Run - 15:00
1.5 Mile Run - 10:55
Sit-Ups - 75 (in 2 minutes)
Push-Ups - 40 (in 2 minutes)
Pull-Ups - 5

Those who qualify for "Warhawk" receive a special T-shirt, a recognition certificate, and receive an extra town pass on graduation weekend (that means they get to go off-base on the Sunday following graduation, as well as the normal Saturday).


Honor Graduate
While Physical Fitness is only one small part of the Honor Graduate requirements, a recruit must meet the following MINIMUM physical fitness standards to even be considered for the honor:

Males:

Two Mile Run - 15:15
1.5 mile Run - 8:55
Sit-Ups - 70 (in 2 minutes)
Push-Ups - 62 (in 2 minutes)
Pull-Ups - 2

Females:

Two Mile Run - 16:00
1.5 Mile Run - 11:33
Sit-Ups - 60 (in 2 minutes)
Push-Ups - 37 (in 2 minutes)
Pull-Ups - 6



Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: greyman_11 on October 20, 2008, 00:08:14
New rule change...now it's 2 pushups for females to remain on a platoon and 4 or 5 for males to remain on a platoon

*twitch* I love my job :D

2 pushups for females and 4 or 5 for males???? WTF. My 80 year old grandmother could probably punch out more than 2 pushups. That is sad.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Celticgirl on October 20, 2008, 00:14:11

Males

2 mile run: 19:16
1.5 mile run: 13:45
Push-Ups: 34
Sit-Ups: 38

Females

2 mile run: 22:43
1.5 mile run: 16:01
Push-Ups: 16
Sit-Ups: 38

Remember, the above standards are the MINIMUM recommended for when you FIRST ARRIVE at basic training. They are not the graduation standards (which are much more restrictive).

Wow...big difference. Perhaps it's due to the fact that the U.S. has a much (much) larger population to draw from, and perhaps does not face the recruiting challenges of its Northern neighbour. Just a guess.

Not that I am advocating lax standards.  :P  Far from it.

I do think the incentives for "Warhawks" is a nice touch. The CF might want to think about an incentive/reward program as well.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: aesop081 on October 20, 2008, 00:17:33
and perhaps does not face the recruiting challenges of its Northern neighbour. Just a guess.


I would say that you have guessed wrong. From what i have seen teaching AIT down in the US, they face a recruiting problem of far greater proportion than we do. Yes they have a larger population to draw from but they also maintain a very large force. I do not know , however how they compare proportinately. With the requirements of the war in Iraq ( with all its problems back home), the war in Afghanistan, the requirement for large forces in Korea and in other parts of the world, the need for soldiers in, IMHO, much greater. Looks to me like they have decided that operational effectiveness comes ahead of everything else.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Eye In The Sky on October 20, 2008, 00:18:29
The stuff I posted was for Enlisted recruits.  Maybe the stuff for their Officers is the same, or more stringent.

Again...that is their Air Force.  NOT the Army or Marines.

This site also seems to have lots of info:

http://www.military.com/military-fitness/army-fitness-requirements/army-basic-training-pft
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Celticgirl on October 20, 2008, 00:25:31
I would say that you have guessed wrong. From what i have seen teaching AIT down in the US, they face a recruiting problem of far greater proportion than we do. Yes they have a larger population to draw from but they also maintain a very large force. I do not know , however how they compare proportinately.

US military recruiting boosted by rise in bonuses
The Associated PressPublished: October 3, 2008

 
WASHINGTON: After seven years at war, the U.S. military paid recruits hundreds of millions of dollars over the past year as they answered the call to duty.

According to data obtained by The Associated Press, the Army and Marine Corps doled out nearly $640 million in the fiscal year that ended Tuesday to entice recruits to join up.

The two services continue to bear the brunt of the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but recruits were buoyed by incentives that can be as high as $40,000 each. All told, the enlistment incentives coupled with the promise of thousands more for education, increased the costs of Army and Marine bonuses by 25 percent over last year's totals, The Associated Press has learned.

The money — particularly in these shaky economic times — has proved to be a strong recruiting tool, even as the U.S. death toll in Iraq surpasses 4,100 and violence in Afghanistan escalates.

As a result, the Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force all met their recruiting goals for the year.  The Air Force did not provide bonus data.

Article Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/10/03/america/NA-US-Military-Recruiting.php)

Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: aesop081 on October 20, 2008, 00:30:17
Exactly..........look at what they had to do to meet their targets. Also ook at the context under which they were met ( the economy).

When the economy was rolling high, do you think that what is said in the article was true ?










Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Celticgirl on October 20, 2008, 00:31:48
Exactly..........look at what they had to do to meet their targets. Also ook at the context under which they were met ( the economy).

When the economy was rolling high, do you think that what is said in the article was true ?

Say it with me now..."I stand corrected."  See how easy that was? ;D
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Quartermaster on November 04, 2008, 15:02:36
Just so people's head's don't explode, the minimum standard for continued employment in the CF hasn't changed, but the physical abilities of many of the recruits has.  And not for the better...

To stay on course following the first fitness test, the minimums for push-ups is 2 and 4 for women and men respectively.  That is so there is an indication of "some" baseline upper body strength to work with during the course so that it is feasible that the MPFS scores of 9 and 19 are acheivable at either week 6 and/or week 13.  This is an additional standard imposed over and above the requirement to pass the VO2 Max and a min of two of three strength tests just to stay on course.  Anyone not meeting that standard (or without a damn good story presented by their platoon staff) is headed for RFT.

There is also a new approach to PT on the platoons that is coming and it looks like it will be very successful, so stay tuned.

All that said, the MPFS is the only standard across the CF, and is the pass mark for a Performance Objective on the BMQ course.  If it is not acheived, even after 13 weeks of training, then the BMQ course has not been completed and people will be loaded on RFT while the rest of their platoon stands Grad Parade.  The only exceptions to this I've seen have gone out the green doors with extra paperwork in their files and only under very specific circumstances.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Eye In The Sky on November 04, 2008, 18:05:09
Just so people's head's don't explode, the minimum standard for continued employment in the CF hasn't changed, but the physical abilities of many of the recruits has.  And not for the better...

What?  I don't recall anyone misreading this thread thinking it applied to the CF.   ???

Quote
To stay on course following the first fitness test, the minimums for push-ups is 2 and 4 for women and men respectively.  That is so there is an indication of "some" baseline upper body strength to work with during the course so that it is feasible that the MPFS scores of 9 and 19 are acheivable at either week 6 and/or week 13.  This is an additional standard  imposed over and above the requirement to pass the VO2 Max and a min of two of three strength tests just to stay on course.  Anyone not meeting that standard (or without a damn good story presented by their platoon staff) is headed for RFT.

2 pushups for females and 4 pushups for males is hardly an *additional standard*.  God our allies must be laughing their a**es off at this pathetic fitness level we allow and accomodate.  Atleast that was added though, as embarassing as it is.

The EXPRES test if not the only fitness test used in the CF, by the way.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Quartermaster on November 06, 2008, 21:33:10
On your first point, the line was rhetorical, I thought that was clear, my bad.

Secondly, I can't argue the 2 and 4 is not much of a standard, but when 2 of 3 strength tests passed meant that a candidate could pass handgrip and sit-ups and fail with 0  push-ups and still begin training, it's an improvement.

As for the CF Expres not being the only standard in the CF, you are correct, but missed the point I was trying to make.  The CF Expres is the only recognized, and standardized test upon which we can judge someone's phyical fitness across all elements.  They (CMP) are working toward developing more challenging standards for each of the elements, but until then, the Expres is what we have.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: xxmixkexx on May 13, 2009, 16:32:12
Wait so if I could only do 5 push ups I would still be able to do BMQ?  I can get my numbers fine, I made damn sure of that.  That is crazy.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: JBoyd on May 13, 2009, 17:17:07
Wait so if I could only do 5 push ups I would still be able to do BMQ?  I can get my numbers fine, I made damn sure of that.  That is crazy.

No the requirements to continue on Platoon are still the same 19 pushups for males, level 6 on the express test, 30 situps and the handgrip. What has changed is that there is now a threshold to meet to be sent to WFT. If you do not meet 4 pushups and level 3.5 on the express then you are immediately released. If you pass the threshold but do not meet the platoon requirement you are sent to WFT
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: xxmixkexx on May 14, 2009, 08:27:34
O ok, thanks for clearing that up.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: PMedMoe on May 14, 2009, 08:59:07
No the requirements to continue on Platoon are still the same 19 pushups for males, level 6 on the express test, 30 situps and the handgrip.

Depending on age, of course.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: JBoyd on May 14, 2009, 12:43:53
Depending on age, of course.

sorry yes, should have specified that I was listing the requirements for males under 35.

For anyone wishing to be clarified on the new PT standards they have no posted them on the recruiting website.

http://www.forces.ca/media/_PDF/physical_fitness_en.pdf

Page 10

remember these are for RegF. It does look like they have lowered situps for males under 35 to 19 though. Also the WFT standards are only for those under 35.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Tulach Ard on May 14, 2009, 16:20:34
ah good, good information.

So here is a question. I read through that online form, and see that although chinups are included, they are not part of your official test. So for the 'first week minimum standards' you are required to pass to continue, should you fail those, are you still put into WFT? Or are they there for more of a "judge" to see how we will progress?

As well I have heard (different answers from EVERY source I ask) about push up posture.  Yes the diagram is right on the form, but when we are pushing up and down must your elbows actually stay pointed straight backwards? They naturally point outwards for me. I did try to do them with my elbows tight against my sides and had much difficulty. I have no problem at all doing pushups with my elbows naturally where they sit. So question...is that unnatural way to do them what they will make us do?
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: LordVagabond on May 14, 2009, 17:54:52
...and see that although chinups are included, they are not part of your official test.


From my understanding, talking to the guys at CFRC Calgary, the chinups are not used for official testing because everyone is a different weight and build, but they are suggested ("strongly suggested" as the recruiter said) to help you prepare for the confidence course in training. Monkey bars, netting climbs, rope ladder climbs, all stuff that could require you to "pull up" with your upper body. So it's just there to get you at least in the right direction :P (from what I understand from the CFRC, I may be totally off base, it's just what the Sgt there told me  :warstory: )
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: X-mo-1979 on May 14, 2009, 19:17:41
I'm proud to say my cousin a overweight housewife of 25 yrs after raising three kids following her husbands career decided she was going to join the airforce.After deciding she was going to join she looked at the minimum requirements and guess what she did?

TRAINED!!
She lost 70 lbs and is now down to a very lean woman who can meet the basic requirements.Requirements for men!Imagine that!

My question is WHO decided that a man should be able to do X number of sit ups/push ups/beep?When was that decided?And who would you have to contact to try to change this.

In my opinion:(I love a free country)

-Wasting money to pay recruits who cannot be bothered to meet the min req can be spent elsewhere.I'm sure we can spend the huge amount of money elsewhere.(I'm guessing it's a lot of money.training room and board and paychecks plus staff etc.)

-Strain on our training system that could use the rooms taken up by people who cannot meet the standards to house soldiers who are ready.

-Staff having to work even longer hours doing everything from admin to class's for soldiers who cannot take the class's with their original courses.

I know there will be rebuttals about "I am a success story".

But why do you feel required to receive pay and a free life while providing the system with a strain?Why could you NOT do it on your own as a civilian?

I look at it this way.
I can look on jobbank.ca and see a job for a lets say physiotherapist.Awesome pay!But looking at the bottom I realize I do not meet the minimum requirement of having 7 years of schooling.So do they take me in pay for my education; while paying me as a physiotherapist on top of that?Of course not!Sounds silly right?

Sort of like the CF and meeting minimum requirements isn't it?


-
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: erage on June 01, 2009, 07:51:03
does this mean you cant pass the beep test, 2 of the strength and then fail like the handgrip and still move on? or do you still go to WFT?
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Celticgirl on June 01, 2009, 09:46:29
does this mean you cant pass the beep test, 2 of the strength and then fail like the handgrip and still move on? or do you still go to WFT?

I believe the way it goes is this: You can fail one strength and still stay on platoon *IF* you meet the absolute minimum push-up requirements (2 for women, 4 for men). Failing that minimum = going home. Failing the shuttle run *or* 2 or more strengths = WFT (provided you have met that absolute min. for push-ups).

Clear as mud? ;)
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: UK2CA on June 03, 2009, 19:27:34
Wow...big difference. Perhaps it's due to the fact that the U.S. has a much (much) larger population to draw from, and perhaps does not face the recruiting challenges of its Northern neighbour. Just a guess.

Not that I am advocating lax standards.  :P  Far from it.



I don't know what the reasons are but the CF minimum fitness standard does seem fairly low in comparison to other forces.  Here's the current standards for the British Army (as a Vehicle Tech) - in addition, there's also an annual 8 mile Combat Fitness Test (boot march) carrying 35lb (50lb for teeth arms), which has to be done in under 2 hrs:


(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg83.imageshack.us%2Fimg83%2F395%2Fpicture1qse.png&hash=aff39d816d6c3c4ff572cab0e2e72fca) (http://img83.imageshack.us/i/picture1qse.png/)
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: X-mo-1979 on June 03, 2009, 19:44:10

I don't know what the reasons are but the CF minimum fitness standard does seem fairly low in comparison to other forces.  Here's the current standards for the British Army (as a Vehicle Tech) - in addition, there's also an annual 8 mile Combat Fitness Test (boot march) carrying 35lb (50lb for teeth arms), which has to be done in under 2 hrs:


And to me that looks very fair.Not difficult for all to achieve,but an excellent base for sure.I was working with the Brit's a while back,and one of the first things that was brought up was the size of some of our "lads".
I honestly have no clue where our fitness test was developed.Would be interesting to see.
I like that the Brit test factored in that women were only lacking in upper body strength,and the rest was the same.While I think one standard such as this should be the norm, I do agree that women tend to have a lower upper body strength,and more endurance.
Things are only going to get worse as time/fat pandemic continue on.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Compliments on July 07, 2009, 23:01:00
I believe the way it goes is this: You can fail one strength and still stay on platoon *IF* you meet the absolute minimum push-up requirements (2 for women, 4 for men). Failing that minimum = going home. Failing the shuttle run *or* 2 or more strengths = WFT (provided you have met that absolute min. for push-ups).

Clear as mud? ;)

http://www.cflrs.forces.gc.ca/menu/ps/rec/index-eng.asp

According to this site :: In order to go on with the course, a minimum standard must be achieved: the candidate must successfully pass the shuttle run and two of the three muscular components. As well, women are required to do a minimum of two push-ups, while men are required to do four.

If the minimum standard is not achieved, the candidate may join a specialized fitness training program that is also offered at CFLRS. The program integrates overall health coaching, diet and a rigorous personalized fitness program that lasts a maximum of 90 days.


---

But when asked the R/C they declined that. and said just mit the minimum threshold and there is no if ands or buts ur going to WTF instead of Platoon


so im confused..
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: George Wallace on July 07, 2009, 23:18:13
http://www.cflrs.forces.gc.ca/menu/ps/rec/index-eng.asp

But when asked the R/C they declined that. and said just mit the minimum threshold and there is no if ands or buts ur going to WTF instead of Platoon


so im confused..


I'll say you are. 

If you pass the minimum threshold you DO NOT go to WTF (or whatever it is called now).
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Compliments on July 08, 2009, 00:30:40
so if the person completes 6.0 on shuttle and 2/3 strenghts they proceed? but if they fail shuttle but get a 3.5 and 4 push ups they go to wtf- else they get released. Correct?
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: traviss-g on July 08, 2009, 01:37:59
As well I have heard (different answers from EVERY source I ask) about push up posture.  Yes the diagram is right on the form, but when we are pushing up and down must your elbows actually stay pointed straight backwards? They naturally point outwards for me. I did try to do them with my elbows tight against my sides and had much difficulty. I have no problem at all doing pushups with my elbows naturally where they sit. So question...is that unnatural way to do them what they will make us do?

Yea I have the same thing, can anyone answer this?
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: SupersonicMax on July 08, 2009, 01:45:14
Never had my elbows pointed back when I do mine.  After 9 years and numerous PT Tests (hmmm let's see.  19 PT Tests), I think they would have told me ;)
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Tulach Ard on July 08, 2009, 03:32:41
Never had my elbows pointed back when I do mine.  After 9 years and numerous PT Tests (hmmm let's see.  19 PT Tests), I think they would have told me ;)

Thats what I thought. Thanks Max!
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Doomed on July 08, 2009, 03:47:02
I don't know about the elbows for sure. But from what I take, I don't think its required. I mean, depending on the size of the arm will ultimately decide where your arms are at your side. i have pretty lanky arms and they are not exactly at my hip so to speak. because if i did my hands are infront of my chest. which means im doing close grip push ups... So I guess It changes?
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: PMedMoe on July 08, 2009, 08:55:21
The PSP staff should demonstrate the proper position.  Basically, you will lay flat on the floor with your hands palm down, fingers forward under your shoulders.  They should be able to see part of your hand if standing directly over you.  You push fully up (up position) and come down until your arms are roughly parallel to the ground (down position).  It doesn’t matter where the elbows are pointing.  The staff will let you know if it counts or not, trust me.  As I've said before, some are not very forgiving.  Don't forget that the push ups are continuous, no pausing.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: ArmyVern on July 08, 2009, 09:06:21
http://www.cflrs.forces.gc.ca/menu/ps/rec/index-eng.asp
...
But when asked the R/C they declined that. and said just mit the minimum threshold and there is no if ands or buts ur going to WTF instead of Platoon
so im confused..

Confused?? Translate it this way:

Me being a fictional member employed in the recruiting centre saying: "Just TRAIN to ensure that you can meet the minimum threshold (standard) for ALL of the items prior to getting to Saint Jean ... and then there'll be no ifs, ands, or buts about you going to RFT."

Understand now?

(And, anyone who has joined the CF and who does not train to meet the minimum in ALL of these items before reporting [they are well aware of the min standards] ... is an idiot).
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: 4Feathers on July 08, 2009, 09:12:17
 ??? Many years ago a push-up was a push-up, now it's a science that requires years of schooling to perfect and administer. What ever happened to "give me 50" and you pumped them off with not much worry over form and technique so long as you went all the way up and down and kept your body flat. Perhaps we could make it an Olympic sport and give points for the "perfect technique". And now that I am on a "rant", what ever happened to chinups??
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: George Wallace on July 08, 2009, 09:20:26
??? Many years ago a push-up was a push-up, now it's a science that requires years of schooling to perfect and administer. What ever happened to "give me 50" and you pumped them off with not much worry over form and technique so long as you went all the way up and down and kept your body flat. Perhaps we could make it an Olympic sport and give points for the "perfect technique". And now that I am on a "rant", what ever happened to chinups??

Technique, technique, technique.  How many times have you witness someone doing pushups who looked like a dog humping a football, or whose belly never got off the floor?  You are right about the correct form, but so many can't even do that, let alone the pushups.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Hamish Seggie on July 08, 2009, 09:22:32
I did the Expres Test last week. Next year I'll take it a bit more seriously. Nothing was an issue.
If a 19 year old CAN'T do 19 pushups...... :brickwall:
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Celticgirl on July 08, 2009, 10:17:36
Technique, technique, technique.  How many times have you witness someone doing pushups who looked like a dog humping a football, or whose belly never got off the floor?  You are right about the correct form, but so many can't even do that, let alone the pushups.

True about technique, but technique is in the 'eye of the beholder' (i.e. the PSP staff member counting them). I know many people who did more than the required number, but some of their push-ups didn't get counted and therefore they 'failed' the push-up portion. The same thing can happen with sit-ups. On my first test, PSP staff was concerned with the elbows touching the knees. On the second test, it was going all the way down, shoulders touching the mat, that was the issue. I did way more than I needed both times, but it is frustrating when they don't count push-ups and sit-ups that most non-PSP staff members would surely think are done in perfectly good form/technique.  :P
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: aesop081 on July 08, 2009, 10:34:56
but it is frustrating when they don't count push-ups and sit-ups that most non-PSP staff members would surely think are done in perfectly good form/technique.  :P

 :crybaby:

It was no different back in the days where the test was administered by the PERIs.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Celticgirl on July 08, 2009, 11:51:11
:crybaby:


Ah CA, that kind of empathy just warms my heart. You're a very special individual. ;)
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: PMedMoe on July 08, 2009, 12:08:53
If PSP didn't have some kind of technique to judge by, people would be doing push ups as described by George Wallace.

Quote
How many times have you witness someone doing pushups who looked like a dog humping a football, or whose belly never got off the floor?
 
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: kincanucks on July 08, 2009, 12:16:39
Ah CA, that kind of empathy just warms my heart. You're a very special individual. ;)

Didn't you get punted off Basic?
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Eye In The Sky on July 08, 2009, 12:22:31
If PSP didn't have some kind of technique to judge by, people would be doing push ups as described by George Wallace.
 

Then there are the ones who look like they are stuck on a bascule bridge, with only their arse moving up and down...  :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bascule_bridge

Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: GAP on July 08, 2009, 12:34:07
Then there are the ones who look like they are stuck on a bascule bridge, with only their arse moving up and down...  :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bascule_bridge

Hmmm.....I always thought that was a genetic procreation warmup......crap...how wrong I was.....(helluva time to find out these things after all this time....  ;D )
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Larkvall on July 08, 2009, 13:22:45
The best way to go about this is to be prepared to do more than the minimum so if some push ups or sit ups aren't counted you still will meet the standard. When I did my fitness test I had a couple push ups rejected but I still passed. I should probably video myself doing them so I know what I look like. Getting fit as possible is the best plan also because it reduces the chance of injury.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Eye In The Sky on July 08, 2009, 14:16:49
The best way to go about this is to be prepared to do more than the minimum so if some push ups or sit ups aren't counted you still will meet the standard.

Thats good, simple advice.

Quote
I should probably video myself doing them so I know what I look like.

How about "no"?  :)  Or, if you do, please do NOT post a link here to yourself on Youtube :P

Quote
Getting fit as possible is the best plan also because it reduces the chance of injury.

More good simple advice. (it also aids in speeding up your recovery time, too)
[/quote]
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Celticgirl on July 08, 2009, 14:22:35
Didn't you get punted off Basic?

No, I did not get "punted" off basic.  ::) I VR'd for personal reasons. One of which was to join the reserves, which I am doing this week.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: kincanucks on July 08, 2009, 15:35:53
No, I did not get "punted" off basic.  ::) I VR'd for personal reasons. One of which was to join the reserves, which I am doing this week.

Ahhh thanks for the clarification.  Good luck with your reserve application.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Eye In The Sky on July 08, 2009, 15:37:03
Now now...no one wants to get in trouble and be grounded this weekend do they?

:)
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: aesop081 on July 08, 2009, 15:49:30
I VR'd for personal reasons.

I saw the personal reason but you left some out.......

Quote
My body started to give out, I got sick (chest cold) along with severe muscle aches, started passing out (once at 7.15k of a 7.2k ruck, lol...so close!), and just plain could not recover enough in between activities with days filled with PT, drill, stairs, rucking, etc., etc. to be strong enough to complete the course.

Quote
I just didn't have the muscular strength I needed to do the tasks I needed to do

so.....
Quote
what I learned at CFLRS will help me in my training for the reserves.

So i'm hoping you did since you decided to join a part of the reserves that requires you to complete basic traning full-time.

Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Celticgirl on July 08, 2009, 22:35:47
You guys are so obvious, you know that?

I VR'd for personal reasons...illness, chronic pain, and two family issues. I have fully recovered, I have dealt with the family issues, and as a bonus, I had time to spend with my father who passed away unexpectedly two weeks ago. I did not fail any part of basic training, including the Expres test (actually, I got exempt on it). I was nowhere near being "punted" at any point of my training.

And yes, I do know I will be going back to do basic training again, as I have mentioned several times in previous posts.

Ahhh thanks for the clarification.  Good luck with your reserve application.

Thank you. My application was successful (as my tagline indicates).

Good night, gentlemen. Thanks for the 'fun and games'. You guys throw one hell of a party.  :blotto:
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: 4Feathers on July 09, 2009, 08:23:48
CG, Ignore the crap, from those of us who are on here to support and help others on the CF Team, good luck and all the best.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: kincanucks on July 09, 2009, 10:37:39
CG, Ignore the crap, from those of us who are on here to support and help others on the CF Team, good luck and all the best.
Yes and maybe later we gather around the campfire and sing happy songs.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Nauticus on August 10, 2009, 04:33:41
I saw the personal reason but you left some out.......

so.....
So i'm hoping you did since you decided to join a part of the reserves that requires you to complete basic traning full-time.
Aviator, how is it relevant for what reasons she VR'd in this particular discussion? Oh right, it isn't.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: aesop081 on August 10, 2009, 13:38:04
Aviator, how is it relevant for what reasons she VR'd in this particular discussion? Oh right, it isn't.

Took you a month to come up with that ?

Good job sport.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: FishOuttaWater on August 10, 2009, 14:14:36

And yes, I do know I will be going back to do basic training again, as I have mentioned several times in previous posts.

Thank you. My application was successful (as my tagline indicates).

Congratulations, and good luck.

 :salute:

Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: lateralus on August 17, 2009, 22:39:50
Don't know if this has been mentioned already but...my two cents regarding the express test...

This test should be one of the first stages of the application process(before medicals and/or interviews). You pass, you move on...you fail, you can re-apply in a certain amount of time.  No wasting of time, resources and money at the recruiting office and later on at BMQ for people who can't hack it. 
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: PMedMoe on August 17, 2009, 22:57:45
Don't know if this has been mentioned already but...my two cents regarding the express test...

This test should be one of the first stages of the application process(before medicals and/or interviews). You pass, you move on...you fail, you can re-apply in a certain amount of time.  No wasting of time, resources and money at the recruiting office and later on at BMQ for people who can't hack it.

No wasting of time, resources and money at the recruiting centre?  Who's going to do the tests?  Where are they going to do the tests?  Most recruiting centres are in an office building with no gym.  Rent out space?  There goes the saving money idea.

And yes, it's been discussed here before.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: lateralus on August 17, 2009, 23:31:07
No wasting of time, resources and money at the recruiting centre?  Who's going to do the tests?  Where are they going to do the tests?  Most recruiting centres are in an office building with no gym.  Rent out space?  There goes the saving money idea.

And yes, it's been discussed here before.

Well they test reservists at the recruiting offices, no?  At least they do at the one here in wpg. Same test isn't it? 
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: BC Old Guy on August 17, 2009, 23:57:26
No - the tests are different.  The test at the CFRC is a step-test, which takes up much less room than the 20 metre shuttle run, which is the test at CFLRS.

As well, in many places the test is not conducted at the CFRC, but at the contractors gym.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Eye In The Sky on August 18, 2009, 09:45:17
Don't know if this has been mentioned already but...my two cents regarding the express test...

This test should be one of the first stages of the application process(before medicals and/or interviews). You pass, you move on...you fail, you can re-apply in a certain amount of time.  No wasting of time, resources and money at the recruiting office and later on at BMQ for people who can't hack it.

Regardless of if I agree with you or not, the CF made a decision approx. 2 years ago to change from what you are suggesting to the way it is done now.

I would like to think that somewhere along the line, someone has been keeping stats on if this is/is not working for the CF/CFRG/CDA and subordinate units (CFLRS being one of them), and that despite the # of people ending up failing the EXPRES test the first week at CFLRS/other sub-units conducting BMQs (such as NRTD Borden), more people are passing it and completing BMQ per annum than before this was happening.  Which, I believe, was and is the goal. 

Increasing "throughput" sometimes has some undesired effects/spin-offs, WRT being one of them.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: PMedMoe on August 18, 2009, 10:30:35
people who can't hack it.

Have you been to BMQ yet?
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Gary D. in SK on October 02, 2009, 19:24:22
OK I'm going to sound off on this one as I feel after just completing my 13K ruck march and week 9 here at BMQ, I can speak with some degree of knowledge on the topic.  WFT as lame as it may sound is an amazing program.  Although I personally passed my express tests and have been on platoon since day one as was my goal, here in my platoon we have the typical comings and goings of candidates.  Of the candidates we have picked up along the way the best candiddates are those who came from WFT, as most of them have had to spend a bare miinimum of 4 (and usually much longer) weeks on the Warrior platoon and actually have some drive and commitment to being here and completing the course and contributing to the platoon as a whole.  Typically the worst of the candidates to join our platoon are those who passsed the Express test but were recoursed for what ever reasons.  And before we put it up to the sh**pumps who bombed elsewhere and are just filtering through the system, we have our fair share of sh**pumps who have managed somehow to stay on course from the begining too.
That sasid WFT has it's share of sh**pumps that will never make it out of the program too, but I honestly feel the program does indeed help people who are truly going to be an asset to the Cf but physically were unable to achieve the standards before hand for whatever reason.  And from what I've seen WFT is not an easy place to be the shacks are crappy bunks in trailers, training is hard and they get saddled with the WFT stigma everyday until they earn their way back onto Platoon.  I'm all for the WFT and the CF is definately better off for keeping these people arround.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: X-mo-1979 on October 05, 2009, 08:32:10
You'll be meeting pumps for the rest of your career.Big fat ones,skinny little ones who can run quick...

Fact is I think I may have been institutionalized too long and disagree with this change.I have seen fit Pte's come in to slowly become fat useless Cpl's,and it makes me wonder what will happen when these people are not getting cuddled in the physical fitness aspect of soldering. '

However if someone decided that was the standard...well I guess that's it.If were "getting with" the times,how about letting people grow hair,not shave everyday...you know like "society".

I'm game for that.

How about we have a unio....nevermind.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Keekee on October 20, 2009, 13:38:38
So let me get this straight.

You have to pass 2 out of the 3 strength components (Push ups, sit ups and handgrip) and also have to pass the Shuttle Run. Is that correct?

Sorry if this is repetitive, I am trying to get ready for basic that I start on the 23rd of November.

Message me if you would like!

Thanks all :)  :salute:
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: PMedMoe on October 20, 2009, 14:04:09
So let me get this straight.

You have to pass 2 out of the 3 strength components (Push ups, sit ups and handgrip) and also have to pass the Shuttle Run. Is that correct?

Yes.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Keekee on October 20, 2009, 14:56:36
But, you have to pass everything on week 8 to stay right?
Sorry I am asking a lot of questions, I just heard that things have changed and I am making sure that I am good to go :)

So if I pass situps and handgrip and pass my shuttle run, and get over the minimum 2, but not 9 on pushups, I can stay in my platoon?

Thanks for the info! I am complicated, but I am a woman, so it's expected  ;)
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: PMedMoe on October 20, 2009, 15:11:27
But, you have to pass everything on week 8 to stay right?

So if I pass situps and handgrip and pass my shuttle run, and get over the minimum 2, but not 9 on pushups, I can stay in my platoon?

Yes and yes.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Keekee on October 20, 2009, 15:28:33
Thank you :)
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Gunner007 on November 21, 2009, 16:06:21
Hello,
This question may have already been asked and answered somewhere on this site, but I can't seem to find it.  I basically have 2 questions.

1. Is there RFT at all basic training establishments? or would you be sent to CFLRS if you fail in Victoria or Borden?

2. Is it completely random were you get sent for BMOQ? i am planning on joining as a MARS officer and i heard that MARS do there Basic in Victoria so i just want some clarification.

Thank you
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Vimy_gunner on November 22, 2009, 10:42:32
The army shouldn't even have to implement these week one requirements to stay.  If you're wanting to be a soldier, you're taking on the responsibility to be one of the fitter people in Canada, given the requirements of the job.  I'm going Reserve, but if your going reg. F you should make sure that you can destroy the minimum standards prior to even arriving.  Instead of puking on the sidelines, you'll be shooting hoops after certain days (just an expression.  If your fit enough, even Basic won't destroy you. 

Want to improve your grip strength?  Either buy some hand grips and keep them by your bedside, work table, etc and hit them at every opportunity OR take up mountain biking.  It really helps and you'll see your hands getting bigger, stronger and the requirement should be easy, even if your wrists are skinny! 
Another option that helps is taking dumbells and instead of doing bicep curl, etc, simply use a curling motion with the weight in your hands.  Increasing your abdominal strength will give you the option of squeezing your abs to get more power into your total wrist squeeze.  Do exercises that will specifically hit the muscle groups involved areas your struggling to improve. 

Increasing the power in your wrists will also help you become better at pushups!  Having stronger abs helps EVERYTHING.  Eat a balanced diet!  Once you get into a routine prior to going to basic, you'll be doing everything they do at basic as your regular everyday training (not as lengthy in some cases obviously). 
It all comes down to how easy you want to make in on yourself.  You don't have to be the puker at basic, lol. 
Plus, if your already in great shape  when you go to basic, you won't have the stress of meeting the minimum requirements.  You'll get to enjoy the experience :) 

If you make training an integral part of your life (not just for basic) you'll find that by the end of basic you'll start to become even stronger, instead of just happy to get through it, as is the case with most I'm sure.   

If your worried about making the minimum requirements or passing at the end of eight weeks; make sure you don't.  Essentially, put yourself through Basic before you get there!  Just another day in the life of .... :)

Lol, hopefully this hits home with at least a few.  It's meant to be inspirational!
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Eye In The Sky on November 27, 2009, 14:09:41
The army shouldn't even have to implement these week one requirements to stay.  If you're wanting to be a soldier, you're taking on the responsibility to be one of the fitter people in Canada, given the requirements of the job.  I'm going Reserve, but if your going reg. F you should make sure that you can destroy the minimum standards prior to even arriving.  Instead of puking on the sidelines, you'll be shooting hoops after certain days (just an expression.  If your fit enough, even Basic won't destroy you.

So let me get this straight....you are applying to the Reserves, and not in yet?  How is it you feel like you have one sweet ****** clue about anything in the military, BMQ included?  You haven't even done a Reserve BMQ but you have the secret to success for a Reg Force one??

Right. 

Quote
If your worried about making the minimum requirements or passing at the end of eight weeks; make sure you don't.  Essentially, put yourself through Basic before you get there!  Just another day in the life of .... :)

Ok, so go ahead and explain from wakey to kip-out time the day a BMQ candidate experiences...and not from reading, from your own, personal experience...

Quote
Lol, hopefully this hits home with at least a few.  It's meant to be inspirational!

What is hitting home is that you should quite giving advice on things you haven't done.  Do you go to the cockpit on the plane you are flying on and say to the pilots "ok boys, here's how you should be doing this..."
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Vimy_gunner on November 29, 2009, 09:16:09
So let me get this straight....you are applying to the Reserves, and not in yet?  How is it you feel like you have one sweet ****** clue about anything in the military, BMQ included?  You haven't even done a Reserve BMQ but you have the secret to success for a Reg Force one??

Right. 

Ok, so go ahead and explain from wakey to kip-out time the day a BMQ candidate experiences...and not from reading, from your own, personal experience...

What is hitting home is that you should quite giving advice on things you haven't done.  Do you go to the cockpit on the plane you are flying on and say to the pilots "ok boys, here's how you should be doing this..."

I played professional soccer for many years along with College soccer and what we did would make BMQ seem a cakewalk at times.  That wasn't just for eight weeks either.  Just about all year long, training that hard.  Having been through an experience where I know how important fitness is to success, I'd say I can encourage others to do the same.

 There is no gray area and it doesn't matter what tasks are specifically performed.  It's actually quite simple, the fitter you are, the easier the daily course becomes.  That's just common sense my friend.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Scott on November 29, 2009, 09:38:35
You just don't get it, do you?

Get this: quit posting out of your arse or go into the Warning System.

Scott
Army.ca Staff
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Eye In The Sky on November 29, 2009, 12:54:58
I played professional soccer for many years along with College soccer and what we did would make BMQ seem a cakewalk at times.  That wasn't just for eight weeks either.  Just about all year long, training that hard.  Having been through an experience where I know how important fitness is to success, I'd say I can encourage others to do the same.

 There is no gray area and it doesn't matter what tasks are specifically performed.  It's actually quite simple, the fitter you are, the easier the daily course becomes.  That's just common sense my friend.

How do you know what PT in BMQ is like, and that it is a cakewalk, if you haven't done it?  Did you carry a rucksack 13km in soccer?  FTXs?  Sleep and perhaps food deprivation?  PT in the morning, PT classes during the day, up to 13 floors of stairs to climb numerous times a daym with and without equipment, pushups for little mistakes, obstacle courses, plus marching around EVERYWHERE, drill classes, etc??

It DOES matter what tasks are performed, there is a gray area, and I can say that not everyone that is in shape finds the BMQ course easy. 

While generally speaking,  yes the better the condition you are in before BMQ, the better able you are likely to handle the physical side of it, that can also lead to thinks like cockiness, attitude and the "I am better than you" mentality that, once seen by the staff, can pretty much assure you will have anything BUT an easy time.

Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: hotei on December 11, 2009, 20:28:41
I'll toss my two cents into the ring having gone through good ole CFLRS. So much of the process is mental. I have watched the strongest and fittest be reduced to tears (no kidding, it was awkward, I have to say!). Likewise, I have seen people out of shape push themselves far harder than the cocky "fit guys". They knew what they wanted, and they pushed passed it.

Were they the fittest? No.

Were they the fastest? Hell No.

Did they keep pushing against all else? Hell yes.

That is what I have seen make, or brake, the true soldier. I am not saying that I am a know-it-all. I have seen my fair share of pumps pas through, likewise I have seen enough "fit-enough" guys make it through. Ninety percent of everything in the military, however, is mindset, and those who have it are truly the star players.

This is, of course, my own opinion. Not to be confused with reality.

;-)

-H
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: goldenhamster on January 02, 2010, 21:58:54
It will never be a cake walk, I believe.  Just by watching Basic Up Reloaded, I can see the challenge of PT.  Those folks shown in many episodes passed CF express test and thus reasonably fit, but look on how many of them almost cried when MCpl. Vaters led them doing push ups.   

I just find something that my be useful, even though the sit up procedure is slightly different. 

http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/campaigns/fitness/techniques/


Happy training,
 :camo:

Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: HavocSteve on February 28, 2010, 13:41:20
It will never be a cake walk, I believe.  Just by watching Basic Up Reloaded, I can see the challenge of PT.  Those folks shown in many episodes passed CF express test and thus reasonably fit, but look on how many of them almost cried when MCpl. Vaters led them doing push ups.   

I just find something that my be useful, even though the sit up procedure is slightly different. 

http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/campaigns/fitness/techniques/


Happy training,
 :camo:

Thanks a million for this... Proper technique for me isn't so good.. not to mention finding a correct beep test in order to train properly. Thanks for the link :salute:

EDIT : I also love the fact that it will give you a fitness plan  >:D This link is like finding gold when your getting ready for possible BMQ.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: DavieRocket77 on March 16, 2010, 10:50:20

Hi, I'm 32 and if I happened to fail any of the test requirements would I be eligable for "RFT"? I was told earlier that you have to be over 35 to qualify for "RFT" , of course I don't plan on failing but It's just something I wanted to clarify.

 Also I should add that I'm 5'11, when I applied I weighed 266lbs , I now weigh 228lbs and I hope to reach my goal of 200lbs before I go for BMQ, this leads me to my second question. Has anyone seen overweight people in BMQ?

    Thanks
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: MikeL on March 16, 2010, 11:04:47
Has anyone seen overweight people in BMQ?

Yes there have been overweight people on BMQ, and other courses.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: PMedMoe on March 16, 2010, 11:25:00
I was told earlier that you have to be over 35 to qualify for "RFT"
Not true.  Age has nothing to do with it.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: DavieRocket77 on March 16, 2010, 20:17:04
Not true.  Age has nothing to do with it.
Thanks for your reply Moe. It's a relief to hear that because I was told by a Captain recently that because I am under 35 yrs of age I wouldn't qualify for "warrior troop" if I didn't pass the test and ultimately would be withdrawn.  I've been so worried about this because my application seems to be moving quite fast. Today my references were called and that's the last thing that had to be done so I'm thinking I could get a call anytime.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: PMedMoe on March 16, 2010, 21:06:56
Thanks for your reply Moe. It's a relief to hear that because I was told by a Captain recently that because I am under 35 yrs of age I wouldn't qualify for "warrior troop" if I didn't pass the test and ultimately would be withdrawn.
Well, unless things have changed again, what I gather from this document (http://www.cflrs.forces.gc.ca/menu/pub/se-ts_e.pdf) (page 10), all candidates can go to WPC, but if you are under 35 you must pass the Threshold Test to go.

Don't go in with the intention of not passing the ExPres Test.  Give it your all.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: tsokman on March 16, 2010, 21:53:00
What are the max pushups-sit ups-chin ups and run distances one can expect at BMQ....Right now Im doing 80-60-8 and 6km runs...
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Eye In The Sky on March 17, 2010, 00:38:15
You can expect to do your best at all times.  Everyone is expected to give their 100%, regardless of what #s that 100% produces. 
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: tsokman on March 17, 2010, 01:13:05
ok.....as max fit as possible was what I was told by both my MCC and PA...
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Scott on March 17, 2010, 02:00:44
And you couldn't figure it out without asking?

tsokman, you're wearing on my patience.

Scott
Army.ca Staff
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Loachman on March 17, 2010, 02:12:48
Tsokman

Your other thread was locked because you persist in asking the same questions over and over again, and they have already been answered here. If you cannot absorb what has been said before, you're not likely to absorb it no matter how many more times you repeat the question.

All that you are doing is annoying people. A lot of people. It is getting tiresome.

Read more, post less.

And take in what you read. Make some effort. Please.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: DavieRocket77 on March 17, 2010, 02:40:35
Thanks Moe for your input.  I have every intention of passing the ExPres test. I've been working very hard to prepare for the journey. I quit smoking, started eating super healthy, joined a fitness bootcamp and also lost 40 lbs so far. I started walking 5Km a day in between workouts and I'm begining to incorporate jogging. This was a "just in case" question that I've been worrying about.  It's just nice to know that if I happened to not be "up to snuff" when the time comes, there will be help instead of just  being merely withdrawn.

Thanks again guys........I"be bustin my but in the meantime lol
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: PMedMoe on March 17, 2010, 08:11:47
Excellent attitude, DR77.  Good luck!
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Celticgirl on March 17, 2010, 08:22:22
Thanks for your reply Moe. It's a relief to hear that because I was told by a Captain recently that because I am under 35 yrs of age I wouldn't qualify for "warrior troop" if I didn't pass the test and ultimately would be withdrawn.  I've been so worried about this because my application seems to be moving quite fast. Today my references were called and that's the last thing that had to be done so I'm thinking I could get a call anytime.

Are you going in as an officer candidate? I've been told that things have changed for officers-to-be wrt WFT. I'll forward this thread on to someone who will have more info on that.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: PMedMoe on March 17, 2010, 08:25:56
Celticgirl, if you look at his posting history, he's going in as an NCM.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Celticgirl on March 17, 2010, 08:37:47
Celticgirl, if you look at his posting history, he's going in as an NCM.

Ah, ok. Well, perhaps things have changed NCMS, too. Not sure why an officer at a CFRC would tell him that otherwise.

 :st.patty:
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: PMedMoe on March 17, 2010, 10:19:25
Ah, ok. Well, perhaps things have changed NCMS, too. Not sure why an officer at a CFRC would tell him that otherwise.
If you look at the link I provided, the difference between under 35 and over 35 is that under 35 you must pass the Threshold Fitness Standard to go to WPC.  Over 35 can go right to WPC.  So the officer wasn't totally wrong.  He had the age right.   ;)
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Kratos on March 17, 2010, 13:40:04
Disclaimer: I'm not even in the military yet (ROTP hopeful), and really have no idea what I'm talking about, but here I go...

From reading all the (and there are a lot of them) "OMG PT test" and "Basic Training!!! What to do!!!" and seeing what the more experienced guys and girls have had to say, I've come away with this simple calculation for overall success: Give 100% + Have a positive attitude + Listen x Every day = Success.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you somewhat prepared for the PT test in the weeks when you're at Basic, or do you do it as soon as you get there?

If not, then fine, I can understand how some people might be worried about the push ups/sit ups part, but let's be honest, how hard is it to to get to 20 push ups in a row, especially if you're on the lighter side.

As for the 20m beep test: I've done it a couple times before and I think I achieved around level 6. (Maybe almost 7, but it was in 2006/7.) I've never done cardio in my life. Sure, I played hockey, but an a 30-45s shift =/= the beep test. Based off my own experiences with the test, my opinion is that even an untrained, but semi-fit individual could pass, assuming the really bust their you-know-what and leave the 20m saying to themselves: "I honestly could not have done any better than that." We all know most people lack the will to push themselves that far.

I haven't done any cardio since Feb. 2009, but if I end up at RMC, I'm sure I'll be able to find people to jog with.

My two biggest fears concerning basic, should I make it that far: 1) Losing a ton of weight and getting significantly weaker. 2) Getting injured. (Not that likely, but it would suck.)
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: PMedMoe on March 17, 2010, 14:22:52
Good advice with the exception of this:

how hard is it to to get to 20 push ups in a row, especially if you're on the lighter side.
I've often had people say that after the PT test and it irks me to no end.  If I'm "on the lighter side", it means I probably have a smaller body build and therefore, less muscle with which to do the push ups.  Sure, if I'm small, but have arms like an ultimate fighter or a wrestler, then I'll agree the push ups may be easier, but as a general rule lighter=smaller body size=smaller muscles.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Kratos on March 17, 2010, 16:26:19
Good advice with the exception of this:
I've often had people say that after the PT test and it irks me to no end.  If I'm "on the lighter side", it means I probably have a smaller body build and therefore, less muscle with which to do the push ups.  Sure, if I'm small, but have arms like an ultimate fighter or a wrestler, then I'll agree the push ups may be easier, but as a general rule lighter=smaller body size=smaller muscles.

True. Given the point I was trying to illustrate, I didn't word that very well at all. Essentially, what I was trying to get across is that I would imagine a relatively active, 150 lb guy is most likely going to have an easier time hitting 20 push ups than a relatively active 215 lb guy, assuming they start from the same point.

Probably far too many other variables for that to ever hold true, though.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: MrBlue on June 26, 2010, 19:04:54
To be honest it doesn't surprise me so many people fail the tests, I mean everyone wants to be thin and tiny nowadays...not active.  and even then...most people who do get into fitness, do so in long distance running type stuff...not strength training.

lot of people who get into strength training do so with no guidance!

One thing i'd like to see change is the actual PT done IN the military...seems all they can think of doing is running and ruckmarches...
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Kratos on June 26, 2010, 22:22:13
^See massive thread in Physical Training section...

All the guidance anyone really needs can be found online, so I hate that excuse for not doing things properly.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Choop on July 11, 2010, 03:51:16
I must point out that PSP staff are VERY particular with their testing.  I was removed from the shuttle run almost forcibly by PSP in the week 0 with a "Get off the f***ing course right f***ing NOW!!"  I'm still not sure why...   2 days later at the retest I ran a 7...  I have also heard RUMOURS (and I can't stress that enough) a RUMOUR had a Seargent fail the push-up portion.  He apparently couldn't get his arms down to the 90 degree angle required because his biceps were hitting his forearms.  He was physically incapable  because he was too muscular, despite the fact he could pop out 100 push-ups at a time...
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Pegcity on July 11, 2010, 04:07:04
Anyone else going to BMOQ or BMQ using the JTF2 entry fitness guidelines as a baseline for their training, i realize it might be overkill but i figure its better to be over prepared than under.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: owa on July 11, 2010, 04:28:59
My two biggest fears concerning basic, should I make it that far: 1) Losing a ton of weight and getting significantly weaker.

There are so many things that can be said about this, but it would get really long.

Baisically nurish your body well (change your diet so that you lose weight in a healthy way -- slowly and gradually) while maintaining some sort of physical fitness regiment and you won't have this problem.  I mean, there will come a point where you will notice a loss of strength but for things like pushups, pullups, situps and running, you will likely notice gains.  This won't necessarily be because of muscle gain, but the loss of fat should help you push more and pull more of your own weight simply because your body is accustomed to a higher weight.  As for running, you'll feel a bit lighter and it'll be easier on your joints and legs.

Won't hold true forever or for everyone, but it isn't something to really worry about.

You'll probably look better too...  Think of when body builders go into a cutting stage.  It probably won't be that dramatic, but it will be a similar principle.

Injury is the biggest concern and I have no advice for that haha.  Just know your limits and stop accordingly.  Push yourself sometimes, but give yourself time to rest.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Kratos on August 12, 2010, 15:44:36
There are so many things that can be said about this, but it would get really long.

Baisically nurish your body well (change your diet so that you lose weight in a healthy way -- slowly and gradually) while maintaining some sort of physical fitness regiment and you won't have this problem.  I mean, there will come a point where you will notice a loss of strength but for things like pushups, pullups, situps and running, you will likely notice gains.  This won't necessarily be because of muscle gain, but the loss of fat should help you push more and pull more of your own weight simply because your body is accustomed to a higher weight.  As for running, you'll feel a bit lighter and it'll be easier on your joints and legs.

Won't hold true forever or for everyone, but it isn't something to really worry about.

You'll probably look better too...  Think of when body builders go into a cutting stage.  It probably won't be that dramatic, but it will be a similar principle.

Injury is the biggest concern and I have no advice for that haha.  Just know your limits and stop accordingly.  Push yourself sometimes, but give yourself time to rest.

Just seeing this now.

I'm no longer going the military route, but losing weight in any manner will affect strength levels. Yes, strength endurance may be increased, but limit strength will suffer greatly. It's not just about muscle size, but also your CNS. Just because you may be used to moving more weight doesn't mean the strength endurance will be there.

If you're losing any weight, you won't just be losing fat.

Looking better was never a concern. Performance was.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: owa on August 12, 2010, 16:00:18
Just seeing this now.

I'm no longer going the military route, but losing weight in any manner will affect strength levels. Yes, strength endurance may be increased, but limit strength will suffer greatly. It's not just about muscle size, but also your CNS. Just because you may be used to moving more weight doesn't mean the strength endurance will be there.

If you're losing any weight, you won't just be losing fat.

Looking better was never a concern. Performance was.

That's why I said "Won't hold true forever or for everyone, but it isn't something to really worry about."

But there is a period where you'll notice that you can do more pushups and pullups and where running becomes easier.  You will even out as you lose weight, but I made it clear that it would.  My main point was this:  Generally when you start to shed weight you'll notice that you can do more things like pushups and pullups...  Simply because your muscle mass won't degrade all that quickly and even a 5 pound difference can help a lot in these things.  If you shed weight, eat healthy, and maintain a physical training regime you'll perform better, you'll look better (even if you don't want to look better, it is still a positive outcome of all these things haha), and you'll help avoid injuries.  Not entirely sure what you disagree with. ???

Like I said, you won't get significantly weaker so long as you nurish your body properly.

In the original post I said, "There are so many things that can be said about this, but it would get really long."

I was being quite broad in my explanation because I don't really feel like going in depth, but I'm pretty sure I covered my *** quite well.

It's easier said then done, but the basics are essentially true for everyone.  Eat well, lift your weights, do your cardio, sleep well, and everything will come together.  Fatties (well, not just fatties, but it's fun to say fatties) losing weight will notice declines in some of their strength, but they'll also notice that running, pushups and pullups become easier and they generally do more then they once did.  If you want to be stronger, you manage your routine so that you build muscle, but the fact is, you can bench two or three plates and still be very athletic, so losing fat doesn't mean you have to lose muscle.  You just have to find a balance.

I also wouldn't say strength will suffer greatly.  It will suffer greatly if you cut improperly, but it's possible to maintain some of your powerful lifts, or at the very least only lose a few pounds/reps off each.  My friend's heavy into weight lifting and he's cutting down from 220.  He's down close to 200 now and he hasn't noticed a huge drop.  He just had to balance his diet, cardio and strength training properly.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Kratos on August 13, 2010, 07:51:10
If you shed weight, eat healthy, and maintain a physical training regime you'll perform better, you'll look better

I think there's a lot of subjectivity there, on both counts.

Like I said, you won't get significantly weaker so long as you nurish your body properly.

That also depends, but generally, for soemone who is into training with a focus on strength, I disagree. If someone who is 5'9, 210 enters Basic with a 550 lb deadlift and a 475 lb squat, by the time they have finished, they will most likely be a) lighter and almost certainly b) significantly weaker.

Proper nourishment is also a factor that can vary greatly from person to person.

If you want to be stronger, you manage your routine so that you build muscle, but the fact is, you can bench two or three plates and still be very athletic, so losing fat doesn't mean you have to lose muscle.  You just have to find a balance.

Strength/Getting strong isn't just about "building muscle". CNS adaption also plays a very large role.

In order to lose any weight at all, you have to be eating in a caloric deficit. When you do start losing weight, you aren't just losing fat. Your body is not 100% efficient in that manner. You can minimize the loss of muscle, but if you are losing weight, you are losing muscle mass.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: MrBlue on August 13, 2010, 08:25:00
Kratos you're right, basic does not lend itself well to maintaining strength if you have numbers above 300lbs, since you will pretty much do little to strength training during the whole time.

Also you're right I went in at 210, and lost 15lbs, and thats even with trying to stuff myself whenever I could.

you're numbers will drop thats pretty much inevitable.

and to the poster who commented on losing weight properly...kratos wasn't saying that THAT was his goal...he was saying he was worried (aka NOT wanting to) lose weight and get weaker. Like i've said in general I feel the military kind of frowns upon real strength training.

and yes strength training (the real kind...not talking men's health stuff here) involves more then just muscular adaptation, there's CNS adapations, hence why weightlifters and powerlifters keep getting stronger at the same weight.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: PMedMoe on August 13, 2010, 08:44:05
Don't we have enough threads about weight training/running/nutrition/etc without cluttering up a thread about the PT test at CFLRS? 
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: owa on August 13, 2010, 11:29:43
Kratos you're right, basic does not lend itself well to maintaining strength if you have numbers above 300lbs, since you will pretty much do little to strength training during the whole time.

Also you're right I went in at 210, and lost 15lbs, and thats even with trying to stuff myself whenever I could.

you're numbers will drop thats pretty much inevitable.

and to the poster who commented on losing weight properly...kratos wasn't saying that THAT was his goal...he was saying he was worried (aka NOT wanting to) lose weight and get weaker. Like i've said in general I feel the military kind of frowns upon real strength training.

and yes strength training (the real kind...not talking men's health stuff here) involves more then just muscular adaptation, there's CNS adapations, hence why weightlifters and powerlifters keep getting stronger at the same weight.

All I said was that it's possible to maintain strength.

I also said there were limits to this, and I didn't suggest you would maintain power lifting strength (I was clear about that).

I did say it's possible to shed weight and maintain strength though.  But I also validated this by saying you need to have the proper nurishment and training regiment.  I never said Basic Training were any of those things -- basic is good for getting you in basic training shape; not necessarily anything else.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Hamish Seggie on August 13, 2010, 12:09:59
Don't we have enough threads about weight training/running/nutrition/etc without cluttering up a thread about the PT test at CFLRS?

everyone's an expert Moe.  ;D
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: PMedMoe on August 13, 2010, 12:34:49
everyone's an expert Moe.  ;D

I know, I'm just proposing they be an "expert" in threads already established for those subjects.   ;)
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: owa on August 13, 2010, 12:53:55
I know, I'm just proposing they be an "expert" in threads already established for those subjects.   ;)

Ah sorry, didn't see your post until after I responded.  I'll leave'er be then haha.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: PMedMoe on August 13, 2010, 14:29:10
Ah sorry, didn't see your post until after I responded.  I'll leave'er be then haha.

Well, it wasn't aimed just at you.   ;)
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Kratos on August 13, 2010, 16:52:03
Well, it wasn't aimed just at you.   ;)

Message received.  ;D
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Roughneck_JRico on September 13, 2010, 16:32:41
If anyone needs an exercise program to help them prepare for Basic Training, please send me a message and I will send you a program tailored to preparing yourself for the Fitness Test and PT in general during BMQ.

If anyone asks my credentials I am a certified Personal Trainer Specialist through Can-Fit-Pro and have the same certification through Goodlife Fitness, where I currently work as a personal trainer.

I ship out for my BMQ starting January 10th 2011. Anyone looking for help send me a message. My name's Nick!
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Kratos on September 13, 2010, 17:16:17
If anyone needs an exercise program to help them prepare for Basic Training, please send me a message and I will send you a program tailored to preparing yourself for the Fitness Test and PT in general during BMQ.

If anyone asks my credentials I am a certified Personal Trainer Specialist through Can-Fit-Pro and have the same certification through Goodlife Fitness, where I currently work as a personal trainer.

I ship out for my BMQ starting January 10th 2011. Anyone looking for help send me a message. My name's Nick!


Could you post the program?
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Chilme on October 01, 2010, 23:31:27
Nick,

Make sure you familiarize yourself with the specific EXPRES protocols (especially push-ups).

Latest version of CF EXPRES Ops Manual: http://canadianmilitaryandefence.blogspot.com/2010/09/canadian-forces-expres-operations.html

It's devastating when recruits train for the test with incorrect form, test out of their comfort zone for the test, and fail.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Vimy_gunner on October 02, 2010, 03:39:52
Something that helped me over a year ago was watching Youtube videos. You'd be amazed at the number of videos on there showing correct form on push-ups and how-to's on everything to do with qualifying.

Everyone is essentially an expert if they're fit, but truth is there's a gazillion different ways to get fit. Just whichever one works the best for you.

Having great nutrition and proper protein and supplements to prevent loss of muscle mass from training should be your top priority - especially for those who need to lose the fat and gain muscle. It's difficult to do, but you really can lose the fat and maintain or improve muscle mass at the same time. Just have to have the necessary protein with minimal fats (and only the good fats) in your system.  I know this is about the PT test, but a lot of people don't realize that the reason why they're small despite even working out like crazy could be that their body is already absorbing all the protein. If there's no protein left - your body takes it from your muscles ... thus, you remain a stick.    (First hand life experience)  I'm 6'1 and 195 lbs now, prior to eating smart and using protein supplements (7 years ago) I was 145 lb stick-man, lol.
Believe it or not I worked out more then than I do now! 

The reason I mention the latter is that sometimes because of a lack of strength we make ourselves cheat the exercise a bit - thus resulting in doing things on the PT test incorrectly. Get on google/youtube and make your own exercise/nutrition plan and you'll have no trouble with the PT test.
For core work you can run a google search for Marine ab workout (it's killah!)

Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Kratos on October 02, 2010, 15:07:53
Having great nutrition and proper protein and supplements to prevent loss of muscle mass from training should be your top priority - especially for those who need to lose the fat and gain muscle.

If you caloric intake is where it should be, you don't need supplements to prevent loss of muscle mass. The second part makes no sense because you cannot lose fat and gain muscle at the same time, unless you are either severely obese and/or a complete beginner at strength training. Even then, this won't occur for very long.

It's difficult to do, but you really can lose the fat and maintain or improve muscle mass at the same time. Just have to have the necessary protein with minimal fats (and only the good fats) in your system.

No, you can't. Period. In almost all scenarios, and especially if you are physically active at all, you will not be able to lose fat and build muscle at the same time.

Calories in > calories out = gain weight (muscle + fat)
Calories out > calories in = lose weight (muscle + fat)

Weight gain/loss is dependent on the calorie equations above, not protein intake.

For the second equation, yes, keeping your protein intake high along with weight training will aid in minimizing/reducing the amount of muscle tissue lost, but if you are losing weight, you ARE losing muscle mass.

Of course, the exception to this rule would be if you were using AAS (steroids). Sure, you can gain muscle and reduce your body fat percentage... if you're running Trenbolone acetate.

I know this is about the PT test, but a lot of people don't realize that the reason why they're small despite even working out like crazy could be that their body is already absorbing all the protein. If there's no protein left - your body takes it from your muscles ... thus, you remain a stick.    (First hand life experience)  I'm 6'1 and 195 lbs now, prior to eating smart and using protein supplements (7 years ago) I was 145 lb stick-man, lol.
Believe it or not I worked out more then than I do now! 

The reason people who lift weights all the time are still small is simple: They don't eat enough. It has nothing to do with protein.

The following exchange pops up on the internet too many times to count:

"Omg I've been lifting weights for six months, but I'm not getting bigger. Why?"
"You're not eating enough."
"No. I eat SOOOO much."
"Well, obviously not, or you'd be getting bigger/gaining weight. Pretty simple."

"If there's no protein left - your body takes it from your muscles ... thus, you remain a stick."

That's just flat out incorrect. Could you provide some scientific evidence for that? Probably not, because protein doesn't even get stored in your muscles, so there'd be none there for your body to "take". You remained a stick because you weren't eating enough. It took you seven years to go from 145-195 lbs and you're "crediting" it to protein supplements? If it took you the full seven years to gain that weight, that's a gain of 0.59 lbs of weight per month.

I can only speak for myself, but I went from ~178-205 lbs in about five months (Sept '09 - Jan '10). I stopped "trying" to gain weight at about that point, but settled at around 210 lbs by June-ish and am there currently at 5'10.

Protein supplements are just that: Supplements. Not a be-all, end-all. It's just powdered food. When possible, I'd rather eat a handful of almonds than have a protein shake.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Vimy_gunner on October 03, 2010, 02:29:21
Well, I'm a Kinesiology major and  I'm learning from my prof who has a doctorate in exercise science and nutrition.  My textbook is full of evidence saying what you eat matters more than just eating your calorie requirement.

 Very few people eat enough protein sources to keep muscle mass. If you eat too many carbs instead of more protein, your body turns some of those carbs into fat or it becomes empty calories as your body can only store a minimal amount of ATP (energy sources) within your body. Thus the reason why most people gain fat with muscle. If you reduce carb intake and increase proteins (as bodybuilders do) you can minimize the process of requiring to put on fat before turning it into muscle. With slow and very precise eating/exercise plan you can slowly buildup the size and muscle while keeping definition or the lack of a tire tube, lol.
 Eating Carbs produce ATP moles (bodies main energy source) that come out in the form of instant energy in the forms of glycolysis and phosphate creatine cells. If the energy from carbs is not used within a short period of time it turns into fat or becomes empty calories as I stated above. There's also a limit to the amount of ATP which can be stored in your body as reserves. You might be surprised to learn that protein rich ATP sources retained from eating proteins can remain in storage within the bodies energy systems in higher quantity and be pumped out to your muscles (so to speak) when they're needed.

Reducing fat intake to an absolute minimum daily requirement (about 65 calories for the avg person) along with proper protein in the diet and carbs enough to just get through your workouts and daily activities will result in minimal muscle loss ( if any) and the loss of fat if there's any to burn. It's not a common method for trainers to tell most people because it requires the strictest diet and training regiment. In other words, going out for fast food once in a week can destroy this method. This is an eating perfect method only. No coke, no juice, no beer, no starch and not even a few pretzels. Not even dairy products. Oh and eating food rich in fibre.  If you eat lots of fibre you can safely reduce your fat intake.

You're right, protein isn't stored in the muscles, but after working out and your muscles are tired your brain asks for more ATP to be produced from protein rich foods to be sent to those muscles. I could go into more science of why protein does matter, but takes a crazy amount of time to learn yourself, let along trying to tell someone else.

 Whey protein along with glutamine help repair muscle tissue and amino acids accelerate the process of energy and protein throughout the body by meeting with ATP inside the mitochondria and being transported by the body through the Krebs cycle. I'm guessing you haven't got a clue what I just said and that's why I won't go into further scientific analysis.

I'm not obese in the least and in the last four weeks I upped my nutrition to my perfect diet (carb/protein/fat percentages)  resulting in the loss of 7 lbs of body-fat, while putting on approx 5 more lbs muscle in the same time-frame. 

Just a correction, but it didn't take 7 years to put on the weight and muscle I mentioned - it took about 7/8 months of eating the perfect percentages and working out like crazy. This was five years ago that I did it. So, very minimal change since then. I'm now back on that perfect diet plan. Actually I ate considerably more food prior to this! Eating has NEVER been an issue and usually when others are sitting at the dinner table with white space left on their plates, mine would be overflowing. The difference was that back then I ate a lot more carbs.

And I'm talking about taking protein supplements (in addition) to regular good proteins such as almonds. Wasn't recommending anyone should supplement a meal with these supplements, but they certainly help (in addition) to eating protein rich natural foods. Although you're intaking an awful lot of fat eating those which could explain why you may have had issues with gaining muscles and fat at the same time. Considering how many almonds you'd have to eat instead of a protein shake, I can understand why you might have had issues doing both at the same time. Almonds are great source for reducing bad cholesterol and upping the good cholesterol, but in order to intake 30 g of protein from almonds 2-4 times a day, you'd have to intake a hell of a lot of fat from those almonds, resulting in fat buildup. Eating more protein in your diet and eliminating unnecessary fats would have helped do both at the same time.  Less than a handful of almonds a day results in more fat calories than your body needs daily as a minimal requirement. If you're using it to fulfill protein requirements instead of a shake, it's going to result in fat buildup and unneeded calories.

To say that what types and percentage of your calorie intake doesn't matter is just not true.
Just take this for example, if you ate 100% of your daily caloric requirement in fatty foods, you'd be a walking blimp in no time and have serious issues with health besides the weight.
If you ate 100% of calories required in only carbs, your insulin lvls would jump through the roof and you'd end up as a blimp once again.
I exaggerated the affects of eating fat and carbs in the above sentences to show that it does matter what calories you put in your body.

Again, I will go further into the science of it if you like, but it's very time consuming, lol.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: lethalLemon on October 03, 2010, 03:07:30
*filler*

Are you sure about that? The evidence I have obtained through experiment and observation (application of studies  :o oh no!); I dropped from 163 lbs to 126 lbs in 7 weeks. This was at Vernon Army Cadet Summer Training Centre in 2009. I walked everywhere, I jogged in the mornings to work on my cardio, I did unreal amounts of chin-ups and push-ups each time I entered and exited a building (which was numerous); all the while it's +40 degrees Celsius outside so I'm sweating like a pig in my OG107s as I'm doing all this.

I lost A LOT of mass, and even though I was still eating like a friggin pig in the mess hall - and was sometimes eating 2 or 3 IMPs per mealtime (Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner) because I was so damn hungry and needed the energy (spent most of my 7 weeks in the Field Training Area). I never gained any of my weight back, and I ate EVERYTHING! Proper nutrition and diet control, what's that!? Yeah, I was getting in my fruits and vegetables and fulfilling all my daily nutritional requirements, but I also ate all kinds of greasy fried junk on top of it all - in massive quantities too! I'm surprised the Panago Pizza in Vernon didn't have my name down as "Most Valuable Customer"! (or a doctor diagnose me with diabetes... or high cholesterol/blood pressure )

"Your frame and weight did not alter, how so?"

Simple as this:

I was burning more calories than what was coming in through my disgustingly large amounts of food during meal times.

You don't need to be a scientist to figure that one out, you just need to do it.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Kratos on October 03, 2010, 03:46:30
Well, I'm a Kinesiology major and  I'm learning from my prof who has a doctorate in exercise science and nutrition.  My textbook is full of evidence saying what you eat matters more than just eating your calorie requirement.

 Very few people eat enough protein sources to keep muscle mass. If you eat too many carbs instead of more protein, your body turns some of those carbs into fat or it becomes empty calories as your body can only store a minimal amount of ATP (energy sources) within your body. Thus the reason why most people gain fat with muscle. If you reduce carb intake and increase proteins (as bodybuilders do) you can minimize the process of requiring to put on fat before turning it into muscle. With slow and very precise eating/exercise plan you can slowly buildup the size and muscle while keeping definition or the lack of a tire tube, lol.

You are never going to gain 100% muscle. No matter what, if you are putting on weight, some of it will be fat. Your body is not perfect. You minimize the gain of fat by eating closer to your caloric maintenance. Also, I really hope you are not saying that you can turn fat into muscle.


Quote
Eating Carbs produce ATP moles (bodies main energy source) that come out in the form of instant energy in the forms of glycolysis and phosphate creatine cells. If the energy from carbs is not used within a short period of time it turns into fat or becomes empty calories as I stated above. There's also a limit to the amount of ATP which can be stored in your body as reserves. You might be surprised to learn that protein rich ATP sources retained from eating proteins can remain in storage within the bodies energy systems in higher quantity and be pumped out to your muscles (so to speak) when they're needed.

Reducing fat intake to an absolute minimum daily requirement (about 65 calories for the avg person) along with proper protein in the diet and carbs enough to just get through your workouts and daily activities will result in minimal muscle loss ( if any) and the loss of fat if there's any to burn. It's not a common method for trainers to tell most people because it requires the strictest diet and training regiment. In other words, going out for fast food once in a week can destroy this method. This is an eating perfect method only. No coke, no juice, no beer, no starch and not even a few pretzels. Not even dairy products. Oh and eating food rich in fibre.  If you eat lots of fibre you can safely reduce your fat intake.

If you are concerned with athletic/physical performance, why would you ever eat like this? There's absolutely nothing wrong with eating animal fats.

Quote
You're right, protein isn't stored in the muscles, but after working out and your muscles are tired your brain asks for more ATP to be produced from protein rich foods to be sent to those muscles. I could go into more science of why protein does matter, but takes a crazy amount of time to learn yourself, let along trying to tell someone else.

 Whey protein along with glutamine help repair muscle tissue and amino acids accelerate the process of energy and protein throughout the body by meeting with ATP inside the mitochondria and being transported by the body through the Krebs cycle. I'm guessing you haven't got a clue what I just said and that's why I won't go into further scientific analysis.

I am a first year Kinesiology student, but no, you're right, I don't really know what much of that means.

Quote
I'm not obese in the least and in the last four weeks I upped my nutrition to my perfect diet (carb/protein/fat percentages)  resulting in the loss of 7 lbs of body-fat, while putting on approx 5 more lbs muscle in the same time-frame.

You just lost every shred credibility by trying to say you lost 7 lbs of body fat and gained 5 lbs of muscle in the same time frame. That's absolutely laughable, since it's literally impossible.

Do I need to provide scientific evidence for that? Two quotes from an extensive review by Hartgens and Kuiper:

Quote
Most studies show that bodyweight may increase by 2–5kg as a result of short-term (<10 weeks) AAS use.

Quote
The greatest drug-enhanced gains seen in the scientific literature are 7 kg (15.4 lbs) in 6 weeks, or about 2.5 lbs per week.

And yet you're claiming to have lost seven pounds of fat and gained 5 pounds of muscle in the same time period? So you simultaneously lost seven pounds and gained five pounds?

Beside the above being physically impossible, do you actually know how long it takes to naturally gain 5 lbs of lean body mass? An extremely long time.

Losing weight requires a caloric deficit.

Gaining weight requires a caloric surplus.

How can you possibly do both at the same time? How can you not understand that simple law being in Kinesiology?

Quote
Just a correction, but it didn't take 7 years to put on the weight and muscle I mentioned - it took about 7/8 months of eating the perfect percentages and working out like crazy. This was five years ago that I did it. So, very minimal change since then. I'm now back on that perfect diet plan. Actually I ate considerably more food prior to this! Eating has NEVER been an issue and usually when others are sitting at the dinner table with white space left on their plates, mine would be overflowing. The difference was that back then I ate a lot more carbs.

And I'm talking about taking protein supplements (in addition) to regular good proteins such as almonds. Wasn't recommending anyone should supplement a meal with these supplements, but they certainly help (in addition) to eating protein rich natural foods. Although you're intaking an awful lot of fat eating those which could explain why you may have had issues with gaining muscles and fat at the same time. Considering how many almonds you'd have to eat instead of a protein shake, I can understand why you might have had issues doing both at the same time. Almonds are great source for reducing bad cholesterol and upping the good cholesterol, but in order to intake 30 g of protein from almonds 2-4 times a day, you'd have to intake a hell of a lot of fat from those almonds, resulting in fat buildup. Eating more protein in your diet and eliminating unnecessary fats would have helped do both at the same time.  Less than a handful of almonds a day results in more fat calories than your body needs daily as a minimal requirement. If you're using it to fulfill protein requirements instead of a shake, it's going to result in fat buildup and unneeded calories.

I didn't and don't have any "issues" with fat gain, because I don't desire to look like the recent trend of manorexic Hollywood actors. Do you really think the fat from almonds is bad fat? Almonds are very healthy and I eat a ton of them. I still don't think you realise that you can't gain body weight without gaining fat. Your body fat percentage may remain relatively stable, but you are going to gain fat.

Eating fat does not = gaining fat........ Eating too many calories = getting fat.

Please define unneeded calories for me. That entirely depends on your goals.

Quote
To say that what types and percentage of your calorie intake doesn't matter is just not true.
Just take this for example, if you ate 100% of your daily caloric requirement in fatty foods, you'd be a walking blimp in no time and have serious issues with health besides the weight.
If you ate 100% of calories required in only carbs, your insulin lvls would jump through the roof and you'd end up as a blimp once again.
I exaggerated the affects of eating fat and carbs in the above sentences to show that it does matter what calories you put in your body.

Ratios might matter if you're into "getting ripped bro" and training for looks.

I don't really have that problem, since I eat and lift for strength. I don't sit down, count calories and figure out my macro ratio, though.

If you are active and eating a mostly healthy diet, there's no reason for you to be counting ratios.

Quote
Again, I will go further into the science of it if you like, but it's very time consuming, lol.

After reading this post, I don't know if you should.

It honestly really worries me that you are in kinesiology and can spit out all that scientific jargon, yet not understand the fundamentals. It doesn't matter who your prof is or what kind of piece of paper they have framed on their wall.

I don't know what your goals are for training, but mine are purely performance based. I eat and train to get bigger and stronger. I have never counted calories, nor will I ever. I eat healthy and I eat a lot. Am I "ripped"? Nope. Am I fat? Nope. But I'll carry a little extra weight if it means I can perform better. It's funny when really skinny guys say they're "ripped". No, lol, you're just malnourished and you're very weak. If I ever want to lose weight, I'll cut out any junk food and eat the exact same foods, except less of them. If I want to gain weight, I will eat the same foods, but more of them. The beauty is that it really is that simple.

My diet mainly consists of oatmeal, yogurt, fish, meat, eggs, almonds, veggies, fruit and, most days, I drink around 2L of homogenized milk. Some days, I'll drink 1L of chocolate milk on top. Donuts, hamburgers, pop, candy and Doritos all make occasional, but rare guest appearances.

At 5'9-10, 210 lbs, I am still small. At 6'1, 195, you are quite skinny.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Vimy_gunner on October 03, 2010, 07:04:42
I won't argue with you further.  Much like all scientific case studies, there's always other studies that will show different results. I really did tell the truth about muscle gain and fat loss. Don't care much for your credibility or what 'one' scientific study says. I'm living proof of it, but truth is you would have had to be here for this entire month and walked in my shoes for the entire time for me to prove it, so it's impossible for me to do so.

For the record, my athletic performance has remained the same. I'm on my university soccer and swim team and if you come to the CIS swim champions in Vancouver in January, I'll be happy to show you that my performance hasn't had any issues. Too much fat is not good for you, regardless of whether it's animal fats or not. For the record I eat around a 10 per cent fat, 55% carb and 35% protein diet that's high in fibre and containing no dairy. I eat nuts (sometimes) in small quantities to replace the energy metabolism that comes from dairy.

You don't lose fat and gain muscle at the same time. You break it up into periodic moments in training. First week low calorie diet using the above carb/fat/protein ratio and you combine it with loads of aerobic/anaerobic exercise to burn calories. 2nd week you do the complete opposite, load up calories and hit the weights to build strength. I don't go for pure strength btw, I work on muscular endurance and size (being a huge guy) matters not to me.
By switching it up every week you're also changing things up on your metabolism bigtime and shocking it. What's the best way to get over strength plateau? You make your muscles forget what you were lifting, so during that week when I'm just doing cardio type stuff, muscles forget. If you workout at cardio and eat low calories, you can burn a lot of fat in a week!
Then the second week hits and you're plowing through the pasta, your body is a bit shocked by the sudden increase in food along with super heavy weights suddenly being applied to your muscles. You do almost nothing cardio during this week and the result is gaining a couple lbs of LBM.  It may also help that I'm the body type that loses fat extremely fast and gains muscle the same way.

I didn't mean to imply that you were a knes student and retarded, but most people if you rambled on about that stuff would be lost in space.

And I didn't necessarily mean to imply animal fats being bad, but for my technique of gaining muscle and losing fat, it's not good to have much of it. Now maybe it's the case that my body.

And just to put it straight, I was going beyond calorie deficit to explain how fat is lost and gained. Fact remains if you eat 1500 calories filled with carbs or fat and your daily requirement is say 1800, you're just going to end up putting on the fat.
If you ate 1800 calories by going to MacDonalds three times a day and met your daily requirements, you'd still get fat. It does matter what you eat more than the calories. Because being a Knes student you know that Fat is more than double the Kcal/g of protein and carbs.

Oh-yeah and the only animal fats I eat come in low amounts from Bison meat. It's rich in protein with hardly any fat. That and it's the only mammal never to get cancer and a staple of the plains indians diets who lived to 95 (if they weren't killed in the process) and would have lived to 115 with proper dental care. This was twice the life expectancy of the times. Most white dudes died before their 50th.
It's been scientifically proven that the hunter/gatherer diet is the best and is the one God made for us. If you can't hunt it or gather it, don't eat it.
 Believe it or not some of the best athletic performances are coming from vegetarians or should I say 'vegans'.  I'm not there, but I'm a cheating vegan. Ie: I eat buffalo meat. Google the results of veggie athletes and you'd be surprised how many of them stay away from animal fats and are setting world records in their sports. Btw, until recently I was with you on this one, but my sister showed me some examples of what athletes are doing on these diets and it's amazing. There's just not a lot of them, so the words not out yet. Plus, it's a tough thing to give up your meat products, especially for most dudes, lol. Buffalo meat is also rich in natural nutrients and vitamins.

Again, I spoke the truth about my results, but only I and God will know if I'm telling the truth, so I'll just leave it at that.
Good luck in the future soldier!


Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Kratos on October 03, 2010, 12:55:34
Alright, stick to your guns on claiming to have done something physically impossible. I was going to type a response, but there's no point.

You should really take that plan to market, though, because you'd be a billionaire in short order.

You use God as justification for some of the things you said, which is normally not a great sign in a discussion, because how can anyone disprove or go against God...

Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: SevenSixTwo on October 03, 2010, 23:47:22
True. Given the point I was trying to illustrate, I didn't word that very well at all. Essentially, what I was trying to get across is that I would imagine a relatively active, 150 lb guy is most likely going to have an easier time hitting 20 push ups than a relatively active 215 lb guy, assuming they start from the same point.

Probably far too many other variables for that to ever hold true, though.

Wow someone else who thinks this too. I can't beleive my eyes. I don't know how many times I have tried preaching to people that push up count is a ridiculous system due to the weight differences in people.

P.S. I know your not interested in the military anymore but when I did BMQ it was WAY more cardio than physical strength exercises which, was disappointing to a lot of us. Took me a while to get back to my muscular strength after BMQ and SQ.


Also, I am 6'2" 220 pounds now.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Kratos on October 03, 2010, 23:57:56
P.S. I know your not in the military anymore but when I did BMQ it was WAY more cardio than physical strength exercises which, was disappointing to a lot of us. Took me a while to get back to my muscular strength after BMQ and SQ.

Just to be clear: I never was.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: SevenSixTwo on October 03, 2010, 23:59:25
Believe it or not some of the best athletic performances are coming from vegetarians or should I say 'vegans'.  I'm not there, but I'm a cheating vegan. Ie: I eat buffalo meat. Google the results of veggie athletes and you'd be surprised how many of them stay away from animal fats and are setting world records in their sports.

How would they do so well if creatine only exists in meat? Does that mean they take creatine supplements as a vegan?

Sorry if I am incorrect about creatine it's just that I am against the whole vegan thing.


To Kratos: Sorry I said what I wanted to convey improperly. What I meant to say is "I know your not interested in the military anymore".
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: lethalLemon on October 04, 2010, 00:13:39
Regardless of diet, if you eat 1500 calories of anything but your requirement in 1800, so basically you're burning off that 1500 plus whatever extra your body has stored somewhere to give that last bit of energy; you're not going to "get fat/gain fat" because you're burning it off.

Oh man... I'm not going to bother anymore; I'm starving. I'm going to go have some delicious POUTINE  ;D
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: PMedMoe on October 04, 2010, 09:02:05
Why, oh why does the "PT test rules" thread always get derailed?

Mods, me thinks a split is in order..........again.   ;)
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Ogun on October 30, 2010, 18:34:22
I'd be shocked if people trying to join the Military can't pass those weak standards... but than again I'm surprised people fail the Express Test.

If there is one thing in the CF that drives me crazy, its attitudes like that one. I agree those standards are pretty low, but the average Joe or Jane Canada who works in the office or goes to school, probably don't make push ups a priority.

Anybody going to BMQ will have to learn to make push ups a priority in your life, and there are people who will try to put you down because you have trouble. Just remember that person has been in so long, that they have probably forgotten what life outside the CF was like.


Don't mean to offend anyone, but arrogance in the CF really grinds my gears.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Desirea701 on November 16, 2010, 17:05:36
New rule change...now it's 2 pushups for females to remain on a platoon and 4 or 5 for males to remain on a platoon

*twitch* I love my job :D

I am curious if you know what stage you must be at for the shuttle run for the first week of basic? I did a practice shuttle run yesterday and I only managed stage 3. I leave in under 2 weeks, and I am freaking out!!! I am hoping that maybe you do not have to reach the requirement like you don't have to for the other parts of the Express test on the first week? Any info would really help!
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: PMedMoe on November 16, 2010, 17:18:44
If you are female and 34 years old and under, you must reach level 4.  If 35 or over, Level 3.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Chilme on November 16, 2010, 19:12:24
If you don't make your minimum standard, you aren't necessarily sent home.  You will be placed on Warrior Platoon for up to 90 days to get into shape for your test.  Warrior Platoon is basically no stop PT to get you into military shape and able to pass you test.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Desirea701 on November 17, 2010, 14:53:10
I am a female, 24 years old. I can do 15 push ups non-stop, in the correct form, and 60 situps in a minute. The only thing I am worried about is the shuttle run. I've been running every 2nd day to prepare, but the shuttle run is a lot different, and after stage 2.5 my lungs feel like they are on fire, and my legs feel like they are going to fall off lol. I guess I just wanted to know if I should be worrying right now. I did a shuttle run again last night and got to 3.5?
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: MJP on November 17, 2010, 15:34:20
If you don't make your minimum standard, you aren't necessarily sent home.  You will be placed on Warrior Platoon for up to 90 days to get into shape for your test.  Warrior Platoon is basically no stop PT to get you into military shape and able to pass you test.

I wonder with the slower intake of soldiers now if we can disband the whole concept of warrior platoon and go back to putting the onus on the individuals joining the forces to be at that minimun standard when they get there.  I know, I know it is crazy that we would think to reinforce the whole concept of meeting the job requirements and personal responsibility that comes with it before accepting them into this fine force.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: 2010newbie on November 17, 2010, 16:58:56
I guess I just wanted to know if I should be worrying right now. I did a shuttle run again last night and got to 3.5?

Just keep practicing as much as you can between now and BMQ. Run every day for that matter, just switch up the type (intervals, hills, LSD, shuttles, etc.). I noticed that I did better douring the actual test than when I practiced the shuttle run at home. Running in a group of 60 people gives you a little more incentive to keep up with everyone else.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: dapaterson on November 17, 2010, 17:12:41
I wonder with the slower intake of soldiers now if we can disband the whole concept of warrior platoon and go back to putting the onus on the individuals joining the forces to be at that minimun standard when they get there.  I know, I know it is crazy that we would think to reinforce the whole concept of meeting the job requirements and personal responsibility that comes with it before accepting them into this fine force.

To amend slightly:  We only abolished fitness testing before entry for the Reg Force.  Reservists still have to meet the physical standard before enrolment.  So if they're too fat and unfit for the Reserves, we ship them to the Regular Force...
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: GAP on November 17, 2010, 17:20:28
OK, the expansion is over, time to sort the seeds before planting in the garden....

It was never a good idea in the first place, but in the drive to increase enrollment, I can see why they went the way they did. 
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: MJP on November 17, 2010, 17:28:09
To amend slightly:  We only abolished fitness testing before entry for the Reg Force.  Reservists still have to meet the physical standard before enrolment.  So if they're too fat and unfit for the Reserves, we ship them to the Regular Force...

So that is where they came from....... ;D  I agree with the army reserve policy of testing before.  They have a finite amount of spots and IMHO only qualified people should get them.  That we had to in the Reg Force is a sad indicator of society at large, but it was determine that it had to be done to get the numbers in the door.  That we continue it now when we can pick and choose the best candidates is a waste of resources. 
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Fotoshark on July 26, 2011, 17:33:27
For the shuttle run portion of the test (done thru highschool at least when I went), do you gain anything by going further than the goal ?  Or is it a waste of time to keep goin once you surpass it ? 

- T.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: PMedMoe on July 26, 2011, 17:38:22
For the shuttle run portion of the test (done thru highschool at least when I went), do you gain anything by going further than the goal ?  Or is it a waste of time to keep goin once you surpass it ? 

- T.

Do you mean going for a level higher than what's required to pass?   ???
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Lil r on July 26, 2011, 17:40:25
For the shuttle run portion of the test (done thru highschool at least when I went), do you gain anything by going further than the goal ?  Or is it a waste of time to keep goin once you surpass it ? 

- T.

A sense of accomplishment and satisfaction? If you surpass a certain level on the beep test (level varies on age and gender) and a receive a  high cumulative score on the other activities you receive an incentive.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: benny88 on July 27, 2011, 09:56:31
For the shuttle run portion of the test (done thru highschool at least when I went), do you gain anything by going further than the goal ?  Or is it a waste of time to keep goin once you surpass it ? 

- T.

    You can get exempt status, which will preclude you from having to do the PT test the next fiscal year. (Although if you are on some courses you'll still have to do it.) Search the site for CF Expres Exempt for more info. Additionally and more importantly, do you want your staff and platoon-mates to see you wimp out after the bare minimum? It's more common than it should be, but you'd better believe the people who see it keep a mental list of who they don't want to be next to in a cockpit, foxhole, or submarine, I know I have.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Loachman on September 14, 2011, 15:27:28
It's more common than it should be, but you'd better believe the people who see it keep a mental list of who they don't want to be next to in a cockpit

I have had such a list (thankfully a short one) from time to time. Not once, however, was a fellow aviator's ability to do push-ups or anything else on the EXPRES test a factor. There were always far more important things to consider, like SQ (Stupidity Quotient).
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: benny88 on September 16, 2011, 09:36:48
I have had such a list (thankfully a short one) from time to time. Not once, however, was a fellow aviator's ability to do push-ups or anything else on the EXPRES test a factor. There were always far more important things to consider, like SQ (Stupidity Quotient).

   Their actual fitness performance was irrelevant, I was referring to the fact that they were quitters after the bare minimums rather than their maximum, which is a mental deficiency rather than a physical one. I sure hope my co-pilot doesn't quit at minimums, that's where things can get hairy.  8)
   
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: AERO2012 on September 16, 2011, 09:52:19
New rule change...now it's 2 pushups for females to remain on a platoon and 4 or 5 for males to remain on a platoon

*twitch* I love my job :D
:facepalm:
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Scott on September 16, 2011, 11:10:48
I know we advocate reading all of threads before posting in them and all, but did you really have to go back three years and to page one to find something to necropost about?
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: kcaputs on September 30, 2011, 22:07:26
the pamphlets/photos i've been given from the recruitment centre show that sit ups will be done with someone holding your feet down. is this the case.. at least for the beginning..the test perhaps?
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: lethalLemon on September 30, 2011, 22:15:05
the pamphlets/photos i've been given from the recruitment centre show that sit ups will be done with someone holding your feet down. is this the case.. at least for the beginning..the test perhaps?

For the entirety of the 60 seconds that sit-ups is conducted.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: MikeL on September 30, 2011, 22:22:49
Just to add too that;  every PT test you do on course and at your posting, you will have someone hold your feet during the sit ups or your feet will be under a bar.

For morning PT, you could be doing it like that(feet held) or just with your feet in the air.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Maverick585 on October 01, 2011, 11:27:19
http://www.cfpsa.com/en/psp/fitness/library_e.asp

The manual for EXPRES Testing in the CF.

Cheers,


Mav
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: kcaputs on October 02, 2011, 17:16:10
thanks a lot everyone! surely i'm not the only one nervous about PT ..getting details like this are helpful so i'm not worrying too much! :)
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: kcaputs on October 09, 2011, 15:13:46
I've done my very best to read through ALL the posts about the EXPRES test and I have few questions- basically just because I'd like an updated answer to the questions I have rather than what may have been the rules a few years ago. I'm a 21 year old female so the test objectives are:
level 4.0 on the beep test, 9 push ups, 15 sit ups and hand grip of 50kg. My first question is what happens if I don't get 9 or more pushups but I pass everything else? I'm curious if there are scenarios where an individual is automatically sent to the warrior platoon or if there are different combinations that keep you with the regular platoon and pass the test without having met the 9 pushup requirement. Obviously as you already know, pushups kick my butt. Also, I read in the physical fitness guide that there is an option where if the fitness instructors think you will benefit from extra physical training then you will do more after regular training hours (different from warrior platoon though, I think?).. has anyone experienced this or have any insight to it?

I see people passing the EXPRES test on the basic up videos that look like I could outlast them in any physical fitness test ..how the heck do they do it?! I'm so ready for my butt to be kicked in physical fitness at basic but I'd rather it happen with my platoon rather than being on the warrior platoon!! Oy vey..

P.S.-I leave for BMQ in a week
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Jarnhamar on October 09, 2011, 16:28:12
Did you have to do some kind of PT test to join?  Or is the testing done now AT recruit school?

I can't answer your question about failing one portion. Previously if you failed by 1 push up, 1 situp etc.. you failed the PT test and had to redo it however that probably changed with all the new rules.

Regarding your question about warrior platoon- As far as I understand it warrior platoon is basically fat camp. ALL you do is do PT, goto the gym and learn how to eat right. If you are in a regular training platoon and your PT sucks you may be given remedial PT which is basically the CFs way of saying your physical fitness needs improvement so you'll work on it "after hours".

Does that make sense?
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: seadog70 on October 10, 2011, 11:56:43
  from what I understand, regarding the CF expres test and qaulifications, those individuals under 35 who do not meet the qaulification level but meet the threshold will go to RFT, ( warrior training, fat camp, regimiental fitness training) which apparently is extensive physical training and nutrition education. Individuals who are over 35 and do not meet the qaulifications at first go straight to RFT. 
  I have also been told that we will be tested within 24 hours upon arrival at BMQ and that there are a minimum number of push ups required to be able to continue ( something like 10 for males, 4 for females) . Although these numbers may seem small, I believe they are to ensure a certain level of physical fitness to allow the individual to safely proceed with basic training. There are individuals who are more knowledgable on this site who can confirm this information. I have also been told ( or read) that all members must pass the BMQ in order to pass basic training and stay " in", which will be obvious to some, and some will be oblivious. There is also "warrior training" that is a part of Basic Training now that all individuals must complete as part of BMQ, saw a video and while it did look challenging, it did appear fun.
  We will also be tested several times during BMQ on our fitness levels, which is probably more of way of keeping track of our progress than anything.
  All in all, I have been told many times that they ( "they" being the instructors) are not there to make us fail, or push us hard enough to "break" us. They , the instructors, are there to help us pass the tests, and get through the course, prepare us for life in the military. It is not unreasonable to expect individuals applying to the armed forces to be in shape, to be able to meet the minimum fitness criteria and be able to proceed in what is considered to be a physically demanding exercise in a manner that is safe for the individual.
 Regarding your question about the different scenarios of failing different aspects of the expres test, if you fail the run, you fail and go to RFT, if you fail 2 out of 3 of the strentgh aspects ( pushup, situp, grip strength) you fail and go to RFT. Someone more familiar with the current rules could confirm this.
 Hope this helped shed some light, and if someone is more knowledgeable on this topic could they please offer there input.   
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: East Coaster on October 10, 2011, 18:55:16
I fully appreciate your information provided and think that the military is a good choice.  Where else can you make 70 G's after five years?

As you progress in your career you will find that written communication plays a big part of your yearly evaluations.  I mean this with the utmost of respect...you need to work on your grammar and writing skills.   I have seen poorly written work over the years and can tell you that mistakes reflect on your person directly.  My pet peeves are-->Your, You're-->Their, There, They're-->To, Too and to cap it all off 'quite' used in place of 'quiet'.  You can imagine getting a memo from a subordinate with these mistakes on it.

Spell Check and grammar check your work, you will progress way, not weigh, quicker.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: kcaputs on October 11, 2011, 12:59:57
Grimaldus- The PT test is done upon arrival at BMQ for reg force but reserves do it prior to leaving. Thanks a lot for your insight and response!

seadog70- Thanks to you also for your response! I'm mostly curious about not completing 9 pushups (although someone mentioned to me that females are possibly able to do them on their knees rather than on their toes..anyone know about this?) but passing everything else. So, the point you made about passing 2 of 3 strength tests and still continuing along with the platoon like normal is what I was mostly wondering about. Can anyone else verify that this is still the way it goes?


I wholeheartedly agree that everyone should be arriving to BMQ with physical fitness already a part of their lifestyle, and it is a part of mine but pushups.. DANG! Not my forte! I would be so much more relaxed about BMQ if I knew that I was going to pass the EXPRES test and just be on with the rest of it haha..
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: aesop081 on October 11, 2011, 13:02:04
(although someone mentioned to me that females are possibly able to do them on their knees rather than on their toes..anyone know about this?)

This is incorrect. There is only one way to do the pushups, regardless of gender.

Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: CountDC on October 11, 2011, 13:45:55
Better work on those pushups - they are a yearly event unless you score high enough to get exempt for a year.  Myself, even with exempt I still did it rather than take the year off.  Skipping a year gives too much temptation to slack off.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: seadog70 on October 11, 2011, 15:30:08
kcaputs- yes, pushups are a necessity, and a yearly evaluation. Having gone from not doing them in years to achieving more than my "minimum", I feel pretty good about that, there's always room for improvement. I've found that telling myself that "there's always room to improve" has helped me push myself and to gain the necessary muscle and confidence to succeed. If you are in doubt of your performance ( regarding those dang pushups) take some comfort in that as long as you meet the "threshold limit" you won't be sent home straight away. That's where you most likely would go to RFT for a maximum stay of 90 days of pure enjoyable physical training. Of course, I'm still aiming for the exemption level as opposed to the threshold limit, since as I have often found out, when you shoot for a higher goal, you have a less likely chance of failure , even if you do not reach the higher goal. Between now and when you leave, do as many pushups as you can, rest for approx 30-60 sec, then repeat two more times. That will give you 3 sets of "failure" which will improve your performance over time. And eat protein ( eg: eggs, chicken, fish, beans, rice) , which will allow the muscle to grow. 
  I'll say best of luck to you , and we'll be seeing each other at St. Jean,  I leave the 15th, fly out and should arrive sometime around 1700hrs.  Here's hoping neither one of us get sent to RFT and we both make it through.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Jarnhamar on October 12, 2011, 11:30:58
Better work on those pushups - they are a yearly event unless you score high enough to get exempt for a year.  Myself, even with exempt I still did it rather than take the year off.  Skipping a year gives too much temptation to slack off.

A reservist from my regiment transferred to the regular force airforce.  Right before he transferred, our unit was doing our yearly fitness test. The 22ish year old male managed to fire off 8 or 9 push-ups. 
He has since passed his training and been posted to North Bay. Will he have to pass some type of PT test ever again or is he good with a 13 KM BFT once a year?

Sorry for the sidetrack, didn't want to start a new thread.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: PMedMoe on October 12, 2011, 11:45:22
Will he have to pass some type of PT test ever again or is he good with a 13 KM BFT once a year?

Depends on what the unit "standard" is.  In some cases, either the BFT or ExPres Test is considered acceptable.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: updatelee on November 11, 2011, 00:00:54
Some units like 3PPCLI you'll do the BFT once a year (at a min, more likely you'll do one every big field ex, so 4+ a year) and the coopers test 4x a year. You'll never do the express test after basic with 3VP
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Nyxis on April 09, 2012, 16:37:51
I'm answering this from the start of the thread, If your worried about the grip test and your close to a military base go to the gym and ask the staff if they can check your grip.
This is what we did for our son and sorry to say but he really had to work on his grip so I'm glad we did this.
 
He's in really good shape now and ready for basic but I agree you can't really work on your grip in basic since it's not like the running where you do a lot of it.

Lifting free weights and those hand grip things and talk to the PSP staff for other tips on working the grip.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: RDY2SRV12 on April 24, 2012, 23:36:34
You can work on your grip anywhere, anytime, for an investment of $10. These work your hands and forearms. I found mine at Sportchek, but I am sure most stores with a sporting goods Dept. will carry them. Good luck.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: PJGary on April 24, 2012, 23:43:29
I'm pretty sure the cooper's test and PT400 are just ran for s***s, are they not? Inspire some healthy competition etc... but you NEED to do a BFT AFAIK, or it's bad mojo.

I haven't done a CF Expres since like.........a looong time.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Nyxis on April 25, 2012, 20:57:22
To help your grips doing chin ups and lifing free weights will also really help.  My son was using those grip things and he was increasing one point a week and not fast enough, but with the chin ups and the free weights he increased 5 points on the grip test in just over a week.  We went to the gym on base and they checked his grip for him.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Jarry on June 06, 2012, 11:10:53
+1 doing chin up is used by alot of trainer to increase the grip force !
For those having problem acheaving push up , work your tricep and shoulder at the gym, people havin not enough chest strengh can compensate by training both shoulder and mostly tricep separatly at the gym. I garentee you will se a great difference in your number of push up!  :nod:
Good luck ! And soory for bad english
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: PMedMoe on June 06, 2012, 11:23:12
If you work alot and dot have time to train , buy hand cuff grip at any sport expert or gym shop and used them in your car while driving one hand at a time !

Not exactly a recommendation I'd make......
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Jarry on June 06, 2012, 11:40:15
And why ? People are eating , texting while driving ...
Instead of holding the shifter in my hand in the morning traffic in get in 1 hand the stearring , and in the other the hand cuff  doing repetition.. and i have my eyes on the road.
Soory if it seem "" dangerous"" for some of you it was only a advice for people having problem whit grip force and passing more time in the car then amywere else.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: 2 Cdo on June 06, 2012, 11:43:15
And why ? People are eating , texting while driving ...

All of which are unsafe driving habits. ::)
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: PMedMoe on June 06, 2012, 11:52:54
All of which are unsafe driving habits. ::)

Exactly. 
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: Jarry on June 06, 2012, 12:01:16
I was not telling I eat and text while driving it was an example . My goal was to give advice not to push people to take bad decision. I have modify the post . Have a nice day
Title: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PuckChaser on June 10, 2012, 12:52:45
There is a new test coming: PSP is working on Project FORCE, to replace the EXPRES test. It will likely be some kind of circuit and will be based on bona fide occupational requirements.

Any idea on when this project is expected to be completed?

I've always hated the EXPRES test, I can sleep through the 20MSR to exempt and 19 pushups is just silly as a standard.
Title: Re: Re: Sit-Ups
Post by: airmich on June 10, 2012, 13:04:04
Any idea on when this project is expected to be completed?

I was a Guinea pig/tester for Project Force a few weeks ago.  They still have a few more bases to go to throughout the summer collecting more tests.  They are anticipating having the new test in place for the fall.
Title: Re: Re: Sit-Ups
Post by: PuckChaser on June 10, 2012, 13:31:41
Are you allowed to spill the beans on the test that you completed?
Title: Re: Re: Sit-Ups
Post by: airmich on June 10, 2012, 14:05:55
Are you allowed to spill the beans on the test that you completed?

Actually, yes, I am allowed.  That was one of the first questions that I asked them.  As testers, we were Stage 3 of the Project.  They had narrowed the tests down from dozens to about 13 for us.  These ones are not all guaranteed to be in the final set-up, and even we don't know which ones they are aiming for.

We tested for 3 days, spread out over 2 weeks.  The first day was expres test type items (MTF) followed by famil on the remainder of the items.  The last 2 days were the more "operational" items.  For everything, we were expected to push as hard/fast/long as we could.  There was a range of elements, trades, ages, gender and fitness levels.  Each test was individual, and there was a mandatory rest period (about 15 mins) between each.  Even each element of the expres test was separate.  We wore Heart rate monitors for the whole thing, and had vitals done each day.

Day 1 - shuttle run, push-ups, sit-ups, grip test, wall sit, hang test (hanging from a chin up bar), sandbag lift (simulating lifting sandbags into the back of a truck - timed test).  Afternoon was famil for the rest

What I liked about the remainder of the tests is that they provided a scenario that any of us could be involved in, with most of them being domestic type things so it eliminates the "but I don't deploy" cries.  Scenarios including ice storm casulaties, sandbagging for floods, setting up fencing, etc.

Day 2/3 -  (I don't have my actual list with me right now, so there will probably be a couple that I forget but this should give you a basic idea):
- stretcher carry (using a Olympic-style weight bar to simulate carrying 1/2 weight of stretcher); end based on weight
- picking and digging (interesting set-up with a trolley type thing for "picking" with a hammer), included mandatory rest times; end based on time
- casualty evacuation (pulling a loaded dummy out of the front seat of a truck, dragging then 1/2 weight to simulate someone helping you); end based on weight
- pickets & wires (walking loaded, running empty handed; 10-30m stretches repeatedly; using weight bars and kettle bells to simulate weights of pickets and concertina wire); end based on time
- sandbag fortification; moving 60 sandbags from one pallet to another; end based on time
- sandbag drag; end based on weight
- escape to cover; end based on time

For the tasks based on time, you completed them once.  For the tasks based on weight, you picked a starting weight (we were able to determine that on the famil day) and you could increase weight at an interval determined by yourself until you maxed out.

When we completed everything, we were given a USB with all of our data on it.  Eventually, this information will be able to be fed into a website that will determine a personal fitness program in order to maintain or meet the standards.

Based on discussions I have had with friends from other elements, I can imagine what will be said on here!  I will try to answer the questions that I can.  There is also another member on the site here who was involved in Phase 2 that I might be able to get to put his words in as well.
Title: Re: Re: Sit-Ups
Post by: PuckChaser on June 10, 2012, 14:53:56
Great read, thanks!

Is the chosen weight something just for the trials so they can determine what a good baseline would be for each test?
Title: Re: Re: Sit-Ups
Post by: armyguy1 on June 10, 2012, 16:31:39
What would you propose we switch for in place of situps?

Crunch/Curl-ups
Front Plank & Side Planks
Reverse Crunch (look it up if you don't know, you have your feet in the air and you raise your butt off the ground)

As for the person that commented on Squats being bad. Yes if technique is bad, but if done correctly then Squats are actually one of the best exercises you can do in the weight room, they are the best exercise for developing legs and core strength (with the exception of possibly Olympic lifts). The main argument with squats is not if it is bad for you back, but bad for your knees, and studies have shown that if you actually go low enough it is NOT bad for your knees, the highest stress point on your joints in a squat is during the transition from eccentric to concentric motion. If you transition above parallel then the knees take most of the stress, however, if you go below parallel the stress transfers from the knees to the hips. 

Anyways, this isn't a topic about squats, it is about sit-ups and I am glad to read the progress being made by the Military to modernize its fitness.

I am actually a strength and conditioning specialist with the International Sports Sciences Association... But I am looking at a career change... hoping to become an Infantry Officer... applying for ROTP this September for the following year. The army or military for that matter, seems like an amazing career choice, my passion for it goes all the way back to when I was a little kid playing 'war' with my friends and creating little army clubs throughout my elementary school years. I would have signed up earlier if I wasn't caught up with competitive sport. 
Title: Re: Re: Sit-Ups
Post by: airmich on June 10, 2012, 17:00:05
Is the chosen weight something just for the trials so they can determine what a good baseline would be for each test?

We each got to pick our own starting weight and increase if we wanted to.  They are using the max weight chosen/passed for each person as their result.  Whether they aren't sure of how it will be finalized, or they weren't telling us, I don't know.  Speculation is for two options though: a standard weight across the board (although given the range of size and ability of CF personnel, that would be odd) or setting standards based on age and/or gender.
Title: Re: Re: Sit-Ups
Post by: MikeL on June 10, 2012, 19:01:28
Good that we are moving away from the current express test,  but there are better ways of testing fitness rather then moving sandbags and picking/digging.

Something similar to the new PT test the US Army is making,  as well as the USMC Combat Fitness Test would be better IMO

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/marines/a/cft.htm
http://www.army.mil/article/56445/
http://www.army.mil/article/52631/
Title: Re: Re: Sit-Ups
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 10, 2012, 19:44:16
Before we move to any sort of new fitness test we need to decide what happens when someone fails the test and how it will be enforced.
Title: Re: Re: Sit-Ups
Post by: Haggis on June 10, 2012, 22:45:30
Before we move to any sort of new fitness test we need to decide what happens when someone fails the test and how it will be enforced.

As to what happens when someone fails, read DAOD 5023-2 (http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/dao-doa/5000/5023-2-eng.asp).  As to how it will be enforced that is up to your chain of command.  I have personally seen officers at NDHQ placed on remedial measures as per DAOD 5019-4 (http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/dao-doa/5000/5019-4-eng.asp) for a first EXPRES test failure.
Title: Re: Re: Sit-Ups
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 10, 2012, 22:59:16
As to what happens when someone fails, read DAOD 5023-2 (http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/dao-doa/5000/5023-2-eng.asp).  As to how it will be enforced that is up to your chain of command.  I have personally seen officers at NDHQ placed on remedial measures as per DAOD 5019-4 (http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/dao-doa/5000/5019-4-eng.asp) for a first EXPRES test failure.

I book marked the link thank you.

Have any trained CF members ever been released for failing to meet the fitness standard?
Title: Re: Re: Sit-Ups
Post by: aesop081 on June 10, 2012, 23:05:46


Have any trained CF members ever been released for failing to meet the fitness standard?

Yes.
Title: Re: Re: Sit-Ups
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 10, 2012, 23:21:54
Yes.

I didn't think the CF had it in them. I'm surprised yet glad to hear that. And glad to hear my assumptions were wrong.
Title: Re: Re: Sit-Ups
Post by: signalsguy on June 11, 2012, 10:16:28
I didn't think the CF had it in them. I'm surprised yet glad to hear that. And glad to hear my assumptions were wrong.

It happens all the time. Periodically you will see a CANFORGEN about PSP running the 5 common tasks test on a base somewhere. This is so all of the 'last chance' people can go do the test. Remember, once you go through the failures, remedial PT etc, the last hope to remain in is to pass the 5 common tasks test. It is harder than the EXPRES or BFT.


Ref the Project FORCE standards. Since it is going to be based on bona fide occupational requirements (BFOR), it will be a minimal standard. So there will be ONE standard across the board, with no differences for age or gender. There will also be NO INCENTIVE LEVELS. This doesn't mean it will be easy, and they expect a greater number of failures than currently seen with EXPRES. I have heard that there will be a trial year to start, so that people can get working on the dfit.ca training programs.

As an aside, the current EXPRES standards for women specifically, were developed using bad methodology. They based the test on results obtained using a small sample of the female population: I hear that it was something like 5 or 6 individuals. So that is why females need to get 3 and males need 7. Also, the incentive exempt levels are just arbitrary - no scientific reason for a man 30 - 39 to get level 8 on the shuttle.

Title: Re: Re: Sit-Ups
Post by: airmich on June 11, 2012, 10:57:32
I have heard that there will be a trial year to start, so that people can get working on the dfit.ca training programs.
Yes, they told us that when testing starts and if you fail the first time, you will be placed on remedial but there will be no administrative action.  This is because it is new and unknown,so it allows for someone to learn the tasks and prepare for them as required.

They based the test on results obtained using a small sample of the female population:
Unfortunately, they were having a similar problem with this testing.  They put the call out for x number of males and females but got very little response on the female side.  Hopefully more will try it out as the testing continues on other bases.  It is a great experience and gives you that edge up on what to expect.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Halifax Tar on June 11, 2012, 12:36:54
Good stuff Airmich!

What are you impressions of the test ?  Did you find it challenging ?  Do you think it better reflects the required fitness standards of CF pers ?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on June 11, 2012, 13:35:01
Whatever Project FORCE delivers, there needs to be a single CF fitness test as opposed to the current selection of tests. 

Neither the ability to run nor the ability to march with a ruck act as a statistically significant indicator of one's ability to do the other.  That means that the current BFT passes individuals who would fail the CF Express, and it gives these people exempt score at merit boards.

The future Army fitness test either needs to be the CF test, the CF test with a higher standard, or the CF test with a "bolt on" Army specific module.

Here is some related reading on both Project FORCE and the disparity between what is measured by current CF and Army fitness testing:  http://www.cfpsa.com/en/psp/HumanPerformance/Documents/CAJ_vol13.2_09_e.pdf (http://www.cfpsa.com/en/psp/HumanPerformance/Documents/CAJ_vol13.2_09_e.pdf)
and from another source :http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_13/iss_2/CAJ_vol13.2_09_e.pdf (http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_13/iss_2/CAJ_vol13.2_09_e.pdf)
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on June 11, 2012, 13:53:13
Last I heard: FORCE will be the Army standard.  Op Deployments may place additional fitness requirements on pers.

Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: signalsguy on June 11, 2012, 16:48:29
I have it from a pretty good source that all the elements have signed off on using whatever Project FORCE delivers. All of the 'extra fitness' jobs (JTF2, CSOR, divers, firefighter, SAR tech) will still do their own tests.

Also I have been hearing that the Army is now doing the EXPRES and BFT, since BFT was declared a 'deployment only' standard and not a fitness test.

Personally, I think the BFT is junk - I've NEVER carried a rucksack for 13km on a deployment or an op. If I did, I suspect it would weigh a lot more than the test weight. What exactly is it supposed to be testing? This could be a whole new thread...
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: aesop081 on June 11, 2012, 16:52:45
I think the BFT is junk - I've NEVER carried a rucksack for 13km on a deployment or an op.

So then, along that line of thinking, i am highly unlikely to do the things described by Airmich as par of my job on deployment or OP.

What are we testing again ?

(Universality of of service, yes, i know)
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Halifax Tar on June 11, 2012, 16:55:12
Whatever Project FORCE delivers, there needs to be a single CF fitness test as opposed to the current selection of tests. 

Neither the ability to run nor the ability to march with a ruck act as a statistically significant indicator of one's ability to do the other.  That means that the current BFT passes individuals who would fail the CF Express, and it gives these people exempt score at merit boards.

The future Army fitness test either needs to be the CF test, the CF test with a higher standard, or the CF test with a "bolt on" Army specific module.

Here is some related reading on both Project FORCE and the disparity between what is measured by current CF and Army fitness testing: 
http://www.cfpsa.com/en/psp/HumanPerformance/Documents/CAJ_vol13.2_09_e.pdf (http://www.cfpsa.com/en/psp/HumanPerformance/Documents/CAJ_vol13.2_09_e.pdf)
and from another source :http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_13/iss_2/CAJ_vol13.2_09_e.pdf (http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_13/iss_2/CAJ_vol13.2_09_e.pdf)

Couldn't agree with you more MCG.  I know it seemed frustrating to me being in Halifax where I was not allowed to do the BFT.  It appeared  to me to be an easy point for land based pers on their PERs.  Especially when you know some could/would not reach the exempt level on the XPRESS test.  One standard for all, regardless of age, gender or environment.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PMedMoe on June 11, 2012, 17:09:25
One standard for all, regardless of age, gender or environment.

And apparently regardless of height....

sandbag lift (simulating lifting sandbags into the back of a truck - timed test).  Afternoon was famil for the rest

I remember the last time they did this type of trial (mid/late 90's and it never came to fruition) where ammo cans were being loaded into the back of an MLVW.  Really sucks when you're short.....   ::)

So then, along that line of thinking, i am highly unlikely to do the things described by Airmich as par of my job on deployment or OP.

What are we testing again ?

(Universality of of service, yes, i know)

CDN Aviator, I agree with you.  Besides, as long as there's CSOR, JTF-2, etc, there will never be one fitness standard.


With this talk and the thread about Messes (All ranks or not), my decision whether to pull pole next year or not just keeps getting easier.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: airmich on June 12, 2012, 00:37:55
What are you impressions of the test ?  Did you find it challenging ?  Do you think it better reflects the required fitness standards of CF pers ?

Personally, I liked most of the elements of the Project.  I have never been exceptionally fit and I dread the shuttle run and pushups every year, although I do pass.  But I enjoyed the "operational" elements of the testing.  I found them challenging, yet motivating to try and push myself harder for more weight or speed.

The other thing that I enjoyed was the encouragement between all of the testers.  When you do the regular expres test, everyone is running together and the rest is fairly limited.  Whereas in this testing, everyone is there together and motivating each other.  Even though it is individual testing, it feels more of a team atmosphere.

The way that the staff described each scenario, yes, I do believe that it better reflects what any of us could be required to do.  Yes, there are always going to be situations where you need different training, but, as mentioned, there is likely to be specific deployment testing for other requirements.

And apparently regardless of height....

Mo, this was actually discussed during the testing.  The tape line on the wall to indicate the truck bed was lower then what would be normal as they realized that, although realistic, it was going to be difficult for the shorter pers to be able to manage.  When they put the call out for volunteers, it was based on various height ranges as well as gender and age.  We also had the opportunity to put our comments at the end, and the height issues were mentioned by many people.  I am 5'5" and I was comfortable with anything requiring height, although I know that the taller guys had an advantage for some of the elements.

Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: airmich on June 12, 2012, 00:45:49
There were a couple of cons that we discussed with the new testing. 

The first is regarding training for the testing.  Right now, you can hit the treadmill or run around the block, pump off some sit-ups and push-ups, and you should be decent for the expres test.  This new one will require more preparation if it is something you are not used to, and will need coaching on what to do to work up to the elements and how to do it, not to mention equipment.

The PSP staff brought up another point and that was regarding the testing equipment.  Right now, they can set up the expres test in the local gym easily enough.  And for when they need to go to outlying areas, it is easy enough to pack up a BP cuff, some cones to set distance and a grip tester.  The new testing would require a fair amount equipment for each base and the logistics to move it for distance testing would be required.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PPCLI Guy on June 12, 2012, 01:13:42
The intent is that testing will be done by the chain of command - MCpls and above.  No PSP required.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: airmich on June 12, 2012, 02:46:59
The intent is that testing will be done by the chain of command - MCpls and above.  No PSP required.

Regardless, the equipment is still required at all locations, or available to be taken to outlying locations.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: captloadie on June 12, 2012, 04:05:22
I think one of the items they should look at is having an aggregate score to pass, and not necessarily a minimum for all events. This would better reflect real life scenarios. For example, if you are vertically challenged, you would likely be assigned to carry sandbags to a truck, or fill them, not lift them into the back. On the test, you shouldn't fail because of the way you are built.

As for having the CoC administer the testing, I think this could be a slippery slope, unless none of the tests rely on an evaluator's judgment. Personalities can easily get in the way. You don't like someone, you are a little tougher on them, your buddy is having a hard time, you let it slide a little. PSP staff are at least seen as impartial.   
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PuckChaser on June 12, 2012, 04:47:17
The MSVS is tall for everyone, I'm 6'1" and would find putting sandbags into a truck that tall more tiring then putting them into a LSVW.

Perhaps the final test will come out with a scoring system, we need a way to differentiate people who pass with the minimum and people who are in good physical condition. Especially if we still have the PER system with PT test pass and exempt marks.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on June 12, 2012, 10:03:22
The Army intent is that testing will be done by the chain of command - MCpls and above.  No PSP required.

Certain other near-military environments have other ideas on that front...
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ttlbmg on June 12, 2012, 10:15:33
Question in regards to this, will this be extending into BMQ and BMOQ courses soon as well? What would be your suggestions to train for this prior to completion, in terms of someone training in anticipation of going to basic?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Brasidas on June 12, 2012, 12:52:08
As for having the CoC administer the testing, I think this could be a slippery slope, unless none of the tests rely on an evaluator's judgment. Personalities can easily get in the way. You don't like someone, you are a little tougher on them, your buddy is having a hard time, you let it slide a little. PSP staff are at least seen as impartial.   

Reference buddy completing pre-para test, doing 6 chin-ups, then after the fact buddy saying "none of those were with proper technique", do 'em again. Buddy does 5 more, fails test.

Yeah, I can see PSP staff doing a test being preferable.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: aesop081 on June 12, 2012, 12:57:49

Yeah, I can see PSP staff doing a test being preferable.

Yes, the yoga pants-wearing 22 year-old who graduated with a Kin degree 2 weeks ago and has no military experience what so ever, is definately the best person to evaluate my fitness to conduct operations.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on June 12, 2012, 13:01:08
Yes, the yoga pants-wearing 22 year-old who graduated with a Kin degree 2 weeks ago and has no military experience what so ever, is definately the best person to evaluate my fitness to conduct operations.


...not that there's anything wrong with 22 year olds wearing yoga pants, especially when you're out walking your dog...
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: aesop081 on June 12, 2012, 13:03:22

...not that there's anything wrong with 22 year olds wearing yoga pants, especially when you're out walking your dog...

If it was any other way, i would not have a dog !!!
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: signalsguy on June 12, 2012, 13:05:02
Yes, the yoga pants-wearing 22 year-old who graduated with a Kin degree 2 weeks ago and has no military experience what so ever, is definately the best person to evaluate my fitness to conduct operations.

I think the point is that they are hopefully going to be unbiased. We aren't the most trustworthy when it comes to assessing fitness tests. I have seen a lot of people 'pass' physical fitness test elements that they either didn't do or failed... trench dig comes to mind.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on June 12, 2012, 13:16:58
I think the point is that they are hopefully going to be unbiased. We aren't the most trustworthy when it comes to assessing fitness tests. I have seen a lot of people 'pass' physical fitness test elements that they either didn't do or failed... trench dig comes to mind.

Note the LFCO states the trench dig can be waived if facilities are not available.


If your unit passes people who failed the test, there are deeper problems than just PT.

Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: aesop081 on June 12, 2012, 13:19:10
I think the point is that they are hopefully going to be unbiased.

And none of us are freinds with PSP staff, right ?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: daftandbarmy on June 12, 2012, 13:47:30
I might have my head up in dark places, but has there been a report or soemthign produced that has identified specific fuctional fitness problems that this test is designed to address?

"It has been observed that troops consistently fail to demonstrate the ability to dig in because they are strong enough. We should create a test that addresses that functional requirement."

In the past, it's been my experience that the 'good idea' or 'fitness flavour of the month' fairy has more to do with military fitness trest design than any real scientific analysis. I'm hoping that this is in some way different and better.



Title: Re: Re: Sit-Ups
Post by: Journeyman on June 12, 2012, 13:57:24
- casualty evacuation (pulling a loaded dummy out of the front seat of a truck, dragging then 1/2 weight to simulate someone helping you); end based on weight
- pickets & wires (walking loaded, running empty handed; 10-30m stretches repeatedly;

Finally, a relevant PT test.   :blotto:


I actually have nothing to contribute. This topic has reappeared every 2-3 years of my military career...along with field pay, uniforms and badges, and how [insert words of choice] everyone posted to NDHQ becomes.  I'll leave them all to the good-idea fairies, thanks.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PMedMoe on June 12, 2012, 14:07:48
Yes, the yoga pants-wearing 22 year-old who graduated with a Kin degree 2 weeks ago and has no military experience what so ever, is definately the best person to evaluate my fitness to conduct operations.

And the MCpl with his (or her) few 40 minute PT classes on PLQ is any more qualified to do it? 

I'll stick to PSP, thank you very much.

Finally, a relevant PT test.   :blotto:

I agree.  A true sign of fitness should be who can hold their alcohol better.  Pretty sure I'd get exempt on that one too.   ;D
Title: Re: Re: Sit-Ups
Post by: Haggis on June 12, 2012, 14:15:54
Finally, a relevant PT test.   :blotto:

But that's not enough, is it?  The test, and the associated standards, have to be able to withstand the eventual legal challenge from those who would say that it is disctriminatory against (insert special interest category here) for (insert frivolous reason here).
Title: Re: Re: Sit-Ups
Post by: Journeyman on June 12, 2012, 14:19:20
But that's not enough, is it?  The test, and the associated standards, have to be able to withstand the eventual legal challenge from those who would say that it is disctriminatory against (insert special interest category here) for (insert frivolous reason here).
You mean those......non-drinkers?   :orly:
Title: Re: Re: Sit-Ups
Post by: PMedMoe on June 12, 2012, 14:19:57
You mean those......non-drinkers?   :orly:

How did they even get in??    ???
Title: Re: Re: Sit-Ups
Post by: daftandbarmy on June 12, 2012, 14:26:30
How did they even get in??    ???

It was a federally funded pilot project for 'designated groups' and, thus, won't last  ;D
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on June 12, 2012, 14:30:55
In the past, it's been my experience that the 'good idea' or 'fitness flavour of the month' fairy has more to do with military fitness trest design than any real scientific analysis. I'm hoping that this is in some way different and better.
For scientific identification of the requirement, look back a few posts:
Here is some related reading on both Project FORCE and the disparity between what is measured by current CF and Army fitness testing:  http://www.cfpsa.com/en/psp/HumanPerformance/Documents/CAJ_vol13.2_09_e.pdf (http://www.cfpsa.com/en/psp/HumanPerformance/Documents/CAJ_vol13.2_09_e.pdf)
and from another source :http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_13/iss_2/CAJ_vol13.2_09_e.pdf (http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_13/iss_2/CAJ_vol13.2_09_e.pdf)
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: daftandbarmy on June 12, 2012, 14:46:37
For scientific identification of the requirement, look back a few posts:

Thanks. :nod:

Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Chief Stoker on June 12, 2012, 16:11:24
Isn't this test going to take a significant amount of time to administer, especially for a rather large ships company or section?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PuckChaser on June 12, 2012, 16:13:05
I have a feeling there won't be 13 tasks to complete, and if its done once a year, so what if it takes a day?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on June 12, 2012, 16:15:45
My understanding is that they are assessing 13 tasks to find out which ones taken together are the best predictors of success at the common military tasks.

Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Chief Stoker on June 12, 2012, 16:42:49
My understanding is that they are assessing 13 tasks to find out which ones taken together are the best predictors of success at the common military tasks.

I was kind of disappointed that they jagged in the Navy specific test that they had planned and went with the one standard. My boss was asked to go to Ottawa for some of the testing as he had just returned from Afghanistan. There wasn't really a lot of expertise there at all, in fact most of the participants were athletes and did triathlons and they wanted the standard really high.
I hope the data collected and the final result is a fair test that all personnel can have a reasonable chance of passing. It sounds to me that there will be a lot of failures seeing that some elements do not do that sort of tasks on a regular basis.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Halifax Tar on June 12, 2012, 16:55:32
My understanding is that they are assessing 13 tasks to find out which ones taken together are the best predictors of success at the common military tasks.

I think that common military tasks part is what is going to cause some griping.  Really there are common service tasks but what a stoker is expected to be able to physically accomplish day in and day out differs greatly from say a combat engineer.

True we could all be expected to pick up a rifle and act as a soldier but we could also just as easily be called upon to preform a damage control scenario on board a ship.  For some each is a common or practiced occurance for some they will never do these tasks. 

I just hope its one standard for all what ever the final outcome is.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: airmich on June 12, 2012, 17:41:49
One of our other feedback points was regarding the order in which the events are done.  The testing group was divided into 3 smaller groups and we rotated through events.  The group who did the picking and digging last probably handled other tasks better then my group who did picking and digging first and were unable to clench our hands afterwards.

If it is kept at 13 tasks, I think they will be hardpressed to fit it into just 1 day.  There is mandatory recovery time between events and even with only doing half of them in one day, we were all quite worn out and sore. 
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: signalsguy on June 12, 2012, 19:22:04
The final version of the  test is supposed to be able to be administered in a variety of locations and environments including on austere deployments...

I'm very curious, we (CF) are actually a world leader in BFOR military fitness standards.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on June 13, 2012, 00:42:17
My understanding is that they are assessing 13 tasks to find out which ones taken together are the best predictors of success at the common military tasks.
So, does this evaluation of the evaluation have participants doing 13 tasks and the common military tasks?  In order to find a statistical correlation, one would need to know how the members of the study group performed on both the testing methods and the tasks that are supposed to be predicted by the tests.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 13, 2012, 17:28:48
CO's fitness challenge;

5KM timed run
X pushups in 2 minutes- non-stop
X situps in 2 minutes-non stop.
X pull ups

Each event has a certain amount of points per category ie pushups (male) 0-10=0, 11-20=5, 21-30-10   and so on.

Get some kind of baseline going.
Obese people can struggle through the BFT yet not fire off 3 push ups or a single pull up.

Lifting ammo cans into a truck. What?  The little fella from the Captain America movie, pre-super juice, can lift ammo cans into a truck. That's a silly "test".  Loading ammo cans into an MSVS would be retarded.


Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: fraserdw on June 13, 2012, 18:37:26
I seen a dozen PT standards come and go in 32 years and the best one is the one I joined under; 1.5 miles under 12 minutes, 30 continuous push ups (and no retarded yoga thumbs pointed experimental PT degree stance either), 35 continuous sit ups, climb the rope and touch the ceiling and 5 pull ups (10 if your beret is purple).  It worked well for almost 20 years before my joining and 7 after.  Since we abandoned it to a more "friendly and welcoming attitude to our more diverse nation" we have wandered about in a hell of poor fitness and confused training standards.  In the past 5 years, I have been taught 9 different stances for a push up, each making it harder to actually do a push up.  Mind you these stances have improved my zen but not my strength.  I have enough of PSP evolving our fitness through science, lets go back to the hung over PT NCO with a bad temper!  I was much more fit back then.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: daftandbarmy on June 13, 2012, 18:44:22
I seen a dozen PT standards come and go in 32 years and the best one is the one I joined under; 1.5 miles under 12 minutes, 30 continuous push ups (and no retarded yoga thumbs pointed experimental PT degree stance either), 35 continuous sit ups, climb the rope and touch the ceiling and 5 pull ups (10 if your beret is purple).  It worked well for almost 20 years before my joining and 7 after.  Since we abandoned it to a more "friendly and welcoming attitude to our more diverse nation" we have wandered about in a hell of poor fitness and confused training standards.  In the past 5 years, I have been taught 9 different stances for a push up, each making it harder to actually do a push up.  Mind you these stances have improved my zen but not my strength.  I have enough of PSP evolving our fitness through science, lets go back to the hung over PT NCO with a bad temper!  I was much more fit back then.

Huzzah!

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.  :salute:


Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: signalsguy on June 14, 2012, 16:48:55
The problem with all of the run - pushup - situp - rope climb test is that they aren't correlated to any occupational task. Sure if you can max the events then you are going to be in good shape but, this doesn't mean that you are training efficiently to do your job.

This is why the assaulters at DHTC have gone to a task based circuit, and this is why most police forces use a task based circuit.

I still think that there is a place for CO's challenges and things like that - in my experience a lot of the troops (Signallers mind you) are soft and don't know how to deal with a little hardship. Hard PT solves that problem....

but,

we still need to have an effective and enforced standard and if its going to be a task based test, then great. Maybe we will end up with a 2 test system, a general PT test and then a combat PT test similar to the USMC.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: R031button on June 14, 2012, 21:33:46
Relating a CF wide PT test to the Police or to a single unit in particular ( JTF 2 ) is flawed logic. All members of those organizations are expected to preform the same tasks, ie: every cop needs to be able to chase down a suspect. The CF requires a comparatively much more broad degree of tasks to be completed. Similarly one can extend the argument of "task based fitness" to argue that an Air Force Clerk posted to NDHQ's task are typing and lifting a pen ( not disrespect to members that's just an example). Too me the job of ensuring that a given member is fit to preform their task is the duty of the members leadership, ie it's up to 1 VP to decide what's fit enough to be in 1 VP, where as the CF should focus on enforcing a more general fitness test. A test focusing on core fitness attributes of cardiovascular endurance (ie: running), major muscle group strength ( push ups, sit ups), and muscle to weight ratio (pull ups) is a much more simple, and universal standard then trying to find tasks common to all for AES Ops and Naval Weapons Techs.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: GnyHwy on June 14, 2012, 22:16:17
This topic always gets me going.  Although, I believe the basic standards are necessary, it seems every once in awhile the good idea fairy has to try and change things.  I don't think anything is wrong with what we have now, and I think if it was enforced, the persons that aren't shape would still fail.  Increasing the standard will only increase the number of persons not meeting the standard, but in the end won't change a thing.

A baseline standard is necessary, but to hold everyone to a level that you would expect of a 30yr old cbt arms soldier is not the right approach.  Many people have fulltime jobs that only allow for a simple 1 hour PT per day (if that).  Should they have to do extra hours to meet a higher standard?  Cbt arms troops do physical things as a part of their job, and likely have PT built in to their daily schedule, and if they don't they should.

COs challenges are fine for the morale of those who do well, but the average person probably doesn't give a crap, and worse, it may alienate the not so athletic. That non athletic guy might be the guy who's actually holding things together behind the scenes, while the athletes flex their muscles.

There are many more characteristics, skills, and attributes that are important to the military.  To take a valuable planner, organizer, logistician out of the military because he is old or partially broken doesn't make sense to me.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 14, 2012, 22:33:50
So then, along that line of thinking, i am highly unlikely to do the things described by Airmich as par of my job on deployment or OP.

What are we testing again ?

(Universality of of service, yes, i know)
Would the test perhaps consist of running check in's and check out's with two pieces of luggage for you Sqn types?   :whistle:
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: signalsguy on June 15, 2012, 07:46:59
It all comes down to human rights and universality of service. I am not sure if anyone has contested the current PT testing, but if the EXPRES/BFT combo was contested we would probably lose. The current regime of testing is not based on a BFOR.

The whole point of this is to have that BFOR based, measurable, standardized test. That would stand up to a human rights tribunal.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on June 15, 2012, 09:13:50
It all comes down to human rights and universality of service. I am not sure if anyone has contested the current PT testing, but if the EXPRES/BFT combo was contested we would probably lose.

The curent CF standards and testing methodology have been tested in law and have been upheld.  Remember that the CF EXPRES program is a predictive test desgined to measure the probability that someone will be able to complete the Five CF Common Military Task test (i.e. the gold standard).

The current regime of testing is not based on a BFOR.
  The EXPRES program is based on BFOR in place at the time the program was implemented.  The LFCPFS is not based on BFOR.

The whole point of this is to have that BFOR based, measurable, standardized test. That would stand up to a human rights tribunal.

We have that now.  However, times have changed and BFOR have evolved.  Case in point is that our current EXPRES scoring matrix ends at age 55.  CRA is now 60.   People are living longer now and, consequently, can serve in the CF in a relevant capacity for longer.  Those people still have to meet U of S (BFOR) and, therefore our fitness testing must account for and measure the fitness of members aged 56-60.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 15, 2012, 13:07:44
Does scoring exempt on your fitness test reflect on your PER at all?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PuckChaser on June 15, 2012, 13:23:08
Does scoring exempt on your fitness test reflect on your PER at all?

BFT pass and EXPRES Exempt are both worth 2 points currently. EXPRES Pass is 1 point.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Pusser on June 15, 2012, 14:48:02
Let me throw this one out there.  Let's dispense with all the administrative nonsense associated with fitness testing and failures and simply dispense with fitness testing.  Instead, we should introduce and maintain a culture of fitness where members remain fit, simply because they can't avoid it.  We run the crap out of people on basic training and then immediately stop at the end and tell everyone they're on their own for the remainder of their careers (with possible exception of the combat arms).  Where's the logic in that? 

It's great that we have direction now that PT during working hours is to be encouraged and supported, but that direction is not being universally followed or applied and certainly no one is out there ensuring that folks are exercising.  We need stronger encouragement (perhaps even making regular exercise mandatory) and better facilities.

In my mind, a culture of fitness is far superior to a punitive policy of negative reinforcement.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: fraserdw on June 15, 2012, 15:31:31
The best enforcer of PT is comd buy in.  I remember a long time ago during the cold war on a yank Fort being awoken to all these noisy guys singing and running.  Must have been a 1000 of them, now we were not on a training base.  Anyway a few days later we were on parade getting divisional challenge coins from the Div Comdr .....and ..... guess what ......... he was the guy that was leading that early morning PT session.  He had to be in his 50s but he was at the front every morning in garrison.  I have not had a PT session with anyone above the rank of Capt since 1999, despite the fact that CO's PT on Friday is a requirement for the whole unit (including 4 LCols, 9 Majors).

If we try to make PT a requirement for everyone, our PT support infrastructure would quickly break down.  Heck in Gagetown, there is not enough parking spots at the gym during the peak periods now let alone equipment in the gym.  We have a Major portion of the running trail closed for a year because of a 2 foot round hole that no one seems to be able to fix.  There is no commitment to universal PT in the CF, never has been.  Like the man said you are on your own after training, fit it in to your regular job.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Pusser on June 15, 2012, 17:08:39
Heck in Gagetown, there is not enough parking spots at the gym  [/color] during the peak periods now let alone equipment in the gym. 

There's a certain irony in that.  Part of my point is that you shouldn't need them.  If everyone ran or bicycled to the gym...

There may not be enough parking spots at the gym, but I'll bet there are lot more than there are decent bicycle spots.

Overall though, I hear you on the infrastructure.  I agree that it won't currently support everyone using it everyday, but I would argue that investing in improving it would be better than the cost of losing trained personnel because we kick them out over a fitness test.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dogger1936 on June 15, 2012, 19:24:18
New PT test testing std's...so do you get swabbed between the sandbag carry and the run?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on June 17, 2012, 01:02:31
The curent CF standards and testing methodology have been tested in law and have been upheld.  Remember that the CF EXPRES program is a predictive test desgined to measure the probability that someone will be able to complete the Five CF Common Military Task test (i.e. the gold standard).

The EXPRES program is based on BFOR in place at the time the program was implemented.  ...
The defenders of the CF Express often say this.  I have no doubt that this was truly an intent when the program was developed, but I cannot believe the intent was achieved.  If the ability to complete X repetitions of some activity is a statistical predictor of one's ability to complete a common task, then the number X should be constant.  A physically demanding task does not become magically less demanding because one has gotten older or because one is a woman.  Right now, the CF minimum pass standard is that a 34 year old male must to 19 push-ups and 19 sit-ups (neither one a difficult standard) to demonstrate he is statistically likely to complete the common military tasks - a 35 year old woman proves the same with 7 push-ups and 12 sit-ups.

I don't believe it.  Either we're demanding something beyond the statistical predictor of success for youth & males, or we're reducing the standard for women and older members.

Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on June 17, 2012, 01:19:52
...
Also I have been hearing that the Army is now doing the EXPRES and BFT...

I know where you heard this ... and, it's not true, It's just us. I know many a pers at many an Army Base/Unit and none of them is doing both (not even my old man [5 Bgde]).
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on June 17, 2012, 01:24:03
...
Also I have been hearing that the Army is now doing the EXPRES and BFT...

I know where you heard this ... and, it's not true, It's just us. I know many a pers at many an Army Base/Unit and none of them is doing both (not even my old man [5 Bgde]).
It should be what the Army is doing though.  As long as the current BFT will hide guys that would fail the CF Express (and give them exempt status for the PER too), the Army should insist on the CF Express as gateway to conducting the BFT.

Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on June 17, 2012, 01:27:31
I know where you heard this ... and, it's not true, It's just us. I know many a pers at many an Army Base/Unit and none of them is doing both (not even my old man [5 Bgde]).It should be what the Army is doing though.  As long as the current BFT will hide guys that would fail the CF Express (and give them exempt status for the PER too), the Army should insist on the CF Express as gateway to conducting the BFT.

Oh, I agree; a unit is passing as "fact" that it is already occurring in the Army (as justification for their doing both) while it isn't and isn't even in the Army's future plans.

I think we should all do both.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on June 17, 2012, 08:19:58
I know where you heard this ... and, it's not true, It's just us. I know many a pers at many an Army Base/Unit and none of them is doing both (not even my old man [5 Bgde]).It should be what the Army is doing though.  As long as the current BFT will hide guys that would fail the CF Express (and give them exempt status for the PER too), the Army should insist on the CF Express as gateway to conducting the BFT.

Reservists working on Class B in the VCDS Group are required to do both the BFT and the EXPRES if they are parading voluntarily with an Army Reserve unit in addition to their Class B duties.

There is another benefit to this.  The CF EXPRES also includes a pre-test heart rate and blood pressure check, key in identifying persons who could be at risk from intense physical activity and sending them towards the CF medical system.  There is no such gateway with the BFT.  I have heard tales of folks at NDHQ doing the BFT expressly to avoid having to get their BP checked and potentially ending up on a TCat or worse.

Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Runner on June 23, 2012, 21:01:01
I am going to write a book on military fitness one day and I won't mention in one chapter how many push ups, chin ups, how fast to run or even how much weight to hump, lift or push...


Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: GnyHwy on June 23, 2012, 21:36:24
Sounds good to me, because I hate all of those.

What about sandbags? :)
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Dolphin_Hunter on June 24, 2012, 00:05:29
Would the test perhaps consist of running check in's and check out's with two pieces of luggage for you Sqn types?   :whistle:

Throw in a broken elevator, and get those suitcases up to the 25th floor in under 10!

I don't mind the expres test as it is right now, as we will never find a common test, to please everyone. 

I highly doubt I will perform any of those tasks listed, although if I am the Designated Driver on an upcoming TD, I could see myself having to haul a body out of the vehicle (Perhaps CDN_A?)....
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: aesop081 on June 24, 2012, 00:54:42
(Perhaps CDN_A?)....

I wouldn't be surprised. I hear that guy can be quite the trainwreck.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Robert0288 on June 24, 2012, 01:50:37
There's a certain irony in that.  Part of my point is that you shouldn't need them.  If everyone ran or bicycled to the gym...

There may not be enough parking spots at the gym, but I'll bet there are lot more than there are decent bicycle spots.

Overall though, I hear you on the infrastructure.  I agree that it won't currently support everyone using it everyday, but I would argue that investing in improving it would be better than the cost of losing trained personnel because we kick them out over a fitness test.

I don't see the need for a gym or facilities for a PT session.  You just need room (field/parking lot), your own body weight and maybe a chin up bar.  If you really want to be keen you can grab some water jerrys, or some sand bags. 
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Brihard on June 24, 2012, 01:59:52
I don't see the need for a gym or facilities for a PT session.  You just need room (field/parking lot), your own body weight and maybe a chin up bar.  If you really want to be keen you can grab some water jerrys, or some sand bags.

Body weight PT being all the more potent after all those evenings at Patty's.  ;D
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Robert0288 on June 24, 2012, 03:25:42
At that point walking is challenge enough.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: daftandbarmy on June 26, 2012, 01:25:59
The problem with requiring various pieces of aparatus to run a test like this is that you'll usually never have them available when you need them, or local restrictions will get in the way somehow.

For example: want me to dig a trench? Really? Digging is forbidden on Vancouver Island training areas (yes, really), so there's one criteria pooched already.

Keep it simple and focused on what everyone already has: the outdoors, rucksacks etc.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on June 26, 2012, 08:30:45
For example: want me to dig a trench? Really? Digging is forbidden on Vancouver Island training areas (yes, really), so there's one criteria pooched already.

So maybe we could, say, shovel pea gravel from one box to another to simulate the task of digging a trench?  They do have pea gravel on Vancouver Island, yes?

Keep it simple and focused on what everyone already has: the outdoors, rucksacks etc.

Much as I like the LFCPFS as a team building exercise, it is a poor indicator of "battle fitness".  It's more about pain management and intestinal fortitude both of which are, quite frankly, important.  But how manyy folks have you seen go out and do the LFCPFS "cold", finish it and walk around like a train wreck victim for the next 4 or 5 days.  That proves nothing.  It does not prove you're "fit".  It only shows that you can manage pain and tolerate approximately three hours of moderate to serious discomfort once in a year.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: dennmu on August 14, 2012, 16:11:45
Hello All,

I have a quick question in regards to the shuttle run. I am scheduled for BMQ training at the end of the month, and having running been running steady, almost everyday. I can comfortably run 5K in 25 mins. I have been told by my recruiter, i should not have a problem with shuttle run. However, I have read many post for those who have failed, so I am doing all I can to be prepared for it. Anyway to the point. I have watched a video provided by CF training on the shuttle run. What I am not clear on is, am I suppose to stop at the line and wait for the next beep, or continue to run even if I have reached the line before the beep has gone off?

Respectfully,

Dennmu
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: aesop081 on August 14, 2012, 16:15:47
you have to wait for the beeps to run. You get to the line, stop, hear the beep and run back. Repeat........
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: MikeL on August 14, 2012, 16:16:03
You only run after the beep.

Beep, you run the 20m to the line across the floor, stop and wait for the next beep,  when you hear the beep run the 20m across the floor.  Repeat until you can not run anymore.
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: dennmu on August 14, 2012, 16:52:47
Thank you for clarifying this for me.  :)

Dennmu
Title: New CF Express Test
Post by: opcougar on September 18, 2012, 12:56:18
Anyone heard anything about this yet and when it's suppose to be in effect? Rumour has it that they got rid of the push-ups?

Title: Re: New CF Express Test
Post by: aesop081 on September 18, 2012, 12:58:25
The development related to project FORCE is still going on. The CF Expres test, as it has always been, is still the current test.
Title: Re: New CF Express Test
Post by: MrGnr on September 18, 2012, 13:18:04
A short video from the Army site dealing with Project FORCE.

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/news-nouvelles/story-reportage-eng.asp?id=5848
Title: Re: New CF Express Test
Post by: opcougar on September 18, 2012, 13:51:13
The development related to project FORCE is still going on. The CF Expres test, as it has always been, is still the current test.

I get that....but the question is, can anyone confirm what one source said about the push-ups not being part of the new proposed CF express test
Title: Re: New CF Express Test
Post by: recceguy on September 18, 2012, 16:41:14
There's no sense even asking this until FORCE is finalized. Maybe they'll see a need for them by then. Who knows. It's still in development. It's probably still a couple of years away anyway, so as CA said, the Expres test is it, and that has pushups.

This is why we don't deal in rumours.

Milnet.ca Staff
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on September 19, 2012, 08:55:34
I am one of the Project FORCE test subjects here in the NCR, representing the "broken Infantry males over 50" demographic.

Because the six common task test is resource and equipment intensive (see the video link above), a predictive test will be developed that will include activities that simulate the six common tasks.

As I noted a few pages back in this thread, this is the same methodology used with the CF EXPRES test, which is scientifically designed to predict how an individual would potentially perform on the current Common Military Fitness Task Evaluation (https://public.cfpsa.com/en/AboutUs/PSP/DFIT/Fitness/Documents/CMTFE%20Physical%20Preparation%20Guidelines%20%20may%202011_%20final.pdf) without the need for specialized fitness testing equipment/contraptions (other than a grip strength meter which fits in a briefcase).

Project FORCE is centered around developing and vaildating the new six common tasks.   From the test subject's results (well over 800 by now) the team will determine what the attainable standard is on each task.  The predictive test activites will be derived from that much like the EXPRES was derived from the CMFTE.   The short answer is that there has not been a decision we have heard of on what exercises will/will not be part of the FORCE predictive test.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Chernoble on December 04, 2012, 13:50:17
Got this through the grapevine.  Take from it what you will.

Email trail originated at 429 Squadron CO, sent to his Unit:

Quote
Bisons,



The rumour mill is working at full speed.  Some of you (likely most of you) have probably heard of upcoming changes to the CF Express Test.



The PT test is set to change on 1 Apr 13.  There is still some clarity required from higher headquarters with respect to PER implications for exemptions and other minor issues.  Trust that all the information will be made available prior to 1 Apr 13.>



For now, realize that for 2012 PER purposes, the current PT Test structure stands.  This means you are required to have the Test completed; a PASS worth 1 PER Board Point and an Exemption worth 2 PER Board Points. 



The big picture is that the changing PT Test has NO IMPACT on your immediate life.  Continue with our established culture of excellence and fitness.



For your information only, below is what the future PT Test is expected to look like:



1. Sandbag lift

Time 3min 30 secs

Setup two 20kg Sandbag 1.25m apart.

Lift bag 91cm off the ground drop it and repeat with bag that is 1.25m apart for a total of 30 times

2. Loaded shuttle run/walk

Time 5min 21secs

Using 20m shuttle lines walk 40m with 20kg Sandbag and run 40m unloaded repeat 5 times for a total of 400 m

3. 20m rush

Time 51secs

Using 20m shuttle lines.start in prone get up run 10 get down on floor do superman get up run 10m get down superman get up turn around run 10 get down on floor do superman get up run 10m get down superman get up turn around repeat for total of 80 m

4. Sandbag pull

Time unlimited just need to complete task

Drag 20kg Sandbag 20m

There will be a 10min warm up and 10 min breaks between tasks

No differentiation for age or gender

Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on December 04, 2012, 13:58:10
Sandbag drag is a set of five sandbags tied together, not just one; other than that, looks consistent with what has previously been briefed.


Last month the Canadian Forces Personnel Management Council (CFPMC) held a meeting where they were briefed on the proposed new test, and the members were then taken to try out the new test.  CFPMC membership is generally (no pun intended) at the 1* level, with representatives from the three environments and some other senior staff.  CFPMC endorsed the proposed new test, and it's going to Armed Forces Council for approval in the (very) near term.

Once approved, expect a formal communications plan to inform everyone of the 5Ws.


Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on December 04, 2012, 16:56:41
Sandbag drag is a set of five sandbags tied together, not just one; other than that, looks consistent with what has previously been briefed.

The test is  one 20 kg bag carried tethered to 4 20 kg bags dragged (100 kg total) while walking backwards over a 20 metre distance without stopping - no time limit.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PMedMoe on December 04, 2012, 17:24:10
So here's a question:  If one is already "exempt" until some date in 2014, will they be made to do another PT test when the change takes effect on 1 Apr 2013 (very apt date, might I add......  ;) )?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on December 04, 2012, 22:51:14
So here's a question:  If one is already "exempt" until some date in 2014, will they be made to do another PT test when the change takes effect on 1 Apr 2013 (very apt date, might I add......  ;) )?

No.  Your exemptrion will remain valid until it expires at "some date in 2014".  Your next test will be the FORCE test, which must be completed before the expiry of your current result.

Along with it's inferred meaning, above, 01 Apr is also the beginning of the PER reporting period and the fiscal year.  Coincidence?  I think not.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on December 04, 2012, 23:02:08
We should insist everyone do the new test in its first year.  Wouldn't be fair to let some hold onto the old age & gender biased exempt results.

Besides, if pers really deserve the exempt status they will earn it again.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jarnhamar on December 04, 2012, 23:07:19
So our new fitness test is basically playing around with a sandbag?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on December 04, 2012, 23:13:07
We should insist everyone do the new test in its first year.  Wouldn't be fair to let some hold onto the old age & gender biased exempt results.

AFC may endorse exactly that, but I doubt it.  The standard will likely take effect on 01 Apr 13, but the application will be phased in as member's EXPRES/BFTs expire.

Besides, if pers really deserve the exempt status they will earn it again.

My understanding from being a lab rat is that this will be an annual test with no provisions for "EXEMPT' status.  You either do the task within the time alloted or you fail the task (and the test).
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on December 04, 2012, 23:33:56
So our new fitness test is basically playing around with a sandbag?

No.

The new fitness standard is a series of tests that are highly correlated with success in the common military tasks that every CF member must be able to complete as a condition of service, designed to be delivered in a wide variety of locations, with minimal training for evaluators and minimal equipment requirements.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on December 04, 2012, 23:37:39
My understanding from being a lab rat is that this will be an annual test with no provisions for "EXEMPT' status.  You either do the task within the time alloted or you fail the task (and the test).
This is as it should be.  If true, then it is all the more reason that pers should not be permitted to carry over an old exempt status into the 13/14 year.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Rider Pride on December 04, 2012, 23:44:41
I await the complaints from people who only wieght 60 kgs about the standard wieght they will have to lift.

Also, shall be interesting to see the massive increases in back pain chits.....
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on December 04, 2012, 23:51:07
With proper training for the new fitness test, over time back complaints should decrease as people learn to do proper lifts; that learning should transfer over to their everyday work.

Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on December 05, 2012, 00:13:52
Dragging five sandbags tied together?  Like seriously why do we continuously re-invent the wheel?  We should stick with something like the Cooper's Test which IMO is a great test for evaluating fitness, if its good enough for DHTC I would say its probably good enough for the regular army, with modifications to the scoring of course. 

Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: GnyHwy on December 05, 2012, 00:29:45
Dragging five sandbags tied together?  Like seriously why do we continuously re-invent the wheel?  We should stick with something like the Cooper's Test which IMO is a great test for evaluating fitness, if its good enough for DHTC I would say its probably good enough for the regular army, with modifications to the scoring of course.

The whole point is to have a test that is realistic to what someone may have to perform in combat.  Dragging a 100Kgs sounds pretty real to me.  The Cooper's test, although a very good test of fitness is not realistic at all.  It is not likely in war that anyone will need to run a mile and a half, followed by doing a bunch of pushups and situps, followed by finding a bench press to do the last part.

At first glance, this test seems easier than the express test, but maybe it's because I weigh more than a buck o five
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on December 05, 2012, 00:32:23
Dragging five sandbags tied together?  Like seriously why do we continuously re-invent the wheel?  We should stick with something like the Cooper's Test which IMO is a great test for evaluating fitness, if its good enough for DHTC I would say its probably good enough for the regular army, with modifications to the scoring of course.

Does the Cooper's Test predict success at the Common Military Tasks?  If not, it doesn't meet the requirement.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on December 05, 2012, 00:54:56
Quote
The whole point is to have a test that is realistic to what someone may have to perform in combat.  Dragging a 100Kgs sounds pretty real to me.  The Cooper's test, although a very good test of fitness is not realistic at all.  It is not likely in war that anyone will need to run a mile and a half, followed by doing a bunch of pushups and situps, followed by finding a bench press to do the last part.

At first glance, this test seems easier than the express test, but maybe it's because I weigh more than a buck o five

How common is it in war that someone will have to drag 5 sandbags tied together along the ground, probably not very.  You could also achieve this with a sled-pull.  Part of being a professional soldier is being fit, with fit applying maintaining a certain level of "fitness" thus conducting a "fitness" test like the Cooper's Test would serve the purpose.

Quote
Does the Cooper's Test predict success at the Common Military Tasks?  If not, it doesn't meet the requirement.

I would argue it does, how does lifting a sandbag to a certain height over and over again mean you are anymore capable then someone that can benchpress 240lbs and complete 60 pushups and 12 pullups.  If you are strong on a Cooper's test you are going to be strong on this test no doubt in my mind.  As well the Cooper's test gives you the ability to gauge progress more easily.

With proper training for the new fitness test, over time back complaints should decrease as people learn to do proper lifts; that learning should transfer over to their everyday work.

What would really help is to get everyone on some sort of strength and resistance training program.  Getting everyone to put 10 or 20lbs of muscle on their frames would do a lot to alleviate back/joint problems.  A lot of injuries are down to poor body mechanics which with proper resistance training and some stretching could be corrected or atleast compensated for.


I would really like to see testing brought back to the unit level.  I would love to see Platoons taking their guys out and being able to administer a test such as the Cooper's Test as they would not only be able to hold their own guys more accountable but it would also empower the leadership within our units. 
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on December 05, 2012, 01:01:44
How common is it in war that someone will have to drag 5 sandbags tied together along the ground, probably not very.  You could also achieve this with a sled-pull.  Part of being a professional soldier is being fit, with fit applying maintaining a certain level of "fitness" thus conducting a "fitness" test like the Cooper's Test would serve the purpose.

And what is a unit more likely to have available in their lines - a sled or sandbags?  Better to use inexpensive, readily available equipment.

Quote
Does the Cooper's Test predict success at the Common Military Tasks?  If not, it doesn't meet the requirement.

I would argue it does, how does lifting a sandbag to a certain height over and over again mean you are anymore capable then someone that can benchpress 240lbs and complete 60 pushups and 12 pullups.  If you are strong on a Cooper's test you are going to be strong on this test no doubt in my mind.  As well the Cooper's test gives you the ability to gauge progress more easily.

But can you demonstrate that through documented studies?  And again, what's easier to find and use for testing for a large group?

Besides, there's nothing that says "You must only do the new test and may not use the Cooper's test".  For PERs, you will be required to complete the new test.  But for fitness training there is no restriction.

Quote
What would really help is to get everyone on some sort of strength and resistance training program.  Getting everyone to put 10 or 20lbs of muscle on their frames would do a lot to alleviate back/joint problems.  A lot of injuries are down to poor body mechanics which with proper resistance training and some stretching could be corrected or atleast compensated for.

Amen to that.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on December 05, 2012, 01:23:40
And what is a unit more likely to have available in their lines - a sled or sandbags?  Better to use inexpensive, readily available equipment.

Point taken, perhaps we could substitute 5 sandbags for a large tire attached to a rope, go all Rocky Balboa!

But can you demonstrate that through documented studies?  And again, what's easier to find and use for testing for a large group?

Besides, there's nothing that says "You must only do the new test and may not use the Cooper's test".  For PERs, you will be required to complete the new test.  But for fitness training there is no restriction.

I would say it would be pretty easy to conduct a Cooper's test to me this test seems just as equipment intensive and more time consuming which is always an issue when testing a large group. 

On the issue of documentation, I personally can't provide it but their must be a reason DHTC uses the Cooper's Test for Assaulter Selection?  I wonder if doing the Cooper's test was even considered or how they decided on what the test would be.

I am personally not a fan of PSP, not because I don't think they provide a good service; however, I feel by putting the ball in their court in terms of conducting these tests we are not empowering our leadership to evaluate their own guys.  A Cooper's test would easily be able to be conducted at the sub-unit level and would give NCO's control over their guys.  We already let NCO's administer tests such as the Para Test so why not let them administer PT tests as well?






Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on December 05, 2012, 01:45:52
I am personally not a fan of PSP, not because I don't think they provide a good service; however, I feel by putting the ball in their court in terms of conducting these tests we are not empowering our leadership to evaluate their own guys.  A Cooper's test would easily be able to be conducted at the sub-unit level and would give NCO's control over their guys.  We already let NCO's administer tests such as the Para Test so why not let them administer PT tests as well?
Good news - the new test is not intended to be administered by PSP.  Does this resolve your concerns?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: WestCoaster on December 05, 2012, 02:05:24
I am personally not a fan of PSP, not because I don't think they provide a good service; however, I feel by putting the ball in their court in terms of conducting these tests we are not empowering our leadership to evaluate their own guys.  A Cooper's test would easily be able to be conducted at the sub-unit level and would give NCO's control over their guys.  We already let NCO's administer tests such as the Para Test so why not let them administer PT tests as well?
To play devil's advocate for a moment (and I will admit my bias since my wife is PSP), the benefit that PSP bring is that they are outside the CoC. Going to unit-level testers brings about the possibility of rank-, peer- and "buddy"-pressure applied to the testers. I personally hear stories of some members trying to pull rank on PSP to add a point to their handgrip score in order to obtain a pass, so I would hate to see what would happen if a PO2/MS was forced to test a CPO2 or LT(N). Now think of testing near PER season and imagine how tough it might be for some testers to fail anyone in their CoC. I feel an outside and honest agent (which many PSP staff are, believe it or not) should run any fitness test (no matter what form they are) in order to ensure the validity of these career impacting tests.

Edited for grammar.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Chief Stoker on December 05, 2012, 05:10:25
To play devil's advocate for a moment (and I will admit my bias since my wife is PSP), the benefit that PSP bring is that they are outside the CoC. Going to unit-level testers brings about the possibility of rank-, peer- and "buddy"-pressure applied to the testers. I personally hear stories of some members trying to pull rank on PSP to add a point to their handgrip score in order to obtain a pass, so I would hate to see what would happen if a PO2/MS was forced to test a CPO2 or LT(N). Now think of testing near PER season and imagine how tough it might be for some testers to fail anyone in their CoC. I feel an outside and honest agent (which many PSP staff are, believe it or not) should run any fitness test (no matter what form they are) in order to ensure the validity of these career impacting tests.

Edited for grammar.

Then again I don't think a civi should have say over a promotion or career course if they potentially fail someone either. As for being fair, in my experience it widely varies from staff to staff, with many complaints against certain PSP staff in Halifax and some well founded. Truth be known we don't know who will be administrating the new test, I suspect it still end of being PSP staff.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: GnyHwy on December 05, 2012, 08:56:58
How common is it in war that someone will have to drag 5 sandbags tied together along the ground, probably not very.

It is the easiest way to simulate dragging an injured soldier, without acutally dragging anyone, and keeping everyone to the same standard.

I would argue it does, how does lifting a sandbag to a certain height over and over again mean you are anymore capable then someone that can benchpress 240lbs and complete 60 pushups and 12 pullups. 

It doesn't, but once again, it is a simple way of simulating work, things like defensive building, or humping ammo.

I would really like to see testing brought back to the unit level.  I would love to see Platoons taking their guys out and being able to administer a test such as the Cooper's Test as they would not only be able to hold their own guys more accountable but it would also empower the leadership within our units.

Your CO has the freedom to do that, but leadership cannot hold persons accountable if they have met the standard (BET,CF Express, or soon FORCE) already.  The Cooper's test is great, but it will always be considered advanced training.  Fitness, although extremely important is only one facet of a soldier's worth.  I'd like to see advanced math tests coupled with map and compass tests used.  Perhaps advanced weapon handling and knowledge as well.  There are many things you can test on an advanced scale, but once everyone has past the standard, all those tests just become good training.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: AmmoTech90 on December 05, 2012, 09:00:27
Then again I don't think a civi should have say over a promotion or career course if they potentially fail someone either. As for being fair, in my experience it widely varies from staff to staff, with many complaints against certain PSP staff in Halifax and some well founded. Truth be known we don't know who will be administrating the new test, I suspect it still end of being PSP staff.

PSP doesn't fail anyone on PT test.  The person being tested fails themself.

Edit: Tense
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on December 05, 2012, 09:15:31
Going to unit-level testers brings about the possibility of rank-, peer- and "buddy"-pressure applied to the testers. I personally hear stories of some members trying to pull rank on PSP to add a point to their handgrip score in order to obtain a pass, so I would hate to see what would happen if a PO2/MS was forced to test a CPO2 or LT(N).

Maybe it's time for the integrity fairy to kick people in the junk when they pull rank on folks who are doing what thier duty requires of them.

Now think of testing near PER season and imagine how tough it might be for some testers to fail anyone in their CoC.

One way around this is to have members from Unit X test members from Unit Y.

PSP doesn't fail anyone on PT test.  The person being tested fails themselves.

True dat!  The test is designed in such a way that all subjectivity has been removed. (e.g. what constitutes a "good" push-up).  You either complete the task in the time alloted or you don't.  There's no "you didn't use proper technique" on the sandbag lift, drag, rushes or shuttles.

Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on December 05, 2012, 09:35:26
What would really help is to get everyone on some sort of strength and resistance training program.  Getting everyone to put 10 or 20lbs of muscle on their frames would do a lot to alleviate back/joint problems.  A lot of injuries are down to poor body mechanics which with proper resistance training and some stretching could be corrected or atleast compensated for.

Have you looked at or tried some of the workouts on www.DFit.ca?   The aim of the programs (and there are many) is to allow members to scale the workouts to their needs. 

As I noted earlier, I'm a lab rat for the Project.  In the last phase, we were tested against the new standard and then given a five week www.DFit.ca program to follow religiously.  At the end of the five weeks we were tested again and all of us improved  - some quite significantly - in all the tests.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on December 05, 2012, 10:17:31

On the issue of documentation, I personally can't provide it but their must be a reason DHTC uses the Cooper's Test for Assaulter Selection?  I wonder if doing the Cooper's test was even considered or how they decided on what the test would be.


How was the test decided?

Short version:  Lots of study.


Longer version:

There are the Common Military Tasks that every CF member must be able to perform.  There are six: stretcher carry; picket and wire carry; escape to cover; sandbag fortification; vehicle extraction; and picking and digging.

The team conducting the research had pers perform the common tasks, then had them perform a variety of other tests - from simulations to fitness tests.  They could then identify correlations between the sample tests and the Common Tasks.

So, for example, the success on the new test where you sprint 40m, carry a sandbag 40m, and repeat for 400m total has a .824 correlation to success in the picket and wire carry. 

The researchers looked across their data (which was based on a sample of 666 CF members, with a mix of environments, ages and occupations) and identified a set of tests that have good correlations to the common military tasks.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Eye In The Sky on December 05, 2012, 10:32:43
Another small but possibly important point is, IIRC, this is not a "Canadian Army" fitness test, but a Canadian Forces fitness test, so includes the RCN and RCAF folks as well.  It applies to Inf Recce platoon folks the same way as it applies to the 4'8" 90lb RMS Clerk posted to a Wing for the last 3 years.  There is no way it will be perfect and make everyone happy.  I would bet there are some who will fear the new test once they find out what is in it, as they likely scrape by the EXPRES test min's now. 

Because of this, of course, some will argue the test "pass level" is too low and some will argue it is too high, doesn't simulate anything in their day to day duties, etc etc etc...just like happens now with EXPRES.  Much to the dislike of most CA folks, it is a fitness test/evaluation vice a bonafide battle fitness test. 

So, I will point the blame on this problem to a thing called "Unification".   >:D

Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: George Wallace on December 05, 2012, 10:44:52
And such is the facts of life with military fitness regimes.   At one time this was the cutting edge in physical fitness programs, highly respected around the world:
  5BX (http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~korpe/tt/5bx_plan.pdf) (for men)
10BX (http://nonprofit.memlane.com/cc40sar/fitness/XBX.pdf) (for women)

Fitness programs, like technology, are constantly being changed, adapted, improved, etc. evolving constantly.  Someone always has a "better way", but as Eye In The Sky says, nothing will suit "everyone".  There will always be someone who will require a Hurt Feelings Report (http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/legalfiles/gates_letter_sept09/attach_1.pdf).   >:D
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: signalsguy on December 05, 2012, 11:42:27
This is what always happens when we introduce change - with fitness, everyone is an expert and everyone has biases: PSP sucks, units need to run their own testing, the Cooper's test is the best because DHTC uses it.

Well,

PSP - PSP doesn't work in a vacuum and make their own decisions. They are part of CMP and are directed to pursue these projects. Project FORCE was agreed to by all of the L1s over a year ago, and it will be THE standard for the CF. PSP itself is full of highly educated, motivated and skilled people. PSP R&D is full of PhDs working on this stuff - they are not making it up, it is based on scientific research. Incidentally, I understand that with Project FORCE, the CF is way out in front of the world's miltaries in the realm of BFOR based fitness testing. This is cutting edge. Don't knock PSP because you may have had a bad experience at the base gym.

Unit testing - I have seen cheating with my own eyes during BFT. Soldiers get out of the cas evac or the trench dig because their buddies look the other way. PSP is a 3rd party with not horse in the race so to speak, they don't care if you pass or fail - they just want the test to be done. If there is a way to guarantee that units will conduct the testing honestly and ethically, then no problem but... how do you enforce this?

Cooper's Test - Yes DHTC uses the Cooper's test for some fitness testing. The don't use it for a maintenance standard for the assaulters though. The Cooper's test is a good measure of overall fitness, measuring strength and muscular endurance and cardiovascular fitness. Its a gut check and using it as a 'gatekeeper' test is a good idea. Its not the be-all and end-all though. Look at the SAR techs - the SAR selection test is different from the SAR maintenance standard... the maint standard is a BFOR test. So, feel free to use the Cooper's test to gauge the fitness of your troops - COs can order the troops to do whatever fitness testing they feel like but in the end its the CF standard that counts.

In my opinion, the impact of this new testing will be positive. Failures are going to happen and CF members are going to have to get their heads out and get fit. Hopeully units will get away from the 'lets go for a run' mentatility and will focus on FUNCTIONAL fitness. As RoyalDrew stated, getting people to muscle up would have a huge impact on fitness and health issues. Introducing things like more body awareness, functional movement assesment and improved nutritional coaching could add tremendous follow on effects to the changes from testing.

Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jarnhamar on December 05, 2012, 13:23:32
To play devil's advocate for a moment (and I will admit my bias since my wife is PSP), the benefit that PSP bring is that they are outside the CoC. Going to unit-level testers brings about the possibility of rank-, peer- and "buddy"-pressure applied to the testers. I personally hear stories of some members trying to pull rank on PSP to add a point to their handgrip score in order to obtain a pass

On the same note I've seen civilian PSP staff jack up soldiers for not trying hard enough- including approaching a soldiers platoon WO to tell him so and so wasn't trying hard enough. 
The soldier was doing rucksack PT circuit training with 50+lbs in the bag and the PSP staff was hoping in and out of exercises with a rucksack that was ridiculously lighter (and got offended when someone checked).

I've personally came across two very different standards of pull ups (which meant a pass and fail) from PSP staff who work in the same group.




I can't articulate why very well but the feeling I get from what I've read of this new test is that it will lower the overall standard that soldiers must achieve to be soldiers. It just doesn't seem that difficult at first glance.   I hope I'm wrong, if smarter-than-me people say it's good to go then that's that.    Maybe I'm just being negative because I figure  I'll probably get stuck filling all the sandbags  ;D
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: jwtg on December 05, 2012, 14:09:27
At the risk of ruffling a few feathers, I'll go ahead and say that my favorite part of this is the uniformity of the standard.

We expect everything to be done based on fairness, with no eye to age or gender, so fitness tests should be no different. 
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: WestCoaster on December 05, 2012, 14:30:14
On the same note I've seen civilian PSP staff jack up soldiers for not trying hard enough- including approaching a soldiers platoon WO to tell him so and so wasn't trying hard enough. 
The soldier was doing rucksack PT circuit training with 50+lbs in the bag and the PSP staff was hoping in and out of exercises with a rucksack that was ridiculously lighter (and got offended when someone checked).

I've personally came across two very different standards of pull ups (which meant a pass and fail) from PSP staff who work in the same group.
Very true. I definitely don't paint all PSP instructors with the same brush. I have seen my share of poor ones as well. As for the different standards, this is more of an organizational issue than personnel. At a few bases, the instructors will actually talk about standards, and hold training sessions to try to get their standards to match. It doesn't always work, but helps to even things out a bit. It's something that CF instructors in general should do more often as well (just my  :2c: after a school posting).
I do hope that this new testing does away with the judgment issues that the EXPRES test had. It appears that it does with cut-and-dry timings. I always felt that EXPRES was pretty simple and way too easy (and that's coming from a Navy guy!). We need something to be the minimum threshold, and whatever test it is, there will always be those that grumble about it, either that it is too easy or too hard.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: jollyjacktar on December 05, 2012, 18:21:41
The researchers looked across their data (which was based on a sample of 666 CF members, with a mix of environments, ages and occupations) and identified a set of tests that have good correlations to the common military tasks.

Ah ha!  I thought this test had a bit of the Devil's doing in it somewhere...  ;)
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Duckman54 on December 05, 2012, 18:47:42
Wow...  lotsa good input here.

I'm an applicant, not an active member, but I do kinda know what I'm speaking about as a registered Kinesiologist with 15+ yrs experience.  (not 22, no yoga pants! lol)

Bottom line, from what I've read in this whole post, is there's WAY too much fussin' going on here about WHAT exactly will be tested, and HOW, and by WHOM, and WHERE this applies in daily military life, and what research it's based on...  Or what kinda 'Shovelling Simulator' we need to build to practice, etc...   

Just plain SILLY!

Don't worry, don't stress, who cares anyway?  If you wanna succeed, TRAIN!  Go running, work on strength, work on stamina, work on flexibilty...  and the rest will just kinda magically come around on it's own, REGARDLESS of the specific test in use that day, at that (field?) location, that year.  U think they really care how fast you can build a sandbag bunker, and not fast enough you're kicked out? Highly doubt it.   But they most certainly DO expect a minimum fitness level to be acheived (and hopefully maintained!) by all members of the Forces.

I'm gonna out on a limb here and guess that IF you can run 2.4km in 12mins or better, and IF you can do 40 pushups straight (or whatever #), and X situps, and X chinups, etc, etc... then you'll be just fine at whatever task they throw at you. They (people) and they (tests) just ensure you have a minimum of endurance, upper body strength, etc, in order to get by when called upon. Not rocket science.

People tend to analyze things to death, and these 5 pages certainly qualify at that! Some of you Gen-X-er's may recognize the term 'Cross-Training'. Get off the couch, go do something active...  younger, older, guys and gals...  you'll do fine.

'Greg.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: daftandbarmy on December 05, 2012, 18:51:44
Wow...  lotsa good input here.

I'm an applicant, not an active member, but I do kinda know what I'm speaking about as a registered Kinesiologist with 15+ yrs experience.  (not 22, no yoga pants! lol)

Bottom line, from what I've read in this whole post, is there's WAY too much fussin' going on here about WHAT exactly will be tested, and HOW, and by WHOM, and WHERE this applies in daily military life, and what research it's based on...  Or what kinda 'Shovelling Simulator' we need to build to practice, etc...   

Just plain SILLY!

Don't worry, don't stress, who cares anyway?  If you wanna succeed, TRAIN!  Go running, work on strength, work on stamina, work on flexibilty...  and the rest will just kinda magically come around on it's own, REGARDLESS of the specific test in use that day, at that (field?) location, that year.  U think they really care how fast you can build a sandbag bunker, and not fast enough you're kicked out? Highly doubt it.   But they most certainly DO expect a minimum fitness level to be acheived (and hopefully maintained!) by all members of the Forces.

I'm gonna out on a limb here and guess that IF you can run 2.4km in 12mins or better, and IF you can do 40 pushups straight (or whatever #), and X situps, and X chinups, etc, etc... then you'll be just fine at whatever task they throw at you. They (people) and they (tests) just ensure you have a minimum of endurance, upper body strength, etc, in order to get by when called upon. Not rocket science.

People tend to analyze things to death, and these 5 pages certainly qualify at that! Some of you Gen-X-er's may recognize the term 'Cross-Training'. Get off the couch, go do something active...  younger, older, guys and gals...  you'll do fine.

'Greg.

Have you got any idea how many empires you've just toppled? Good heavens man, get a grip on yourself.  ;D
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jarnhamar on December 05, 2012, 19:20:57
Wow...  lotsa good input here.

I'm an applicant, not an active member, but I do kinda know what I'm speaking about as a registered Kinesiologist with 15+ yrs experience.  (not 22, no yoga pants! lol)

Bottom line, from what I've read in this whole post, is there's WAY too much fussin' going on here about WHAT exactly will be tested, and HOW, and by WHOM, and WHERE this applies in daily military life, and what research it's based on...  Or what kinda 'Shovelling Simulator' we need to build to practice, etc...   

Just plain SILLY!

Don't worry, don't stress, who cares anyway?  If you wanna succeed, TRAIN!  Go running, work on strength, work on stamina, work on flexibilty...  and the rest will just kinda magically come around on it's own, REGARDLESS of the specific test in use that day, at that (field?) location, that year.  U think they really care how fast you can build a sandbag bunker, and not fast enough you're kicked out? Highly doubt it.   But they most certainly DO expect a minimum fitness level to be acheived (and hopefully maintained!) by all members of the Forces.

I'm gonna out on a limb here and guess that IF you can run 2.4km in 12mins or better, and IF you can do 40 pushups straight (or whatever #), and X situps, and X chinups, etc, etc... then you'll be just fine at whatever task they throw at you. They (people) and they (tests) just ensure you have a minimum of endurance, upper body strength, etc, in order to get by when called upon. Not rocket science.

People tend to analyze things to death, and these 5 pages certainly qualify at that! Some of you Gen-X-er's may recognize the term 'Cross-Training'. Get off the couch, go do something active...  younger, older, guys and gals...  you'll do fine.

'Greg.
Hi Greg.

Serious questions.

Did this thread come across to you as people complaining that this test would be too hard and we feared we wouldn't be able to make it?

Are you suggesting that HOW this test is administered (A test which may very well reflect someones promotion, OR whether they are released from the military) isn't important?

Are you suggesting WHO administers this test likewise isn't important?  So in essence whether someone is being evaluated by a Kinesiologist with 15 years experience or someone with 2 days of "fitness training" isn't really important?

Do you think in the military the amount of time it takes "someone to build a sandbag bunker" is not really as important as just getting out and doing it?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on December 05, 2012, 20:01:40
Project FORCE was to have been briefed to Armed Forces Council today.  This should set this thread on a whole new tangent in a day or so.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Eye In The Sky on December 05, 2012, 20:39:00
Not to start a derail, but what happened to the environment-specific requirements?  IIRC, there was a CANAIRGEN out in 09 or so about the AF developing a test for AF or Air Ops types.  That was dropped?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PMedMoe on December 05, 2012, 20:40:08
Not to start a derail, but what happened to the environment-specific requirements?  IIRC, there was a CANAIRGEN out in 09 or so about the AF developing a test for AF or Air Ops types.  That was dropped?

Probably, because apparently, since Afghanistan, only the Army is important.   ;)
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on December 05, 2012, 21:24:12
Not to start a derail, but what happened to the environment-specific requirements?  IIRC, there was a CANAIRGEN out in 09 or so about the AF developing a test for AF or Air Ops types.  That was dropped?

Once the research began and the results started to show the linkage to the common tasks, the RCAF bought into the FORCE test as being applicable to them. I have heard that the RCAF have decided to retain the services of PSP for the FORCE test.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Dolphin_Hunter on December 05, 2012, 22:29:53
Probably, because apparently, since Afghanistan, only the Army is important.   ;)

And just how did the Army get to Afghanistan? 


Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Ditch on December 05, 2012, 22:30:44
BFT completion = 2 points on PER board
Pass EXPress = 1 point
Exempt EXpress = 2 points
FORCE pass = ??
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PMedMoe on December 05, 2012, 22:36:17
Probably, because apparently, since Afghanistan, only the Army is important.   ;) <-----------

And just how did the Army get to Afghanistan?

 ::)
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on December 05, 2012, 22:48:32
BFT completion = 2 points on PER board
Pass EXPress = 1 point
Exempt EXpress = 2 points
FORCE pass = ??

My understanding is that the new rules will see zero points for physical fitness on PERs.

But no valid fitness test in the year will mean your file will not be seen by the merit boards.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Duckman54 on December 05, 2012, 22:52:13
No, Obedientwhateverguy...   NOT claiming this test isn't important whatsoever. Fitness *IS* important, especially in this line of work, and related ones (Fire-Rescue, SAR, Law Enforcement, etc).

Just that all the back-n-forth, especially earlier in the thread, about the specifics of what will/should be tested, and how to train for it, came across to me as trivial. 

Kinda reminded me of an old Sesame Street skit...  "Gee Burt, I don't know how to count blocks, I only know how to count oranges!"
Ya know?  Getting hung up on details, not really seeing the end goal.

What I was saying is that people shouldn't get so hung up on the minute details of the test, or what apparatus one should train on...  just do something physical. I've got enough experience to confidently profess your body don't know if it's lifting sandbags or barbells...  Just go lift something repeatedly and upper body strength will increase..... No?  Same with running. Just go.  Don't worry if next year's test is 2.4 km, or 10 km, or a 13 km march with a ruck...  just do some kinda aerobic exercise regularly, and stamina WILL improve. If you can't get your heart rate up to about double it's resting rate, and keep it there for at least 20 mins few times per week, my sincere condolences to your wife/partner. Better stop on way home and get Costco pack of batteries for her.

Bottom line is, we don't need to train the precise test, just need to train. Don't fret the details...

THAT was my point that was apparently missed. NEVER meant to belittle consequences of pass/fail on one's career.

Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on December 05, 2012, 22:53:13
And just how did the Army get to Afghanistan?

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fb%2Fb5%2FPolet_Airlines_An-124_RA-82075_in_flight_28-Jul-2011.jpg%2F300px-Polet_Airlines_An-124_RA-82075_in_flight_28-Jul-2011.jpg&hash=bf5de540faf83769aca63bbc1e8b0b77)
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Infanteer on December 05, 2012, 23:05:40
No, Obedientwhateverguy...   

Easy there, 4 post guy.

The Staff.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on December 05, 2012, 23:20:32
But no valid fitness test in the year will mean your file will not be seen by the merit boards.

And this means either of:

Failed; or
Not tested for other than medical reasons.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jarnhamar on December 05, 2012, 23:48:29
No, Obedientwhateverguy...
;)
Quote
Just that all the back-n-forth, especially earlier in the thread, about the specifics of what will/should be tested, and how to train for it, came across to me as trivial.
That's fair you're entitled to your opinion and being a Kinesiologist with 15 years experience you must know a lot about this stuff. 
How much exposure have you had to the military and types of training, injuries fitness and training goals we have?

Quote
Kinda reminded me of an old Sesame Street skit...  "Gee Burt, I don't know how to count blocks, I only know how to count oranges!"
Ya know?  Getting hung up on details, not really seeing the end goal.
Okay but what about stacking oranges compared to blocks?  The temperature you're going to store them. What types of oranges.
That may seem silly but throughout your future military career minor seemingly unimportant details will become very important my friend.


Quote
Same with running. Just go.  Don't worry if next year's test is 2.4 km, or 10 km, or a 13 km march with a ruck...  just do some kinda aerobic exercise regularly, and stamina WILL improve.
So you're saying if a recruit or someone goes for a light 2.4km jog a few times a week then they will have no problems completing a timed force march wearing helmet, rifle vest and rucksack with weight in it?  How many 13KM marchs with rucks have you done out of curiosity?  In my  experience you get better at rucksack marches by marching with rucksacks.  Just 'doing something' helps but it doesn't train someone to succeed and I've seen people fail tests (physical, practical, knowledge) because of just that.

Quote
THAT was my point that was apparently missed. NEVER meant to belittle consequences of pass/fail on one's career.
Maybe I took the context of your post wrong, if so I apologize. It just sounded like someone with no military experience was calling the input and concerns of experienced serving  and retired members silly.


Edited for grammar and added content.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: canada94 on December 06, 2012, 00:02:34
These Ideas seem unique. As an outsider looking in, I always found it odd that organizations such as police, EMS, military etc... Have different  physical standards between genders, considering they are asked to complete the same tasks.

The idea of the testing really intrigues me regarding my occasional tendinitis I get from the CF style push ups while working out at my local gym.  (the more triceps orientated type)
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Tank Troll on December 06, 2012, 09:35:53
Does any one know if this new test to be done in FFO or PT strip?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: AmmoTech90 on December 06, 2012, 09:44:19
Does any one know if this new test to be done in FFO or PT strip?

Considering it is a CF test and not everyone has combats, let alone FFO, I would say PT strip.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Eye In The Sky on December 06, 2012, 10:04:56
Once the research began and the results started to show the linkage to the common tasks, the RCAF bought into the FORCE test as being applicable to them. I have heard that the RCAF have decided to retain the services of PSP for the FORCE test.

Rgr, tks!
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: gelan on December 13, 2012, 17:12:12
Anyone have details on this new test? I've heard some folks are being tested with it now.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: jollyjacktar on December 13, 2012, 17:29:19
Anyone have details on this new test? I've heard some folks are being tested with it now.
I was at the gym the other day and listened to the PSP staff explain the upcoming tests with some folks. 

They said that the intention and desire is to have everyone attempt the new test next year.  If you pass, great, you won't need to do the 20 MSR.  If you fail, it won't be counted against you and you can still do the 20 MSR for your fitness test.  They want everyone to get a feel for the new test before it counts.  They did describe the tests and it is what has already been posted here.

After next year, everyone will have to do the new test and the 20 MSR will no longer be an option.  I didn't hear them speak of any exempt levels of accomplishment so I don't know if it will be a yearly thing or not.  And yes, they did confirm that there is no age, sex difference for standards.  We are all equal in that respect.  The PSP folks were already in discussion on the new tests when I came into earshot so I may have missed a detail or two.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on December 13, 2012, 17:41:29
Considering it is a CF test and not everyone has combats, let alone FFO, I would say PT strip.
Adding PPE & load carriage would raise the threshold of the test, so it would not be possible to do the test in FFO and claim it to be the same thing.  But, from Army Combats to NCDs, everyone does have some for of operational clothing.  As the new test reflects tasks that would have to be done in operational clothing, it would seem appropriate to do the test in that clothing.

If we are smart, the option will be left open for the chain of command to decide between operational clothing or PT clothing because that will not be the difference on a pass or fail. 
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MikeL on December 13, 2012, 17:42:27
I heard the same thing as jollyjacktar from the PSP here,  with the addition of there will no longer be anyone getting exempt.  The test will be done every year.  Also,  the units will run their own tests with PSP overlooking it to ensure standards, etc.


As well it seems like they(PSP) are unsure of what the standards will be at this time.  Not sure if it will replace the BFT for Army units,  or if we will do both tests.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on December 14, 2012, 10:58:22
If we are smart, the option will be left open for the chain of command to decide between operational clothing or PT clothing because that will not be the difference on a pass or fail.

If we are smart, one standard will be set for dress and I would guess that it would be PT kit. 

There is significant difference between running the loaded shuttle or rushes in combat boots, sea boots or running shoes.  Not everyone has operational clothing in the RCN or RCAF, particularly those not posted to deployable units.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: airmich on December 15, 2012, 09:05:25
When I was a guinea pig for the Project, our group brought up a critique about apparel.  On day one, when we were first given an introduction and trial for the different events, we conducted the sandbag drag in combats.  When we did the actual testing for it, we were in PT gear.  Being that the drag was done walking backwards on top of exercise mats, we found that we did not have much grip or ankle support in our runners compared to our boots.  It was harder to dig in with your heels while leaning backwards while pulling at the weight.  Hopefully they have taken some of that into account, even if they at least take away the mats.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: jollyjacktar on December 15, 2012, 11:22:41
For me it's the 20 meter rush test.  I'm damned if I can visualize my completing that GD test in the allotted time.  For the older beasts out there like me, how did they seem to fair with the up and down nonsense?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: airmich on December 15, 2012, 11:32:42
For me it's the 20 meter rush test.  I'm damned if I can visualize my completing that GD test in the allotted time.  For the older beasts out there like me, how did they seem to fair with the up and down nonsense?

I was wondering about the time on that one too.  The info that was posted earlier said 51 secs for it.  I couldn't find what my trial time was for this, but I'm going to keep looking for it.  This seems a bit fast though.  Not so much for the running itself but definitely for getting down and up!
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: jollyjacktar on December 15, 2012, 11:53:23
How did you find that test in practice?  I know I need some tinfoil but it seems to me with these new tests that they're setting up many people for a mass cull when they don't make the timings and get multiple fails.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on December 15, 2012, 12:20:01
How did you find that test in practice?  I know I need some tinfoil but it seems to me with these new tests that they're setting up many people for a mass cull when they don't make the timings and get multiple fails.
perhaps the new test is not a sign that "they" are setting conditions for mass failure.  Suggesting something nefarious is silly.  Instead, perhaps the "sticker shock" at this new test is a sign that the old test itself was too easy and as a result unable to identify many pers who lacked the physical ability to perform the common tasks.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: jollyjacktar on December 15, 2012, 12:40:50
perhaps the new test is not a sign that "they" are setting conditions for mass failure.  Suggesting something nefarious is silly.  Instead, perhaps the "sticker shock" at this new test is a sign that the old test itself was too easy and as a result unable to identify many pers who lacked the physical ability to perform the common tasks.
And that is why I said I needed some tinfoil.  Because those who need tinfoil are clearly not to be taken seriously as life is usually not a conspiracy.  I think   :Tin-Foil-Hat:
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: airmich on December 15, 2012, 12:41:24
How did you find that test in practice? 

Personally, I enjoyed the new activties at the trial.  There was more of a purpose to them, and I found that I was pushing myself more to lift a sandbag faster, or add one more to the drag to see what I could actually do.  Out of the original list that we trialled, the ones that they have picked to test do not seem like anything outrageous, regardless of age or gender.  I trust that with the broad range of guinea pigs that they used, that they found that medium by which to test on.

Will some find it too easy?  Definitely!  But there will still be those that have difficulty with it.  Seems the same with any of the tests that we have now or have had previously.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: jollyjacktar on December 15, 2012, 15:01:47
Thanks for the input Michelle.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on December 15, 2012, 23:49:52
Personally, I enjoyed the new activties at the trial.  There was more of a purpose to them, and I found that I was pushing myself more to lift a sandbag faster, or add one more to the drag to see what I could actually do.  Out of the original list that we trialled, the ones that they have picked to test do not seem like anything outrageous, regardless of age or gender.  I trust that with the broad range of guinea pigs that they used, that they found that medium by which to test on.

Will some find it too easy?  Definitely!  But there will still be those that have difficulty with it.  Seems the same with any of the tests that we have now or have had previously.

This was my experience as both a Phase III and IV lab rat. The test is sufficiently different from the EXPRESs that there will be trepidation from many in regards to the challenges it presents.  Are the standards artificially high?  I don't think so.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ekpiper on December 16, 2012, 00:10:23
This somehow seems fitting.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.afblues.com%2Fwordpress%2Fcomics%2F2007-11-02.jpg&hash=a621888dbe0c4915c3b2db11f0136225)
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: airmich on December 20, 2012, 13:47:53
http://vimeo.com/54119198 (http://vimeo.com/54119198)

Project FORCE - for review


Shows what some of the initial trials and tests were and you also get a glimpse of what is going to be the new testing.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ARMY_101 on December 20, 2012, 21:53:09
http://vimeo.com/54119198 (http://vimeo.com/54119198)

Project FORCE - for review


Shows what some of the initial trials and tests were and you also get a glimpse of what is going to be the new testing.

I gather they have the four tasks, which we can see them perform, but any specifics on the weight, length, height, etc. of each task?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on December 20, 2012, 22:03:59
I gather they have the four tasks, which we can see them perform, but any specifics on the weight, length, height, etc. of each task?

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,106313.msg1192898.html#msg1192898
Title: New Express Test
Post by: Sic Itur Ad Astra on January 04, 2013, 12:51:24
Has anyone seen anything further on anticipated Express Test changes coming? I've only heard rumours.
Title: Re: New Express Test
Post by: kratz on January 04, 2013, 13:00:15
Have you searched the site (http://forums.navy.ca/forums/index.php/topic,106313.150.html) or used Google?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Sic Itur Ad Astra on January 04, 2013, 16:21:01
Newby here - apologies for not doing so beforehand.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: airmich on January 07, 2013, 21:42:23
I've had the question asked of me, and since I do not know the answer, I thought I would post it here.  Is anyone aware when/how/if the new testing will be implemented for BMQ/BMOQ?
Title: New Fitness Test Details FY 13
Post by: maclawa on January 08, 2013, 14:36:05
Hey all!

This year the below will be the new fitness test for the CF, this year only you will have the choice of doing this, or the Express test and there will be no more exemptions. It is Pass or Fail.

I had a chance to perform this the day after my last Express test in December 6 days after approval and they were taking our data and possibly modifying it by increasing time or lowering times.
For the 20m Rushes, I finished with 7 seconds left, our top person finished with 10 seconds left, and we werent even sprinting. I expect this one to be increased in time.

But here it is!

Sand Bag Lift   std: 3 min 30 s
30 consecutive lifts of a 20 kg sand bag to a height of 91 cm, alternating between left and right sand bags separated by 1.25 m.

Loaded Shuttles    std: 5 min 21 s
Using the 20 m lines, complete ten 20 m shuttles alternating between a loaded shuttle with a 20 kg sand bag and unloaded shuttles, for a total of 400 m.

20m Rushes   std: 51 s
Starting from prone, complete two 20 m shuttles sprints dropping to a prone position every 10m, for a total of 80 m.

Sand Bag Pull   std: complete
Carry one 20 kg sandbag and pull four on the floor over 20 m without stopping.



Have fun!



Please note I do not know if this will be implemented in BMQ
Title: Re: New Fitness Test Details FY 13
Post by: Montrealer10 on January 08, 2013, 14:43:37
How would you rate it compared to the Express test? Harder or easier?
Title: Re: New Fitness Test Details FY 13
Post by: maclawa on January 08, 2013, 14:49:15
I do weights and MMA daily so I found it easy mode, our Crossfitters found it easy as well.

The only section I think people will have an issue would be the 20m rushes mainly due to getting up and down every 10 meters, especially people with bellies lol. And that would be why I think they need to increase that section by about 5-10 seconds.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Kibagami on January 10, 2013, 18:46:01
I do weights and MMA daily so I found it easy mode, our Crossfitters found it easy as well.

The only section I think people will have an issue would be the 20m rushes mainly due to getting up and down every 10 meters, especially people with bellies lol. And that would be why I think they need to increase that section by about 5-10 seconds.

Can't they just use there bellies to bounce back up?  ;D
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: airmich on January 10, 2013, 21:27:56
A question that was asked at work today: is the step-test staying around, or will those people be doing the new testing too?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: daftandbarmy on January 12, 2013, 00:20:36
While I'm happy we've finally developed a fitness test for 'everyone', I think we're in trouble if we merely declare victory and move on from here.

The next step is to create something that will prepare us for battle. This test is a good start, but we still need something that will successfully get us past the Assembly Area (with 80lbs of ammo on our back and a bayonet fixed rifle in our hands) and on into the enemy trenches, and beyond.

Does anyone know if something like that is in the works?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: signalsguy on January 12, 2013, 09:35:27
The Army was working on something but seem to have scrapped it in favour of Project FORCE. As far as I know,  the Army's PSP position has been axed so who knows what is going to happen now. Some modification of the BFT? They probably need a combat/assault specific test like the USMC or Army.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 12, 2013, 10:56:38
A question that was asked at work today: is the step-test staying around, or will those people be doing the new testing too?

Excellent question.  What about the Fire Fighters as well?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on January 12, 2013, 13:02:27
[The Army] probably need a combat/assault specific test like the USMC or Army.
The last time the Army had its own test (that being right now) it was easier for a lot of fat, unfit pers.  We do not need our own test, but it may be worth having an Army bolt-on extension to the CF test.  One would do the CF test and then immeadeatly pick-up a ruck and do the BFT march.

I would actually like to see all the CF tests conducted at the finish line of the march, but if pers do not start fresh on the CF tests then I could see someone successfully grieving that the standard was changed and they should not be penalized as having not met the CF standard.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on January 12, 2013, 13:19:52
Excellent question.  What about the Fire Fighters as well?

Occupations with a demonstrated, bona-fide operational requirement will continue to test to an occupation-specific standard.

Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: daftandbarmy on January 12, 2013, 17:36:57
The last time the Army had its own test (that being right now) it was easier for a lot of fat, unfit pers.  We do not need our own test, but it may be worth having an Army bolt-on extension to the CF test.  One would do the CF test and then immeadeatly pick-up a ruck and do the BFT march.

I would actually like to see all the CF tests conducted at the finish line of the march, but if pers do not start fresh on the CF tests then I could see someone successfully grieving that the standard was changed and they should not be penalized as having not met the CF standard.

Of course... the 'whiner' elelment - I'd forgotten about thet. We wouldn't want the poor dears to be properly physically prepared to actually engage successfully in the toughest and least forgiving  team sport in the world: ground combat.  ::)

I'm arguing that the BFT is not adequate for that kind of preparation either. We need a good rethink of what the Infantry - and those who must work with the Infantry - need to do to be prepared physically for their job 'up to and beyond the LD' and get that program into place too. If we don't, we risk individual units, and various self-appointed combat fitness 'experts', coming up with stuff that is more in line with your average hazing ritual i.e., not scientific, relevant, appropriate, corporately sponsored and supported, or 'legal'.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: signalsguy on January 12, 2013, 20:27:50
The last time the Army had its own test (that being right now) it was easier for a lot of fat, unfit pers.  We do not need our own test, but it may be worth having an Army bolt-on extension to the CF test.  One would do the CF test and then immeadeatly pick-up a ruck and do the BFT march.

I would actually like to see all the CF tests conducted at the finish line of the march, but if pers do not start fresh on the CF tests then I could see someone successfully grieving that the standard was changed and they should not be penalized as having not met the CF standard.

Agreed, I should have been more clear: The Army needs an environmental/operational test of some kind, in addition to the Project FORCE standard test. I have heard that a modified BFT style forced march was being looked at: less distance - 5 km,  wearing armour with plates and full combat load so likely more weight.

This 'test' could be part of IBTS or whatever we call it now, or part of the deployment checklist but shouldn't be confused with the fitness test.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on January 12, 2013, 22:38:25
Agreed, I should have been more clear: The Army needs an environmental/operational test of some kind, in addition to the Project FORCE standard test. I have heard that a modified BFT style forced march was being looked at: less distance - 5 km,  wearing armour with plates and full combat load so likely more weight.

Define "full combat load"? The Infantry load? CSS? Armour?

This 'test' could be part of IBTS or whatever we call it now, or part of the deployment checklist but shouldn't be confused with the fitness test.
  The BFT is part of the deployment checklist now.  Why re-invent the wheel?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: medicineman on January 13, 2013, 11:40:11
Agreed, I should have been more clear: The Army needs an environmental/operational test of some kind, in addition to the Project FORCE standard test. I have heard that a modified BFT style forced march was being looked at: less distance - 5 km,  wearing armour with plates and full combat load so likely more weight.

This 'test' could be part of IBTS or whatever we call it now, or part of the deployment checklist but shouldn't be confused with the fitness test.

Or go back to 2 mile run we did in the Warrior Training days - 2 miles in full battle order under 24 minutes IIRC.  New combat boots have much nicer soles for running in than before.

As Haggis pointed out, what defines a combat load?  Are you planning on making different standardized weight requirements depending on your trade or where you work - a Carl G team for instance has a very different combat load than Number One Rifleman or a supply tech in a service batallion or a radio operator or a medic...

 :2c:

MM

Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: signalsguy on January 13, 2013, 12:57:15
Make up some baseline load. Or, make a CSS standard and a combat arms standard. I don't think its that hard to come up with something. It doesn't need to be specialized.

Alternatively, ditch it all together and just use the fitness test - I don't think this is a good approach but hey, no test will ever satisfy everyone...
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Infanteer on January 13, 2013, 14:12:28
"Combat load" generally means carrying too much stuff.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Container on January 15, 2013, 16:12:51
I was speaking with psp about this morning while doing my pt test. They indicated that its a go for April 1st. But it's still unclear how its going to affect the reserves and the bft. It really seemed like there is as many questions right now as there is "for sures"
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Buck_HRA on January 16, 2013, 01:02:20
PSP doesn't fail anyone on PT test.  The person being tested fails themself.

Edit: Tense

Derailing a bit but that statement is not always true - a number of years ago ('06 time period I think) I failed my PT test because of push-ups - 4 weeks prior to when I supposed to go on PLQ.  Luckily I was able to waive the 6 month waiting period and redo my test 2 weeks later and passed with flying colours (with no additional training).  I had injured my shoulder just months prior in a roll over car accident and my shoulder hadn't totally strengthened again - first PSP staff and second PSP staff had different standards (the second PSP staff was the PSP supervisor for the region).

As a Navy guy who's done the BFT (and trained for Nijmegen) the BFT isn't a great indicator of fitness, but neither is the express, my shoulder is still not as strong as it used to be, but I can could definitely do the new tasks where as push ups are always a concern of mine - I'm looking forward to trying FORCE.

Question for those part of the test project:
1.   Sandbag lift
Time 3min 30 secs
Setup two 20kg Sandbag 1.25m apart.  Lift bag 91cm off the ground drop it and repeat with bag that is 1.25m apart
Repeat a total of 30 times

Is that that you're lifting the bag a total of 30 times, or you're doing the rotation a total of 30 times (i.e. lifting 60 times in total)?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PuckChaser on January 16, 2013, 02:36:01
Sounds like each pair of lift and drop is a rep, and you do 30 reps (60 individual lifts), but someone who has completed the test can clarify.

I'm interested to see how this test differs as well, as I'm coming off a serious knee surgery and this will definitely gauge my ability to return to full duty or not. Is EXPRES still be offered until 1 Apr 13, or is PSP trying to push FORCE before that date for everyone?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Buck_HRA on January 16, 2013, 02:50:38
I read a briefing PPT from 4 Wg Cold Lake and it says that FY 13/14 you'll still be able to do the EXPRES test.

Source:
http://www.cg.cfpsa.ca/cg-pc/ColdLake/EN/FitnessandSports/MilitaryFitness/Documents/Project%20FORCE.ppt    (Slide 14)

Edit: In previous posts there were questions about exemption with the new test - I have noticed slide 12 mentions an exemption program and in the notes it states there will likely be a basic pass, then bronze, silver and gold exemption (although it does state it will likely be a yearly test).
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: daftandbarmy on January 16, 2013, 13:07:17
Or go back to 2 mile run we did in the Warrior Training days - 2 miles in full battle order under 24 minutes IIRC.  New combat boots have much nicer soles for running in than before.

As Haggis pointed out, what defines a combat load?  Are you planning on making different standardized weight requirements depending on your trade or where you work - a Carl G team for instance has a very different combat load than Number One Rifleman or a supply tech in a service batallion or a radio operator or a medic...

 :2c:

MM

There are a few other organizations out there who seem to have had it figured out for decades. It wouldn't take much to do a comparison of 'world class' battle fitness tests and adapt/adopt soemthing that would work for the F (Footborne) Ech in the CF:

Viz: http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_02/iss_2/CAJ_vol2.2_07_e.pdf

Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: medicineman on January 16, 2013, 14:45:06
There are a few other organizations out there who seem to have had it figured out for decades. It wouldn't take much to do a comparison of 'world class' battle fitness tests and adapt/adopt something that would work for the F (Footborne) Ech in the CF:

Viz: http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_02/iss_2/CAJ_vol2.2_07_e.pdf

But it wouldn't be Canadian and where would all the grant money go that was to be spent on a Canadian one if you bought off the shelf?

 :sarcasm:

MM
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: signalsguy on January 16, 2013, 20:03:03
DRDC in Toronto has a test that they are working on for human factors testing of load carrying equipment, armour, helmets etc. It could be adapted as a 'combat readiness' test with little effort. Some board members may have been involved in recent test runs there.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: medicineman on January 17, 2013, 15:00:14
Cool - they doing trials outside the labs yet?  You wouldn't per chance have any info links?  I'd be interested in reading what they're doing actually.

MM
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: daftandbarmy on January 17, 2013, 18:51:11
Cool - they doing trials outside the labs yet?  You wouldn't per chance have any info links?  I'd be interested in reading what they're doing actually.

MM

I hope they bring back some digging, like one of those previous tests we had that didn't go anywhere. It reminded me of one of my favourite movies, in a good way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wi4W2ATGAs

 ;D
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: airmich on January 29, 2013, 10:41:55
http://vimeo.com/54119198 (http://vimeo.com/54119198)

Project FORCE - for review


Shows what some of the initial trials and tests were and you also get a glimpse of what is going to be the new testing.

Does anyone have a VIMEO account?  Now when you try to view this video, it comes up with:

Quote
Permission Denied
This is a private video. Do you have permission to watch it? If you do, please first log in to Vimeo to watch this video.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: GnyHwy on January 29, 2013, 15:53:55
I am curious what will happen to exempt status?  It seems it is going away, and because the old express had it, it could be considered equal to BFT.  Now that FORCE will not have exempt, it only makes sense that BFT will lose exempt also.

OMG, what will they do will that extra point?   :o
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: TwoTonShackle on January 29, 2013, 16:07:01
I am curious what will happen to exempt status?  It seems it is going away, and because the old express had it, it could be considered equal to BFT.  Now that FORCE will not have exempt, it only makes sense that BFT will lose exempt also.

OMG, what will they do will that extra point?   :o

The extra point will be given to those who are competent in their element's third most used language:

Army - Arabic, for Middle East Operations
Navy - Spanish, for Latin American hailing and interdictions
Air Force - ProShop, for ensure prompt bookings of tee times and golf fees.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: AK on January 31, 2013, 13:29:42

Question for those part of the test project:
1.   Sandbag lift
Time 3min 30 secs
Setup two 20kg Sandbag 1.25m apart.  Lift bag 91cm off the ground drop it and repeat with bag that is 1.25m apart
Repeat a total of 30 times

Is that that you're lifting the bag a total of 30 times, or you're doing the rotation a total of 30 times (i.e. lifting 60 times in total)?

In the trials we lifted the bags 30 times in total.  And although I had lots of time left over, I had no urge to lift more.

Cheers!
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: milnews.ca on March 04, 2013, 16:23:28
It's now official....
Quote
The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, today announced an updated approach to military fitness, officially called the Fitness for Operational Requirement for Canadian Armed Forces Employment (FORCE) Program. This new program more accurately represents the physical demands of military operations in the field, and better predicts a member’s ability to execute tasks directly linked to physical challenges faced in operations.

(....)

The FORCE Program includes two key components: the FORCE Evaluation, which is the new minimum physical fitness standard for Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) personnel and will be replacing the current Canadian Forces EXPRES Test, and the supporting exercise prescription provided through the DFit.ca website. The four FORCE Evaluation components have been designed to accurately test CAF members’ ability to complete the six common military tasks encountered on routine, domestic, and expeditionary operations. All CAF members will be tested annually and will be required to achieve one common minimum standard, regardless of age and gender.

(....)
DND/CF Info-machine, 4 Mar 13 (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4670)

Quote
At the same time the Canadian Forces is trimming its budget, it's also working to trim the waistlines of its personnel.

Obesity and waning fitness levels within the Canadian Forces have dogged the organization for years. Writing in a Forces journal in 2005, Lt.-Col. Michael Goodspeed explained: "There is a visible and growing minority who have allowed themselves to become noticeably overweight. A subset of this group...would be a liability to their comrades and in public, they have become an embarrassment."

Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Tom Lawson were on hand Monday to demonstrate the new FORCE program - a universal fitness standard all Canadian Forces members must meet.

Rather than a simple set of push-ups and chin-ups, the program looked at the toughest activities members could theoretically encounter and designed exercises to meet those demands.

MacKay broke a sweat pulling 130 kg of weights across a gymnasium floor - this simulates having to carry an injured comrade (with all his or her gear) through tough terrain.

Other exercises prepare members for such challenges as escaping to cover, carrying a stretcher, hauling sandbags and extricating vehicles.

The test MacKay demonstrated will be administered annually to every Canadian Forces member. Failure rates are 2% to 3%, and those members must complete additional fitness training programs ....
QMI/Sun Media, 4 Mar 13 (http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/03/20130304-142931.html)
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: daftandbarmy on March 04, 2013, 17:27:16
I find it appropriate that we have adopted an Army fitness test that is run indoors in a nicely heated, well lit, clean, controlled environment (you know - just like an office) which is exactly where we have to fight and win our most important battles.

Oh hang on, almost forgot:

 :sarcasm:
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on March 04, 2013, 17:37:33
Ignorance must be bliss.

(1) This is not an Army fitness test.  It is a CAF fitness test for everyone - all ranks, all trades.

(2) It removes the age and gender differentiation that were present under the old standard, and provides a single standard for all CAF members.

(3) It is not an all-singing, all dancing military fitness stress test.  Rather, it is a series of tests which correlate highly to the genuine military requirements, as defined by CAF experts, that every CF member must be able to achieve.

(4) It is not merely a long, boring stroll carrying weights with little correlation to real world tasks sailors, soldiers and airpeople may be called upon to conduct.

(4) It is intended to be simple, easy to conduct, and relatively quick.  Unlike the infantryman, many CF members are employing their military skills day to day and can't take a week or two away to re-enact the Bataan death marches and call it "Ultimate Warrior Fitness Workout III".

(5) Nothing in this prohibits commanders frm working their troops to a higher standard.

Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Infanteer on March 04, 2013, 18:33:31
As well, it is a reasonable and scientifically validated standard that we can hold individuals responsible for maintaining (and boot them out without a Charter Challenge if they fail to meet it).  We can't have the minimal standard of fitness being the number of <insert exercise here> that the <insert leader here> decides his soldiers should have to achieve.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 04, 2013, 19:36:40
Ignorance must be bliss.

(1) This is not an Army fitness test.  It is a CAF fitness test for everyone - all ranks, all trades.

(2) It removes the age and gender differentiation that were present under the old standard, and provides a single standard for all CAF members.

(3) It is not an all-singing, all dancing military fitness stress test.  Rather, it is a series of tests which correlate highly to the genuine military requirements, as defined by CAF experts, that every CF member must be able to achieve.

(4) It is not merely a long, boring stroll carrying weights with little correlation to real world tasks sailors, soldiers and airpeople may be called upon to conduct.

(4) It is intended to be simple, easy to conduct, and relatively quick.  Unlike the infantryman, many CF members are employing their military skills day to day and can't take a week or two away to re-enact the Bataan death marches and call it "Ultimate Warrior Fitness Workout III".

(5) Nothing in this prohibits commanders frm working their troops to a higher standard.

Great post.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: daftandbarmy on March 04, 2013, 20:01:09
Great post.

Except that 'ignorance is bliss' comment. In my case, it's actually an operational requirement  ;D
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on March 04, 2013, 20:09:11
Except that 'ignorance is bliss' comment. In my case, it's actually an operational requirement  ;D

Well, you are an infantryman after all...


..and that comment was uncalled for - my apologies.  It had been one of those days; and I unfortunately vented at the first target, not the appropriate one...
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on March 04, 2013, 22:32:59
It was nice to see Minister MacKay out challenging the test.  I cannot remember an MND as engaged as he is and, certainly, none of his predecessors would have done what he did today.

The VCDS Group CPO1/CWOs will be doing it on Wednesday as part of the Group Chief's annual conference.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dangerboy on March 04, 2013, 22:45:27
I have done a look at the information and I could not see if it said what the dress is for the test.  Is it PT strip, combats or combats with FFO?  While I would like the units to be able to administer it themselves like the BFT I suspect that this will be done only by PSP, it would be nice to see that in writing (one way or another). 
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on March 04, 2013, 22:55:45
It will be done by units without need of PSP.  All video that I have seen show participants in operational clothing (combats and NCDs) but not load carriage or PPE (ie. not in FFO).
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ARMY_101 on March 04, 2013, 23:05:20
It will be done by units without need of PSP.  All video that I have seen show participants in operational clothing (combats and NCDs) but not load carriage or PPE (ie. not in FFO).

I've heard the opposite: that the test will be conducted by PSP and will be in PT strip. This was from a PSP instructor. Of course, this is all just our typical rumour mill until something solid is released.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on March 04, 2013, 23:15:34
This was from a PSP instructor.
That empire would be messaging everybody with that idea.  It is job protection.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on March 04, 2013, 23:18:59
Anyway, this is from two pages back:  http://vimeo.com/m/54119198
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on March 04, 2013, 23:37:09
It will be done by units without need of PSP.

This is true within the Army and can be conducted by anyone qualified PLQ or higher.  However, the RCAF have apparently decided to leave testing with the PSP.

All video that I have seen show participants in operational clothing (combats and NCDs) but not load carriage or PPE (ie. not in FFO).

I heard the rumour today was that the Army would conduct the test in FFO.  Not true.  This is a CF common test and the dress must be common/standardized throughout.  I was a FORCE and DFit lab rat and we conducted the test activities several times but always in CADPAT/NCD with running shoes and also in PT strip.  Never in FFO or even combat boots.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: once a gunner on March 05, 2013, 05:50:31
Today my Unit here in Germany CC NAEWF  ( NATO AWACS) is having  a mandatory PT Pde  and PSP from CFSU (E) is coming over to introduce and conduct a practice session of the tasks.  I'LL post my findings and comments later tonight or tomorrow....

Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on March 05, 2013, 13:31:19
More info on the tasks:

https://www.cfpsa.com/en/AboutUs/PSP/DFIT/Fitness/FORCEprogram/Pages/About-the-FORCE-Program.aspx

And a FAQ:

https://www.cfpsa.com/en/AboutUs/PSP/DFIT/Fitness/FORCEprogram/Pages/FAQs.aspx
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Occam on March 05, 2013, 14:15:46
I have no stake in this as a retired member, but curiosity got the better of me about this test.  The video in the previous post shows the sandbag drag being done in a gym on some kind of mat.

Now, I haven't actually measured them, but as a technically inclined kind of guy, I'm pretty sure the coefficient of friction between a sandbag and a mat isn't going to be the same as it is for a sandbag on a slick gym floor, or as it is for a sandbag over dirt, or a sandbag over pea gravel, or a sandbag over wet grass.

Is this test only ever going to be conducted in a gymnasium environment, or has anyone thought that far ahead yet?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: daftandbarmy on March 05, 2013, 14:53:59
Now, I haven't actually measured them, but as a technically inclined kind of guy, I'm pretty sure the coefficient of friction between a sandbag and a mat isn't going to be the same as it is for a sandbag on a slick gym floor, or as it is for a sandbag over dirt, or a sandbag over pea gravel, or a sandbag over wet grass.

.... or a 200lb rifleman with a sucking chest wound being dragged over a farmer's field to a ditch ;D
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: jollyjacktar on March 05, 2013, 19:34:13
That empire would be messaging everybody with that idea.  It is job protection.
Not so.  Talking with the top man at the Dkyd Gym about it the other week.  He said that it's going to devolve down to the units to test.  He said that the writing is on the wall for PSP as they won't need them around eventually.  He was being relatively pragmatic about it. 

Maybe he and I are also being paranoid, but we both feel that this new project is the start of a cull.  They with units taking over the work, and amongst the rank and file for what may be a great number of failures and possible injuries amongst personnel doing the new test.   :Tin-Foil-Hat:
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: DAA on March 05, 2013, 19:49:15
Not so.  Talking with the top man at the Dkyd Gym about it the other week.  He said that it's going to devolve down to the units to test.  He said that the writing is on the wall for PSP as they won't need them around eventually.  He was being relatively pragmatic about it. 

Maybe he and I are also being paranoid, but we both feel that this new project is the start of a cull.  They with units taking over the work, and amongst the rank and file for what may be a great number of failures and possible injuries amongst personnel doing the new test.   :Tin-Foil-Hat:

I would have to counter that with "What ever happened to the UPTA qualification?"  The PERI trade was done a way with years ago and it's evolution was pretty much what we see in PSP today.  So if they put an end to PSP, who will operate the fitness facilities?  While we like to think that we as military members, can standardize things, experience has shown that concept not to be true but then again, the same can be said for PSP staff.

Time will tell...
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: jollyjacktar on March 05, 2013, 19:56:36
True enough.  I hope we're both whistling in the dark.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on March 05, 2013, 19:57:21
The new standard, different as it is from the EXPRES, is the minimum CF standard.  Not everyone needs to be or can afford the time to become Paratrooper/CSOR/JTF2/SAR Tech/Clearance Diver fit.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Capt. Happy on March 05, 2013, 21:23:25
I would have to counter that with "What ever happened to the UPTA qualification?" 

It's been called the BFTA now for a number of years. Run by the PSP people out of their "school" in Borden. Couple weeks of learning how to run Expres tests....at least when I did it in 2003...,
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dangerboy on March 05, 2013, 22:08:00
There is also an Advanced Fitness course (AFTA).  I have no idea what it entails but our unit has a WO on it right now.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MedCorps on March 05, 2013, 23:12:58
AFTA: https://www.cfpsa.com/en/aboutus/psp/dfit/courses_certifications/pages/advanced-fitness-training-assistant-%28afta%29-course.aspx

During this 2 week course you will learn how to:

• Explain the Tactical Athlete Training Program (TATP)
• Identify exercise safety concerns of advanced training methods
• Demonstrate/conduct TATP fitness conditioning training session
• Conduct obstacle course physical fitness training
• Conduct operational based physical fitness skills training
• Conduct competitive fitness games
• Conduct fitness based orienteering

Objective:

This course aims at instructing CF personnel on advanced type fitness training. It will inform them how to meet the needs of the tactical athlete. This operational and functionally based training will enhance the operational readiness of the individual and his/her unit.

Need to be qualified as a BFTA first. 

MC
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Cadwr on March 06, 2013, 13:59:57
Sat in on a briefing by the PSP senior fitness manager this morning, all about the new test.  It seems that the RCN / RCAF have elected to have PSP continue to administer the test, while the Army is going to test themselves (and those working for them, IE purple trades working in an army unit.)

He expressed some concern that this may eventually lead to a different application/interpretation of the standard.  My take on his less-than-subtle insinuations was that PSP are pushing to continue testing everyone, but meeting resistance from the army.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Halifax Tar on March 06, 2013, 14:21:42
Sat in on a briefing by the PSP senior fitness manager this morning, all about the new test.  It seems that the RCN / RCAF have elected to have PSP continue to administer the test, while the Army is going to test themselves (and those working for them, IE purple trades working in an army unit.)

He expressed some concern that this may eventually lead to a different application/interpretation of the standard.  My take on his less-than-subtle insinuations was that PSP are pushing to continue testing everyone, but meeting resistance from the army.

I don't agree with PSP administering this test.  Not in the slightlest.  For example, yesterday, when I did my latest BFT, it was administered by PSP.  One of the MCpls stopped to preform first aid on one of her troop's that had fallen on ice and broken a bone.  She stayed with the troop for 15-20mins and came in 6 minutes over the 2hrs 26mins and 20sec allotted time limit.  PSP instantly failed this individual.  She was smart.  She went on to complete the drag and the march failure was brought to her CoC's attention who inturn took matters into their own hands and are now ensuring this member gets a passing mark. 

Another reason I don't think they should be able to administer this test is that they have never had to complete it and will never be asked/demanded to complete it. 
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Thucydides on March 06, 2013, 14:22:55
I find it appropriate that we have adopted an Army fitness test that is run indoors in a nicely heated, well lit, clean, controlled environment (you know - just like an office) which is exactly where we have to fight and win our most important battles.

Oh hang on, almost forgot:

 :sarcasm:

Hey, it's often a matter of life or death to be able to crawl forward and post that deadly memo in the opponent's inbox!  >:D
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PPCLI Guy on March 06, 2013, 14:38:07
IAnother reason I don't think they should be able to administer this test is that they have never had to complete it and will never be asked/demanded to complete it.

A better reason is that the salary of one PSP indivudual can by a Basic Recce Cours, or two LAV Turret Operator Courses, or a week in the field for a rifle company.  We need to focus on priorities here.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: GnyHwy on March 06, 2013, 14:54:23
I can't wait to try this test.  I want to see if they'll let me do a headfirst baseball slide for the shuttle portion that you run back and forth going in and out of the prone. 

I am guessing that they will insist that you come to a stop first and lower yourself to the ground under control (burpee style); because this test is meant to simulate operational tasks, and that's exactly how people pepperpot.  :sarcasm:
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: jollyjacktar on March 06, 2013, 15:39:14
Oh yes, we pepperpot almost  on a daily basis on ship.  It's especially fun on the nonskid...  Lots of basis for our day to day existence in these tests.  :sarcasm:
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on March 06, 2013, 15:59:31
Oh yes, we pepperpot almost  on a daily basis on ship.  It's especially fun on the nonskid...  Lots of basis for our day to day existence in these tests.  :sarcasm:

Sailors never lift loads?  They never run?  They're never called to evacuate a casualty?


I guess, to make it appropriately maritime, we could include sliders after you finish the test as part of the standard...
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Dolphin_Hunter on March 06, 2013, 16:14:25
Oh yes, we pepperpot almost  on a daily basis on ship.  It's especially fun on the nonskid...  Lots of basis for our day to day existence in these tests.  :sarcasm:

I know your post was Sarcastic, but at the end of the day we all have to do it, and honestly from what I am hearing, is that this test is easier than the Expres Test (which was pretty easy).

These are tasks I will probably never perform, and if I am extracting someone from a vehilce it will most likely be from a civie accident.

 

Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: GnyHwy on March 06, 2013, 16:17:50
Oh yes, we pepperpot almost  on a daily basis on ship.  It's especially fun on the nonskid...  Lots of basis for our day to day existence in these tests.  :sarcasm:

I suppose there could be a falling up the stairs test.  :sarcasm:

Some more suggestions for NDHQ types could be:

1. Stopping the elevator for someone when it's already half closed. (at least 10 successful attempts without whining or bruising)
2. Occasionally having to take the stairs when someone else fails test #1. (only done if guy before you fails #1)
3. A 100m sprint to make sure you catch the 1500 bus. (single attempt pass/fail)
4. Quick change from CADPAT to DEU to Civi Suit back to CADPAT. (10 min limit)
5. Prepare a 20 slide ppt brief, rehearse and deliver. (60 min limit)
6. The endurance test could be answering 100 emails without getting out of your seat (it's probably harder than it sounds).

Any others?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Old Sweat on March 06, 2013, 16:26:20
True NDHQ one - keeping a straight face after noticing a diploma for a MBA from a "life style" university in which the major written course work involved signing a cheque on the "I Love Me" wall of someone higher up the food chain.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on March 06, 2013, 16:34:10
True NDHQ one - keeping a straight face after noticing a diploma for a MBA from a "life style" university in which the major written course work involved signing a cheque on the "I Love Me" wall of someone higher up the food chain.

You mean like "an MBA from the University of Phoenix in Arizona", where all you need is a pulse, a chequebook and a padded resume?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Cadwr on March 06, 2013, 16:43:48
from what I am hearing, ...this test is easier than the Expres Test (which was pretty easy).


From what I have seen with my own eyes, a wide variety of very senior members (who are age appropriate for such lofty ranks) of both sexes and all sorts of levels of fitness were able to easily complete all components of this test, with very few of them breaking a sweat.  The only high pressure task seemed to be the "pepper-potting."  Upon completion, the general consensus was in accord with what you are hearing.

This was my observance - your mileage may vary.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Cadwr on March 06, 2013, 16:49:14
You mean like "an MBA from the University of Phoenix in Arizona", where all you need is a pulse, a chequebook and a padded resume?

There was nothing on the application form that asked about a pulse...

To tie this in with the topic at hand (yes, I work miracles) and provide food for thought, someone has to take your pulse/blood pressure before the FORCE test... in some (army) units, in the absence of PSP staff, does this present a challenge? Particularly P Res units, but others as well who may have troubles finding a qualified individual to check these things?  While I am certain that any old fellow could be taught to take one's blood pressure / heart rate, I wonder what the liability issue might be in the case of a serious injury related to such things...
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PuckChaser on March 06, 2013, 16:56:53
Oh yes, we pepperpot almost  on a daily basis on ship.  It's especially fun on the nonskid...  Lots of basis for our day to day existence in these tests.  :sarcasm:

I don't pepperpot either, sig stores is too crowded for that. Its still a good measure of fitness.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on March 06, 2013, 16:57:56
Step 1:  Go to the local drug store and buy an automatic blood pressure/pulse cuff.  Under $50.  (Batteries not included)

Step 2:  Employ the gizmo you just purchased.

Step 3:  Listen to the caterwauling and complaining as another iron ricebowl clatters to the ground.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Strike on March 06, 2013, 16:58:27
There was nothing on the application form that asked about a pulse...

To tie this in with the topic at hand (yes, I work miracles) and provide food for thought, someone has to take your pulse/blood pressure before the FORCE test... in some (army) units, in the absence of PSP staff, does this present a challenge? Particularly P Res units, but others as well who may have troubles finding a qualified individual to check these things?  While I am certain that any old fellow could be taught to take one's blood pressure / heart rate, I wonder what the liability issue might be in the case of a serious injury related to such things...

Easy answer - buy digital BP monitors.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Monsoon on March 06, 2013, 17:06:02
A better reason is that the salary of one PSP indivudual can by a Basic Recce Cours, or two LAV Turret Operator Courses, or a week in the field for a rifle company.  We need to focus on priorities here.
Oh, rest assured that the PSP empire isn't going anywhere, regardless of whether or not they get used. They're also paid out of NPF, so the better metric to compare their salaries against would be cases of beer...
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PuckChaser on March 06, 2013, 17:06:59
I don't get why they're obsessed with BP and resting heart rate for PT tests, people do the BFT without that check all the time. Isn't it only because the 20m shuttle run combined with HR/BP produces the VO2max number that they want for testing on EXPRES?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: jollyjacktar on March 06, 2013, 18:01:02
Sailors never lift loads?  They never run?  They're never called to evacuate a casualty?


I guess, to make it appropriately maritime, we could include sliders after you finish the test as part of the standard...

I guess, you've not and never have served on a ship.  There is a test that I've done that is closer to what kind of tasks you would have as a sailor.  The FF fitness test has tasks which are directly related to what you would do in damage control situations and casualty evacuation.  Like using charged and uncharged fire hoses, climbing ladders, dragging Rescue Randy, wielding a sledge hammer etc etc all wearing BA while completing these tasks.

I'm sorry, but the FORCE test doesn't cut it by comparison if you want to equate real life tasks with real life requirements for a sailor.  And yes, I have field time behind me including two trips to the sandbox as well so I can compare the two environments.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PuckChaser on March 06, 2013, 18:18:28
FORCE is a predictor of a person's fitness and ability to complete the common tasks assigned, just like EXPRES was. The FF test is very task specific, but doesn't have to show a fitness level for about however many occupations the CF has, just that you're GTG to be a firefighter. It also looks to take about half the time, as I just an EXPRES yesterday and it took over an hour and a half to do 20 pers. That's an insane waste of time.

Here's the CDS and the MND completing the new test: http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/ID/2340185134/ (http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/ID/2340185134/)
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: jollyjacktar on March 06, 2013, 18:34:22
Really?  You've done the FF PT test and so have an informed opinion on how physically demanding or not it is? 

You took me to task on my opinion of how close FORCE comes to equate real world tasks shipborne personnel face.  I gave you my response and stand by my comment and belief, based upon years of experience in a sea going trade that FORCE pales by comparison, period.  Oh yes, the FF PT test also doesn't give a damn what age, sex you are either.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on March 06, 2013, 19:03:36
Really?  You've done the FF PT test and so have an informed opinion on how physically demanding or not it is? 

You took me to task on my opinion of how close FORCE comes to equate real world tasks shipborne personnel face.  I gave you my response and stand by my comment and belief, based upon years of experience in a sea going trade that FORCE pales by comparison, period.  Oh yes, the FF PT test also doesn't give a damn what age, sex you are either.

The FF test is good - but it's specific to firefighting.  FORCE is a generic, CF common test, based on the common tasks that all CF members must be able to perform.  It determines whether an individual meets the universality of service requirements.  Don't read too much into it - it's not a test to see if you're a gung ho fitness ninja; it's a test to predict whether you can successfully complete the core military tasks every CF member, regardless of DEU, rank, age, occupation or gender, must be able to perform.

Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: jollyjacktar on March 06, 2013, 19:17:50
I'm sure it's a great vanilla test.  I gather you've also not served on ship.

I was taken to task on my scarasm on it's relevance to my work environment.   I would prefer tests that prepare sailors to be sailors just as I'm sure soldiers want for soldiers.  If you're fit enough to complete the FFT test, you're more than fit enough to satisfy NDHQ on universality.  And you'll be fit enough to be able to respond to an emergency on ship or ashore.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PuckChaser on March 06, 2013, 19:27:45
The FF test is good - but it's specific to firefighting.  FORCE is a generic, CF common test, based on the common tasks that all CF members must be able to perform.  It determines whether an individual meets the universality of service requirements.  Don't read too much into it - it's not a test to see if you're a gung ho fitness ninja; it's a test to predict whether you can successfully complete the core military tasks every CF member, regardless of DEU, rank, age, occupation or gender, must be able to perform.

Thanks for clarifying for me, that's the point I was trying to make. I try to watch the Firefit stuff on TV because its one hell of a fitness challenge, I wouldn't think of knocking those that can complete it.

Do we need to have 1700 PT tests for each specific environment/occupation? Does my ACISS-Core test involve deadlifting 200-cupper coffee pots and sprinting through mod tent complexes with them? Its not realistic to demand a PT test for each Tom, Dick and Harry. We have specialized test (like FFT) for specialized occupations that require certain fitness levels for certain tasks. What about FORCE doesn't give you enough ammo to put a check-in-the-box that OS Bloggins is physically fit for ship duty? If that OS has other tasks (damage control, flight deck ops, etc) then isn't it up to the chain of command to have a test specifically for those tasks? The CF has declared him/her physically fit, its the RCN's job to decide if s/he is fit sea duty. If they want to reinvent the wheel and make them do another PT test, go for it.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on March 06, 2013, 19:29:04
If you're fit enough to complete the FFT test, you're more than fit enough to satisfy NDHQ on universality. 

No, you're not.

There are clearly defined tasks that are required to meet universality.  The FF test has not been validated as a predictor for success on those tasks.  The FORCE tasks have been.

If the FF test is ever validated as a predictor for success on the Common Military Tasks then yes, it can be used to meet the U of S requirements.  Until then, you've got to complete the FORCE tasks.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Cadwr on March 06, 2013, 19:40:54
 
Easy answer - buy digital BP monitors.

Oh, I agree, and as indicated, am confident that any old fellow could be instructed in how to read the numbers for heart rate and BP.  But, I like to think that there is a reason that we are not doing that now, and further infer that whatever that reason is, it will persist going forward.  The PSP fella I spoke with was very keen to put me in my place when I suggested this could be learned in an hour on PLQ.  Of course, he likely had an interest and therefore a bias, but I still am fairly certain I've never seen anyone haul out the BP monitor before a fitness test, although I have always been required to have my BP and heart rate recorded by a "professional."

Just curious.  I don't know enough about why it is done to speak intelligently as to how it could be done differently, but the logical bit in my brain wants ever so desperately to believe that it is done the way it is for a reason, notwithstanding that we all know these machines are widely available.  (The logical part of my brain has been known to get me in trouble from time to time.)
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: jollyjacktar on March 06, 2013, 20:08:39
No, you're not.

There are clearly defined tasks that are required to meet universality.  The FF test has not been validated as a predictor for success on those tasks.  The FORCE tasks have been.

If the FF test is ever validated as a predictor for success on the Common Military Tasks then yes, it can be used to meet the U of S requirements.  Until then, you've got to complete the FORCE tasks.
Sorry, I'll clarify.  You'll be "fit" enough to easily pass the NDHQ proscribed universality of service fitness tests.

PC, all members of a ship's company are trained as shipboard firefighters as well as in Damage Control and could be expected to use this training at sea and in port.  Unless you're filling one of two HeloCrashFF billets, as two of my sailors are, you're not tested yearly on your FF fitness as they are.  Even I'm not as that's not a role I could fill at my rank level anymore.

My trade speciality is damage control etc and as a member of the engineering department it's my job at sea along with the other  section base  teams members.   However in port all trades stand duty watches and are expected to be able to conduct shipboard FF.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on March 06, 2013, 20:39:19
From what I have seen with my own eyes, a wide variety of very senior members (who are age appropriate for such lofty ranks) of both sexes and all sorts of levels of fitness were able to easily complete all components of this test, with very few of them breaking a sweat.  The only high pressure task seemed to be the "pepper-potting."  Upon completion, the general consensus was in accord with what you are hearing.

This was my observance - your mileage may vary.

Maybe they are fitter than they looked? 
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Cadwr on March 06, 2013, 21:03:38
All sorts of levels of fitness was my take, from the very fit to the not quite very fit.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ARMY_101 on March 06, 2013, 21:12:21
If the minister and CDS can do it, so can you. (http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/ID/2340185134/)
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: AmmoTech90 on March 06, 2013, 21:48:15
I was one of those who did the test this morning at Cartier Square.  Was it easy, yes.  Was it more challenging than the Expres, yes.  Was it harder than a BFT, hell yes.  This is an assessment to determine if a member can meet universality of service.  That is why there is a single standard for each exercise, that you cannot exceed, that is defensible under human rights legislation.  If someone is in good shape they will find this test easy, but that is true of any test that has an absolute standard, and an open ended one.

The test provides an assessment that is around 70% accurate when predicting if a member will meet universality of service.  Now before howls go up saying that 70% isn't good enough, we've been using a test that was around 50% effective for last 30 years, and the army in particular has been using a test that provides no comprehensive relationship to common military tasks.  With that in mind we have done pretty well in a pretty rough war.

To address some points posted in the last day regarding this-

-Applicability to Navy, Army, Air Force:
All the exercises are directly correlated to those tasks that are assessed to meet universality of service.  In other word, all elements have agreed that these tasks may be required of any military member, regardless of uniform colour.  The main complainer seems to be the Navy who don't think they have to run and negotiate obstacles.  Regardless of your own personal experience being on board ship, your admirals have said this is something a sailor has to be able to do.
The fact that it uses a pepper potting like motion to assess this is simply because it is only an assessment, a predictor, of actual task.  I know when I have pepper potted I have not lifted both hands off the ground to make sure I was unsupported, but I did it for this test, as it part of the protocol.  This does not make it an army centric test, rather it is a test of speed and agility.

-Overall test exercises:
As stated above the four exercises serve to act as a predictor of if a member can pass the universality of service tests.  The universality of service tests are individual tasks, they are not assessed back to back.  Therefore single exercises were developed that could encompass several UoS tasks.  If you can pass one of the exercises, that serves to act as predictor for several tasks basically.

-Administration of the test:
Future PLQ graduates will be able to administer the test.  If a particular environment decides to keep using PSP to administer the test that is a military decision.  The test is designed to be flexible.  For example the weight on the sandbag drag is varied depending on the floor surface.  This ensure a level assessment criteria.  If a particular environment decides to self-administer I just hope that they have some form of maintain testing standards.

For GnyHwy, you can throw yourself down however you want and get up any way you want.  The only requirement is that your foot touches the 10m marks and that your shoulders are behind it when you are down.  I saw some people touching the line and then stepping back.  I just touched the line and threw myself down and back when I dropped.  Just remember this is not a test of pepper potting, it is a test to see if you are fast and agile enough to meet universality of service.

Finally, the test was fun.  It is kinetic, can be competitive, provides opportunity to encourage each other, makes you break a sweat, and if you pay attention to the science behind it relevant.  For these reasons alone it is head and shoulders above other tests.

Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: signalsguy on March 07, 2013, 21:50:58
I don't agree with PSP administering this test.  Not in the slightlest.  For example, yesterday, when I did my latest BFT, it was administered by PSP.  One of the MCpls stopped to preform first aid on one of her troop's that had fallen on ice and broken a bone.  She stayed with the troop for 15-20mins and came in 6 minutes over the 2hrs 26mins and 20sec allotted time limit.  PSP instantly failed this individual.  She was smart.  She went on to complete the drag and the march failure was brought to her CoC's attention who inturn took matters into their own hands and are now ensuring this member gets a passing mark. 

Another reason I don't think they should be able to administer this test is that they have never had to complete it and will never be asked/demanded to complete it.

The fitness instructors  do the BFT on their training course... They administer it because they are supposed to be unbiased.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: UnwiseCritic on March 07, 2013, 23:38:56
Feel free to pounce on me as I suggest that different trades are held to different fitness standards. As I see it's fine for a clerk to be unfit. But the current tests seem to be kind of weak for the combat arms let alone an infantryman.
Title: New PT test - FORCE program
Post by: fhg1893 on March 08, 2013, 00:00:10
No thread on the new PT test?  Okay, I guess I volunteered myself.

As of April 1st, 2013 a new PT test will be phased in to replace the CF EXPRES test.

Details here.  https://www.cfpsa.com/en/AboutUs/PSP/DFIT/Fitness/FORCEprogram/Pages/About-the-FORCE-Program.aspx
Title: Re: New PT test - FORCE program
Post by: PuckChaser on March 08, 2013, 00:26:48
No thread on the new PT test?  Okay, I guess I volunteered myself.

As of April 1st, 2013 a new PT test will be phased in to replace the CF EXPRES test.

Details here.  https://www.cfpsa.com/en/AboutUs/PSP/DFIT/Fitness/FORCEprogram/Pages/About-the-FORCE-Program.aspx

You're about 8 months late here....
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: AmmoTech90 on March 08, 2013, 00:39:35
Feel free to pounce on me as I suggest that different trades are held to different fitness standards. As I see it's fine for a clerk to be unfit. But the current tests seem to be kind of weak for the combat arms let alone an infantryman.

Holy crap, do people not read.  This is a test for military universality of service.

If you think your trade is special enough to do a specific PT test go ahead prove that you are special, lots have, for example, SOF, Fire fighters, divers, SAR, etc.  If you cant prove you are need a specific PT test you are not special.  At least in a PT way.

And no it is not fine for a clerk to be unfit.  They may be doing top cover on convoy from a B vehicle and have to haul ammo boxes from the cab up to keep feeding their gun, or hauling your bleeding *** out of a trashed vehicle.
Title: Re: New PT test - FORCE program
Post by: fhg1893 on March 08, 2013, 07:13:44
You're about 8 months late here....

Yes, I noticed.  Sorry about that.  I did try a few searches but wading through the thousands of results that happen with a string of "FORCE" is a fool's errand.  And "New PT Test," and the like come up with nothing.
Title: Re: New PT test - FORCE program
Post by: Occam on March 08, 2013, 07:23:03
Yes, I noticed.  Sorry about that.  I did try a few searches but wading through the thousands of results that happen with a string of "FORCE" is a fool's errand.  And "New PT Test," and the like come up with nothing.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Aarmy.ca+force.  Hmmmm....first hit. 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Aarmy.ca+new+pt+test.  First hit, too.
Title: Re: New PT test - FORCE program
Post by: fhg1893 on March 08, 2013, 07:44:35
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Aarmy.ca+force.  Hmmmm....first hit. 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Aarmy.ca+new+pt+test.  First hit, too.

Okay, I must be on something.  Really sorry about that.  Trying real hard not to be useless.  Evidently, colossal fail. 
Title: Re: New PT test - FORCE program
Post by: Sigs Pig on March 08, 2013, 08:07:33
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Aarmy.ca+force.  Hmmmm....first hit. 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Aarmy.ca+new+pt+test.  First hit, too.
Hmmmmm.... All these years struggling with the search 'function', I am suppose to know that I should use Google to search this site, go figure! I guess it is built with the army in mind. I could see the DS berating someone for not knowing this, but you?

Sorry to hijack this thread, but (Mike) why not use a Google link for a search function, instead of whatever archaic 'function' that is used presently? Or this link Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=site%3Aarmy.ca+force#hl=en&pws=0&sclient=psy-ab&q=site:army.ca+&oq=site:army.ca+&gs_l=serp.12...803955.803955.0.808105.1.1.0.0.0.0.123.123.0j1.1.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.5.psy-ab.HDtX0H5lLnA&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43287494,d.b2I&fp=d1e53b8aefa2f39a&biw=1280&bih=687)

ME
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on March 08, 2013, 08:25:31
Feel free to pounce on me as I suggest that different trades are held to different fitness standards. As I see it's fine for a clerk to be unfit. But the current tests seem to be kind of weak for the combat arms let alone an infantryman.

I know many Clerks/MSE Ops, Bosns, PAs, et.c etc. who are as fit, if not fitter, than Infantry soldiers.  Your point is invalid.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: bgray on March 08, 2013, 09:59:59
I know many Clerks/MSE Ops, Bosns, PAs, et.c etc. who are as fit, if not fitter, than Infantry soldiers.  Your point is invalid.

 Thank you. I'm a supply tech working within a infantry unit, female at that, and can say without a doubt my fitness level could blow some of these guys out of the water.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Thucydides on March 08, 2013, 10:01:37
Spooling back to the PSP for a moment; yes, they seem very concerned about the new test and the way it is designed for units to self administer.

I had to do a "fitness evaluation" using the EXPRES test about a week ago, and whenever we tried to bring up the FORCE test standard (i.e. details about application, how to train for that etc.) the PSP went to very great lengths to avoid, deflect or otherwise ignore the questions. To add to the pointlessness of the evaluation exercise, we were all given exercise programs based on our EXPRES results. Since the results were based on EXPRES they in no way prepare us for 01 April, and are entirely useless except as general interest.

So I fully support the idea of getting automatic BP devices and otherwise cutting the PSP umbilical cord; they are not willing to move with the times so why keep supporting that little empire?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Capt. Happy on March 08, 2013, 10:16:12
So I fully support the idea of getting automatic BP devices and otherwise cutting the PSP umbilical cord; they are not willing to move with the times so why keep supporting that little empire?


No need for automatic BP devices - it is dirt simple to learn how to read someone's BP. When I did my BFTA back in '03, it was one of the performance checks we had to pass, and if this guy can do it, I think anyone can  ;D

Mind you, auto BP machines would remove some of the QC issues between pers taking the readings manually.... :2c:
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 08, 2013, 10:17:20
I like the idea of one standard regardless of age or gender  for U of S. 

Not only does it remove a stigma from female soldiers (OMG they only had to do 9 pushups how can they pull me out of a burning tank!)  but a 45 year old is going to have a hard time keeping up with a 19 year old.  That said they shouldn't be held to a lesser standard because they're older.

Combat arms can come up with their own tier of fitness because they require to be more fit and have more time at work to work on their fitness.
In the long term I would say that while someone passes the U of S requirement for fitness, if they are in the combat arms trade but cannot pass whatever fitness requirement is further set forth then the member can try to re muster to a trade that's only requirement is the U of S test or release.


[I know clerks "need to be fit in case their convoy comes under attack", and I agree, but there are a whole bunch of other issues surrounding "coming under attack" that including poor pre-deployment training and being sent outside the wire without zeroed weapons, or half *** zeroed weapons.]

On the note about PSP, while I do not like working along side them very much I disagree with the sentiment that they should be able to "practice what they preach". That's not how civilians work and PSP staff aren't preparing to fight in a war. They don't need to carry 55lbs in order to give me a pass or fail if I'm carrying 55lbs for 13KMs.

I DO think we should move away from PSP, make PSP a volunteer thing. If a soldier sucks at fitness then send them on remedial PT with PSP. Have PSP for voluntary PT classes on members own time.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Chernoble on March 08, 2013, 10:45:38

No need for automatic BP devices - it is dirt simple to learn how to read someone's BP. When I did my BFTA back in '03, it was one of the performance checks we had to pass, and if this guy can do it, I think anyone can  ;D

Mind you, auto BP machines would remove some of the QC issues between pers taking the readings manually.... :2c:

Unfortunately, they have taken the BP part of the BFTA (and AFTA) out since then.  I took the BFTA in '10 and the AFTA in '12 and yeah, never learned how to do BP.  Not that it's difficult but they clawed that one back to make sure they have a function.

In my opinion, BFTA's/AFTA's should be able to sign off on PT tests.  Especially AFTA since you have to at least be a MCpl.

I agree, cutting the PSP umbilical cord would be  a good thing.  I enjoyed PERI's (sp?)
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on March 08, 2013, 10:48:18
Not only does it remove a stigma from female soldiers (OMG they only had to do 9 pushups how can they pull me out of a burning tank!)  but some 45 year olds may have a hard time keeping up with some 19 year old - and vice versa.

FTFY, OZ.   ;)

That said they shouldn't be held to a lesser standard because they're older.
  And now, they're not.

Combat arms can come up with their own tier of fitness because they require to be more fit and have more time at work to work on their fitness.

Remember that the CF Fitness Strategy, DAOD 5023-2 and the CDS Guidance to Commanding Officers all make the chain of command accountable for providing time for fitness training during working hours.

In the long term I would say that while someone passes the U of S requirement for fitness, if they are in the combat arms trade but cannot pass whatever fitness requirement is further set forth then the member can try to re muster to a trade that's only requirement is the U of S test or release.

There are some (several?) folks now in the Army who can "survive" the roughly 3 hours of moderate effort required of LFCPFS but fold up like a cheap lawn chair on a week long (or weekend) exercise.  What does that say for the current "standard"?  The FORCE, LFCPFS, EXpres are all minimum standards in their respective domains.  It's incumbent upon the chain of command to design and execute training that takes members beyond that minimum standard, thereby encouraging (forcing??) them to adapt, physically , mentally and motivationally to the demands of our profession.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: AmmoTech90 on March 08, 2013, 10:49:22
I had to do a "fitness evaluation" using the EXPRES test about a week ago, and whenever we tried to bring up the FORCE test standard (i.e. details about application, how to train for that etc.) the PSP went to very great lengths to avoid, deflect or otherwise ignore the questions. To add to the pointlessness of the evaluation exercise, we were all given exercise programs based on our EXPRES results. Since the results were based on EXPRES they in no way prepare us for 01 April, and are entirely useless except as general interest.

A reason for their reticence may be found in government and military policy.  The official CANFORGEN had not yet come out, therefore they were not authorized to speak about it.  In fact they would be foolish to speak about.  The final details of the test are still being hammered out, that is why it is not fully coming into effect until next year.  For example, this week they are running tests to see if the order the exercises are done in has an effect on pass rates.  If there is an effect a decision will have to be made on how to standardize it.

As is often stated on this board, they were staying in their lane and would be smart to do so until their lane included complete and accurate information.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on March 08, 2013, 10:55:54
The final details of the test are still being hammered out, that is why it is not fully coming into effect until next year.

True.  In fact the methodolgy of the sandbag lift has changed slightly (but enough to make a difference) since the trials I participated in in late November 2012.
Title: Re: New PT test - FORCE program
Post by: Occam on March 08, 2013, 11:21:30
Hmmmmm.... All these years struggling with the search 'function', I am suppose to know that I should use Google to search this site, go figure! I guess it is built with the army in mind. I could see the DS berating someone for not knowing this, but you?

Sorry to hijack this thread, but (Mike) why not use a Google link for a search function, instead of whatever archaic 'function' that is used presently? Or this link Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=site%3Aarmy.ca+force#hl=en&pws=0&sclient=psy-ab&q=site:army.ca+&oq=site:army.ca+&gs_l=serp.12...803955.803955.0.808105.1.1.0.0.0.0.123.123.0j1.1.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.5.psy-ab.HDtX0H5lLnA&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43287494,d.b2I&fp=d1e53b8aefa2f39a&biw=1280&bih=687)

ME

Wow, you'd have to be pretty thin-skinned to take what I said as berating someone.  The Google site search method has been demonstrated here on the site repeatedly over the years.  I not only showed how it's done, but that it works.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: fhg1893 on March 08, 2013, 11:33:11
I know I'm coming at it from the outside, but having checked into the EXPRES test extensively, it seems like shifting to a task-based standard makes more sense.  The reasoning is probably that any arbitrary number of pushups, situps, grip, step, etc. is necessarily an abstraction.  The number of push-ups that any given member can do is necessarily an abstract, and therefore impercise measurement of their overall upperbody strength.  Therefore, the EXPRES test is only a predictive tool. 

A task based test, the FORCE test, removes a lot, if not all of the abstraction, and would theoretically be much more predictive of whether or not a member will be able to accomplish a task likely to be assigned.

For example.  Picture that short skinny guy who weighs 100 pounds soaking wet.  Such a member can probably run like a gazel and can crank out push-up after push-up.   But, because his relative muscle mass is going to be a lot less than the guy who weighs 200 pounds and is solid muscle the former member will probably have a very hard time dragging a fully-loaded infantier with a sucking chest-wound.  He can do a staggering number of push-ups, but his muscle mass isn't necessarily going to be enough to drag a wounded soldier.  He moves comparitively low body-mass in a push-up.  When a task calls for much larger muscles, he might not be able to accomplish it. 

Compare with a 200 lbs mass of muscle.  He probably can't crank out as many push-ups as a lighter bodied individual.  But can he drag the casulaty?  You betcha! 

So as far as a predictive test is concerned, any test which measures only an abstract level of fitness probably isn't going to be the most effective measurement.  Moving to a task-based test seems to make sense.  This probably isn't going to be "fit enough" for the combat arms, but as a minimal standard of fitness, it will probably be more useful than an abstract measure of fitness based on relatively arbitrary numbers. 

Nobody's ever said, "There's a flood in St-Jean!  Quick, do push-ups!"  People have most definitely said, "There's a flood in St-Jean!  STACK SAND BAGS!"
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on March 08, 2013, 12:19:27
Nobody's ever said, "There's a flood in St-Jean!  Quick, do push-ups!"  People have most definitely said, "There's a flood in St-Jean!  STACK SAND BAGS!"

That is, quite probably, the most relevant thing stated so far in this thread.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on March 11, 2013, 02:32:54
This is a CF common test and the dress must be common/standardized throughout.  … we conducted the test activities several times but always in CADPAT/NCD with running shoes and also in PT strip.  Never in … even combat boots.
Operational footware should be the standard for this new test which aims to predict successful performance of the common operational tasks.  It becomes one less potential source of error in the prediction.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PPCLI Guy on March 11, 2013, 02:39:49
The Army is very much considering insisting on operational dress for the test.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on March 11, 2013, 05:44:06
Operational footware should be the standard for this new test which aims to predict successful performance of the common operational tasks.  It becomes one less potential source of error in the prediction.

We'd then have to outfit the entire of the RCN in some non-steel toed footwear just to do a test once a year.  Operations and real-life work environment dictate they wear steel-toed.  Perhaps they should therefore do the testing in steel toed boots then?  Add Sup techs, and numerous trades to the list of steel-toed doers too.  I suspect that would cause more foot injury issues than those currently experienced.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Halifax Tar on March 11, 2013, 09:41:22
We'd then have to outfit the entire of the RCN in some non-steel toed footwear just to do a test once a year.  Operations and real-life work environment dictate they wear steel-toed.  Perhaps they should therefore do the testing in steel toed boots then?  Add Sup techs, and numerous trades to the list of steel-toed doers too.  I suspect that would cause more foot injury issues than those currently experienced.

Why not have them do it in their NCDs and sea boots ?  Were supposed to train how we fight right ?  Perhaps this might shed some light on how sh!tty the CF sea boots are.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Halifax Tar on March 11, 2013, 09:42:39
Nobody's ever said, "There's a flood in St-Jean!  Quick, do push-ups!"  People have most definitely said, "There's a flood in St-Jean!  STACK SAND BAGS!"

That is, quite probably, the most relevant thing stated so far in this thread.

Quite right Haggis, that is one of the most logical statments in this thread.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: AmmoTech90 on March 11, 2013, 15:47:21
The Army is very much considering insisting on operational dress for the test.

That's stupid, you are then throwing the defendable science out the window if you do not redo the entire experimentation process using operational dress.  If the experiment is not validated using operational dress then the test would probably not stand up to a Human Right's claim against the single standard.

I know the Army doesn't like science, but I'm pretty sure it likes HR challenges less.

Edit: Wrong your...
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on March 11, 2013, 16:06:45
We'd then have to outfit the entire of the RCN in some non-steel toed footwear just to do a test once a year. 
No.  The tests simulate tasks that RCN pers (and every other service member) are expected to be capable of doing as part of their jobs on operations without the option of changing to more comfortable footwear.  If mbrs of the RCN cannot do this in their operational footwear, that is a sign something is wrong with the footwear - it is not a sign that we should do fitness tests, simulating operational tasks, in non-operational footwear.

That's stupid, ...
You are scaremongering.  The tests simulate operational tasks, and when one makes a simulation closer to reality then one increases the accuracy and validity of the simulation (and yes, this is supported by science).  In contrast to your argument, the use of operational footwear could make the tests more defensible in an HR claim.

In any case, there is testing data on the tests which include conduct in operational footwear.  Have a look at this video that has been posted a few times in the thread:  http://vimeo.com/m/54119198
We'll have the numbers to please the statisticians. 
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: AmmoTech90 on March 11, 2013, 16:26:40
Not scaremongering, just incredulous at the lenghts people will go to make sure people think they are special.  What sort of leading change score does one get for changing a change that hasn't been implemented yet?

The data may be there, and the tasks are based on UoS tasks, but the timings are based on PT strip just as the weights for the drag are based on the type of floor.  So now you are going to two standards with time, and the Army one will probably allow more if they want to keep the test valid.

Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Ditch on March 11, 2013, 16:28:09
So while I'm stacking sand-bags - wearing my flight suit and steel toed boots - who holds my coffee cup?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on March 11, 2013, 16:44:50
So while I'm stacking sand-bags - wearing my flight suit and steel toed boots - who holds my coffee cup?

No one.

You set your coffee cup on the table next to your Blackberry and Oakleys BEFORE you start the test.

Let's be realistic here. 
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Pat in Halifax on March 11, 2013, 16:45:07
So while I'm stacking sand-bags - wearing my flight suit and steel toed boots - who holds my coffee cup?
The concierge?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: fhg1893 on March 11, 2013, 16:50:08
Didn't the MND and the CDS do the test in PT-strip?  Call me crazy, but wouldn't it make more sense for the upper echelons to do the test in the same clothing that will be worn for testing?  Or maybe I'm just applying logic to the government, which I know, is always a dangerous combination.  Especially when government meets the Canadian Forces...
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: SF2 on March 11, 2013, 17:09:58
No one.

You set your coffee cup on the table next to your Blackberry and Oakleys BEFORE you start the test.

Let's be realistic here.

Incorrect.  Oakleys are to be affixed on the head above the hairline at a 50 degree angle that bisects a horizontal line extending from the top of the ear.  If hair is spiked, at least 20% of said spiked hair must protrude forward of the glasses.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: krustyrl on March 11, 2013, 17:13:38
Incorrect.  Oakleys are to be affixed on the head above the hairline at a 50 degree angle that bisects a horizontal line extending from the top of the ear.  If hair is spiked, at least 20% of said spiked hair must protrude forward of the glasses.

I thank you for the laugh good sir,  most excellent description.!!
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on March 11, 2013, 17:38:04
Not scaremongering, just incredulous at the lenghts people will go to make sure people think they are special.
Everyone should do the test in their boots.  It is not about anyone appearing special.

What sort of leading change score does one get for changing a change that hasn't been implemented yet?
Sometimes it is not about getting the leading change bullet; sometimes it is about getting things right.  Your arguments are playing at ad hominem.

So while I'm stacking sand-bags - wearing my flight suit and steel toed boots - who holds my coffee cup?
You mean that you don't know how to hold it yourself while doing two handed tasks?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: medicineman on March 11, 2013, 21:38:07
So while I'm stacking sand-bags - wearing my flight suit and steel toed boots - who holds my coffee cup?
 

You get a snap link, hook the cup onto your survival vest and push the drink hole to the closed position  ;D,.

MM
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: AmmoTech90 on March 11, 2013, 22:40:27
Your arguments are playing at ad hominem.

If you mean that I am criticizing the Army, then yes you may be right.  The person, in the form of the Army, may be doing something I feel is stupid.  I have made my points regarding why I think their potential decision is bad, and then expressed some opinions about why those decisions may have been made.  Seeing as every action is the result of decision I don't think you can criticize a person's decision making process without criticizing the person, so yes the argument would have to be ad hominem, it is the nature of the target.  I'm sorry if I offended you personally in my criticism of an institution's decision making process and the culture that drives it.

My points are about the fact that our leadership has publicized and promoted a carefully designed and thought out test that is scientifically and legally sound and then certain subordinates have decided it doesn't meet the requirements.

My question would be, did the Comd CA raise the point of dress at any of the (I believe) three presentations about this that were made to AFC?  Were his concerns addressed?  I cannot see this getting to point where the CDS and MND demonstrate the test for the whole CAF and world to see without the Comd CA being on board with the test.  If it did, that is bad decision on the part of the CAF and seeing as the CAF can make bad decision maybe the whole FORCE test should be tossed out as it was made by the CAF (seeing as we are tossing logical fallacies around that is an inductive fallacy btw) (and the previous comment could be considered ad hominem).
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on March 11, 2013, 22:57:56
My points are about the fact that our leadership has publicized and promoted a carefully designed and thought out test that is scientifically and legally sound and then certain subordinates have decided it doesn't meet the requirements.
You are assuming a chronology.  Long before the public demonstration, this thread identified that the test should be done in operational footwear.  And before the public demonstration, the Army would have known that running shoes were the wrong dress standard for the fitness evaluation we need.

It is not too late in the game to fix the test if we've got it wrong.  If some L1s don't want to go along, that puts the Army in a position of having to decide if it wants to go it alone.

Sticking to a flawed test just because we've done the photo op, that would be stupid.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: AmmoTech90 on March 11, 2013, 23:42:39
Assuming it is a flawed test because it isn't is in combat boots is stupid.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on March 12, 2013, 00:14:18
It is an observed flaw, not an assumed one.  The use of running shoes is a source of error in the test's model of operational tasks.

Regardless, it would seem the Army (according to some well conected posters) and I disagree with you.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: daftandbarmy on March 12, 2013, 01:09:37
 

You get a snap link, hook the cup onto your survival vest and push the drink hole to the closed position  ;D,.

MM

I think I've just found an alternate way to Expres myself during this test: ;D
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on March 12, 2013, 02:21:07
So, just how is the CA "in a position of having to decide if it wants to go it alone"  when it is NOT an Army test?

I find it very ironic that you are in this thread posting for different standards.  This test is a minimal test of UofS.  You put some troops in combat boots and some in steel toed, then they are NOT doing the testing at the same minimal standard no matter how you like to slice it.  It's a minimal UofS test for cripes sake, not the Battle for Vimy Ridge.  I heard a rumour once that when the crap hits the fan and the bullets start flying, the adrenalin starts going too ... and that is why no minimal UofS test in the world will ever actually simulate how it would go down in real life.

Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on March 12, 2013, 02:49:04
I am suggesting what I believe to be the minimal.  The common tasks are tasks done in operational footwear.  If you cannot do the tests like that, you cannot do the real thing.  This is a minimum universality of service test, and the service is not done in sneakers.

You don't think putting on boots makes this simple test into a hard Army, Battle of Vimy test?  For years, Combat Engineers have been training building bridges, responding to attack, winning the fight, extracting casualties off the X, and continuing the build all while wearing the Army steel toed boot.  Nothing about wearing full NCD or combats brings the fitness test anywhere near a real hard charging Army task.

We will ask all service personnel to do the common tasks in full operational dress.  What is so wrong about expecting they be able to do the simulation with the boots and uniform?

So, just how is the CA "in a position of having to decide if it wants to go it alone"  when it is NOT an Army test?
The same way it was in a position to go it alone when the old CF Express was not good enough.  This is not desirable, but if only the Army is prepared to do the test in boots then the Army may again choose to do its own thing.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on March 12, 2013, 02:55:01
I am suggesting what I believe to be the minimal.  The common tasks are tasks done in operational footwear.  If you cannot do the tests like that, you cannot do the real thing.  This is a minimum universality of service test, and the service is not done in sneakers.

You don't think putting on boots makes this simple test into a hard Army, Battle of Vimy test?  For years, Combat Engineers have been training building bridges, responding to attack, winning the fight, extracting casualties off the X, and continuing the build all while wearing the Army steel toed boot.  Nothing about wearing full NCD or combats brings the fitness test anywhere near a real hard charging Army task.

We will ask all service personnel to do the common tasks in full operational dress.  What is so wrong about expecting they be able to do the simulation with the boots and uniform?
The same way it was in a position to go it alone when the old CF Express was not good enough.  This is not desirable, but if only the Army is prepared to do the test in boots then the Army may again choose to do its own thing.

Nope; I just think it's very ironic that people who did the trials here months ago were in PT Strip for them. No one should be surprised on that front.  Some people who participated in trials posted in this thread ... and posted their dress too.

It is a minimal UofS testing that is supposed to be common to all.  Running shoes would be the one common type of footwear that we currently all have is all I'm saying.

Eerily too ... in all the years of bitching about our last UofS minimal test - the CF Expres Test - never once do I recall seeing or hearing anyone ***** about how it did not truly reflect operational tasks due to it being done in PT strip.  Every other thing you can think of, but never once did anyone infer that because it was PT Strip, it obviously failed to reflect operations.  Yet, the inference with this new thread has some pers writing it off based upon that "major" (??) failure. Given how many years the Expres lasted in PT strip, I'm inclined to believe that our institution considers PT Strip to be just fine.

My Battle of Vimy comment was directly related to your earlier statement regarding the Army giving thought to "going it alone" due to the PT Strip.  It is not an Army test; it is a CF test.  The Army may choose to still do supplemental fitness testing of whatever type, but the FORCE Test needs to CF-entire.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on March 12, 2013, 08:25:31
I think I've just found an alternate way to Expres myself during this test: ;D


....and the MP are already aware of that ad and all over it like ugly on an ape.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on March 12, 2013, 09:55:28
I think I've just found an alternate way to Expres myself during this test: ;D

[Better forward this to every military prof at RMC]

Well, the court-martial fine was $5000; going this way would have saved $3200.

[/Better forward this to every military prof at RMC]
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 12, 2013, 09:59:51
If this test does away with the the age and gender biased wouldn't it be ideal to do it in PT strip with running shoes?

I'm not too sure what the Airforce or Navy wear clothing wise but I'm guessing there are some differences with boots or what they would each wear on operations?    I'm not trolling the tread it just seems like running shoes would be the easiest and fairest approach.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: SeaKingTacco on March 12, 2013, 10:25:55
My operational dress is:

A flying helmet
Flying gloves
Survival vest
Immersion suit (with liner)
Boots, really heavy

For this to be a "fair" test, I should have to wear that?

As Vern said, this is a U of S test, not an Army test.

If the Army feels the need for a supplementary/complimentary test for their special needs, I say that they should fill their boots ( see what I did there?) and go design one that involves operational dress.  That should just about consume all Army staff horsepower for the next 10 years, as this gets argued from Brigade to Brigade and Corps to Corps.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Occam on March 12, 2013, 10:32:18

....and the MP are already aware of that ad and all over it like ugly on an ape.

Not like it hasn't been tried (http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/en/2012/collins-jf.page?) before.   ;D
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Eye In The Sky on March 12, 2013, 10:41:42
If this test does away with the the age and gender biased wouldn't it be ideal to do it in PT strip with running shoes?

I'm not too sure what the Airforce or Navy wear clothing wise but I'm guessing there are some differences with boots or what they would each wear on operations?    I'm not trolling the tread it just seems like running shoes would be the easiest and fairest approach.

I weighed a pair of the issued Air Force Temperate Combat Boots (aka *clunkers*), they were just over 5 lbs/pair with the steel toe/plate and full leather upper.  Its likely safe to assume the CWWBs are slightly heavier.   [Flight Comment article on the issued RCAF boots (http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/dfs-dsv/pub/nr-sp/index-eng.asp?id=9911)].

Thankfully, my orthodics don't allow me to wear them and I have to get LPO boots.  Magnum makes full leather, CSA Gr 1 boots with composite toe/plate and they are less than half the weight.   :nod:  My experience with the issued RCAF boots was the leather heel cup made it hard to just walk around in them and have skin left at the end of the day, let alone do a PT test in them.   

If this is a CF test, with a common standard supposedly applied to each CF member the same way, it seems the best thing to do is adopt a single standard across the board for dress.   Easy enough to do, just insert the word "SHALL" in the appropriate place and enforce it from the top down.  Then sort out those with 'their own ideas'.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: garb811 on March 12, 2013, 11:22:28
So the Navy is complaining because they don't do low crawls so don't see why an approximation of that is included in the test;

The Army is complaining because in order to fully simulate Operational tasks you should be dressed in Operational dress in order to have an accurate simulation of the Operational tasks being simulated on the test; and

The Airforce is complaining because there is no scope for doing the test while holding a coffee.

Seems like they got it about right.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: captloadie on March 12, 2013, 11:28:57
I think that if the Army insists on wearing boots, they should all have to wear the issued ones. No Magnums, no Swats, just what they get at supply, because that's the Operational dress provided. See how long before you get senior staff wanting exceptions made to the "standard".

And by the way, since when do L1's, even the Comd of the CA, get to go it alone. Last time I checked, he has to follow direction just like everyone else.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Eye In The Sky on March 12, 2013, 11:50:37
I think that if the Army insists on wearing boots, they should all have to wear the issued ones. No Magnums, no Swats, just what they get at supply, because that's the Operational dress provided.

My Magnums are my issued boots.  IAW the Supply regs, I can't get issued the 'standard issue' ones because I have LPO'd Temp Cbt boots and CWWBs.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on March 12, 2013, 12:00:01
My Magnums are my issued boots.  IAW the Supply regs, I can't get issued the 'standard issue' ones because I have LPO'd Temp Cbt boots and CWWBs.

You are an exception.  Therefore, to be fair to those who wear the issued GP boot, you should have less time to complete the 10 m rushes and loaded shuttles.....

 :stirpot:
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: fhg1893 on March 12, 2013, 12:03:19
Could someone elaborate a little on the concerns about doing the test in operational dress?  I understand that boots make a difference when it comes to certain tasks.  One would think that footware isn't terribly relevant for the sandbag lift and the loaded shuttles.  Boots would be an advantage for the sandbag drag, and a bit stupid/suicidal for the 20m rushes.  Have I got that right?

Sorry, a bit lost...
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on March 12, 2013, 19:14:20
Given how many years the Expres lasted in PT strip, I'm inclined to believe that our institution considers PT Strip to be just fine.
The CF has come right out and said that the Express was less than “just fine.”  Rather, the CF Express failed as a reliable predictor of success in the common operational tasks.  It should be the last thing one points to as proof of “just fine.”

... in all the years of bitching about our last UofS minimal test - the CF Expres Test - never once do I recall seeing or hearing anyone ***** about how it did not truly reflect operational tasks due to it being done in PT strip. 
No, nobody would have pointed to PT strip because the test itself was so far removed from reflecting the operational tasks that it was not worth getting to the topic of dress.  However, the relevance of operational dress and equipment comes up quite frequently in discussions of the BFT because that test was at least recognizable to military tasks.  A push-up does not directly correlate to any task regardless of the clothing.  Unlike the new tests, doing Express in operational uniform would not make it any more realistic or accurate an evaluation.

Running shoes would be the one common type of footwear that we currently all have is all I'm saying.
There is as much variance in the types of running shoes out there as there is in boots.

My operational dress is:
That list is mixing clothing and equipment.  Helmets, armour, load-carriage, cold/arctic clothing, immersion clothing, etc, etc don’t belong in the common CF fitness test.  However, everyone has an operational uniform with boots.  Everyone must be able to do the operational tasks in that operational uniform with that operational footwear. 

... since when do L1's, even the Comd of the CA, get to go it alone. Last time I checked, he has to follow direction just like everyone else.
The Army has been going its own direction with respect to fitness testing for the last many years.  It has been called the LFCPFS and the test was also known as the BFT.

Desirably, the CF would go to one common standard.  But it would not be unreasonable of the Army to insist that standard include the bare operational uniform as dress while pers perform task simulations.

Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: jollyjacktar on March 12, 2013, 19:28:16
But it would not be unreasonable of the Army to insist that standard include the bare operational uniform as dress while pers perform task simulations.
And it would not be unreasonable for the other two stake holders, the Navy and Air Force, to insist otherwise if they so desired either.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on March 12, 2013, 19:46:45
And it would not be unreasonable for the other two stake holders, the Navy and Air Force, to insist otherwise if they so desired either.

[It Never Really Works Like This in NDHQ]

It would not be unreasonable for the authority in this matter, the Chief of Military Personnel, to issue direction that others must follow.

[/It Never Really Works Like This in NDHQ]
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Halifax Tar on March 12, 2013, 19:55:53
Isn't unification a wonderful thing ? 

Trying to say 1 standard PT test is a predictor for all three services is just plain wrong apparently right down to the dress standards while preforming said test. 

Why not let the RCN, CA and RCAF develop a fitness test that they each deem appropriate for their operational needs and run with it ?  For us purple folks we simply conduct what ever test is administered by the command we work for at that moment.  Folks not under the RCN, CA and RCAF will do the test prescribed the unit CO they belong too or as dictated to him/her by higher.  The shock of letting a CDR/LCol make that kind of decision, I know!

Get rid of the exempt button on the PER and the extra PER points and its a simple pass/fail.

Enforce mandatory daily unit PT as a CF standard as well.  No reason a ships company cannot fall in at 0730 and leave the duty watch behind to go do some circuit training or what have you.  Units should rely on BFTA/AFTA, PLQ/JLC and PSP qualified folks to organize and run the training. 

Just my 2 cents flame away as you see fit
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: jwtg on March 12, 2013, 21:02:52
 

Why not let the RCN, CA and RCAF develop a fitness test that they each deem appropriate for their operational needs and run with it ?  For us purple folks we simply conduct what ever test is administered by the command we work for at that moment.  Folks not under the RCN, CA and RCAF will do the test prescribed the unit CO they belong too or as dictated to him/her by higher.  The shock of letting a CDR/LCol make that kind of decision, I know!


One thing I keep hearing is that by having this unified, predictive (to whatever degree it is predictive) test, the CF ensures that there is a standard which must be met, and will stand up in court or human rights tribunal.

In your hypothetical situation, what happens if someone fails the CA test and is (eventually) released?  OT to an RCAF trade?  Get posted to a new unit?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Halifax Tar on March 12, 2013, 21:09:05
One thing I keep hearing is that by having this unified, predictive (to whatever degree it is predictive) test, the CF ensures that there is a standard which must be met, and will stand up in court or human rights tribunal.

In your hypothetical situation, what happens if someone fails the CA test and is (eventually) released?  OT to an RCAF trade?  Get posted to a new unit?

That a good question and this may raise particular questions for us purple folks.  I guess I would have to say you would be subject to that standard.  If you fail a PT test you would go through the prescribed DAOD.

Great point though.   
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PuckChaser on March 12, 2013, 22:39:46
There's nothing stopping the RCN and RCAF or even the CA from developing their own tests. FORCE is for UoS. If the Navy thinks they need a special test specific to ship duties, they can spend their budget and do it. The CA has had it for years (Expres in non-field units and BFT in field units). Maybe someone can even get a leading change bubble bump for developing a test specific to their environment.

I really don't see what the big deal with this is. It seems head and shoulders above what an EXPRES test was, and simply gives you a check in the box that you are fit enough to continue service in the CAF.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on March 12, 2013, 22:54:43
Here's a new tinfoil clad "reasoning" (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2013/03/12/20648976.html) behind the implementation of Project FORCE, shared with the usual disclaimer.

Canadian Forces vet says new fitness test geared to cut staff

By Jessica Hume, Parliamentary Bureau

OTTAWA — Not all members of the Canadian Forces are convinced a new fitness test is just about trimming waistlines.

Some believe the exponentially more rigorous test is a misnomer for a forced reduction plan — and not just because its timing coincides with budget cuts to the department.

With budget cuts to the National Defence at 13% this year and overseas operations winding down, a retired Canadian Forces member also questioned the decision to apply the test equally to all men and women regardless of age, wondering how the military can increase the number of women in the forces while prescribing a test that is measurably more challenging for women and older men.

"This is a much cheaper way to cut down the military while saving money by not offering any money for early release," the former member said. "This is a concerted effort to cut older and female soldiers."

Defence Minister Peter MacKay denied those claims.

Really?  He denied them?   :sarcasm:
 


Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MARS on March 12, 2013, 23:15:14
So the Navy is complaining because they don't do low crawls so don't see why an approximation of that is included in the test;

The Army is complaining because in order to fully simulate Operational tasks you should be dressed in Operational dress in order to have an accurate simulation of the Operational tasks being simulated on the test; and

The Airforce is complaining because there is no scope for doing the test while holding a coffee.

Seems like they got it about right.

 :rofl:

Love it
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Dolphin_Hunter on March 12, 2013, 23:27:44
The big problem I see with this test is how all of a sudden someone
thought to add more weight to the sandbag pull.  Apparently the gym floor
is too slick, so more weight is added, I don't understand how after all the testing that was done prior
to this coming online that now the lack of friction on the gym floor is an issue.

Where was the original testing done?  Parking lots? If the testing was done in gymnasiums then why all of a
sudden add on weight? 
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: NFLD Sapper on March 12, 2013, 23:29:54
Wonder if it has more to do with those fancy sandbags they are using?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: AmmoTech90 on March 12, 2013, 23:34:32
So far they have three different weights for three different floor types.  Smoother floor, more weight.  It is not a random decision to add more weight.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: NFLD Sapper on March 12, 2013, 23:35:48
Care to share what the weights are or did I miss them in this thread?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Dolphin_Hunter on March 12, 2013, 23:58:47
So far they have three different weights for three different floor types.  Smoother floor, more weight.  It is not a random decision to add more weight.

That is not the impression I got from several different individuals in Comox.
One of which was a surprised WCWO, the others were PSP staff.

Sandbag Drag: Carry one 20 kg sandbag while pulling four 20 kg sandbags on the ground (100 kg total) over 20 m without stopping.

That was the standard, nothing mentioned about the floors on the website.


Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Eye In The Sky on March 13, 2013, 07:33:36

Enforce mandatory daily unit PT as a CF standard as well.  No reason a ships company cannot fall in at 0730 and leave the duty watch behind to go do some circuit training or what have you.  Units should rely on BFTA/AFTA, PLQ/JLC and PSP qualified folks to organize and run the training. 

Just my 2 cents flame away as you see fit

It is going to be a change in mindset, for some.  Example, one time several years ago, I was asked why I wanted to and thought I needed to do PT on a regular basis "because I had already passed my PT test for that year".   It was thought by my supervisor that PT was a waste of time if the test wasn't for X amount of months. 

I'll add, make units and supervisors at all levels follow the current direction in the DAOD and CDS Guidance to CO's on PT.   
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: milnews.ca on March 13, 2013, 08:28:00
Sun Media on the REAL agenda behind the new fitness testing regime, (http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/03/20130312-145445.html) attributed to an unidentified (if the headline is to be believed) "Ex-Canadian Forces doc" ....
Quote
Not all members of the Canadian Forces are convinced a new fitness test is just about trimming waistlines.

Some believe the exponentially more rigorous test is a misnomer for a forced reduction plan - and not just because its timing coincides with budget cuts to the department.

With budget cuts to the National Defence at 13% this year and overseas operations winding down, one retired military physician believes the fitness test offers the Canadian Forces a way to reduce its numbers and achieve savings - as members dismissed for inadequate fitness don't receive severance or bonus packages.

Speaking on the condition of anonymity, a retired Canadian Forces member also questioned the decision to apply the test equally to all men and women regardless of age, wondering how the military can increase the number of women in the forces while prescribing a test that is measurably more challenging for women and older men.

"This is a much cheaper way to cut down the military while saving money by not offering any money for early release," the former member said. "This is a concerted effort to cut older and female soldiers."

Defence Minister Peter MacKay denied those claims. Asked whether the fitness test was an attempt to reduce numbers, he said: "Absolutely not" ....
::)
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: AmmoTech90 on March 13, 2013, 09:04:01
That is not the impression I got from several different individuals in Comox.
One of which was a surprised WCWO, the others were PSP staff.

Sandbag Drag: Carry one 20 kg sandbag while pulling four 20 kg sandbags on the ground (100 kg total) over 20 m without stopping.

That was the standard, nothing mentioned about the floors on the website.

That was from the one of the developers of the test.  The baseline weight for the casualty drag is 86kg, but because sandbags are easier to drag (no boot heels digging in, less actual weight has to be lifted to you chest, you don't have to put the sandbags into the back of a truck at the end of the drag, etc) the weight is increased to reflect the same amount of effort required to complete the task.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Halifax Tar on March 13, 2013, 11:01:27
It is going to be a change in mindset, for some.  Example, one time several years ago, I was asked why I wanted to and thought I needed to do PT on a regular basis "because I had already passed my PT test for that year".   It was thought by my supervisor that PT was a waste of time if the test wasn't for X amount of months. 

I'll add, make units and supervisors at all levels follow the current direction in the DAOD and CDS Guidance to CO's on PT.

It would a monunmental change of mindset for some, not just in the RCN but in many different units and commads in the the CF I suspect. 

Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Dirt Digger on March 13, 2013, 12:07:23
I've seen a few comments regarding the use of operational boots while performing the new test. However, I'll go out on a limb and assume that for a lot of personnel out there, the testing is still going to be performed in the local base gym. 

Considering that the PSPs lose their nut when you wear "outside runners" on their pristine gym floor, I would certainly look forward to watching the aneurisms suffered when a pair of combat boots leaves a big black streak at the 20m pivot point.

Operational concerns will never trump non-marking soles!   ;D
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: C.G.R on March 13, 2013, 13:05:08
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/ID/2340185134/

I couldnt watch it on my phone, but here is a video of the CDS and MND doing the test.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: C.G.R on March 13, 2013, 13:14:09
Oops sorry, just realized it was posted already a few pages back.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Dolphin_Hunter on March 13, 2013, 13:34:31
That was from the one of the developers of the test.  The baseline weight for the casualty drag is 86kg, but because sandbags are easier to drag (no boot heels digging in, less actual weight has to be lifted to you chest, you don't have to put the sandbags into the back of a truck at the end of the drag, etc) the weight is increased to reflect the same amount of effort required to complete the task.

I get why the weight is added, and I assume they took into account less friction between the running shoe and the slick floor, not to mention that over time the floor becomes worn and less slick. 

I also believe that the added weight requirements should be annotated on the website explaining the test.

Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: signalsguy on March 13, 2013, 19:20:36
The researchers from PSP Human Performance R&D were in Kingston doing friction testing on various floor surfaces. So based on that testing, the number of sandbags will vary depending on the floor surface. Obviously a field house pebbled rubber floor has a different coefficient of friction than a glossy wood floor or a concrete armoury floor.

Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Spectrum on March 13, 2013, 20:33:29
If there's going to be differing drag weights depending where you do the drag, I think the thing will be a waste. I was actually starting to think we had finally got something going the right way until I read the last few pages of this thread.

What a joke, as usual.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: signalsguy on March 13, 2013, 22:20:04
Its not a huge difference, just to compensate for different floor surfaces. Not a big deal.

Don't slam the protocol until you try it...

More info, I don't think I've seen it posted yet:

https://www.cfpsa.com/en/AboutUs/PSP/DFIT/Fitness/FORCEprogram/Pages/default.aspx
Title: From Express Test to FORCE Program
Post by: stretch on March 19, 2013, 10:53:58
It's been years now that I have personally been saying the CF needs to implement a fitness test that involves a single standard and external loads.

you can find more info on it https://www.cfpsa.com/en/AboutUs/PSP/DFIT/Fitness/FORCEprogram/Pages/About-the-FORCE-Program.aspx (https://www.cfpsa.com/en/AboutUs/PSP/DFIT/Fitness/FORCEprogram/Pages/About-the-FORCE-Program.aspx) there

The test includes:

Sandbag Lift:
​30 consecutive lifts of a 20 kg sandbag to a height above 91.5 cm, alternating between left and right sandbags separated by 1.25 m. 3 minutes 30 second's

Intermittent Loaded Shuttles:
Using the 20 m lines, complete ten shuttles (1 shuttle = 20 m there, 20 m back), alternating between a loaded
shuttle with a 20 kg sandbag and an unloaded shuttle, for a total of 400 m. ​5 minutes 21 seconds

​20 metre Rushes:
Starting from prone, complete two shuttle sprints (1 shuttle = 20 m there, 20 m back) dropping to a prone position every 10m, for a total of 80 m. ​51 seconds

Sandbag Drag:
Carry one 20 kg sandbag and pull four on the floor over 20 m without stopping.  Completed without stopping

I can only see this helping the Forces to identify those who unfit for operational tasks.

What do you guys think?
Is one standard a good idea?
Was the CF Express Test good enough?
Title: Re: From Express Test to FORCE Program
Post by: NFLD Sapper on March 19, 2013, 10:58:30
It's been years now that I have personally been saying the CF needs to implement a fitness test that involves a single standard and external loads.

you can find more info on it https://www.cfpsa.com/en/AboutUs/PSP/DFIT/Fitness/FORCEprogram/Pages/About-the-FORCE-Program.aspx (https://www.cfpsa.com/en/AboutUs/PSP/DFIT/Fitness/FORCEprogram/Pages/About-the-FORCE-Program.aspx) there

The test includes:

Sandbag Lift:
​30 consecutive lifts of a 20 kg sandbag to a height above 91.5 cm, alternating between left and right sandbags separated by 1.25 m. 3 minutes 30 second's

Intermittent Loaded Shuttles:
Using the 20 m lines, complete ten shuttles (1 shuttle = 20 m there, 20 m back), alternating between a loaded
shuttle with a 20 kg sandbag and an unloaded shuttle, for a total of 400 m. ​5 minutes 21 seconds

​20 metre Rushes:
Starting from prone, complete two shuttle sprints (1 shuttle = 20 m there, 20 m back) dropping to a prone position every 10m, for a total of 80 m. ​51 seconds

Sandbag Drag:
Carry one 20 kg sandbag and pull four on the floor over 20 m without stopping.  Completed without stopping

I can only see this helping the Forces to identify those who unfit for operational tasks.

What do you guys think?
Is one standard a good idea?
Was the CF Express Test good enough?

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffile.spiralmusick.net%2FWelcomeToLastWeek.jpg&hash=1b45e34758df9c07f9c0db4291f12a79)
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: stretch on March 19, 2013, 14:01:40
Wow how did I miss this thread.

Time to play catch up.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 19, 2013, 15:40:36
We should do a study to see how many CF98s have been submitted thanks to the BFTs firemans carry.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: stretch on March 19, 2013, 19:30:36
We should do a study to see how many CF98s have been submitted thanks to the BFTs firemans carry.

Or mysterious medical issues leading up to the tests.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: HappyWithYourHacky on March 19, 2013, 19:59:44
Or mysterious medical issues leading up to the tests.

Bah! Nothing a box of Cepacol couldn't fix.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Chernoble on March 20, 2013, 11:44:16
Bah! Nothing a box of Cepacol couldn't fix.

I think you mean foot powder:

Upper body = Cepacol
Lower body = Foot Powder
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Pandora114 on March 28, 2013, 10:34:21
I've read through this thread, and am wondering,  (Waiting on info on an academic upgrade program, missed clerk by just one Math point on the CFAT)  what would be the best way to go about training for this test?

The EXPRES test was simple to train for, this one,  what exercises would you suggest to get in perfect shape for this,  weights/reps, whatnot. 

Thanks!
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: derael on March 28, 2013, 11:12:40
We should do a study to see how many CF98s have been submitted thanks to the BFTs firemans carry.

I miss the fireman's carry. It was a lot more pleasant than the drag.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MikeL on March 28, 2013, 11:21:06
I've read through this thread, and am wondering,  (Waiting on info on an academic upgrade program, missed clerk by just one Math point on the CFAT)  what would be the best way to go about training for this test?

The EXPRES test was simple to train for, this one,  what exercises would you suggest to get in perfect shape for this,  weights/reps, whatnot. 

Thanks!

Don't get too focused on training for the test.  Just work on overall fitness; go for runs, do some weight training and HIT, etc.  What happens if you focus your training only on the FORCE test,  but it turns out you are doing the Express test?  AFAIK the FORCE test doesn't become the official test until 2014.  In 2013 serving CF members will have the opportunity to do the FORCE test to get a feel for it,  but it won't be recorded.

Incorporate parts of the PT test into your training,  but you have to do more then just what is done on the test.

There is so much information on this forum and other websites(Canadian, US, etc) regarding fitness for the military, running programs, etc 
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: captloadie on March 28, 2013, 12:50:28
  AFAIK the FORCE test doesn't become the official test until 2014.  In 2013 serving CF members will have the opportunity to do the FORCE test to get a feel for it,  but it won't be recorded.

I don't believe this is accurate, at least it isn't in the RCAF. Members who attempt the FORCE test and pass will be given the pass for the year. If you cannot complete or pass the FORCE test, you can still do the EXPRESS test as your annual evaluation. As well, only a failure of the EXPRESS test would begin the Admin ball rolling.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on March 28, 2013, 12:52:25
So, in the RCAF you will have to fail the FORCE test before being allowed to attempt the EXPRESS in 13/14?
Seems like a reasonable approach for the transition year.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: jwtg on March 28, 2013, 13:10:22
I've read through this thread, and am wondering,  (Waiting on info on an academic upgrade program, missed clerk by just one Math point on the CFAT)  what would be the best way to go about training for this test?

The EXPRES test was simple to train for, this one,  what exercises would you suggest to get in perfect shape for this,  weights/reps, whatnot. 

Thanks!
I ran the test last week- most of RMC did.  I found the FORCE test easy, and my performance on the EXPRES is exemption, while my PPT (RMC test) score is usually in the mid-300 level (possible 500 pts), where 400+ would be an extremely high level of fitness.  So over all, I'm a little above average, but not elite.

I assume you're young-ish (although I know that isn't always the case), if you're applying, and give the following insight:

I completed almost every test in less than half the time allotted.  I pushed myself pretty hard, but could have worked a lot less hard and still met the standard.

My training regime is pretty basic and varied- I run a few times a week (both distance/cardio and sprints/intervals), lift weights 1-2 times a week, and do bodyweight exercises (basic stuff- pushups, pull ups, core stuff) 3-4 times a week.  It's pretty average, and it prepared me well for the FORCE test.

My advice, if you are young and athletic, is just to train.  Intervals, cardio, and some kind of resistance training that includes squats, should get you more than ready for the FORCE test.  I can certainly see how some older people will have difficult with some of the tasks (sprints, for example) but young, athletic people should have no problem.  The one thing I did notice is that some of the short, thin girls had a hard time with the sandbag drag.  For a lot of them, it was well above (almost 2x) their body weight, and they found it pretty difficult; even so, most of them passed, and the rest have enough time to increase their strength that they should pass next year.

Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ARMY_101 on March 29, 2013, 12:42:08
Members who attempt the FORCE test and pass will be given the pass for the year. If you cannot complete or pass the FORCE test, you can still do the EXPRESS test as your annual evaluation. As well, only a failure of the EXPRESS test would begin the Admin ball rolling.

+1

This is what the FORCE CANFORGEN said.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: WLUArmyBrat on April 01, 2013, 16:23:34
Looking around, I cannot find the answer.

It says it's launched for Testing today. At Basic is this done, or is the EXPRES done until it's official launch April 2014?
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: airmich on April 01, 2013, 18:58:32
Looking around, I cannot find the answer.

It says it's launched for Testing today. At Basic is this done, or is the EXPRES done until it's official launch April 2014?

I was at St Jean for a conference and tour a few weeks ago.  We were talking with the I/C of Warrior platoon and the PSP staff and I asked this same question.  The new FORCE will not be in effect at BMQ until 1 Apr 2014.  Until then, they will be working on how to integrate it into training and program.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: GnyHwy on April 02, 2013, 10:08:44
The one thing I did notice is that some of the short, thin girls had a hard time with the sandbag drag.  For a lot of them, it was well above (almost 2x) their body weight, and they found it pretty difficult; even so, most of them passed, and the rest have enough time to increase their strength that they should pass next year.

While squats and other leg strengthening exercises will certainly help, technique will go along way with this one.  The persons who have trouble with this need to get their legs pumping faster.  They should be using short and quick steps, likely double or even triple what they may be doing now, and once you get momentum, don't stop or slow down.

Ever watched a 180lb running back push back a 300lb lineman?  Watch his legs, they are pumping like crazy.  Try it yourself.  Push or pull against someone with slow "powerful" strides, and then try again with short and quick strides.  The latter will be much more effective.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ARMY_101 on April 02, 2013, 10:09:33
Quote
STARTING 1 APR 2013, PSP FITNESS STAFF AND LOCAL CHAINS OF COMMAND WILL SCHEDULE FORCE EVALUATION FAMILIARIZATION SESSIONS TO INTRODUCE THE TEST TO LOCAL CAF PERSONNEL. THROUGHOUT FY 2013/2014, CAF PERSONNEL WILL BE REQUIRED TO ATTEMPT THE NEW FORCE EVALUATION AS THEIR FITNESS TEST ON A TRIAL BASIS. IF THEY MEET THE STANDARD, IT WILL COUNT AS THEIR FITNESS EVALUATION FOR THE NEXT 365-DAY PERIOD. IF NOT, THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A CURRENT CF EXPRES EVALUATION. CF EXPRES RESULTS OBTAINED IN FY 2013/2014 WILL BE VALID FOR 365 DAYS ONLY. NO EXEMPT STATUS WILL BE AWARDED. AS OF 1 APR 2014, THE FORCE EVALUATION WILL BECOME THE ONLY VALID CAF FITNESS TEST.
Title: The new universal Canadian Forces Fitness Test- the "Project FORCE Evaluation"
Post by: HavoK on April 06, 2013, 20:46:03
I attended the awareness session on base delivered by PSP, so this information is straight from the horse's mouth as of Thurs, 4 Apr 13 .  As stated in a recent CANFORGEN, everyone will still be required to attempt the FORCE evaluation this FY, even if you currently have exempt status from your last Express test.  If you fail, you can complete the Express test (this FY only) instead.  But as of 1 Apr 14, the Express test is no longer valid.  Also, there is no planned exemption incentive with the FORCE evaluation at this time.


The four tests of the FORCE Evaluation are to be administered in no specific order.  It will be whatever the test administrator deems most conducive to qualifying as many people as quickly as possible.

 For the purposes of the FORCE Evaluation, all sandbags weigh 20kgs (44 lbs).

 Sandbag lift- Alternatively lifting one of two side-by-side sandbags from the floor to touch a line on the wall that's 100 cms high.  X 30 reps over 3:30.  For reference, the guy demonstrating this test in the video is on pace to complete his 30 reps in half the alotted time.

 5 min break

 Loaded shuttle- 5 walks of 40 meters with a shouldered sandbag, and 5 reps of 40 meters with no weight (to be jogged or shuffled) in 5:21.

 5 min break

 Sandbag drag- 1 sandbag will be held close to the chest while it is tied to 4 other sandbags on the ground + a single 10kg weight plate (this extra 10kgs is added to compensate for the slickness of the floors at the particular base gym where I am) for 110kgs (242lbs) total.  The bags will be dragged for 20 meters.  There is no time limit for this test, however, it has to be completed without stopping.

 5 min break

 Rushes- Similar to a shuttle run: A total of 80 meters is covered, every 20 meters the line must be touched by your foot before you adopt the prone position and remove hands from the floor.  Then you get up and run to/turn around and run to the next line.  This has to be completed in 0:51.

 And that's it.

If anyone has questions about it I can answer to the best of my knowledge.

Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Ralph on April 06, 2013, 21:23:52
How does the BFT fit into this? I've heard Project Force is taking the place of both the BFT and EXPRES, and I've also heard it's sit no change - except I assume if you can't get exempt on PF you won't get an exempt off the BFT...
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: airmich on April 06, 2013, 21:29:33
FORCE is the minimum.  Elements, units etc can still have their pers do more.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: HavoK on April 06, 2013, 22:02:41
FORCE is the minimum.  Elements, units etc can still have their pers do more.
+1 on this.

As I stated above, come 1 Apr 14, the Express and BFT will no longer be valid.  Units can do BFTs all they want but they won't exempt you from the FORCE evaluation.

And as of this time, there are NO plans for an exemption incentive with the FORCE evaluation.  So if you're exempt now, the only plus is how it looks on your PDR.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 06, 2013, 22:05:33
Exempt status could be picking both sandbags up at once and reaching the certain level on the wall instead of alternating back and forth between the two.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PuckChaser on April 06, 2013, 22:06:11
As I stated above, come 1 Apr 14, the Express and BFT will no longer be valid.  Units can do BFTs all they want but they won't exempt you from the FORCE evaluation.

Wheres your CANARMYGEN to support this? The only thing I've ever seen was that EXPRES is gone 1 Apr 14 as per the CANFORGEN, not LFCPFS (aka the BFT).
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: HavoK on April 06, 2013, 22:17:13
Wheres your CANARMYGEN to support this? The only thing I've ever seen was that EXPRES is gone 1 Apr 14 as per the CANFORGEN, not LFCPFS (aka the BFT).

I haven't seen that in writing.  My source is the Awareness Session given by PSP staff at CFB Edmonton two days ago.  I could be mistaken, but as I understand it- BFTs may (and probably will) still be required by certain units or for operational preparedness, but it won't be like it currently is where you have to complete either the BFT or Express test every year.  Everyone will be required to do the FORCE evaluation. 
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: daftandbarmy on April 07, 2013, 00:15:07
FORCE is the minimum.  Elements, units etc can still have their pers do more.

Unfortunately, FORCE is such a ridiculously low fitness standard for the combat arms, especially the infantry, that thi spolicy will likely result in hazing; or other arbitrarily applied fitenss tests.

Canada: going for Bronze once again.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on April 07, 2013, 00:30:05
It is not an Army test though.  If the Army needs more, it should plug more onto the FORCE test.
My recommendation would be to immeadeatly do the ruck march on completion of the FORCE test.  Pers who fail the FORCE would not be allowed to step-off into the march.  All pers meeting the Army fitness standard would have passed the CAF fitness standard in the process.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on April 07, 2013, 14:01:35
Unfortunately, FORCE is such a ridiculously low fitness standard for the combat arms, especially the infantry, that thi spolicy will likely result in hazing; or other arbitrarily applied fitenss tests.

Canada: going for Bronze once again.

It is not a fitness standard for the combat arms.  It is a standard for the CF.  Don't ascribe to it what it isn't.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: AmmoTech90 on April 07, 2013, 14:48:07
It is not an Army test though.

No, the BFT is much easier to pass than FORCE.

Or were you talking about another test the Army had chosen to assess its pers?

Face it, BFT is easy, EXPpres is easy, and FORCE is easy.  So long as you are in shape.  If you are out of shape reaching for the next donut is hard.  They are all tests to check for a minimum level.  There are alternate methods of dealing with someone who does not put sufficient effort into PT and in doing has poor job performance.

Why not try instituting admin action on someone whose fitness level causes them to do badly at their job.  I've seen admin action be taken on people with poor attention to detail.  They passed the minimum standard (a trades course of some sort), but that did not mean they were exempt from corrective action.  If someone does not complete a task assigned to them because of poor fitness, regardless if they have passed a PT test, treat it like any other shortcoming.

If their fitness level does not affect their job performance, in all aspects of the their job, including deployment, why is anyone's knickers in a twist?

The problem I see most of the people who complain about the ease of the test having, is actually with the standard, not the test.  Don't attack the test, attack the standard that allows for a easy test. 
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on April 07, 2013, 15:20:13
Why not try instituting admin action on someone whose fitness level causes them to do badly at their job?
This can and does happen.  If some chains of command are allowing pers to get away with failing in their job due to fitness, then that is a local leadership failing.

If their fitness level does not affect their job performance, in all aspects of the their job, including deployment, why is anyone's knickers in a knot?
Pers can sit fat and happy for years in a lethargic desk job without risk of demonstrating their inability to perform essential operational tasks. We do need some way of measuring minimum physical ability before lives and mission success are in the balance.  A minimum fitness test does this.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 07, 2013, 16:40:35
The FORCE test seems more strenuous overall than doing 19 pushups/situps (especially the ridiculous standards for women), and is probably in the same realm as the BFT, maybe..

I haven't did it but it kinda seems like a decent acceptance/yearly test for the Canadian Forces, as far as the shape we're currently in.

It would be nice to see the combat arms with a stricter fitness test. Maybe a coopers test type thing with a weight load march.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: signalsguy on April 07, 2013, 20:21:04
Nothing stopping unit COs from talking to their local PSP staff and coming up with some fitness challenge or test for their troops.  It comes back to the 'fitness is a leadership issue' argument.

Have everyone do the FORCE test then implement a unit level fitness policy with quarterly events.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on April 07, 2013, 21:03:56
Because FORCE is an absolute test with no incentive levels or age standards, maybe we can break the pervasive habit of those who do just what's needed to pass the EXPRES test year after year with no attempt to improve.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: recceguy on April 07, 2013, 22:03:09
It is not an Army test though.  If the Army needs more, it should plug more onto the FORCE test.
My recommendation would be to immeadeatly do the ruck march on completion of the FORCE test.  Pers who fail the FORCE would not be allowed to step-off into the march.  All pers meeting the Army fitness standard would have passed the CAF fitness standard in the process.
Nothing stopping unit COs from talking to their local PSP staff and coming up with some fitness challenge or test for their troops.  It comes back to the 'fitness is a leadership issue' argument.

Have everyone do the FORCE test then implement a unit level fitness policy with quarterly events.
Because FORCE is an absolute test with no incentive levels or age standards, maybe we can break the pervasive habit of those who do just what's needed to pass the EXPRES test year after year with no attempt to improve.

Enough with the second guessing every time someone decides to change the test.

If you think the person you're supervising isn't fulfilling the standards of the job he\ she's alloted because they are physically 'inept', start writing it up.

Every one who doesn't seem to agree is usually a PER writer that can't seem to put pen to paper and say the subject is an overweight slob, THAT CAN"T PERFORM TO THE FORCES STANDARD.

They use the PT portion of the PER as a crutch without expanding on it. THey don't use the PDR and Warning System to take corrective action.

If you're not in a position to write it, get promoted to where you are and ******* well do somethng about it.

 All you people bellyaching because you don't find the test hard enough are not in the position to speak for all those in the WHOLE military who have to determine what is equal and fair all around.

If you want to beast yourself everyday after work, go for it. That doesn't mean that everyone else in the military needs to meet YOUR expectation of personal fitness.

Quit coming here whining about something that is already within your power to do something about.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on April 07, 2013, 22:27:20
All you people bellyaching because you don't find the test hard enough are not in the position to speak for all those in the WHOLE military who have to determine what is equal and fair all around.

There were just under 700 participants in Phase III, from all across the CAF, Regs and Reservists (Class A, B and C), males and females, fit and fat , SOF to Sup Tech, old and young.  Interestingly, everyone in the CF had the opportunity to do something to influence the development of the standard.  They could volunteer, as some of us on this forum did, to help set the new standard. 

So, to expand upon Recceguy's comment, if you couldn't be bothered to participate in the development of the test when the PSP came to your base, station or unit looking for test subjects, just give it a rest.  IMO it's like voting - if you didn't bother to cast a vote, don't ***** about who won the election.
Title: New FORCE Program
Post by: EngrTech on April 07, 2013, 22:59:43
So, what does everyone think of the new fitness evaluation protocol? It'll be a one year trial period, but I think it is a nice change from the CF EXPRES test.

Here is a link to the videos for more info: http://vimeo.com/cfpfss/videos

Sigh, didn't notice the thread in the Training section.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on April 08, 2013, 00:24:50
Every one who doesn't seem to agree is usually a PER writer that can't seem to put pen to paper and  ...
Way to stifle debate with that poisoning the well, slap a derogatory label on anyone who suggests there might be room for improvement.  As one of the guys you quoted before handing out that ad hominem slight, I assure that notonly can I lift a pen to paper - I have done it a number of times where pers who passed PT tests lacked the fitness to do their jobs.  The problem is that the CAF is full of out of shape office dwellers whose fitness inability remains hidden and unchallenged until they arrive on operations (international or domestic), putting themselves, others and/or the mission at risk.

If you think that FORCE is perfect and unassailable, you should argue that instead of shotgun insulting anyone who suggests the possibility of otherwise.  For myself, I standby what you quoted from me:
If the Army needs more, it should plug more onto the FORCE test.
My recommendation would be to immediately do the ruck march on completion of the FORCE test.  Pers who fail the FORCE would not be allowed to step-off into the march.  All pers meeting the Army fitness standard would have passed the CAF fitness standard in the process.



Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: recceguy on April 08, 2013, 00:42:20
Way to stifle debate with that poisoning the well, slap a derogatory label on anyone who suggests there might be room for improvement.  As one of the guys you quoted before handing out that ad hominem slight, I assure that notonly can I lift a pen to paper - I have done it a number of times where pers who passed PT tests lacked the fitness to do their jobs.  The problem is that the CAF is full of out of shape office dwellers whose fitness inability remains hidden and unchallenged until they arrive on operations (international or domestic), putting themselves, others and/or the mission at risk.

If you think that FORCE is perfect and unassailable, you should argue that instead of shotgun insulting anyone who suggests the possibility of otherwise.  For myself, I standby what you quoted from me:

Sorry if you feel slighted. I'm tired of the sanctimonious people trying to drive policy.

If you found my comments insulting, you need a thicker skin and have to quit taking things so personal.
Title: Re: Project Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Halifax Tar on April 08, 2013, 09:47:13
The problem is that the CAF is full of out of shape office dwellers whose fitness inability remains hidden and unchallenged until they arrive on operations (international or domestic), putting themselves, others and/or the mission at risk.

Is this really that systemic of a problem ?  I have done 2 deployments with the Army and a few exercises and 1 deployment with the Navy and many exercises and I have yet to see someone fail at their task because of fitness.  I am a Sup Tech and I realize I am not on  the pointy end, but back here at the hilt I haven't noticed a large or any amount of people who fail at their jobs because of fitness.

I sometimes wonder if there really are allot of people who actually fail at their jobs because of fitness, or do some members of the CF have issues with "large" people in uniform regardless of what they can accomplish.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on April 08, 2013, 12:29:36
Is this really that systemic of a problem ?  I have done 2 deployments with the Army and a few exercises and 1 deployment with the Navy and many exercises and I have yet to see someone fail at their task because of fitness.  I am a Sup Tech and I realize I am not on  the pointy end, but back here at the hilt I haven't noticed a large or any amount of people who fail at their jobs because of fitness.

I sometimes wonder if there really are allot of people who actually fail at their jobs because of fitness, or do some members of the CF have issues with "large" people in uniform regardless of what they can accomplish.
Well, there was one well publicised incident of a sr officer who disappeared into a Connaught ditch during a march because of fitness.  Fighting BC fires with sub-units of hard Army and hard Navy occupations, I saw pers unable to move themselves and their equipment about the mountain.  One of our Afghanistan operational deaths was a result of fitness.  Within KAF (a joint place), there were a number who could not move their own kit from pick-up to the truck or the truck to their quarters.  I have seen pers unable to carry their corner of a stretcher to evacuate exercise casualties.  Through good fortune, I have never been in the position of having to evacuate quickly with casualties from a stricken ship or aircraft - the pers described above will be unable to do their job of extracting the casualties (and that is every CAF mbr's job).  Instead, they will struggle, waist time, and risk lives.  And this is not just about those who are fat (sorry, "large" is not an accurate description).  Those who keep themselves small through diet alone and have no muscles worth mention are as much a problem.

For the vast majority of the CAF, I expect the FORCE will be adequate for separating the cans from the cannots to that minimum standard.  What I do not know that FORCE will adequately assess is Army specific.  That is why I say:
If the Army needs more, it should plug more onto the FORCE test.
My recommendation would be to immediately do the ruck march on completion of the FORCE test.  Pers who fail the FORCE would not be allowed to step-off into the march.  All pers meeting the Army fitness standard would have passed the CAF fitness standard in the process.
Title: Re: New FORCE Program
Post by: Dirt Digger on April 08, 2013, 12:58:50
Here is a link to the videos for more info: http://vimeo.com/cfpfss/videos

Thanks for the video link.  Am I correct in assuming that a lot of the extra tests were trialed but didn't make the final cut?  The "picking" video looks like an accident waiting to happen - you can see from the gouges in the tape that a few have almost missed the striking surface.

I'm looking forward to trying out the new test, so I'll reserve judgement until I've physically gone through the motions.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Halifax Tar on April 08, 2013, 14:12:10
Well, there was one well publicised incident of a sr officer who disappeared into a Connaught ditch during a march because of fitness.  Fighting BC fires with sub-units of hard Army and hard Navy occupations, I saw pers unable to move themselves and their equipment about the mountain.  One of our Afghanistan operational deaths was a result of fitness.  Within KAF (a joint place), there were a number who could not move their own kit from pick-up to the truck or the truck to their quarters.  I have seen pers unable to carry their corner of a stretcher to evacuate exercise casualties.  Through good fortune, I have never been in the position of having to evacuate quickly with casualties from a stricken ship or aircraft - the pers described above will be unable to do their job of extracting the casualties (and that is every CAF mbr's job).  Instead, they will struggle, waist time, and risk lives.  And this is not just about those who are fat (sorry, "large" is not an accurate description).  Those who keep themselves small through diet alone and have no muscles worth mention are as much a problem.

For the vast majority of the CAF, I expect the FORCE will be adequate for separating the cans from the cannots to that minimum standard.  What I do not know that FORCE will adequately assess is Army specific.  That is why I say:

Fair enough I have never herd of those cases but I will take your word for it.  Perhaps it is a bigger issue.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PMedMoe on April 08, 2013, 14:42:33
Well, there was one well publicised incident of a sr officer who disappeared into a Connaught ditch during a march because of fitness.  Fighting BC fires with sub-units of hard Army and hard Navy occupations, I saw pers unable to move themselves and their equipment about the mountain.  One of our Afghanistan operational deaths was a result of fitness.  Within KAF (a joint place), there were a number who could not move their own kit from pick-up to the truck or the truck to their quarters.  I have seen pers unable to carry their corner of a stretcher to evacuate exercise casualties.

I can't reply to most of these examples, but I will say that I personally knew the person in the Connaught incident.  The incident was the result of several factors, unfitness was not one of them.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 08, 2013, 16:18:09
I have seen pers unable to carry their corner of a stretcher to evacuate exercise casualties.  Through good fortune, I have never been in the position of having to evacuate quickly with casualties from a stricken ship or aircraft - the pers described above will be unable to do their job of extracting the casualties (and that is every CAF mbr's job).  Instead, they will struggle, waist time, and risk lives.  And this is not just about those who are fat (sorry, "large" is not an accurate description).  Those who keep themselves small through diet alone and have no muscles worth mention are as much a problem.

A most perfectly placed slip!!   ;D
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on April 08, 2013, 16:33:11
If I posted "Bazzinga" would you believe it was deliberate?
:D
Title: Re: New FORCE Program
Post by: EngrTech on April 08, 2013, 19:26:05
Thanks for the video link.  Am I correct in assuming that a lot of the extra tests were trialed but didn't make the final cut?  The "picking" video looks like an accident waiting to happen - you can see from the gouges in the tape that a few have almost missed the striking surface.

I'm looking forward to trying out the new test, so I'll reserve judgement until I've physically gone through the motions.

The extra tests are the 6 common tasks that were boiled down to the 4 evaluated tasks. The videos were there to show how the evaluated tests simulate the 6 common tasks. You can say that they are more representative of the 6 common tasks than the CF EXPRES test.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: 54/102 CEF on April 09, 2013, 20:12:09
I just did the FORCE Test at 60% of the available time LINK BELOW

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/tml/article-eng.asp?id=26&y=2013&m=03

Test 1 - simulate loading 30 sand bags in 3 mins

Test 2 - simulate carrying a weight (I think was 20 kg Sandbag) 40 metres - then run back 40 metres to pick up another

Test 3 - cover 40 metres in 10 metre bounds - drop to push up posn every 10 metres - drop 7 times then run 20 m back - in 51 seconds (first time I did it in 1:14 vs 51.8 seconds the 2nd time

Test 4 - drag some simulated 230 pound HQ Staff Officer 40 M - after 35 m my legs were saying he's just a G1 Pers fat b---tard - throw him to the sharks - but the monitor wouldn;t let me stop

Its a basc measure of fitness - and young guys and gals should do better than old timers like me who's Honorary Col is Col Peter Jackson.....

I suspect that God's and Goddesses who are lean mean no upper body mass are going to get a shock when they do this test.

Survival of the Fittest though - as many surprises in conflict always show us

My prep for the test was this Android APP - which is also on the Iphone Store https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tinymission.dailyworkoutspaid&feature=search_result#?t=W251bGwsMSwyLDEsImNvbS50aW55bWlzc2lvbi5kYWlseXdvcmtvdXRzcGFpZCJd

In dreary winter Ottawa - you can't always get to the gym - but with a yoga mat at the house you can do 20 mins easy every morning before work - then say 20 mins at gym if you get there on cardio just to keep the ahem - tight pants syndrome at bay.

Of course diet plays a part in everything

As I said - the app is quite a revelation - just follow the instructor in the random work out for 10 mins (20 exercises in 10 mins) then 5 min break - then another 10 mins random etc until you've run through 40 mins. At 25 mins I am dripping wet.

20 mins a day should be more than enough to keep you stretched out nicely Mon to Friday

This app should be RECOMMENDED for all Reservists primarily - and of course the full time forces as a complement to their unit PT.

So suck that gut in Soldier! See you at the Gym! Or on the 10 mile bike path from mid May to End Sep



Signed
The Arm Chair General who can be back from Tims before you're out the door

Enjoy! :)
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Chief Stoker on April 09, 2013, 20:36:29
I went to do the new test at Dockyard in Halifax, found out the new test is not being done until June at least. Apparently equipment and personnel is a problem ::) Guess I did the expres for the last time.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Pat in Halifax on April 09, 2013, 21:03:24
Halifax PSP staff have been doing info briefs and I tried to get even a staff demo for this year's Coxn Crs and no go. You'd think this would all be in place. I will do the old Xpress myself in May and then try the new one when things settle down a little probably toward the fall. My move down to CCFL sometime in the next 90 days is my priority at the moment.
If you have enough interest at a Unit (PD Day??), someone may be able to come in for the Info brief. If you don`t have the contact name here in Halifax, PM me and I will pass it on to you.

Pat
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 09, 2013, 22:35:37
Maybe I am not remembering clearly...but the CANFORGEN stated  "shall begin 01 Apr 13" or words to that effect didn't it?

"Sorry we can't make this happen" doesn't seem to be an appropriate response.  Is this PSP being cry babies?

Sometimes the right response to "we can't because of XYZ" is "MAKE IT HAPPEN".
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PMedMoe on April 09, 2013, 22:55:22
2013 is a "interim" year (if I'm not mistaken) and the new test starts 01 Apr 2014.  People can do the new test this year and if they don't pass, they can do the ExPres.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: daftandbarmy on April 10, 2013, 00:36:26
I just did the FORCE Test at 60% of the available time LINK BELOW

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/tml/article-eng.asp?id=26&y=2013&m=03

Test 1 - simulate loading 30 sand bags in 3 mins

Test 2 - simulate carrying a weight (I think was 20 kg Sandbag) 40 metres - then run back 40 metres to pick up another

Test 3 - cover 40 metres in 10 metre bounds - drop to push up posn every 10 metres - drop 7 times then run 20 m back - in 51 seconds (first time I did it in 1:14 vs 51.8 seconds the 2nd time

Test 4 - drag some simulated 230 pound HQ Staff Officer 40 M - after 35 m my legs were saying he's just a G1 Pers fat b---tard - throw him to the sharks - but the monitor wouldn;t let me stop

Its a basc measure of fitness - and young guys and gals should do better than old timers like me who's Honorary Col is Col Peter Jackson.....

I suspect that God's and Goddesses who are lean mean no upper body mass are going to get a shock when they do this test.

Survival of the Fittest though - as many surprises in conflict always show us

My prep for the test was this Android APP - which is also on the Iphone Store https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tinymission.dailyworkoutspaid&feature=search_result#?t=W251bGwsMSwyLDEsImNvbS50aW55bWlzc2lvbi5kYWlseXdvcmtvdXRzcGFpZCJd

In dreary winter Ottawa - you can't always get to the gym - but with a yoga mat at the house you can do 20 mins easy every morning before work - then say 20 mins at gym if you get there on cardio just to keep the ahem - tight pants syndrome at bay.

Of course diet plays a part in everything

As I said - the app is quite a revelation - just follow the instructor in the random work out for 10 mins (20 exercises in 10 mins) then 5 min break - then another 10 mins random etc until you've run through 40 mins. At 25 mins I am dripping wet.

20 mins a day should be more than enough to keep you stretched out nicely Mon to Friday

This app should be RECOMMENDED for all Reservists primarily - and of course the full time forces as a complement to their unit PT.

So suck that gut in Soldier! See you at the Gym! Or on the 10 mile bike path from mid May to End Sep



Signed
The Arm Chair General who can be back from Tims before you're out the door

Enjoy! :)

There you go again, leading from the front . Likely won't go far  with that attitude:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major-General's_Song

 ;D

Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ARMY_101 on April 10, 2013, 09:36:42
Maybe I am not remembering clearly...but the CANFORGEN stated  "shall begin 01 Apr 13" or words to that effect didn't it?

"Sorry we can't make this happen" doesn't seem to be an appropriate response.  Is this PSP being cry babies?

Sometimes the right response to "we can't because of XYZ" is "MAKE IT HAPPEN".

It was everyone shall attempt the new FORCE test at some point in 2013. If they pass, that's their fitness evaluation for 2013; if not, they still need to do an EXPRES test. Come 2014 it will be the only fitness testing available (no EXPRES).
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Pat in Halifax on April 10, 2013, 10:40:37
Maybe I am not remembering clearly...but the CANFORGEN stated  "shall begin 01 Apr 13" or words to that effect didn't it?

"Sorry we can't make this happen" doesn't seem to be an appropriate response.  Is this PSP being cry babies?

Sometimes the right response to "we can't because of XYZ" is "MAKE IT HAPPEN".

They cannot do it here because they do not have the equipment(sand??) nor the training of adequate personnel. They have not hidden this fact and an area wide MARLANT email went out a couple weeks ago explaining this. What they are offerring in lieu is circuit training geared toward the components of FORCE...victim of budget allocations?, someone dropped the ball?...I don't know.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: turretmonster on April 10, 2013, 11:38:41
We did a practice run through this morning. Unless u are Jabba the frikken hut with a Krispy Kream doughnut stuck in your gob, and maybe even if you are, you should be fine. With the exception of the 51 second up down, sprint, I came in well under the allocated time on everything as did most everyone else.  I just need to do more wind sprints to gain speed to make up for my clumsy touch the line with your toe and flop on the floor like a drunken Irishman technique.

It was so much more efficient than the express test and everyone cheered everyone else on.

I'm well past 50, well over 6 ft tall and well over 240lbs, no problems except the flopping part. On the other end of the spectrum, one of our clerks is 30ish, no more than 110-120 lbs and no taller than 5 ft 0. She did great, even dragging the sandbags.

TM

Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 10, 2013, 12:03:15
We should take all the recruits on warrior platoon, who can't pass the current fitness test, and have them trial this new FORCE test.

It would be interesting to see how many recruits that fail the current test can pass this test instead.  If at all.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Chief Stoker on April 10, 2013, 17:29:30
Halifax PSP staff have been doing info briefs and I tried to get even a staff demo for this year's Coxn Crs and no go. You'd think this would all be in place. I will do the old Xpress myself in May and then try the new one when things settle down a little probably toward the fall. My move down to CCFL sometime in the next 90 days is my priority at the moment.
If you have enough interest at a Unit (PD Day??), someone may be able to come in for the Info brief. If you don`t have the contact name here in Halifax, PM me and I will pass it on to you.

Pat

No need the Coxn and sports coordinator has been to the info session now it seems. Just a few more months. It interesting that instead of phasing out the PSP staff, now it seems they want to hire more to administer the test. Seems to me we should be able to train our own guys for this.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on April 10, 2013, 17:36:15
Seems to me we should be able to train our own guys for this.

That is the Army solution; to my knowledge, the RCN and RCAF decided against it.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Chief Stoker on April 10, 2013, 17:41:11
That is the Army solution; to my knowledge, the RCN and RCAF decided against it.

Really, perhaps this is a way to save money. Post people to the gym and get rid of PSP staff altogether >:D
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 10, 2013, 17:47:36
Really, perhaps this is a way to save money. Post people to the gym and get rid of PSP staff altogether >:D

So then the gym staff would start work at 10 am (after their PT), go for a smoke break 15 seconds after getting back from lunch and start complaining if their not off work at 3 or 330?  ;D
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: recceguy on April 10, 2013, 17:50:14
Really, perhaps this is a way to save money. Post people to the gym and get rid of PSP staff altogether >:D

.....and the wheel goes 'round and 'round. :P

So then the gym staff would start work at 10 am (after their PT), go for a smoke break 15 seconds after getting back from lunch and start complaining if their not off work at 3 or 330?  ;D

I always found that the PERI staff was helpful, insightful, and most of all, they were always there. ;)

Oh, and many were ex combat arms and knew exactly what you had done and what you needed.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 10, 2013, 18:18:29
All kidding aside it sounds like MCpls/MS could be the OPIs at their perspective units for this testing.

Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 10, 2013, 19:07:30
I've tested my CO on TOETs' before live ranges.  I guess though I wouldn't be able to determine if he did a 'proper pushup' or if that sandbag got lifted up high enough.  We aren't S-M-R-T enough.

 ::)

My  :2c: is the Army is doing this the right way.  I guess the RCN and RCAF don't trust their own people enough with a PT test.  Wonder how they let them take ships and aircraft out and about eh?  Exactly what does it say about the confidence in our leadership from the MCpl/MS level and up if that CofC can't be trusted to count pushups and time events on a PT test?

If leaders DO break the rules and act without ethics...punish them!  Did the CSD suddenly become void??
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 10, 2013, 19:17:31
All kidding aside it sounds like MCpls/MS could be the OPIs at their perspective units for this testing.

Yup.  Jesus, we used to do IBTS in 'stands' with NCOs running them with a OIC overall.  We can run ranges with unit pers.  OIC, RSO, ARSO, Butts NCO, etc etc.   

But a PT test...good GOD man what are you thinking? 
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 10, 2013, 20:35:41
  I guess the RCN and RCAF don't trust their own people enough with a PT test. 

Or just like the convenience of showing up and having someone else administer it.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 10, 2013, 21:04:09
Perhaps.   :)

I don't buy all the "but the standard wouldn't be enforced" etc.  We enforce the standards for...dress.  Weapons.  Whatever work we do in whatever trade we are in.  Etc.  Etc.  Etc.  Why is this so effin different?  Its a PT test!!  FML.  I could take a platoon of recruits to Castle Range on a rainy day and run a live grenade range but am not "qualified" or "competent" or "insert cop-out word here"to assess the same ones on a PT test.  WTF, over.  Whats the point of having NCOs and Jr Officers if not to do the work they are supposed to do, regardless of the task??

We are our own worst enemy at times.  If the Snr Leadership doesn't have confidence in the lower leadership to do their jobs, there are bigger issues to worry about than new PT standards and tests.  The CF needs to stop making mountains out of molehills, and this whole PT test assessment crap is a molehill IMO.

PSP; I don't have much time for the average PSP staff.  PERIs I did because they were from the BTDT school. 
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Spectrum on April 10, 2013, 21:11:42
Perhaps.   :)

I don't buy all the "but the standard wouldn't be enforced" etc.  We enforce the standards for...dress.  Weapons.  Whatever work we do in whatever trade we are in.  Etc.  Etc.  Etc.  Why is this so effin different?  Its a PT test!!  FML.  I could take a platoon of recruits to Castle Range on a rainy day and run a live grenade range but am not "qualified" or "competent" or "insert cop-out word here"to assess the same ones on a PT test.  WTF, over.  Whats the point of having NCOs and Jr Officers if not to do the work they are supposed to do, regardless of the task??

We are our own worst enemy at times.  If the Snr Leadership doesn't have confidence in the lower leadership to do their jobs, there are bigger issues to worry about than new PT standards and tests.  The CF needs to stop making mountains out of molehills, and this whole PT test assessment crap is a molehill IMO.

PSP; I don't have much time for the average PSP staff.  PERIs I did because they were from the BTDT school.

Excellent posts, and great points made. In a time of cut backs, PSP staff need to go. Someone with PLQ should be able to administer the new testing.

I can forsee the fatties and weaklings complaining about their supervisors being impartial to them.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 10, 2013, 21:18:40
I can forsee the fatties and weaklings complaining about their supervisors being impartial to them.

As with all testing SOPs, the 2nd time around the pers would have a new "assessor".  It works on career courses etc.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: daftandbarmy on April 11, 2013, 01:20:11
We did a practice run through this morning. Unless u are Jabba the frikken hut with a Krispy Kream doughnut stuck in your gob, and maybe even if you are, you should be fine. With the exception of the 51 second up down, sprint, I came in well under the allocated time on everything as did most everyone else.  I just need to do more wind sprints to gain speed to make up for my clumsy touch the line with your toe and flop on the floor like a drunken Irishman technique.

It was so much more efficient than the express test and everyone cheered everyone else on.

I'm well past 50, well over 6 ft tall and well over 240lbs, no problems except the flopping part. On the other end of the spectrum, one of our clerks is 30ish, no more than 110-120 lbs and no taller than 5 ft 0. She did great, even dragging the sandbags.

TM

No offense, but if it's this easy I would say that we're not really preparing our military properly for WW3.

P.S. Krispy Kreemmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm  ;D
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Spectrum on April 11, 2013, 06:01:12
As with all testing SOPs, the 2nd time around the pers would have a new "assessor".  It works on career courses etc.

Excellent. Can someone please give me a good argument for why the Navy and AF will be using PSP staff to run the tests, when we are in times of fiscal restraint?

Does anyone have an idea of how much PSP trainers etc cost us? I'd be curious to know.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Pat in Halifax on April 11, 2013, 06:07:39
No offense, but if it's this easy I would say that we're not really preparing our military properly for WW3.

P.S. Krispy Kreemmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm  ;D
So what you are saying is that none of us over 50 and not at an ideal BMI should find this not challenging?...No more say than a 25 year old?.... The fitness test was NEVER intended to prepare the CF for WWIII; that's what all that other training 'stuff' is for. The test is done to ensure ALL meet a set MINIMUM physical requirement and I believe since inception, it has done that (for those who actually did it annually). There was no XPress test in the 30s and 40s and yet who won that war?...Oh yeah, our parents and grandparents did!!!
Oh no!!! I am defending 'older' people-I have become one!!!
I don't care what we have for a fitness test. Whats the old saying? "You can please all of the people some of the time or some of the people all the time but you will never please all of the people all of the time."

As for the repeated queries and accusations about the Navy and Airforce opting for PSP staff; In my 30 + years, I have met MANY sailors and almost as many airmen/women and I can almost guarantee, none of us asked for PSP staff-This was a decision made in the Halfway House I mean The Centre and that means we will never know who or what committee decided this. I agree, it should be the same cross the board.

Pat
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: turretmonster on April 11, 2013, 07:19:56
Nope, you are going to find it challenging. I did as did most of my peers but its achievable even for old folks who are not going to win any body building contests in the near future. And yes Pat, the next morning your +50 year old knees are going to say hello to you like mine are doing right now. Nothing a Timmies coffee won't sort out.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ARMY_101 on April 11, 2013, 09:13:03
No offense, but if it's this easy I would say that we're not really preparing our military properly for WW3.

The test isn't meant to measure preparedness for WWIII...
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MrBlue on April 11, 2013, 10:08:16
Perhaps.   :)

I don't buy all the "but the standard wouldn't be enforced" etc.  We enforce the standards for...dress.  Weapons.  Whatever work we do in whatever trade we are in.  Etc.  Etc.  Etc.  Why is this so effin different?  Its a PT test!!  FML.  I could take a platoon of recruits to Castle Range on a rainy day and run a live grenade range but am not "qualified" or "competent" or "insert cop-out word here"to assess the same ones on a PT test.  WTF, over.  Whats the point of having NCOs and Jr Officers if not to do the work they are supposed to do, regardless of the task??

We are our own worst enemy at times.  If the Snr Leadership doesn't have confidence in the lower leadership to do their jobs, there are bigger issues to worry about than new PT standards and tests.  The CF needs to stop making mountains out of molehills, and this whole PT test assessment crap is a molehill IMO.

PSP; I don't have much time for the average PSP staff.  PERIs I did because they were from the BTDT school.

With regards to this, I don't trust PSP (in general) with my fitness, and I can guarantee you that I trust my CofC even LESS with my fitness.  I've seen what some people in my CofC consider good workouts, and proper form on exercises...so NO I would definitely not want them judging/scoring our tests or deciding my fitness training.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 11, 2013, 10:20:42
With regards to this, I don't trust PSP (in general) with my fitness, and I can guarantee you that I trust my CofC even LESS with my fitness.  I've seen what some people in my CofC consider good workouts, and proper form on exercises...so NO I would definitely not want them judging/scoring our tests or deciding my fitness training.

Aren't we putting a bit too much complicity on a pass/fail test though?

This isn't about an overweight smoking drinking out of shape PSP/supervisor telling us how to lead a healthy and active life style or "leading" us on PT.

It's about someone in a supervisor position checking off a box whether we pass or fail a simple set of tests.  Drag sandbags back and forth between two lines. Did you make it on time? Pass.
Lift a snadbag up and put it down, take a step to the right, pick a sand bag up and put it down.  repeat. Did you do it in the allotted time and raise it over the line every time? Pass.

I'd be worried if a leader can't supervise a small party task.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 11, 2013, 11:57:12
It's about someone in a supervisor position checking off a box whether we pass or fail a simple set of tests.  Drag sandbags back and forth between two lines. Did you make it on time? Pass.
Lift a snadbag up and put it down, take a step to the right, pick a sand bag up and put it down.  repeat. Did you do it in the allotted time and raise it over the line every time? Pass.

I'd be worried if a leader can't supervise a small party task.

Just a small added bit if I may; the standard is already set, they are just 'monitoring performance'.  Regardless of the supervisor's fitness level, they are still a Superior Officer IAW the QR & O, right?  Why is this any different than the performance of daily duties?  You might think yourself better at "Task A" then your highers, does that mean they can't write your PER??

Okay so a few suggestions then:

1.  Each Wing/Base would put together a Pri and Alt "testing team".  Base/Wing Commanders would task each unit for pers.  Unit CofC would select the best mbr for the job(s) it is tasked with based on rank, qual, toque size, whatever.  The ppl selected would do "Initial Cadre Testing" and would require a PASS to act as an assessor to supplement their leadership quals and experience; or

2.  Each unit puts together a testing team, and can test any other unit "except" their own.  Unit COs to co-ord.

There; reasonable apprehension of bias eliminated.  Leaders are doing their part at all levels.  Seems simple enough to me. 
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PMedMoe on April 11, 2013, 12:43:08
Like most people don't have enough secondary duties.....  ::)

Let's not forget that PSP doesn't just oversee fitness testing.  PSP personnel also do health promotion, work in our Messes, recreation programs, sports, base newspapers and other activities.

Any of the supervisors you're all proposing to monitor PT tests able to give me a fitness regimen detailed to my body type and ability?  A nutrition program?  And I don't mean CrossFit and a protein diet, either.

Yes, we could monitor our own PT tests.  Get rid of PSP all together?  I don't think so.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 11, 2013, 13:52:58
Like most people don't have enough secondary duties.....  ::)

Not a secondary duty, a tasking from the CofC thru a tasking order.  We can do it for something like the Battle of Britain parades each Sept so why not PT testing? 

Quote
Let's not forget that PSP doesn't just oversee fitness testing.  PSP personnel also do health promotion, work in our Messes, recreation programs, sports, base newspapers and other activities.

Base Newspaper; something else that should be on the chopping block in this day and age IMO.

Quote
Any of the supervisors you're all proposing to monitor PT tests able to give me a fitness regimen detailed to my body type and ability?  A nutrition program?  And I don't mean CrossFit and a protein diet, either.

Nope.  Not their job or function.  I'd be interested to see how many CF members actually go to PSP for those services though (seriously). 

Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on April 11, 2013, 13:56:32
So what you are saying is that none of us over 50 and not at an ideal BMI should find this not challenging?...No more say than a 25 year old?.... The fitness test was NEVER intended to prepare the CF for WWIII; that's what all that other training 'stuff' is for. The test is done to ensure ALL meet a set MINIMUM physical requirement and I believe since inception, it has done that (for those who actually did it annually). There was no XPress test in the 30s and 40s and yet who won that war?...Oh yeah, our parents and grandparents did!!!
Oh no!!! I am defending 'older' people-I have become one!!!
I don't care what we have for a fitness test. Whats the old saying? "You can please all of the people some of the time or some of the people all the time but you will never please all of the people all of the time."

As for the repeated queries and accusations about the Navy and Airforce opting for PSP staff; In my 30 + years, I have met MANY sailors and almost as many airmen/women and I can almost guarantee, none of us asked for PSP staff-This was a decision made in the Halfway House I mean The Centre and that means we will never know who or what committee decided this. I agree, it should be the same cross the board.

Pat

I believe D&B was speaking from an infanteer's perspective and in that regard I agree with him.  I don't necessarily disagree with this test but combat arms (especially infantry and combat engineers) need their own test IMO.  You cannot compare the type of fitness required of say a mechanic to that of an infanteer.  This again comes back to the problem of painting everyone with the same brush. 

For the same reason an infanteer should not wear the same fighting rig that a logistics soldier wears, an infanteer should be held to a different standard in terms of his physical fitness because his job is more physically exhausting.  We need to stop painting everyone with the same broad brush and acknowledge that some people do different jobs; thus, they may require different levels of fitness.

Not a secondary duty, a tasking from the CofC thru a tasking order.  We can do it for something like the Battle of Britain parades each Sept so why not PT testing? 

We administer our own Para PT tests so I don't see what the big deal is, if you put professional and competent NCO's in charge you will have no problems.



 
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 11, 2013, 14:43:10
What do you think would be a good standard/test for the infantry or combat arms?
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Chernoble on April 11, 2013, 14:59:12
BFTA's (Basic Fitness Training Assitant) and AFTA's (Advanced...)  are able to conduct PT tests currently, they just cannot sign the CF EXPRES sheet.  The training is available in Borden, hell it's even at no cost to the Unit to get on those courses!  The only change they would have to make is to allow a qualifited BFTA or AFTA to sign the sheet saying you passed or failed.

As for the comments about trade specific tests, I can see it in elite fighting Units and high demand trades like SAR and Combat Diver but I don't agree that a standard combat arms soldier requires a different standard.  A combat arms soldier may be required to conduct more physically demanding things on a daily basis but it is by no means extreme from my experience with 10 years in the Patricia's.  I am in way better shape since leaving the Infantry than I was at any point while with it and I had zero problems conducting any of my duties to a high standard while I was.

Don't get me wrong, my job as an AC Op is much jammier physically than combat arms on a daily basis, but you don't need to be fit to be combat arms and do the job.  Look around :)
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 11, 2013, 15:35:02
you don't need to be fit to be combat arms and do the job.  Look around :)

 :pop:
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Chernoble on April 11, 2013, 15:44:06
:pop:

I know... this may ruffle some feathers but it's only gotten worse since I was there (97-06).  Not to say the Air Force is a shining pillar of fitness either but none of this is a secret, though people don't like to admit it :)
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PMedMoe on April 11, 2013, 15:47:02
Not a secondary duty, a tasking from the CofC thru a tasking order.  We can do it for something like the Battle of Britain parades each Sept so why not PT testing?

So continuous taskings?  Again, some get enough of that. 

Base Newspaper; something else that should be on the chopping block in this day and age IMO.

Completely agree.  The Maple Leaf should go too.

Nope.  Not their job or function.  I'd be interested to see how many CF members actually go to PSP for those services though (seriously).

But if you're advocating completely getting rid of PSP you will lose those services.  And I have gone to PSP for a fitness program. 

Just my  :2c:
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on April 11, 2013, 16:29:01
BFTA's (Basic Fitness Training Assitant) and AFTA's (Advanced...)  are able to conduct PT tests currently, they just cannot sign the CF EXPRES sheet.  The training is available in Borden, hell it's even at no cost to the Unit to get on those courses!  The only change they would have to make is to allow a qualifited BFTA or AFTA to sign the sheet saying you passed or failed.

As for the comments about trade specific tests, I can see it in elite fighting Units and high demand trades like SAR and Combat Diver but I don't agree that a standard combat arms soldier requires a different standard.  A combat arms soldier may be required to conduct more physically demanding things on a daily basis but it is by no means extreme from my experience with 10 years in the Patricia's.  I am in way better shape since leaving the Infantry than I was at any point while with it and I had zero problems conducting any of my duties to a high standard while I was.

Don't get me wrong, my job as an AC Op is much jammier physically than combat arms on a daily basis, but you don't need to be fit to be combat arms and do the job.  Look around :)

Point taken and believe me I get what you are saying because you definitely don't need to be a rockstar to get by in the infantry; however, I am looking at this from a deployability perspective as well as getting good value for our good taxpayers money who we are ultimately accountable too.

If we look at  the six-core missions of the Canada First Defence Strategy I would like to highlight the last two:

5. Lead and/or conduct a major international operation for an extended period

6. Deploy forces in response to crises elsewhere in the world for shorter periods

This to me implies that we should have an ability to conduct expeditionary operations.  Having an expeditionary mindset usually requires a mindset of high readiness and that one has elite units capable of going in as the initial entry force.  Now we are a little different in Canada in that we value a general purpose combat capability meaning we don't specialize and we don't have elite units within our regular land forces.  Yes we have CSOR and JTF2 but they cannot generate the necessary combat power to act as that initial entry force.  What this means to me is we damn well better maintain a higher level of physical fitness within our line units so we can generate forces capable of conducting expeditionary operations and rapidly responding to crises.

We can also talk about getting the proper value for money.

Do we have guys that are unfit in the infantry and other combat arms trades?  Definitely.  Is this in any way acceptable?  Absolutely not.  I will probably get called out on this but one of our biggest mistakes IMO was raising salaries and not simultaneously raising the performance standards expected of our soldiers.  We are one of the best paid militaries in the world yet we waste considerable resources because we still act like a General Service Employer. 

If you are making $40,000 to 50,000 a year almost straight out of high school with zero education and your job is to hump that machinegun w/ammo as far and as fast as you can, well you better be damn good at it.  Not only that but we always talk about the military ethos and how soldiering is a profession, well part of being a professional soldier is that you make sure your body is a well-oiled machine ready to go at a moments notice.  We owe it to the people of Canada who pay us to serve them.

What do you think would be a good standard/test for the infantry or combat arms?

I am not sure and I would leave that upto the kinesiologists and sports science folks to determine.  Their is no argument though that what an infanteer does is not more physically demanding then what lets say a clerk does yet they are held to the exact same standard.  This goes against all logic!
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on April 11, 2013, 16:39:39
Remember what the CAF fitness standard is: a tool to assess that every CAF member is able to meet the minimum operational requirements for CAF service.

That's it.  It's not a "ready to deploy" standard.  It's not a "Ninja-JTF 2-uber Commando" standard.

Leadership is about inspiring and encouraging subordinates to excel.  If "leadership" is encouraging people to aim for the bare minimum, then we don't have a fitness problem; we have a leadership problem.


In the meantime, however, I hear a few sandbags asking to be lifted, carried and dragged...
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 11, 2013, 17:06:35
but you don't need to be fit to be combat arms and do the job.  Look around :)

When you were in Afghanistan with the PPCLIs at the FOB what was the fitness level of the guys in your platoon?
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Chernoble on April 11, 2013, 17:42:43
When you were in Afghanistan with the PPCLIs at the FOB what was the fitness level of the guys in your platoon?

Honestly, all over the map.  I for one was the heaviest I have ever been and still able to do my job quite well, if I do say so myself, but I wasn't in great physical condition.

Some guys were in great shape for sure but others not so much.  I spent less time at FOB's and more outside the wire stuff as we were the "movements company" during my tour. 

It's tough to judge on a tour like that though since there wasn't many ways for people to train (unless they were motivated and creative) at the FOBs in '06.  If you were at KAF, that was another story.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 11, 2013, 17:57:32
I was with A-Coy for a while in 2006, Op Medusa and building MSG. Ironically we had to handbomb most of the sandbags up the mountain to build the OPs since it was too steep for the MULE. Maybe the FORCE sand bag stuff is more a clever test than it seems at first.   

A coy seemed quite fit to me too. I'll send a PM, we might, you know, know people.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: GhostofJacK on April 11, 2013, 19:02:21
...combat arms (especially infantry and combat engineers) need their own test IMO. 

Yay, another round of Cooper's Tests for everyone!  :-\

I'd be interested to see how many CF members actually go to PSP for those services though (seriously).

Maybe not right up front as I only know of one person (RCAF SupTech) who went on her own volition. I know one guy runs SpinClass for us weekly, as with every other unit on base. I find the PSP most beneficial with recovery though. Post-Physio, they reteach you technique which saves on future injury and coming out of the JPSU, I found out I did Squats/Lunges/Plyos/etc all incorrectly that would have disabled me pretty quickly. PSP fixed that.]
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 11, 2013, 19:10:11
Thanks for adding that.  Its good to see things like this added, when we are questioning the relevance of a PSP org in todays CF.

Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Chernoble on April 12, 2013, 11:43:28
I was with A-Coy for a while in 2006, Op Medusa and building MSG. Ironically we had to handbomb most of the sandbags up the mountain to build the OPs since it was too steep for the MULE. Maybe the FORCE sand bag stuff is more a clever test than it seems at first.   

A coy seemed quite fit to me too. I'll send a PM, we might, you know, know people.

Probably :) I was C Coy, 7 platoon.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Halifax Tar on April 12, 2013, 12:12:06
I believe D&B was speaking from an infanteer's perspective and in that regard I agree with him.  I don't necessarily disagree with this test but combat arms (especially infantry and combat engineers) need their own test IMO.  You cannot compare the type of fitness required of say a mechanic to that of an infanteer.  This again comes back to the problem of painting everyone with the same brush. 

For the same reason an infanteer should not wear the same fighting rig that a logistics soldier wears, an infanteer should be held to a different standard in terms of his physical fitness because his job is more physically exhausting.  We need to stop painting everyone with the same broad brush and acknowledge that some people do different jobs; thus, they may require different levels of fitness.

We administer our own Para PT tests so I don't see what the big deal is, if you put professional and competent NCO's in charge you will have no problems.

The highlighted portion is heresy!  We should all be able to be infanteers at moments notice even if you are a 20 year submariner or 20 year airframe tech!

I'd be interested to see how many CF members actually go to PSP for those services though (seriously).

I have to say before being posted to Kingston I would have agreed the point you were trying to make as I found PSP in Halifax almost invisable.  BUT I think PSP in Kingston does a great job and has really changed my mind for the simple reason that they run morning PT classes for those people who wish to partake, this is the perfect strategy for a base that has allot of units and few that do organized unit PT.  I think this is an example of the services they should be concentrating on. 
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Chernoble on April 12, 2013, 14:00:58
I have to say before being posted to Kingston I would have agreed the point you were trying to make as I found PSP in Halifax almost invisable.  BUT I think PSP in Kingston does a great job and has really changed my mind for the simple reason that they run morning PT classes for those people who wish to partake, this is the perfect strategy for a base that has allot of units and few that do organized unit PT.  I think this is an example of the services they should be concentrating on.

Nailed it.  In my experience, PSP in Borden and Trenton are very very good.  Moose Jaw, so-so and Cold Lake, not so good.  Would be nice to have them standardized. 

Even their attitudes towards training is different from base to base.  For example, I went to Trenton the other day and they had a chalk stand and Olympic lifting equipment available, a push prowler and a lot of newer age Strength and Conditioning Equipment.  In Cold Lake, chalk is looked down upon, not provided and anything other than cardio machines and body building equipment is heresy!
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: signalsguy on April 12, 2013, 18:19:12
The equipment selection often is driven by the personalities of the PSP fitness instructors and the FS&R Manager. If the FS&R manager is old school you're going to see treadmills and nautilus. If they are more modern or open to new ideas then you will get prowlers, rings, lifting platforms and kettlebells.

In Kingston, most of the cool stuff belongs to RMC...
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Halifax Tar on April 12, 2013, 18:24:29
The equipment selection often is driven by the personalities of the PSP fitness instructors and the FS&R Manager. If the FS&R manager is old school you're going to see treadmills and nautilus. If they are more modern or open to new ideas then you will get prowlers, rings, lifting platforms and kettlebells.

In Kingston, most of the cool stuff belongs to RMC...

I haven't noticed much that is off limits to us non hallowed ground types... Just the one cage off the track.  Am I missing something ?
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: signalsguy on April 12, 2013, 18:49:33
All of the combat fitness corner equipment: the prowler, the platforms, squat racks, the climbing ropes, the kettlebells... it all belongs to RMC PE.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: devil39 on April 13, 2013, 10:59:46
I completed this test yesterday morning at Asticou in Gatineau.

I found this test to be kind of fun, relatively interesting, and I do believe that it is a reasonable test of a cross section of basic military job requirements.

However the time allocated to complete these tasks is way, way too lenient. 

I did not do a single specific thing to train for this test.  Well I did flop down on my belly in my office once, two days before the test, in order make sure I still remembered how to start running from the prone position :) .  I will add that I am a 46 year old staff officer (infantry), arguably in the worst shape of my life at  6'3" and 230 lbs. 

The day before the test I got beat up on the rugby pitch  by a bunch of 18 year old forwards using me as the tackle dummy for a forward continuous recycling attacking "pod" drill.   The night before the test I had beer and suicide wings with the wife while the boys were at martial arts, followed by pizza and two glasses of wine. 

I woke up with lower back muscle spasms thanks to the rugby team I am coaching.  I tested in the morning, and I did not put more that 75% effort into accomplishing the tasks.  I did the sandbag lift in 1min 12 seconds.  Shuttle carry in 2 min 53 seconds.  Fire and movement in 39 seconds.  Casualty evacuation in 19 seconds.  Other than the fire and movement task, they could easily reduce the time allocated by 1/3 and still have a very easy test.

This will never be a test of light Infantry fitness, but then again neither was the 13 km BFT or the 2 by 10, etc. 
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ARMY_101 on April 15, 2013, 13:25:33
Did the FORCE test. Nothing amazingly hard and I felt it was a much better indicator of actual tasks CAF personnel could/would be expected to do.  There were two female PSP staff, about 110lbs each, and they demonstrated all of the tasks without issue. That helped morale.

As well, anyone who fails the sprints, loaded walk/unloaded run, or casualty drag is given a second attempt to complete that task without penalty.  (Failing the sandbag lift, however, is an instant fail.) This policy will be permanently in place for the FORCE test, which is a welcome surprise.

Flamboyantly throwing your arms up during the sprints and touching the line then getting down behind it were stressed time and time again.

So in all, don't sweat it, prepare for it, ask questions, and pay attention to the demonstrations to avoid mistakes.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Halifax Tar on April 15, 2013, 14:38:23
All of the combat fitness corner equipment: the prowler, the platforms, squat racks, the climbing ropes, the kettlebells... it all belongs to RMC PE.

Agreed but I can assure you I have used them at any time and I am not connected with RMC... Are you insuing that only RMC pers can use that kit ?

*I also use their rugby balls they leave around in the bubble and no one seems to mind*
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Cadwr on April 15, 2013, 15:00:36
Did the FORCE test.

anyone who fails the sprints, loaded walk/unloaded run, or casualty drag is given a second attempt to complete that task without penalty. 

Glad to hear you had a good go with your first FORCE test.  I have a question.

I've been working on sorting out how this test will be administered OUTCAN (especially the "ones and twos" type locations.)  In doing so, I've been spending a lot of time working with the management team at DFit.

This is the first I've heard of the bit about second attempts at some portions of the test without penalty - can you confirm that this came from the PSP staff?  I'd like to bring it up (in the proper context of "stories I heard on the internet - no disrespect) next time I see the good Fitness folks.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ARMY_101 on April 15, 2013, 15:28:27
This is the first I've heard of the bit about second attempts at some portions of the test without penalty - can you confirm that this came from the PSP staff?  I'd like to bring it up (in the proper context of "stories I heard on the internet - no disrespect) next time I see the good Fitness folks.

Thanks!

Confirmed, it was from PSP staff.  The second attempt is done on the same day, within 5-10 minutes of failing, if that wasn't clear.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: devil39 on April 15, 2013, 17:44:07
Confirmed, it was from PSP staff.  The second attempt is done on the same day, within 5-10 minutes of failing, if that wasn't clear.

Same thing we were told.  Second attempts possible other than the sandbag lift. 
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: GhostofJacK on April 15, 2013, 18:48:39
Thanks to physio, I god to do a portion of the test that, personally, I was uneasy about - the 80m up/down run. I went in thinking '50sec...that's insane!'. I didn't run hard, nearly biffed it on the second time back, and did just fine. Had to do 2 sets of that portion of the test and I can say that in 160m, my heart was pumping harder than lvl 8.5 on the shuttle run. I will say kudos to them for shortening the test.

Will the test show that I can get under 7hrs on the Mountain Man race? No. Do some people mock it and say that it doesn't really measure fitness? Yep. It's not designed to see if you will do well on a jump course. It's designed to make sure everyone is at the same standard in the CF (It's hard to reflexivly type CAF). It's the soldier's responsibility to push their standards beyond what is tested. Whether you are fit or unfit normally, the test will feel like an actual test at the end and not a boring waste of time.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: signalsguy on April 15, 2013, 22:45:24
Agreed but I can assure you I have used them at any time and I am not connected with RMC... Are you insuing that only RMC pers can use that kit ?

*I also use their rugby balls they leave around in the bubble and no one seems to mind*

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that thanks to RMC's PSP staff, we are all allowed to have access to some pretty nice equipment that we wouldn't otherwise have access to, because the base gym wouldn't spend the money on it.

A few years back RMC was locking it all up but they made a conscious decision to put it all on the floor.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: UnwiseCritic on April 16, 2013, 19:08:44
Now if only they had a small fitness test at the recruiting center for reg f. And if anything just start using the same one they use for reserves.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: warlordnik on April 20, 2013, 05:30:52
Good day,

I am about to attend one of the "FORCE Clinics" that PSP is setting up to showcase the new test at my base.  I've self-tested myself on everything thus far except for the sandbag drag as its not set up at our gym.  From what I've read on this forum, most of you seemed to have little or no difficulty with the drag.  Is there anyone here who has had difficulty?  I'm asking 'cause I'm 150lbs and 5'9" and have been working on my core, back, and legs for the past few weeks.  I would like to hear from "skinny" guys or gals (or friends of such) and hear any comments or advice they may have.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on April 20, 2013, 20:14:06
I'm asking 'cause I'm 150lbs and 5'9" and have been working on my core, back, and legs for the past few weeks.  I would like to hear from "skinny" guys or gals (or friends of such) and hear any comments or advice they may have.

My little blonde 5'4" 130ish lb female Air Force friend easily pulled 120 kg. 
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: warlordnik on April 21, 2013, 06:04:25
My little blonde 5'4" 130ish lb female Air Force friend easily pulled 120 kg. 

Thanks Haggis, that definitely lends some idea of what it'll be like.  :nod:
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: medicineman on April 21, 2013, 15:54:12
Now if only they had a small fitness test at the recruiting center for reg f. And if anything just start using the same one they use for reserves.

When I joined the Reg Force in 1988, I had to do a weightlifting test before my intgerview - like a clean and jerk with a minimum weight requirement for the various trades.  I seem to recall it wasn't around long...but it was there.  They gave you a workout guide as well to prepare you for recruit school...if you failed the intake test in Cornwallis, you were on daily remedial PT until the next scheduled PT test in week 4 or 5.  That was done every evening after dinner, so you had to do that AND get caught up on your kit and quarters stuff.

MM 

MM
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: UnwiseCritic on April 26, 2013, 15:09:13
It would be interesting to see what the fitness tests of the CF were from 1950 - current. And see what the differences are. I'm guessing they are substantially easier now.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ARMY_101 on April 26, 2013, 15:29:06
It would be interesting to see what the fitness tests of the CF were from 1950 - current. And see what the differences are. I'm guessing they are substantially easier now.

https://www.cfpsa.com/en/AboutUs/PSP/DFIT/Fitness/Pages/History-of-Fitness.aspx
Title: Physical Fitness
Post by: Jacky Tar on May 14, 2013, 21:27:23
I don't think anyone who's in hasn't seen this by now, but for those who are contemplating joining, here's what's coming down the pipe regarding physical fitness testing and standards:

https://www.cfpsa.com/en/AboutUs/PSP/DFIT/Fitness/FORCEprogram/Pages/default.aspx (https://www.cfpsa.com/en/AboutUs/PSP/DFIT/Fitness/FORCEprogram/Pages/default.aspx)

I know a couple of stokers who aren't going to be too happy. :)
Title: Re: Physical Fitness
Post by: Towards_the_gap on May 14, 2013, 21:30:57
Yep. Standards slipping EVEN lower.

Title: Re: Physical Fitness
Post by: Hatchet Man on May 15, 2013, 14:58:16
I don't think anyone who's in hasn't seen this by now, but for those who are contemplating joining, here's what's coming down the pipe regarding physical fitness testing and standards:

https://www.cfpsa.com/en/AboutUs/PSP/DFIT/Fitness/FORCEprogram/Pages/default.aspx (https://www.cfpsa.com/en/AboutUs/PSP/DFIT/Fitness/FORCEprogram/Pages/default.aspx)

I know a couple of stokers who aren't going to be too happy. :)

You mean this MASSIVE 18 page thread here [merged]
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: EME101 on May 29, 2013, 13:16:24
BFTA's (Basic Fitness Training Assitant) and AFTA's (Advanced...)  are able to conduct PT tests currently, they just cannot sign the CF EXPRES sheet.  The training is available in Borden, hell it's even at no cost to the Unit to get on those courses!  The only change they would have to make is to allow a qualifited BFTA or AFTA to sign the sheet saying you passed or failed.

As for the comments about trade specific tests, I can see it in elite fighting Units and high demand trades like SAR and Combat Diver but I don't agree that a standard combat arms soldier requires a different standard.  A combat arms soldier may be required to conduct more physically demanding things on a daily basis but it is by no means extreme from my experience with 10 years in the Patricia's.  I am in way better shape since leaving the Infantry than I was at any point while with it and I had zero problems conducting any of my duties to a high standard while I was.

Don't get me wrong, my job as an AC Op is much jammier physically than combat arms on a daily basis, but you don't need to be fit to be combat arms and do the job.  Look around :)

CANARMYGEN 006 - PHYSICAL FITNESS TESTING IN THE CA is out.

Para 9 states "ADMINISTRATION OF FORCE EVALUATION.  THE FORCE EVALUATION WILL BE ADMINISTERED BY PSP PERS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS CA UNIT PERS HAVE BEEN TRAINED IN THE EVALUATION PROTOCOLS.  TRG OF CA PERS ALREADY QUALIFIED PLQ/BMOQ-L WILL NOT OCCUR PRIOR TO JAN 2014. THE PT MODULE OF PLQ/BMOQ-A WILL BE AMENDED IN DUE COURSE TO INCLUDE ADMINISTERING THE FORCE EVAL PROTOCOL."

So it looks like testing in the army will be driven down to the unit level.

Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PuckChaser on May 29, 2013, 17:54:33
So it looks like testing in the army will be driven down to the unit level.

Thank god.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on May 29, 2013, 17:59:06
We have known this would be the way for a while.
Is there any new information in the CANARMYGEN?
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PuckChaser on May 29, 2013, 18:21:59
We have known this would be the way for a while.
Is there any new information in the CANARMYGEN?

The BFT will officially die for the CA starting FY14/15, FORCE is the new PT standard for the Army. This year is all pers attempt FORCE, if they fail they can do a BFT. If they fail BFT they can do EXPRES. Next year only FORCE will be accepted.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: recceguy on May 29, 2013, 18:46:14
The BFT will officially die for the CA starting FY14/15, FORCE is the new PT standard for the Army. This year is all pers attempt FORCE, if they fail they can do a BFT. If they fail BFT they can do EXPRES. Next year only FORCE will be accepted.

Post the reference for that please.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PuckChaser on May 29, 2013, 18:53:26
New CANARMYGEN. I'll throw some of the text up tomorrow.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MJP on May 29, 2013, 19:08:50
CANARMYGEN  006/13    COMD CA   019/13
REF: A. CANFORGEN 038/13 041728Z FEB 13, LAUNCH OF NEW CAF FITNESS
EVALUATION
B. LFCO 24-02, PHYSICAL FITNESS
C. CANLANDGEN 001/09 201909Z JAN 09, LFCO 24-02 PHYSICAL FITNESS
D. B-GL-382-003/PT-001, ARMY FITNESS MANUAL
E. CANLANDGEN 026/11 041819Z OCT 11, LFCPFS AND CL A RESERVISTS
1. IN 2010, CMP AUTHORIZED THE DIRECTOR OF FITNESS (DFIT) TO REVIEW
THE MINIMUM PHYSICAL FITNESS STANDARDS (MPFS) WITH A VIEW TO
PRODUCING A NEW MPFS AND FITNESS EVALUATION. PROJECT FORCE WAS
INITIATED AND CONDUCTED IN THREE PHASES WITH CA INPUT AND SUPPORT OF
EACH PHASE. IN DEC 12, ARMED FORCES COUNCIL APPROVED THE FORCE
EVALUATION AS THE NEW CF FITNESS TEST, AS ANNOUNCED AT REF A.

2. REF E IS HEREBY RESCINDED AND REFS B THROUGH D WILL BE AMENDED IN
DUE COURSE TO REFLECT THE ADOPTION OF THE FORCE EVALUATION AS THE NEW
PHYSICAL FITNESS STANDARD FOR THE CA.

3. WHILE MY INTENT REMAINS TO HAVE ALL REG F AND RES F MBRS OF THE CA
COMPLETE A PHYSICAL FITNESS TEST EVERY YEAR, I ACK THAT THE CA DOES
NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT FINANCIAL FLEXIBILITY TO PROVIDE THE RESOURCES
NECESSARY TO TEST ALL CLASS A RESERVISTS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. I
CONSEQUENTLY ACCEPT THE RISK OF MAKING PHYSICAL FITNESS TESTING A
NON-MANDATORY REQUIREMENT FOR CLASS A RESERVISTS, EXCEPT WHEN FITNESS
TESTING IS A PREREQUISITE, INCLUDING SENIOR OR COMMAND APPOINTMENT,
CAREER OR LEADERSHIP TRAINING, CLASS B OR C RESERVE EMPLOYMENT,
PROMOTION, ETC.  FOR SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, PHYSICAL FITNESS TESTING
SHALL BE DONE IAW ALL APPLICABLE DIRECTIVES, INSTRUCTIONS AND ORDERS.

4. PHYSICAL FITNESS TESTING IN FY 13/14.  SUBJECT TO PARA (3), ALL CA
PERS WILL ATTEMPT THE FORCE EVALUATION DURING FY 13/14.  IF THE FORCE
EVALUATION IS NOT LOCALLY AVAL, OR IN CASE OF A FAILED FORCE
EVALUATION, CA PERS WILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE LFCPFS (I.E.
COMPLETE THE BFT).  THOSE WHO FAIL BOTH THE FORCE EVALUATION AND
LFCPFS DURING FY 13/14 WILL BE REQUIRED TO SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE THE
CF EXPRES TEST, RECOGNIZING THAT NO CF EXPRES QUOTE EXEMPTIONS
UNQUOTE WILL BE GRANTED BEYOND FY 13/14, EXCEPT FOR SUCH EXEMPTION
EARNED DURING FY 12/13, WHICH CONTINUES TO HAVE EFFECT FOR TWO YEARS
AFTER THE TESTING DATE, AS HAS BEEN THE CASE FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS. 
THOSE WHO ARE CF EXPRES EXEMPT FOR FY 13/14 STILL HAVE TO ATTEMPT THE
FORCE EVALUATION DURING FY 13/14. SHOULD THEY FAIL THE FORCE
EVALUATION, THEIR CF EXPRES EXEMPTION WILL REMAIN VALID, I.E. THEY
WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO REDO A CF EXPRES TEST IN FY 13/14.

5.  PHYSICAL FITNESS TESTING IN FY 14/15.  EFFECTIVE 1 APR 14, THE
FORCE EVALUATION WILL BE THE PHYSICAL FITNESS STANDARD FOR THE CA,
INCLUDING ALL DEPLOYMENTS. ADDITIONAL FITNESS TEST REQUIREMENTS (E.G.
ENDURANCE OR LOAD-BEARING COMPONENT) WILL BE ADDRESSED IN
MISSION-SPECIFIC DIRECTIVES AND GUIDANCE, AS APPROPRIATE.

6. SENIOR OR COMMAND APPOINTMENTS.  THOSE CA PERS NOMINATED FOR SNR
OR COMD TM APPOINTMENTS IN FY 13/14 MUST COMPLETE THE FORCE
EVALUATION OR LFCPFS, WITHIN SIX MONTHS BEFORE THEIR APPOINTMENT. 
THOSE NOMINATED FOR APPOINTMENTS IN FY 14/15 MUST COMPLETE THE FORCE
EVALUATION WITHIN SIX MONTHS BEFORE THEIR APPT.

7. FITNESS TESTING OF RESERVISTS.  SUBJECT TO PARA (3), WHEN PHYSICAL
FITNESS TESTING IS REQUIRED, THE TEST TO BE USED WILL BE AS DESCRIBED
IN THIS CANARMYGEN.  CO OF RES F UNITS HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT
PHYSICAL TRAINING AND TO TEST PHYSICAL FITNESS OF MBRS OF THEIR UNIT
IF THEY HAVE THE REQUIRED RESOURCES AND OP FLEXIBILITY.

8. FITNESS TEST FOR RES F RECRUITS.  CURRENT PRACTICE HAS P RES
RECRUITS DOING CF EXPRES TEST BEFORE THEY ARE ACTUALLY ENROLLED. 
THIS PRACTICE WILL CONTINUE DURING FY 13/14.  SUBORDINATE HQ S WILL
BE INFORMED IN DUE COURSE OF THE NEW PHYSICAL FITNESS TESTING MODEL
TO BE USED FOR RES RECRUITS STARTING IN FY 14/15.

9. ADMINISTRATION OF FORCE EVALUATION.  THE FORCE EVALUATION WILL BE
ADMINISTERED BY PSP PERS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS CA UNIT PERS HAVE BEEN
TRAINED IN THE EVALUATION PROTOCOLS.  TRG OF CA PERS ALREADY
QUALIFIED PLQ/BMOQ-L WILL NOT OCCUR PRIOR TO JAN 2014. THE PT MODULE
OF PLQ/BMOQ-A WILL BE AMENDED IN DUE COURSE TO INCLUDE ADMINISTERING
THE FORCE EVAL PROTOCOL.

10. FITNESS REPORTING.  LISTED BELOW IS WHAT CONSTITUTES A QUOTE
PASSED UNQUOTE PHYSICAL STANDARD FOR CFPAS (PER) PURPOSE FOR FY
13/14:
A. SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED FORCE EVALUATION, OR
B. SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED A BFT DURING FY 13/14, OR
C. SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED A CF EXPRES TEST, OR
D. A CF EXPRES QUOTE EXEMPTION UNQUOTE EARNED DURING FY 12/13.

11. QUESTIONS CONCERNING PHYSICAL FITNESS TESTING IN THE CA CAN BE
DIRECTED TO THE ARMY G1 SVCS AT CSN 971-7279.

12. SIGNED BY LGEN P.J. DEVLIN, COMMANDER CANADIAN ARMY
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PuckChaser on May 29, 2013, 19:12:06
Thanks MJP, I wasn't heading back to work to copy and paste.  >:D
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on May 29, 2013, 19:25:37
The BFT will officially die for the CA starting FY14/15, ...
Will it "die" or will it be relegated to the role of operational readiness test, leaving FORCE as the only fitness test?
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: recceguy on May 29, 2013, 19:30:23
Cheers guys.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PuckChaser on May 29, 2013, 19:31:15
Will it "die" or will it be relegated to the role of operational readiness test, leaving FORCE as the only fitness test?

That would be up to other elements or CJOC, but the CANARMYGEN states:

Quote
5.  PHYSICAL FITNESS TESTING IN FY 14/15.  EFFECTIVE 1 APR 14, THE
FORCE EVALUATION WILL BE THE PHYSICAL FITNESS STANDARD FOR THE CA,
INCLUDING ALL DEPLOYMENTS. ADDITIONAL FITNESS TEST REQUIREMENTS (E.G.
ENDURANCE OR LOAD-BEARING COMPONENT) WILL BE ADDRESSED IN
MISSION-SPECIFIC DIRECTIVES AND GUIDANCE, AS APPROPRIATE.

Its at least dead as a yearly fitness eval.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Tank Troll on June 02, 2013, 21:56:28
Yay just did my last BFT :dileas:
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: upandatom on June 05, 2013, 15:16:29
The major thing I do not like about this is;
No reward system, therefore many members will continue to do the bare minimum.

What I do like;
If you do not pass the test, you dont go to the boards. (just trying to see how people are going to swing that one)

On that note;
IT is a very easy test, if you are doing the minimum amount of PT at your units, passable. It seems from my perspective, people werent doing well, unable to do certain things, and found loopholes around the old express. I was not a fan of that either, but this new system seems to be a step in the right direction.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on June 05, 2013, 15:25:13
There are easy ways for COs to provide incentives under the new system.  All it takes is a bit of leadership.

For example:  Were I a CO, I'd offer all the NCMs a day of short if they could beat my times in all the tests, and a second day if they could also beat the RSM.  For the officers, I'd offer negative incentives: if you don't beat the CO acros the board, you're getting extra duties.

Make things competitive between sections in a workplace.

Get cheap & cheesy dollar store trophies for each test and award them to the top performed for the year.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 05, 2013, 15:38:30
There are easy ways for COs to provide incentives under the new system.  All it takes is a bit of leadership.

For example:  Were I a CO, I'd offer all the NCMs a day of short if they could beat my times in all the tests, and a second day if they could also beat the RSM.  For the officers, I'd offer negative incentives: if you don't beat the CO acros the board, you're getting extra duties.


Brilliant.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Sheep Dog AT on June 05, 2013, 15:44:36
Yay just did my last BFT :dileas:

You can still do BFT's.  They just won't count.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on June 05, 2013, 15:57:45
For example:  Were I a CO, I'd offer all the NCMs a day of short if they could beat my times in all the tests, and a second day if they could also beat the RSM.

So, if the RSM (who is an NCM) beats the CO, s/he gets a day of Short Leave?

Make things competitive between sections in a workplace for those who obtain the highest number of pass results on FORCE.

TFTFY

Get cheap and cheesy dollar store badges to wear on our uniforms  and award them to the top performers for the year.

TFTFY, too. 
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: upandatom on June 05, 2013, 16:05:39
There are easy ways for COs to provide incentives under the new system.  All it takes is a bit of leadership.

For example:  Were I a CO, I'd offer all the NCMs a day of short if they could beat my times in all the tests, and a second day if they could also beat the RSM.  For the officers, I'd offer negative incentives: if you don't beat the CO acros the board, you're getting extra duties.

Make things competitive between sections in a workplace.

Get cheap & cheesy dollar store trophies for each test and award them to the top performed for the year.

Great suggestion, but very highly unlikely.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on June 05, 2013, 16:13:27
Great suggestion, but very highly unlikely.

Why not?  Short Leave has been granted for lesser accomplishments thousands of times.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on June 05, 2013, 16:15:13
So, if the RSM (who is an NCM) beats the CO, s/he gets a day of Short Leave?

Yes, I'd give the RSM a day of short.

As for your other "fixes" - somewhere, I still have my old warrior badges.   If someone decides to "lead change" by adding another cheap and tacky bauble...  :facepalm:
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Tank Troll on June 05, 2013, 16:35:44
You can still do BFT's.  They just won't count.

I'm an Armour Crewman and firmly believe in my kit carrying me not vise-versa, plus I figure if god wanted to carry things on my back then he would of put a pouch there to carry it in!
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ARMY_101 on June 05, 2013, 19:59:45
There are easy ways for COs to provide incentives under the new system.  All it takes is a bit of leadership.

For example:  Were I a CO, I'd offer all the NCMs a day of short if they could beat my times in all the tests, and a second day if they could also beat the RSM.  For the officers, I'd offer negative incentives: if you don't beat the CO acros the board, you're getting extra duties.

Make things competitive between sections in a workplace.

Get cheap & cheesy dollar store trophies for each test and award them to the top performed for the year.

Excellent, however we're already down to three days-per-week PT because we supposedly need all hands on deck and can't afford to give anyone fives days a week of PT.

If we need to be at work for an extra two hours per week, what the chances of getting a whole day off once per year?

As well: anyone who's done the FORCE test has completed the survey on the test's implementation, how easy it was, etc. Included in that survey was a question on what sort of rewards should be offered for a successful FORCE pass.  I believe they were:

1. Bonus (money)
2. Short leave (how long? Half day? Full day?)
3. Extra PER points
4. Free merchandise/memorabilia
5. Uniform badge/medal/pin

I assume the long-term goal, once the FORCE test is implemented and EXPRES and BFT are gone, is to create some sort of reward system or incentive.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 05, 2013, 23:16:24
Included in that survey was a question on what sort of rewards should be offered for a successful FORCE pass.  I believe they were:

1. Bonus (money)
2. Short leave (how long? Half day? Full day?)
3. Extra PER points
4. Free merchandise/memorabilia
5. Uniform badge/medal/pin

I assume the long-term goal, once the FORCE test is implemented and EXPRES and BFT are gone, is to create some sort of reward system or incentive.

CF members should get absolutely nothing for passing the FORCE test.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Hamish Seggie on June 06, 2013, 01:59:24
CF members should get absolutely nothing for passing the FORCE test.


And I agree.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: EME101 on June 06, 2013, 07:24:02
CF members should get absolutely nothing for passing the FORCE test.

Agreed. The incentive of retaining one's job should be enough.  Fitness is a requirement for the job, and one that's not very onerous.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on June 06, 2013, 08:32:50
CF members should get absolutely nothing for passing the FORCE test.


But...... I've already designed the badge!
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Hamish Seggie on June 06, 2013, 09:02:23

But...... I've already designed the badge!

Does it look like a US Navy SEAL Badge?  ;D
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MeanJean on June 06, 2013, 09:23:42
There are easy ways for COs to provide incentives under the new system.  All it takes is a bit of leadership.

For example:  Were I a CO, I'd offer all the NCMs a day of short if they could beat my times in all the tests, and a second day if they could also beat the RSM.  For the officers, I'd offer negative incentives: if you don't beat the CO acros the board, you're getting extra duties.

Make things competitive between sections in a workplace.

Get cheap & cheesy dollar store trophies for each test and award them to the top performed for the year.

I am not a fan of the everyone gets a prize for passing FORCE.  Like the XPRES you will still have most members completing the minimum.

I like the idea of competition between members and sections.  Here at CFNES the Commandant has two challenges:  For those who get exempt receive a day of short leave and another day of short leave if you can beat his standings.  A day off work?  Hell yeah, I will push myself for that!

From what I can tell, there isn't an exempt on the FORCE test.  I guess I will just strive to beat the Cmdt.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on June 06, 2013, 09:25:18
Does it look like a US Navy SEAL Badge?  ;D

No, it is a distinctly Canadian design.  I got the idea from the CF Rank Change Mega-Thread (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,24425.0/topicseen.html).  It's more like a muscular harp seal.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Hamish Seggie on June 06, 2013, 11:01:09
No, it is a distinctly Canadian design.  I got the idea from the CF Rank Change Mega-Thread (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,24425.0/topicseen.html).  It's more like a muscular harp seal.

Yes! We have great success, no?
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jacky Tar on June 06, 2013, 15:12:59
CF members should get absolutely nothing for passing the FORCE test.

Ditto. It's a requirement of service, not an extra pat on the back. What you 'get' is not being released for inability to meet universality of service.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Nemo888 on June 06, 2013, 16:59:55
There should be more than minimum standard. ie Marksman badge and pay.

This everyone gets the same prize shite is counterproductive.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ekpiper on June 06, 2013, 17:14:02
CF members should get absolutely nothing for passing the FORCE test.

IIRC, it was for a potential increased level, not a base pass. It was also mentioned that the times would very likely be tightened after the first year and the opportunity to evaluate results, taking into account gender, age, weight, etc. to determine a true minimum standard.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: daftandbarmy on June 07, 2013, 00:29:04
Did the FORCE test. Nothing amazingly hard and I felt it was a much better indicator of actual tasks CAF personnel could/would be expected to do.  There were two female PSP staff, about 110lbs each, and they demonstrated all of the tasks without issue. That helped morale.

As well, anyone who fails the sprints, loaded walk/unloaded run, or casualty drag is given a second attempt to complete that task without penalty.  (Failing the sandbag lift, however, is an instant fail.) This policy will be permanently in place for the FORCE test, which is a welcome surprise.

Flamboyantly throwing your arms up during the sprints and touching the line then getting down behind it were stressed time and time again.

So in all, don't sweat it, prepare for it, ask questions, and pay attention to the demonstrations to avoid mistakes.


'Flamboyant' eh? Sounds suspiciously like 'Prancercize' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjJJs-sFAqU
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: upandatom on June 07, 2013, 10:02:48

And I agree.

Thats not what I meant, not a reward for doing the minimum, as this new test is very minimalistic. The old system, you recieved a pat on the back, some recognition, the PER point, and a year exempt from it.

Thats all I was saying, a way to promote physical fitness through a standard test, that if you excel on that test.
All aspects of military have that set up, Top Candidate, best shot, marksman awards, etc.

Im not combat arms, I understand that combat arms require top physical shape, but I am sigs, and I have seen some very low end fitness levels, (ie one particular tech falling out of a COs run not even 500m in, but he could "pass" a BFT, and I have never seen him complete an express, or for that fact, keep up with a very easy pt session)

Dont get me wrong, I like the fact that, "we have this standard now, everyone must accomplish it, regardless of age, sex, trade, element" Especially with the, "no pass, no merit board for you"

Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on June 07, 2013, 12:32:57
I am not opposed to a higher incentive standard that rewards pers who go well beyond the minimum, but that reward should not be an exception from doing the test the next year.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: upandatom on June 07, 2013, 18:03:54
I am not opposed to a higher incentive standard that rewards pers who go well beyond the minimum, but that reward should not be an exception from doing the test the next year.

Easy enough, the PER point worked for most, and it is pretty rare that someone that gets an exempt fails the year after unless for medical reasons
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Tank Troll on June 09, 2013, 20:58:25
Passing the BFT did the same thing with the PER except there was no exempt................unless you were a support trade and went base side the next year. Which comes back to the original point about not needing to be in great shape to pass the BFT every year and get that extra point.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 15, 2013, 18:04:10
Did the FORCE test and I'm surprised at how long it took to administer start to finish. It took over an hour and a half for 8 of us to get through the test with 3 PSP staff conducting it.

The test seems decent considering what it's target audience and goal is.  The worst part of the test for me was doing the warmup (pulled something doing stupid lunges) and going full retard to try to get the best times. 

I've seen some soldiers pass the BFT who I'm quite sure would not be able to pass the FORCE test.  Of course some people I'm sure would do good on the FORCE test but bomb the BFT..

One of the PSP demonstrators looked really fit but she started struggling with the sandbag lift after the second lift- I can see it being tricker for someone shorter/smaller.

The 287lb sandbag contraption we had to drag seemed like a safer and more realistic test then the firemans carry.

Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on August 15, 2013, 21:15:21
Did the FORCE test and I'm surprised at how long it took to administer start to finish. It took over an hour and a half for 8 of us to get through the test with 3 PSP staff conducting it.

The test seems decent considering what it's target audience and goal is.  The worst part of the test for me was doing the warmup (pulled something doing stupid lunges) and going full retard to try to get the best times. 

I've seen some soldiers pass the BFT who I'm quite sure would not be able to pass the FORCE test.  Of course some people I'm sure would do good on the FORCE test but bomb the BFT..

One of the PSP demonstrators looked really fit but she started struggling with the sandbag lift after the second lift- I can see it being tricker for someone shorter/smaller.

The 287lb sandbag contraption we had to drag seemed like a safer and more realistic test then the firemans carry.

All of our pers have now done the FORCE test. No fails.  Our 104 lb female also managed to pass.  The hardest issue for her was actually getting the sandbags to initially budge, but once she got them moving, she had no issues completing.

Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on August 15, 2013, 21:23:11
Passing the BFT did the same thing with the PER except there was no exempt................unless you were a support trade and went base side the next year. Which comes back to the original point about not needing to be in great shape to pass the BFT every year and get that extra point.

All MPRRs read as "Pass - LFCPFS". Same for us support trades. Even at "Base Side" we are were required to do the BFT every year just as every other soldier serving in a LFC (now Cdn Army) posn was required to do. Zero difference there.

In my current unit (not Cdn Army), we do (and have always done) both the BFT and the EXPress as the annual requirement.  This year we have already completed our FORCE testing and many have their BFTs done too; the rest of us begin work-ups shortly.

Which brings me to the yellowed bit of your comment:  I have seen pers who exempted their EXpress Test (who also get an extra point) fail their BFT a couple weeks later and vice versa; so, apparently one didn't have to be very fit obtain an exempt and thus the extra point with that little now-gone test either. It is a two-way street.  Some people can hump a ruck forever and some can run like the wind; some can do both and some can not.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: upandatom on August 16, 2013, 09:01:57
All of our pers have now done the FORCE test. No fails.  Our 104 lb female also managed to pass.  The hardest issue for her was actually getting the sandbags to initially budge, but once she got them moving, she had no issues completing.

Possibly due to one member being posted to 1 Can Div.......otherwise I am certain JSR would of had at least the one fail
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Halifax Tar on August 16, 2013, 10:26:29
Possibly due to one member being posted to 1 Can Div.......otherwise I am certain JSR would of had at least the one fail

I believe Armyvern was referring to her RQ staff not JSR as a whole.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 16, 2013, 10:52:12
All of our pers have now done the FORCE test. No fails.  Our 104 lb female also managed to pass.  The hardest issue for her was actually getting the sandbags to initially budge, but once she got them moving, she had no issues completing.

Did the 104lb soldier need to use her body to lever the sandbags up above the line?


I learned it's better to crouch/squat down grab the sandbag then lift with your legs and press it against the wall  instead of standing bending at the waist picking the sandbag up off the ground with just arm muscles then powering it into the wall  ;D
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Canadian.Trucker on August 16, 2013, 11:40:08
...and going full retard to try to get the best times. 
Everyone knows you never go full retard.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: recceguy on August 16, 2013, 11:44:09
Did the 104lb soldier need to use her body to lever the sandbags up above the line?


I learned it's better to crouch/squat down grab the sandbag then lift with your legs and press it against the wall  instead of standing bending at the waist picking the sandbag up off the ground with just arm muscles then powering it into the wall  ;D

You mean using a proper ergonomic lifting technique as opposed to a proven way to screw up your back? ;)
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: GnyHwy on August 16, 2013, 11:51:07
Proper technique is for sissies!  It is a fact of life - real men have bad backs.  ;D
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 16, 2013, 11:52:25
You mean using a proper ergonomic lifting technique as opposed to a proven way to screw up your back? ;)
Yessir!

Worst of all it cost me two drinks because I challenged troops from my platoon that for every test they got a better time than me I'd owe them a drink.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on August 17, 2013, 13:22:41
Did the 104lb soldier need to use her body to lever the sandbags up above the line?


I learned it's better to crouch/squat down grab the sandbag then lift with your legs and press it against the wall  instead of standing bending at the waist picking the sandbag up off the ground with just arm muscles then powering it into the wall  ;D

Although she is not a Sup Tech, those who are indeed briefed her on proper lifting techniques.  Our 110lb female suppie already knew those techniques and experienced no issues at all.

 :P
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: caocao on August 17, 2013, 13:34:42
My boss is a 95 lbs female and i think that she may have a hard time with the sand bag drag.  The fireman's carry was done using someone of your own size so why not do the same for that part of the test?  Proportional to one's weight.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on August 17, 2013, 13:38:03
My boss is a 95 lbs female and i think that she may have a hard time with the sand bag drag.  The fireman's carry was done using someone of your own size so why not do the same for that part of the test?  Proportional to one's weight.

In the real world the injured person you have to evacuate may not be your size.  So in that case do we just abandon them?

One standard for everyone.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on August 17, 2013, 14:37:59
My boss is a 95 lbs female and i think that she may have a hard time with the sand bag drag.  The fireman's carry was done using someone of your own size so why not do the same for that part of the test?  Proportional to one's weight.

Tell her that she needs to work on getting the initial budge.  A good ******* hoofing then keep her damn legs moving and she should be fine ... if not, well, you know, I weigh 182lbs (I am NOT fat!!  ;)) so if she can't drag my *** out of our vehicle when the crap goes down ... should she even be in the vehicle to begin with?

The minimum operational FORCE standards say, "no" and I'd have to agree with them.  Like it or not, this is the military and bad crap happens.  No exceptions.  BTW, I'm a girl.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: caocao on August 17, 2013, 16:08:26
In the real world the injured person you have to evacuate may not be your size.  So in that case do we just abandon them?

One standard for everyone.
like i said, it should be proportional to the body weight of the pers doing the test.  Maybe 1.5. X the pers body weight.  In my case, 270 lbs (1.5. X 180) which is about what i have to do right now.  Someone heavier and hopefully stronger would pull more and someone lighter less.  You don't need to be A genius to figure this out!  I am sure that come 1 Apr 2014, the FORCE test will be different from what it is now.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: caocao on August 17, 2013, 16:10:54
Tell her that she needs to work on getting the initial budge.  A good ******* hoofing then keep her damn legs moving and she should be fine ... if not, well, you know, I weigh 182lbs (I am NOT fat!!  ;)) so if she can't drag my *** out of our vehicle when the crap goes down ... should she even be in the vehicle to begin with?

The minimum operational FORCE standards say, "no" and I'd have to agree with them.  Like it or not, this is the military and bad crap happens.  No exceptions.  BTW, I'm a girl.
Vern, there's a big difference between 182 and 250. 
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on August 17, 2013, 16:12:35
like i said, it should be proportional to the body weight of the pers doing the test.  Maybe 1.5. X the pers body weight.  In my case, 270 lbs (1.5. X 180) which is about what i have to do right now.  Someone heavier and hopefully stronger would pull more and someone lighter less.  You don't need to be A genius to figure this out!  I am sure that come 1 Apr 2014, the FORCE test will be different from what it is now.

Only change might be to add incentives.  Current model of same standard for everyone will not change.

The testing conducted demonstrated the correlation between the FORCE tasks and the UoS standard.  They also did further work to demonstrate that, with coaching, even those who have difficulty completing FORCE can be trained to improve their performance.

Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on August 17, 2013, 16:16:21
Vern, there's a big difference between 182 and 250.

Nah; that's where the adrenalin kicks in when crap hits the fan (Just google video of obese dude lifting helicopter up to rescue someone!!).  One minimum operationally required standard - no exceptions.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Infanteer on August 17, 2013, 16:30:33
Only change might be to add incentives.  Current model of same standard for everyone will not change.

The testing conducted demonstrated the correlation between the FORCE tasks and the UoS standard.  They also did further work to demonstrate that, with coaching, even those who have difficulty completing FORCE can be trained to improve their performance.

Agreed, that is all that needs to happen, incentives.

The standardized test is going in the right direction - it measures varied, functional body movements and is s**t simple.  The science behind it allows us to head off the grievances and excuses.  It's now up to leadership to apply the standard.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: caocao on August 17, 2013, 16:31:09
Lay off the kool-aid people, you are scaring me! :-[
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 17, 2013, 18:59:43
Lay off the kool-aid people, you are scaring me! :-[

Don't worry if you're 100lbs and you need to drag someone who weights 260lbs in an emergency situation you can just raise your hand and say hey I'm only 100lbs this isn't fair I want someone my own size. Someone will be sure to come along and drag the person to safety for you.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Infanteer on August 18, 2013, 00:33:37
you are so funny, i bet you haven't seen the inside of a gym this decade.

Oh snap, you 12 girlfriend?

Here's your warning new guy.  Grow up.

The Staff.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on August 18, 2013, 06:13:09
In the real world the injured person you have to evacuate may not be your size.  So in that case do we just abandon them?

One standard for everyone.
like i said, it should be proportional to the body weight of the pers doing the test.  Maybe 1.5. X the pers body weight.  In my case, 270 lbs (1.5. X 180) which is about what i have to do right now.  Someone heavier and hopefully stronger would pull more and someone lighter less.  You don't need to be A genius to figure this out!  I am sure that come 1 Apr 2014, the FORCE test will be different from what it is now.
What you have quoted is not like you have said at all.  One standard means one invariable standard.  You have proposed each person get their own personal standard.  Your proposal would not be a defensible a performance based system.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: caocao on August 18, 2013, 07:01:13
I guess i should have use the reply button instead of quote.  My mention of proportional testing came earlier in the thread.  The Expres test had different scales based on sex and age, so what i am saying is why not body weight instead which to me would make it a more accurate test.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on August 18, 2013, 08:44:19
Because the required performance does not vary by the person performing the task.  Standards that vary by age, weight or gender are not defensible.
We are required by law to only conduct job relevant fitness tests, and if hauling 150 lbs is enough for the 100 lbs person to do the job, then it is enough for the 250 lbs person to to the job ... and the courts would agree if we tried to remove the 250 lbs person for not meeting your hypothetical test of 1.5 x body weight.  Just because one is lighter, our tools & equipment do not become lighter and tasks do not magically become less demanding - the smaller person must be able to do the same job.

As Vern mentioned, one does not get to choose the weight of a casualty in battle.  So, everyone need be able to haul anyone else. 

One test.  One minimum standard.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: caocao on August 18, 2013, 10:15:49
I remember when we had one standard for dress...good times!

The problem with pencil pushers that make policies is that they are influenced by the flavour of the day.  The pendulum always swing from one end of the spectrum to the other never pausing in the middle to see what might happen.




Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 18, 2013, 10:29:49
As much as I want to make fun of the force test I can't help but think it's on the right track.

On one hand I don't think it's fair to expect a 50 year old soldier to keep up with a 19 year old when it comes to fitness. 
On the other hand when the moment comes that fitness is truly tested in a life or death situation then whatever it is won't take gender age or weight into consideration. It's pass or fail.

A 100 lb female soldier (complete with poor upper body strength) pulling a near 300 pound dummy might really suck and seem unfair but it's not an unrealistic expectation of what every soldier might face.
 Picking a soldier the same body weight to evacuate doesn't make sense.


Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: caocao on August 18, 2013, 10:40:33
I agree with you that FORCE is an improvement as the component of the test resemble tasks expected of a soldier.  But, and there's always a but, we are not quite there yet and there is still plenty of room left for improvement. 
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 18, 2013, 10:48:01
Very true. It's bringing up  something that's already been mentioned a few times in this thread but I also think combat arms trades (not units) should have a more difficult fitness test to reflect their vocation.
Be it a bft, express type test or a combination.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: George Wallace on August 18, 2013, 10:51:33
Very true. It's bringing up  something that's already been mentioned a few times in this thread but I also think combat arms trades (not units) should have a more difficult fitness test to reflect their vocation.
Be it a bft, express type test or a combination.

At anytime, anyone, not just Combat Arms, can find themselves in combat or a very serious situation requiring the same physical fitness.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on August 18, 2013, 10:53:44
... it's not an unrealistic expectation of what every soldier might face.
Not just soldiers.  It is a realistic expectation of any service member.

I agree with you that FORCE is an improvement as the component of the test resemble tasks expected of a soldier.  But, and there's always a but, we are not quite there yet and there is still plenty of room left for improvement.
So what do you suggest those improvements might be?  Aside from suggesting lesser standards based on weight, you have only offered insults and not-so witty one liners in this thread.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ModlrMike on August 18, 2013, 10:56:56
Because the required performance does not vary by the person performing the task.  Standards that vary by age, weight or gender are not defensible.

By that yardstick then, only one result for the PER: pass/fail.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on August 18, 2013, 11:13:06
By that yardstick then, only one result for the PER: pass/fail.
There is only pass or fail for the PER now.  That aside, your comment is still wrong.  It would be possible to have higher thresholds of performance which to not vary by age, weight or gender and for which achievement of these higher thresholds could be rewarded on a PER.  To be defensible, the higher performance would have to benefit success or survival in battle.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: caocao on August 18, 2013, 11:49:20
Not just soldiers.  It is a realistic expectation of any service member.
So what do you suggest those improvements might be?  Aside from suggesting lesser standards based on weight, you have only offered insults and not-so witty one liners in this thread.
extra points on the PER is not the way to go.  I think that the system as it is now (need a pass to have your file on the merit board) is adequate. 

So what kind of encentive could we use to motivate our folks to do better?  Bling maybe?  We use to have a badge of some sort on thework dress i think, so why not something like that for the DEU?  Drivers can wear those accident free badge so why not someone who is more fit then the average bear?
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Hamish Seggie on August 18, 2013, 11:55:19
History lesson :warstory:

Back in the day, about 1981/82 We had a CO who imposed his own PT test, CF standards be damned.

In the early days it was a 1.5 mile run in twelve minutes or less.

We had to run three miles in 21 minutes or less, or we faced administrative action. Then someone decided that the Coopers test was the way to go, CF or Army standards be damned. Then the EXPRES test came in and that was the way they decided to go.
Then they decided that to BFT was the way to go, BUT it was a 13 km in Marching Order followed by a 16 Km in Fighting order. Then they decided 13 km in Marching order was good.

I fervently hope that we've come to the 80% solution on this one.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on August 18, 2013, 11:56:11
extra points on the PER is not the way to go.  I think that the system as it is now (need a pass to have your file on the merit board) is adequate. 

So what kind of encentive could we use to motivate our folks to do better?  Bling maybe?  We use to have a badge of some sort on thework dress i think, so why not something like that for the DEU?  Drivers can wear those accident free badge so why not someone who is more fit then the average bear?

The Warrior Badge. 

Last thing we need is more cheap Chinese plastic baubles because you just know that's where they'll come from.   >:(
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on August 18, 2013, 11:58:04
History lesson :warstory:

Back in the day, about 1981/82 We had a CO who imposed his own PT test, CF standards be damned.

In the early days it was a 1.5 mile run in twelve minutes or less.

We had to run three miles in 21 minutes or less, or we faced administrative action. Then someone decided that the Coopers test was the way to go, CF or Army standards be damned. Then the EXPRES test came in and that was the way they decided to go.
Then they decided that to BFT was the way to go, BUT it was a 13 km in Marching Order followed by a 16 Km in Fighting order. Then they decided 13 km in Marching order was good.

I fervently hope that we've come to the 80% solution on this one.

You missed the real 2X10 grandpa.    :o
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Hamish Seggie on August 18, 2013, 11:58:43
The Warrior Badge. 

Last thing we need is more cheap Chinese plastic baubles because you just know that's where they'll come from.   >:(

Maybe we could pattern a badge off the USN SEAL Trident for the wannabes?

 ;D
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MikeL on August 18, 2013, 12:04:30
So what kind of encentive could we use to motivate our folks to do better?  Bling maybe?  We use to have a badge of some sort on thework dress i think, so why not something like that for the DEU?

Is this sincere?


We don't need to hand out DEU badges to Bloggins because he passed a yearly PT test. If you want to give people an incentive, link PT test passes with allowances.. fail your PT test and now you've lost LDA until you can pass.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on August 18, 2013, 12:07:12
Is this sincere?


We don't need to hand out DEU badges to Bloggins because he passed a yearly PT test. If you want to give people an incentive, link PT test passes with allowances.. fail your PT test and now you've lost LDA until you can pass.

The FORCE test is the minimum standard for all CF members (not just the combat arms, not the Cdn Army etc etc).  The overwhelming majority of CF personnel do not receive any environmental allowances; you can't take allowances away from just a portion because now you've only succeeded in creating --- a double standard.

Next suggestion?
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: caocao on August 18, 2013, 12:09:11
Is this sincere?


We don't need to hand out DEU badges to Bloggins because he passed a yearly PT test. If you want to give people an incentive, link PT test passes with allowances.. fail your PT test and now you've lost LDA until you can pass.
now we are going somewhere, same could be said of second lang ability.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on August 18, 2013, 12:14:29
... same could be said of second lang ability.

The system currently already rewards this area.  Min profiles required for some promotions/appts and bonus points are given at merit boards.

What needs to start happening on this front is that those with profiles and whom are getting promoted, but refusing posting outside of their home province *ahem Quebec*, a serious issue in my trade ... need to have those bonus points, promotions and profiles revoked/invalidated/cancelled soonest!!  That's another thread though.

[/rant]

Back to topic ...
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MikeL on August 18, 2013, 12:18:53
The FORCE test is the minimum standard for all CF members (not just the combat arms, not the Cdn Army etc etc).

I didn't mean to imply the FORCE test is not a CAF wide fitness test.

The overwhelming majority of CF personnel do not receive any environmental allowances; you can't take allowances away from just a portion because now you've only succeeded in creating --- a double standard.

Is tying allowances to fitness test passes the 100% solution? No. As you noted, only a portion of the CAF gets allowances(such as LDA, SOA, etc) Linking job pay with the fitness test IMO would motivate people more then a piece of plastic on the DEU though.


same could be said of second lang ability.

What do you mean by this?  AFAIK, not having a second language(English/French) already has career implications with regards to rank, PER points, etc.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on August 18, 2013, 12:27:11


Is tying allowances to fitness test passes the 100% solution? No. Linking job performance/passing tests to pay IMO sure would motivate people more then a piece of plastic on the DEU jacket though.


It's a zero percent solution.  If they haven't met the minimum standard that the CAF has determined is the MINIMUM required standard for OPERATIONAL task performance, then how do you justify taking allowances away from only a select portion of them?

More put:

What do you do to the infantry guy in a non-LDA position who fails?  Or to the RCAF guy in a non-LDA posn? Or the RCN guy in a non-LDA non-Sea Pay posn?  Do you doc their base pays by the equivalent then as a consequence just because they happen to be posted into a non-allowance posn?  It'll never fly.  We already have ICs, RWs & C&Ps for that crap (all of which also negatively impact the PER and the merit list BTW).

If the Infantry, or whoever, wants to have a different test as a minimum for their trade whereby people are rewarded/punished monetarily on a sliding scale, then that trade/environment will have to do that themselves as a totally different LoO from the CF minimum operational standard FORCE test.


Edited to add the yellow bit, because apparently this small typo obviously changed (for some) the entire of the whole post talking about "fails".
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MikeL on August 18, 2013, 12:43:36
What do you do to the infantry guy in a non-LDA position who fails?  Or to the RCAF guy in a non-LDA posn? Or the RCN guy in a non-LDA non-Sea Pay posn?  Do you doc their base pays by the equivalent then as a consequence just because they happen to be posted into a non-allowance posn?  It'll never fly.


I was just saying money would motivate people more then a plastic badge on the DEU.. I wasn't seriously proposing it as the way the CAF should deal with this. I acknowledged that it wasn't a realistic solution, and as you made clear a overall bad idea.. I think I should start adding smileys to make sure people know I'm not serious  :D


We already have ICs, RWs & C&Ps for that crap (all of which also negatively impact the PER and the merit list BTW).

I know those have a negative impact on the PER... but are those 100% solutions to motivate people to pass? Clearly not, as there are some CAF members that still fail the yearly fitness test.

Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on August 18, 2013, 12:49:32
I am NOT saying those who have met the minimum standard would be punished, nor was it implied.  Only those who fail to meet the minimum standard.


Typo on my part.  It should have read, "haven't met" ... which is very obviously my intended meaning by my next sentence asking what to do with those guys who "fail".  I will edit my original to fix the typo.   ::)
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on August 18, 2013, 12:54:07
I know those have a negative impact on the PER... but are those 100% solutions to motivate people to pass? Clearly not, as there are some CAF members still fail the yearly fitness test.

And once those members do so 3 times, their *** is out the door.  It's their career on the line if they remain unmotivated.  If that isn't motivating to them ... nothing ever will be.  Another good reason for Units to use the existing policy and procedures for addressing "fails" ... because some are NOT.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: caocao on August 18, 2013, 13:09:48
The system currently already rewards this area.  Min profiles required for some promotions/appts and bonus points are given at merit boards.

What needs to start happening on this front is that those with profiles and whom are getting promoted, but refusing posting outside of their home province *ahem Quebec*, a serious issue in my trade ... need to have those bonus points, promotions and profiles revoked/invalidated/cancelled soonest!!  That's another thread though.

[/rant]

Back to topic ...
fully agree with you on the french thing except that you also need to include those folks (anglos) who do their year long in Esquimalt and refuse a posting to la belle province!
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on August 18, 2013, 13:10:20
And how about all those who don't get tested during the year.  Should we be writing their supervisors up on their PERs?  Pass/Fail of subordinates shouldn't be reflected on a superior's PER, but never did the test?  Sounds like a leadership issue.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MikeL on August 18, 2013, 13:15:03
And once those members do so 3 times, their *** is out the door.  It's their career on the line if they remain unmotivated.  If that isn't motivating to them ... nothing ever will be.

I agree - provided that the 3 times or you're out rule is enforced for all.


Another good reason for Units to use the existing policy and procedures for addressing "fails" ... because some are NOT.

Is there any repercussions for the CoC(and career shop if they know) if they allow a member to remain in, if they have failed their fitness tests(or don't even do them)?
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: caocao on August 18, 2013, 13:43:52
And how about all those who don't get tested during the year.  Should we be writing their supervisors up on their PERs?  Pass/Fail of subordinates shouldn't be reflected on a superior's PER, but never did the test?  Sounds like a leadership issue.
yes, too many supervisors with blinders on that want to be the good guys.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on August 18, 2013, 15:32:43
And how about all those who don't get tested during the year.  Should we be writing their supervisors up on their PERs?  Pass/Fail of subordinates shouldn't be reflected on a superior's PER, but never did the test?  Sounds like a leadership issue.

With a caveat of course because there are times when exceptional circumstances occur and no PT test is done during an FY.

Had a troop deployed most of the FY (the first 8 months of it) who returned from his leave only to break an ankle and not be able to undertake a test that FY.  Exceptional circumstance.  That "exceptional circumstance" exemption should have to come from higher than the pers' Unit though because I can totally see certain places finding "exceptions" all over the place for the chosen few as already occurs.   :facepalm:
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on August 18, 2013, 15:40:07
fully agree with you on the french thing except that you also need to include those folks (anglos) who do their year long in Esquimalt and refuse a posting to la belle province!

Hard to get posted to Quebec as an anglo with a profile when they have very rare vacancies they won't fill with an anglo because they need to save their slots for 5 Bgde mafia rotations from Montreal to St-Jean to Valcatraz circle circle circle.

Been there and done that as an anglo with a profile married to a franco who was in Quebec while I was IR in other provinces because they needed to keep their slots for so & so  or so & so who would get out if they posted him outside of la belle province.

Ms. Marois will also need to sort out her merde to really deal with the issue of anglo-mother tongue soldiers risking their child's education if posted to QC only to find out their kids can't be schooled easily or possibly even locally in english anymore.  Not an issue that franco soldiers posted outside of QC need to deal with.

Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: caocao on August 18, 2013, 23:00:10
Best time for the whole family to learn french!  My wife (girlfriend at the time)  didn't the last time i got posted to Valcartier and she had to learn in a hurry because i was out the door to Haiti 6 weeks after my COS.  Not easy but it can be done.

Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Hamish Seggie on August 18, 2013, 23:07:14
I agree - provided that the 3 times or you're out rule is enforced for all.



Remedial measures exist. We do not hesitate to use them for ARIs and various other personell problems.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PrairieThunder on August 18, 2013, 23:59:53
Remedial measures exist. We do not hesitate to use them for ARIs and various other personell problems.

As embarrasing as it may be I was one of those in my first bought with RegF BMQ. Then injury happened and I released, only to go back to reserves so that was at I knew they would not let me in unless I was capable. Fast forward nearly 2yrs and here I am.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: caocao on August 27, 2013, 18:12:54
My boss is a 95 lbs female and i think that she may have a hard time with the sand bag drag.  The fireman's carry was done using someone of your own size so why not do the same for that part of the test?  Proportional to one's weight.
Update on my boss, she did the FORCE test this morning but failed the sand bag drag.  She told be that she had like 5 metre to go but the bag you carry in your arm was getting low and she dropped it.  With a little more training i think she'll be able to pass it.  Which leads me to my next point.  An email came out in the NCR yesterday looking for females (all rank shape and size) to form a WG to "further investigate the vehicle extrication task".  So i am trying to convince her to participate because if only Zena type female show up it won't provide reliable data.   
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Pusser on August 29, 2013, 08:01:23
I gather then that if you drop the sand bag, you're not allowed to pick it up again?  Hmmm.  Does this mean that if you're in a real combat situation and you lose your grip on a casualty, you're just supposed to stop and leave the guy there?  I thought this test was supposed to simulate reality.  This sounds like a repeat of the problem with push-ups on the ExPres Test where if you shifted your hand, you had to stop at that point (one of my subordinates who was until that point headed to an "Exempt" ended up failing the test over that one).
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on August 29, 2013, 08:06:30
I gather then that if you drop the sand bag, you're not allowed to pick it up again?  Hmmm.  Does this mean that if you're in a real combat situation and you lose your grip on a casualty, you're just supposed to stop and leave the guy there?  I thought this test was supposed to simulate reality.  This sounds like a repeat of the problem with push-ups on the ExPres Test where if you shifted your hand, you had to stop at that point (one of my subordinates who was until that point headed to an "Exempt" ended up failing the test over that one).

I guess they feel it's as close a simulation as they can get without all the adrenalin pumping (a great assistant!) that would be going on in a real-world situation.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Tango2Bravo on August 29, 2013, 08:10:47
I gather then that if you drop the sand bag, you're not allowed to pick it up again?  Hmmm.  Does this mean that if you're in a real combat situation and you lose your grip on a casualty, you're just supposed to stop and leave the guy there?  I thought this test was supposed to simulate reality.  This sounds like a repeat of the problem with push-ups on the ExPres Test where if you shifted your hand, you had to stop at that point (one of my subordinates who was until that point headed to an "Exempt" ended up failing the test over that one).

You cannot stop when you are executing the sand-bag dummy drag. The tests are based on real-world activities but they are not simulations. Drag the sand-bad dummy for twenty metres and you are good to go. Its not like push-ups with form etc. Its quite hard to drop the sand-bag "handle" that you wrap your arms around.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ARMY_101 on August 29, 2013, 08:11:12
I gather then that if you drop the sand bag, you're not allowed to pick it up again?  Hmmm.  Does this mean that if you're in a real combat situation and you lose your grip on a casualty, you're just supposed to stop and leave the guy there?  I thought this test was supposed to simulate reality.  This sounds like a repeat of the problem with push-ups on the ExPres Test where if you shifted your hand, you had to stop at that point (one of my subordinates who was until that point headed to an "Exempt" ended up failing the test over that one).

You are given a repeat on 3/4 of the exercises, the casualty drag included. The only exercises which, if failed is an automatic FORCE failure, is the sandbag lift/touch the wall.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: GnyHwy on August 29, 2013, 08:38:59
Update on my boss, she did the FORCE test this morning but failed the sand bag drag.  She told be that she had like 5 metre to go but the bag you carry in your arm was getting low and she dropped it.  With a little more training i think she'll be able to pass it.  Which leads me to my next point.  An email came out in the NCR yesterday looking for females (all rank shape and size) to form a WG to "further investigate the vehicle extrication task".  So i am trying to convince her to participate because if only Zena type female show up it won't provide reliable data.

From what I have heard, these (small and light) body types are the only ones that have difficulty with this part of the test; damn you Isaac Newton!  Even with an extreme light build, I believe that technique will go a long way.   She needs to lean back and get the feet pumping as fast as she can, and don't stop. 

I guess this one to designed to bring the morale of fat guys back up, after they struggle with the other exercises.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on August 29, 2013, 09:47:51
You are given a repeat on 3/4 of the exercises, the casualty drag included. The only exercises which, if failed is an automatic FORCE failure, is the sandbag lift/touch the wall.

Hmmm, when we did our tests at this location, we were advised by PSP that only the shuttle could be re-tested after a 5 minute break if failed.  Pers that did the test on Tuesday this week were briefed the same.  No one failed.

Just where are you located at if they are allowing retests outside of the shuttle?
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ARMY_101 on August 29, 2013, 10:01:36
Just where are you located at if they are allowing retests outside of the shuttle?

That was the PSP staff at the Asticou Centre in Gatineau.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: caocao on August 29, 2013, 15:21:01
Well the same staff atasticoutold my boss exactly what Vern was saying, the only retest allowed is the shuttle.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Poppa on August 29, 2013, 15:28:21
Funny, we were told that retests are given on everything except the sand bag lift
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on August 30, 2013, 00:33:42
Funny, we were told that retests are given on everything except the sand bag lift

Were you told this at Asticou too? 

Veddy, veddy interesting ... I wonder how many Asticou has "passed" on a retest at Asticou who would have been given fails elsewhwere. Or the vive versa - how many troops outside of Asticou (Ottawa) have been given fails when they'd have been given a retest in Ottawa.

Something's hinky.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on August 30, 2013, 00:38:20
Well the same staff atasticoutold my boss exactly what Vern was saying, the only retest allowed is the shuttle.

Sooooo, if I were a CWO in Ottawa, I'd be all over this.  Seems there may be a double standard happening at Asticou Centre (I love going on course there BTW) with their FORCE testing depending upon which PSP staff is fronting it that day.  The rules for retest that your boss got were correct.

I am now left wondering how many "passed" through on unallowed retests.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Pusser on August 30, 2013, 06:14:28
Regardless of what the policy actually is regarding immediate re-tests, the general rule does seem to be that some (if not all) tests can be re-done on the spot if initially failed.  It seems to me that it should be all or none.  Allowing immediate re-tests on only one/some of the tests seems somewhat arbitrary and I'm curious as to the reasoning.

I've always maintained that the old ExPres policy of making an individual automatically wait three months (yes, I know a CO could recommend a waiver of this) was a tad silly.  There is a difference between the person who's gasping, wheezing and clutching his/her chest before collapsing during the shuttle run and someone who's having a bad day and slips on a push-up.  From what I'm seeing here, it seems that the FORCE test has similar issues.  I really don't see why a person cannot immediately attempt to do any test again if circumstance permit.  After all, if they fail it the first time and then pass on the second attempt (when logically they have a little less energy than at the first attempt), then they are obviously fit enough to pass the test.  What's the big deal?  From an administrative point of view getting as many people through the first time is beneficial to all (PSP staff don't have to run as many testing sessions and units don't have to lose their personnel as often).
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: GnyHwy on August 30, 2013, 07:15:29
It makes sense to have a retest on the shuttle and the drag as these tests can be failed with a simple stumble. 

The sand bag lift and sandbag walk/run provide more than ample time to recover, even if you fell flat on your face and needed time to stop the bleeding first.

Sooooo, if I were a CWO in Ottawa, I'd be all over this.  Seems there may be a double standard happening at Asticou Centre (I love going on course there BTW) with their FORCE testing depending upon which PSP staff is fronting it that day.  The rules for retest that your boss got were correct.

This one blows me away and I know it is probably happening.  I have personally heard PSP opinions on certain tests being too easy, so I guess they might feel the need to "save" us from our mistakes.  Kind of a Bradley Manning thing, where they believe they know best, even though they don't know crap.

This is simply staff not knowing their role. 

Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ARMY_101 on August 30, 2013, 08:04:28
Sooooo, if I were a CWO in Ottawa, I'd be all over this.  Seems there may be a double standard happening at Asticou Centre (I love going on course there BTW) with their FORCE testing depending upon which PSP staff is fronting it that day.  The rules for retest that your boss got were correct.

I am now left wondering how many "passed" through on unallowed retests.

Since the test is still "new" and failures can still do the EXPRES test, maybe they're varying the standards to see which ones they can raise without too many people failing?
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ARMY_101 on August 30, 2013, 08:08:27
Regardless of what the policy actually is regarding immediate re-tests, the general rule does seem to be that some (if not all) tests can be re-done on the spot if initially failed.  It seems to me that it should be all or none.  Allowing immediate re-tests on only one/some of the tests seems somewhat arbitrary and I'm curious as to the reasoning.

The reasoning we were given was that the sandbang lift-and-touch-the-wall was a more absolute measure of fatiguing muscle strength: if you couldn't do it in the 3+ minutes you were given, you wouldn't be able to do it. However, if you slipped while doing the casualty drag or intermittent sprints, you should be able to try again without having that considered a failure. That was the reasoning for us anyway.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Poppa on August 30, 2013, 11:30:18
Were you told this at Asticou too? 

Veddy, veddy interesting ...

Yep...
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 30, 2013, 12:33:54
I would guess that the reason the sandbag drag is an automatic fail if you drop it is in order to avoid arguments stemming from CF members dropping the bag over and over and over and struggling with it like a dog trying to hump a football.

The test already takes a really long time to administer, dealing with someone spending 15 minutes trying to drag the sandbag would waste everyones time. Worst still would be if it was in the hands of the PSP to arbitrarily decide when someone has dropped the sandbag "enough" in order to indicate they can't pass the test.

This way it's black and white.

If it was really supposed to be as close to real life as possible then I would just stand at the finish line screaming at the sandbags. 
Self aid! self aid! Crawl to safety man!
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on August 30, 2013, 19:24:01
Since the test is still "new" and failures can still do the EXPRES test, maybe they're varying the standards to see which ones they can raise without too many people failing?

I'd agree if that were the case across the board; what seems to be the case is that it appears that some PSP staff in Ottawa may be giving pers a second chance where anywhere else it would be a "fail" with no second chance.  That's two standards ---- something this test was supposed to eradicate.

So who's actually doing the standard FORCE test?  Pers in Ottawa being allowed retests or pers outside of Ottawa who are not?  It's hard to measure a standard and get stats if your stats from 1 location are "uncommon" and skewed from the get-go.

If a single pers in Ottawa has been allowed a retest for a non-retestable activity that has not been allowed elsewhere that is, quite simply, not on.  Some would also roll their eyes and note the location seemingly being treated "specially".  I truly hope that's not factual.

Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: CDNAIRFORCE on August 30, 2013, 21:50:53
I did the FORCE test last week in Cold Lake. PSP was also briefing that the only portion that CANNOT be re-tried is the sandbag wall lift. Not only that, they were briefing that in FY 2013/14 as long as you have either FORCE or Expres passed by the end of the  FY earlier failed attempts would not be recorded or involve mandatory remedial PT. Basically, had I failed that morning (which I did not, nor did anyone else) I could have come back to the gym next week, next month or in a few months and either re-try FORCE multiple times or do the Expres. You were not forced to do Expres after failing FORCE on the first try. (I guess that all stems from this being a "trial year" for the new test) A person I know technically failed FORCE by being 2 seconds behind on the rushes on two attempts. They told him to just show up the following week and re-do it. Being on nights that day he didn't even bother going through ETO since PSP generally did not have accurate lists of who was booked for the tests. Hence there were always available spots.

Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Infanteer on August 30, 2013, 21:57:10
The details that this was a trial year and CF Express/BFT still counted was in the CANFORGEN describing FORCE's introduction.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: birdgunnnersrule on August 30, 2013, 22:03:22
I just completed the test at Asticou and was very impressed by the professionalism of the PSP staff.  If memory serves as correct, we were briefed that you could have a second chance on the shuttle.  Maybe I had zoned out as the entire process seemed to take too long, but I assumed it was because the concrete floor was very slippery in locations.  No failures and no one seemed to have any difficulty with the exercises less the sandbag drag for those of smaller stature.  Agree with all the comments regarding standards across the different bases having recently been posted to Ottawa.  This is the first year and I am sure that there will be some adjustments for next year. 
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: recceguy on August 30, 2013, 23:45:23
Wow.

Disparity on the first iteration.

Go figure. ::)


Guess PSP will have to put together one 'super team' to test every person in the CF to ensure standardization.

"It's January 2014, your test will be in the July- October timeframe of 2016. Get ready."

Or we can put it under the auspices of PLQ (PT) qualified Unit Cpl\MCpls with direction and supervision of the SSM\RSM, to ensure the standards are maintained.

There is no requirement, whatsoever, to have some civie from PSP administer this test.

The Forces is looking to save money. Time to let people we already pay for take care of this.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on August 30, 2013, 23:49:16
...

Or we can put it under the auspices of PLQ (PT) qualified Unit Cpl\MCpls with direction and supervision of the SSM\RSM, to ensure the standards are maintained.

And our BFTA qualified pers too; I send many of my pers on that course to see them give warm-ups.  "Tis a sad state that we do not utilize our available and best resources to their full extent.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on August 31, 2013, 00:08:54
The intent is to have military pers apply the test within their own lines.  Two of three environments want to go that way.  Year 1, however, is to introduce the test and get some folks qualified to administer it.  Oddly enough, there's no "wave a magic wand and everyone is able to administer the test" wand available this year, so we have to rely on training them instead.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: caocao on August 31, 2013, 05:50:44
Sooooo, if I were a CWO in Ottawa, I'd be all over this.  Seems there may be a double standard happening at Asticou Centre (I love going on course there BTW) with their FORCE testing depending upon which PSP staff is fronting it that day.  The rules for retest that your boss got were correct.

I am now left wondering how many "passed" through on unallowed retests.
yeah, i will definitely have a chat with PSP when i get back from leave.  There has to be some uniformity applied across the country otherwise this year of stats gathering will have been all for nothing.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: daftandbarmy on August 31, 2013, 10:38:59
Wow.

Disparity on the first iteration.

Go figure. ::)


Guess PSP will have to put together one 'super team' to test every person in the CF to ensure standardization.

"It's January 2014, your test will be in the July- October timeframe of 2016. Get ready."

Or we can put it under the auspices of PLQ (PT) qualified Unit Cpl\MCpls with direction and supervision of the SSM\RSM, to ensure the standards are maintained.

There is no requirement, whatsoever, to have some civie from PSP administer this test.

The Forces is looking to save money. Time to let people we already pay for take care of this.

Just checking to see if one of the AAR points from the first year will be the apparent fact that we now have a basic fitness test so complicated to administer correctly that it takes a major training effort to achieve standardization?
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Navy_Pete on August 31, 2013, 11:01:30
I just completed the test at Asticou and was very impressed by the professionalism of the PSP staff.  If memory serves as correct, we were briefed that you could have a second chance on the shuttle.  Maybe I had zoned out as the entire process seemed to take too long, but I assumed it was because the concrete floor was very slippery in locations.  No failures and no one seemed to have any difficulty with the exercises less the sandbag drag for those of smaller stature.  Agree with all the comments regarding standards across the different bases having recently been posted to Ottawa.  This is the first year and I am sure that there will be some adjustments for next year.

I also just completed the test at Asticou and had the same experience.  They were pretty clear that the shuttle was the only one you could retest on; guessing if it wasn't being explained/applied properly it has since been corrected.  Seems like an easy misunderstanding to make.

Having said that, kind of surprised the sand bag drag wasn't a time limit instead of one continuous drag.  I think I'd rather be quickly dragged to safety with someone slipping a few times then have someone very slowly drag me over.  Would be annoying to slip on that one and fail the test because of it.

Wasn't a bad test; could conceivably sort of see doing similar things in the navy (although going twenty meters without hitting a hatch combing to lift someone over is extremely unlikely).  Sand bags were similar to storing/ammoing ship.  Don't know about the shuttle run with jazz hands , but Gilbert and Sullivan jokes aside, I guess it's a general quick twitch muscle test.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: CDNAIRFORCE on August 31, 2013, 11:28:21
In terms of no time limit for the sandbag drag, PSP in Cold Lake was actually recording everyone's time to complete the drag. They informed us that they were recording the times (along with the gender and age of each participant) and forwarding the info to
Ottawa for analysis and to possibly use to create exemption times. (Exempt if all 4 events done in less than X amount of time) Not sure if this is happening elsewhere. For the record, I find the PSP staff in Cold Lake to be very good.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 31, 2013, 11:46:45

Having said that, kind of surprised the sand bag drag wasn't a time limit instead of one continuous drag.  I think I'd rather be quickly dragged to safety with someone slipping a few times then have someone very slowly drag me over.  Would be annoying to slip on that one and fail the test because of it.

Participants racing against the clock to complete the sandbag drag, especially if they are not used to that kind of stuff or very small, could probably injure themselves pretty good.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Navy_Pete on August 31, 2013, 12:12:14
I suppose, although as the time limit for both the first two are extremely generous, there shouldn't be any particular rush. As the first two were basically to results based (ie get the task done in a time limit), the drag seemed a bit arbitrary to not be able to stop, but you can take as long as you want.  Mostly curious about the decision making process there.

Also, not sure if they did some testing on the actual gym floors before hand; Asticou had a bit of a texture as it was painted dimpled concrete and they used four sandbags, plus the one you were holding and a forty pound plate.  Was that the same everywhere else?  Only curious if they tested the friction coefficient, as this would be easier on a dusty and waxed tiled floor.  Is my nerd showing?
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: krimynal on August 31, 2013, 12:16:14
I know there was suppose to have a website for that ( can't seem to find it on google ) there was also a quick movie , that was showing what it was really , that I can't seem to find neither !!!!!

does anyone have any link or whatever ??? I did a quick search but didn't find anything , I'll keep on looking those 23 pages , I saw the link of the USMC , but not the CF !
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on August 31, 2013, 12:52:50
I know there was suppose to have a website for that ( can't seem to find it on google ) there was also a quick movie , that was showing what it was really , that I can't seem to find neither !!!!!

does anyone have any link or whatever ??? I did a quick search but didn't find anything , I'll keep on looking those 23 pages , I saw the link of the USMC , but not the CF !

DFIT Website (http://www.dfit.ca/)
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on August 31, 2013, 13:33:44
Just checking to see if one of the AAR points from the first year will be the apparent fact that we now have a basic fitness test so complicated to administer correctly that it takes a major training effort to achieve standardization?

It's actually not very complex to administer, but they have to ensure a single standard - not "I want to be posted to 3 RCR from 1 RCR because they do the test easier over there".
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: krimynal on August 31, 2013, 13:58:06
DFIT Website (http://www.dfit.ca/)


if I'm not a reserve member right now can I still see it ????

I do have my last 4 digit of my SN ..... but I don't know if it's in the system as we speak


*EDIT*   Well I just answered myself , and no I can't create an account , since I'm not in the military right now ( havn't joined the reserve yet ) so I guess I'll have to wait till all the paperwork are done !!!
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PrairieThunder on August 31, 2013, 14:12:23

if I'm not a reserver member right now can I still see it ????

I do have my last 4 digit of my SN ..... but I don't know if it's in the system as we speak
 

If you're not sworn member registered in HRMS, you will not be able to access.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: krimynal on August 31, 2013, 14:24:10
 

If you're not sworn member registered in HRMS, you will not be able to access.

okay so I don't have to be BMQ qualified , only sworn in.  So if I'm going for that matter next week , then maybe by the end of the month I might be able to access it !
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PrairieThunder on August 31, 2013, 14:28:57
It won't be instant. You will have to wait a few weeks before your SN is active in HRMS, took a good 3 weeks for myself.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: krimynal on August 31, 2013, 14:38:09
alright , and on the website can I access all the info , are only the one regarding my position ???

I mean I'm joining the reserve as an artillery NCM , can I check the one for special forces ??? OR I will only be able to check to one for the army ....


I just want to see if I can do like the hardest training .... I'd rather train more and make sure to keep in shape !
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ARMY_101 on August 31, 2013, 15:13:09
I mean I'm joining the reserve as an artillery NCM , can I check the one for special forces ??? OR I will only be able to check to one for the army ....

I just want to see if I can do like the hardest training .... I'd rather train more and make sure to keep in shape !

You don't need DFIT for that. See http://www.cg.cfpsa.ca/cg-pc/Petawawa/EN/FitnessandSports/MilitaryFitness/MilitaryFitnessTesting/Documents/CSORPRESELECTIONTRAININGPROGRAMFINAL.pdf
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MikeL on August 31, 2013, 15:14:09
alright , and on the website can I access all the info , are only the one regarding my position ???

I mean I'm joining the reserve as an artillery NCM , can I check the one for special forces ??? OR I will only be able to check to one for the army ....


I just want to see if I can do like the hardest training .... I'd rather train more and make sure to keep in shape !

There is no SOF program on DFIT (that I've seen), the only specialty program on DFIT is for Fire Fighter.  The CSOR and JTF2 training programs are available online, either go to the CANSOF forum on this site and find the thread with the links, or Google search it.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: krimynal on August 31, 2013, 22:44:03
There is no SOF program on DFIT (that I've seen), the only specialty program on DFIT is for Fire Fighter.  The CSOR and JTF2 training programs are available online, either go to the CANSOF forum on this site and find the thread with the links, or Google search it.

okay , sorry for my mistake , I thought the chart ( from my Google search ) was out of date , it looked so ..... old and basic that I thought it was the old one and they had made a new one that was on dfit ( specialty training ) I kinda assumed wrongfully that it was for special forces ( CSOR , JTF , ETC. ) but since the one on Google is the right one , ill use this one !
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: recceguy on August 31, 2013, 23:03:04
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVNHcob3oJg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVNHcob3oJg)


Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: upandatom on October 28, 2013, 12:47:12
Hard to get posted to Quebec as an anglo with a profile when they have very rare vacancies they won't fill with an anglo because they need to save their slots for 5 Bgde mafia rotations from Montreal to St-Jean to Valcatraz circle circle circle.

Been there and done that as an anglo with a profile married to a franco who was in Quebec while I was IR in other provinces because they needed to keep their slots for so & so  or so & so who would get out if they posted him outside of la belle province.

Ms. Marois will also need to sort out her merde to really deal with the issue of anglo-mother tongue soldiers risking their child's education if posted to QC only to find out their kids can't be schooled easily or possibly even locally in english anymore.  Not an issue that franco soldiers posted outside of QC need to deal with.

I am already going through this, 50/50 custody being Anglo, No profile (X and X and N/A) English child, due to the new laws, Child is not allowed to attend due to only one parent being in service and currently possible for them to enroll in Ontario. Straight from the horses mouth.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on October 29, 2013, 01:20:53
I am already going through this, 50/50 custody being Anglo, No profile (X and X and N/A) English child, due to the new laws, Child is not allowed to attend due to only one parent being in service and currently possible for them to enroll in Ontario. Straight from the horses mouth.

Sounds like discrimination based upon your marital status ... a prohibited ground.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: recceguy on October 29, 2013, 08:47:16
Let's get back on track folks.

---Staff---
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ModlrMike on October 30, 2013, 11:47:18
Did the FORCE last night. Harder than I expected, but fairly easy to complete none the less. I can see where smaller, slighter members have a harder time.

How do we remedy that? I don't know.
Do we need to remedy that? I also don't know.

I do know that expecting a 100lb female to move weights in the same manner as a 200lb male defies the laws of physics. Some here will say too bad, and perhaps it is. I'm not going to argue that point. I suppose that we should accept that the test is valid for the majority of members and that the outliers at one end will find it too hard, and at the other end too easy.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: George Wallace on October 30, 2013, 12:05:03
Did the FORCE last night. Harder than I expected, but fairly easy to complete none the less. I can see where smaller, slighter members have a harder time.

How do we remedy that? I don't know.
Do we need to remedy that? I also don't know.

I do know that expecting a 100lb female to move weights in the same manner as a 200lb male defies the laws of physics. Some here will say too bad, and perhaps it is. I'm not going to argue that point. I suppose that we should accept that the test is valid for the majority of members and that the outliers at one end will find it too hard, and at the other end too easy.

We could turn back the clock, like had been done to bring back Pips and Crowns, and set height and gender restrictions on our Recruiting.    >:D
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Shamrock on October 30, 2013, 12:18:07
I have been told the rates of failure for the FORCE evaluation are significantly similar to those of the EXPRES test.

I wonder, though, if the demographics are the same
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on October 31, 2013, 07:11:07
...

I do know that expecting a 100lb female to move weights in the same manner as a 200lb male defies the laws of physics. Some here will say too bad, and perhaps it is. I'm not going to argue that point. I suppose that we should accept that the test is valid for the majority of members and that the outliers at one end will find it too hard, and at the other end too easy.

Sure it defies the law of physics, but the test IS valid for 100% of CAF members.

If the MINIMUM Operational requirement is for a CAF member to be able to move XX pounds of weight, then that is applicable to 100% of CAF members regardless of their size/sex.  Whatever their size/sex - if they can't pull the minimum operationally required weight of a CAF member, then perhaps they should not be CAF members.

I'm OK with facing the fact that a 4'2" chick weighing 89 pounds probably will never become a CAF member.  How un-PC of me, but at the end of the day the fact is that if she can't drag those sandbags, then facts would show that she also can't drag my injured *** out of the vehicle either.  Too bad for her.  Good for me and the other soldiers who would have been in her vehicle.

Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Hamish Seggie on October 31, 2013, 21:45:41
I did the FORCE test Saturday morning at 0730. I passed. I'm on the far side of 55.

If I can pass.....everyone should be able to.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Ostrozac on October 31, 2013, 22:59:29
Sure it defies the law of physics, but the test IS valid for 100% of CAF members.

If the MINIMUM Operational requirement is for a CAF member to be able to move XX pounds of weight, then that is applicable to 100% of CAF members regardless of their size/sex.  Whatever their size/sex - if they can't pull the minimum operationally required weight of a CAF member, then perhaps they should not be CAF members.

I'm OK with facing the fact that a 4'2" chick weighing 89 pounds probably will never become a CAF member.  How un-PC of me, but at the end of the day the fact is that if she can't drag those sandbags, then facts would show that she also can't drag my injured *** out of the vehicle either.  Too bad for her.  Good for me and the other soldiers who would have been in her vehicle.

Agreed. We already discriminate based on body shape for CF-18 pilots -- if you are the size of an NBA player (Yao Ming is 7'6" and 310 pounds) -- then you don't fit in the cockpit and you won't be slowed by the parachute. Therefore you won't fly fighters. Period. That's a legitimate, legally defensible job restriction. It looks like FORCE is aiming to similarly be legally defensible. And that means it has to be benchmarked against real job requirements, not theoretical ones like doing X number of pushups.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: daftandbarmy on October 31, 2013, 23:41:03
I did the FORCE test Saturday morning at 0730. I passed. I'm on the far side of 55.

If I can pass.....everyone should be able to.

But you're an infantry guy and therefore some kind of fitness freak, right?  ;D
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: X_para76 on October 31, 2013, 23:54:13
Whatever the test is comprised of I like the idea of having one standard for everyone regardless of gender. It's refreshingly honest for it to be acknowledged that not everyone is suited to doing every job and that some people just aren't physically suitable.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: jollyjacktar on November 02, 2013, 07:17:24
I have been doing some course work with a QL 5 HT class this past two weeks.  They recently finished the Helo Crash Rescue portion of the course and had taken the FF PT test.  They did the Force test on Tuesday only to learn of a message a day or two earlier which says if you've completed a specialist PT test like that you don't need to do the Force test as was with the Express test.  AAlso,  the PSP staff said something is in the works for different levels and an exemption.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: caocao on November 02, 2013, 08:07:00
Different levels would be great, don't care if it is only for bragging rights as i don't think that bringing back exemption or extra points is the way to go.  There are still going to be lazy a$$e$ who are only going to do the minimal level required and be happy with a "pass" but at least give the opportunity to those who wants to challenge themselves to go above and beyond. 

Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: HT90 on November 02, 2013, 09:56:24
From talking to PSP staff, I learned that there is going to be different levels depending on your timings (Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum) when the test is going to take effect next year.
They said the reason the test (or evaluation for the moment) is easy right now is because they haven't implemented any kind of real time limits. It should be quite an interesting PT test when it comes out.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: caocao on November 02, 2013, 10:27:21
Makes sense and sounds great.  Can't wait to try the real thing next spring!
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: daftandbarmy on November 02, 2013, 10:38:25
From talking to PSP staff, I learned that there is going to be different levels depending on your timings (Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum) when the test is going to take effect next year.
They said the reason the test (or evaluation for the moment) is easy right now is because they haven't implemented any kind of real time limits. It should be quite an interesting PT test when it comes out.

Do we get a set of crossed clubs, in the appropriate colour, to wear on our DEU as well?  ;D
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Transporter on November 02, 2013, 11:19:19
I think the whole levels idea is silly and juvenile.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: caocao on November 02, 2013, 12:45:18
So you rather have all our people do the minimum required to just get by?  To me that is just encouraging a culture of laziness already present in todays youth; the xbox generation if you will.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: George Wallace on November 02, 2013, 12:55:58
So you rather have all our people do the minimum required to just get by?  To me that is just encouraging a culture of laziness already present in todays youth; the xbox generation if you will.

This reminds me of the brilliant idea to bring out the Warrior Badge.  What a farce that was.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on November 02, 2013, 13:14:16
So you rather have all our people do the minimum required to just get by?  To me that is just encouraging a culture of laziness already present in todays youth; the xbox generation if you will.

I  find it ironic that we will focus so much energy on making sure that everyone knows how in shape we are while as an instructor I'm not allowed to give a student a letter grade on a course.

So basically- it's more important to know if a soldier can do an up down in 40 seconds vice 50 seconds than it is to show that he or she can, you know, actually do there job and where that person stands in relation to their peers? Makes sense.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: George Wallace on November 02, 2013, 13:26:42
........ Makes sense.

Opps!   You used the "Makes Sense Clause".  You know darn well that if it makes sense, it is not likely to happen.    ;D
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: X_para76 on November 02, 2013, 14:38:17
I don't see anything wrong with creating levels to create competition or give people something to strive for. IMHO, I think regardless of your performance you should still have to complete a fitness assessment every year without exception.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: 26point2 on November 02, 2013, 15:21:17
I'm one of those people looking for something a bit more.  I don't have any JTF-2 aspirations, but the pre-selection training is pretty useful.  Once in a while, I compare my performance on several of the fitness items found on page 34 to what level I'm at.  Here's the link for those who are interested.

http://www.cg.cfpsa.ca/cg-pc/Greenwood/SiteCollectionDocuments/JTF%20Pre-Fitness%20Manual%20ENG.pdf (http://www.cg.cfpsa.ca/cg-pc/Greenwood/SiteCollectionDocuments/JTF%20Pre-Fitness%20Manual%20ENG.pdf)
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Halifax Tar on November 02, 2013, 15:55:00
I  find it ironic that we will focus so much energy on making sure that everyone knows how in shape we are while as an instructor I'm not allowed to give a student a letter grade on a course.

So basically- it's more important to know if a soldier can do an up down in 40 seconds vice 50 seconds than it is to show that he or she can, you know, actually do there job and where that person stands in relation to their peers? Makes sense.

I agree with you in all aspects but I think I have come up with a solution!  Yearly trade specific testing.  Each year you get tested on your trade knowledge and depending on your score you get a different colored badge.  I think think this would look some swanky next to the PT badge!  :facepalm:
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: caocao on November 02, 2013, 16:05:44
I agree with you in all aspects but I think I have come up with a solution!  Yearly trade specific testing.  Each year you get tested on your trade knowledge and depending on your score you get a different colored badge.  I think think this would look some swanky next to the PT badge!  :facepalm:

Why not, we give out other useless pieces of hardware: sea insignia, accident free driving badge or whatever that's called, etc...
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Halifax Tar on November 02, 2013, 16:44:12
At least it would display someones ability in their primary role
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Hamish Seggie on November 02, 2013, 19:40:09
Opps!   You used the "Makes Sense Clause".  You darn well that if it makes sense, it is not likely to happen.    ;D
I thought you said "Santa Claus"


Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PMedMoe on November 02, 2013, 19:57:36
I  find it ironic that we will focus so much energy on making sure that everyone knows how in shape we are while as an instructor I'm not allowed to give a student a letter grade on a course.

So basically- it's more important to know if a soldier can do an up down in 40 seconds vice 50 seconds than it is to show that he or she can, you know, actually do there job and where that person stands in relation to their peers? Makes sense.

I agree.  One of my former course mates said that 50% of our PER points should be based on physical fitness.  I said that as the casualty, I'd rather the medic arrived with ability as opposed to speed.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: X_para76 on November 02, 2013, 21:33:00
I agree completely that competence in your trade should be the 1st priority but fitness should be a close second. Basically what people here seem to be asking is "do you want me to be good at my job or do you want me to be fit"? The answer is as a member of the CF IMO that you're expected to be both.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Halifax Tar on November 02, 2013, 21:45:54
I agree completely that competence in your trade should be the 1st priority but fitness should be a close second. Basically what people here seem to be ask is "do you want me to be good at my job or do you want me to be fit"? The answer is as a member of the CF IMO that you're expected to be both.

Not at all.  It should be a valuable part ones career in the CF.  Having said that I don't agree with exemptions and levels.  Simple pass fail.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Shamrock on November 02, 2013, 22:09:56
I agree completely that competence in your trade should be the 1st priority but fitness should be a close second. Basically what people here seem to be ask is "do you want me to be good at my job or do you want me to be fit"? The answer is as a member of the CF IMO that you're expected to be both.

I think they're already blended.

MPFS represents the minimum physical fitness standard to achieve universality of service.  This to me amounts to no big deal.

In a physically-based job, performance manifests physically.  If a troop's physical conditioning prevents him from performing at his assigned tasks, then that should be addressed through a remedial measure.  Likewise, if his outstanding physical condition allow him to master various aspects of his job, that should be addressed.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on November 02, 2013, 23:35:34
I agree completely that competence in your trade should be the 1st priority but fitness should be a close second. Basically what people here seem to be asking is "do you want me to be good at my job or do you want me to be fit"? The answer is as a member of the CF IMO that you're expected to be both.

I figure that leadership should be making into the top of your list somewhere too.  I know many a competent sup techs who are shitty leaders.  I know many very fit individuals who are also incompetent leaders.  There's a happy medium in there somewhere and fitness and trade-skill are but two of the factors that come into play when looking at leadership capabilities and the ability to accomplish Task X on time, in place, and in a professional manner.

Should we all have to be as fit as infantry (because there are some that think so)?  We are talking about "the minimum" for fitness in the CAF in this thread.  Not the ideal.  Minimum fitness for employment.  So really, the answer is, if they've passed their FORCE test then they've met the minimum for employment in the CAF.  Meeting the minimum does not mean they are unfit, it just means they are not as fit as the infantry guy who spends many more hours a week in the gym while we spend more hours at our desks becoming competent in our primary role). 

Why, for some, do they automatically equate minimum with "unfit"??  That's untrue.  I can't run worth hell but that doesn't make me unfit ... jump in the pool with me for a go.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: X_para76 on November 02, 2013, 23:45:15
I figure that leadership should be making into the top of your list somewhere too.  I know many a competent sup techs who are shitty leaders.  I know many very fit individuals who are also incompetent leaders.  There's a happy medium in there somewhere and fitness and trade-skill are but two of the factors that come into play when looking at leadership capabilities and the ability to accomplish Task X on time, in place, and in a professional manner.

Should we all have to be as fit as infantry (because there are some that think so)?  We are talking about "the minimum" for fitness in the CAF in this thread.  Not the ideal.  Minimum fitness for employment.  So really, the answer is, if they've passed their FORCE test then they've met the minimum for employment in the CAF.  Meeting the minimum does not mean they are unfit, it just means they are not as fit as the infantry guy who spends many more hours a week in the gym while we spend more hours at our desks becoming competent in our primary role). 

Why, for some, do they automatically equate minimum with "unfit"??  That's untrue.  I can't run worth hell but that doesn't make me unfit ... jump in the pool with me for a go.

I agree with you that fitness should be graded on a curve ie. a 40 year old W.O shouldn't be expected to turn in the same time on a run as a 20 year old private. However if the fitness standard is based on a run or a ruck march and an individual is unable to pass it unfortunately hey can't turn around and say "but my lap time in the pool is this" as that isn't what has been used to set the standard.

EDIT: Fixed quote box
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Thucydides on November 02, 2013, 23:52:51
I  find it ironic that we will focus so much energy on making sure that everyone knows how in shape we are while as an instructor I'm not allowed to give a student a letter grade on a course.

Sadly, even that can be screwed up. I'm not sure if this has changed, but in the PLQ "Other arms and services", the recce patrol marking guide actually had marks pre loaded, essentially, if someone hit the check box, they would receive a mark (because of the number of check boxes, often it was .5% or something odd like that).

This could lead to bizzare results like "Cpl Bloggins, this patrol was poorly planed and executed. You did not do item X, Y or Z, had a very poor time apprieciation and also did a very minimal job in items A, B and C. You got a 76%, sign here....

Methods of assessment are important, but they need to be carefully considered. My own thought is that leadership, skill competency and fitness might be much better reported through a form of 3600 assessment, but that is probably a thought for another thread.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on November 03, 2013, 00:20:26


I agree with you that fitness should be graded on a curve ie. a 40 year old W.O shouldn't be expected to turn in the same time on a run as a 20 year old private. However if the fitness standard is based on a run or a ruck march and an individual is unable to pass it unfortunately hey can't turn around and say "but my lap time in the pool is this" as that isn't what has been used to set the standard.

Wow - talk about trying to put words into someone's mouth.   ::)

No where did I state that fitness should be graded on a curve; if you read my posts in this very thread you'd know that. I didn't even bring up age.  In fact, you'll even find a post in the past couple days where I spoke to the 4'2" 92 pound fit-as-hell female who can't do the drag therefore will never get to serve in the CF; too bad for her. 

I said, "why do some people think that just because someone can't run means they are unfit".  I can't run, but I passed the FORCE test.  I thought it was a legit question --- there are actually people who believe this!! If you can not run - you are unfit. Period. Full stop. 

______________________

But, now that you've3 brought it up:

4'2" super-fit girl who is simply too tiny to drag the bags and thus will never serve in the CF because she can't meet the minimum also has has her polar opposite:

the 5'11" monster who, if he were 2 inches shorter would be identical to an unfit circle, who only needs to take 2 strides between lines on the shuttle (thus aces it) and leans back on his 335 pounds of non-muscle to move the bags who does get to stay in the CAF.  He aced the FORCE and will still be endangering spectators Nov 11th whilst testing the max velocity of the buttons on his tunic.

I suspect what people really want is some sort of "judge them upon their looks" testing so they can be rest-assured that anyone being allowed to wear the CF uniform look good in public - not fat.  Tall, large, unfit people are passing this test and exceedingly fit short, tiny people will fail it.  'Tis the way it is.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: X_para76 on November 03, 2013, 00:34:34
Once again I agree with you as I have friends who've been in this position based on body mass index charts and all that b.s. If you're a female who's mega cardio fit but just doesn't have the mass to manage a ruck march then what good does your fitness do the CF if you can't pass the basic CFT?  All I was trying to say earlier was that regardless of the trade it's unlikely that a 40 year old Snr nco will be able to achieve the same time on a run as a 20 year old junior private.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: George Wallace on November 03, 2013, 00:58:36
  All I was trying to say earlier was that regardless of the trade it's unlikely that a 40 year old Snr nco will be able to achieve the same time on a run as a 20 year old junior private.

 ;D

Unfortunately, many of us have seen 40 year old Snr NCOs run faster than 20 year old privates. 

Just saying.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Thucydides on November 03, 2013, 01:06:45
In once sense I agree with you 100% Vern; I'd far rather have that micro-Amazon watching my back than a 5'11" doorstop, mostly because I would know who is motivated and who is not.

OTOH, I have had some of these people in training and regardless of their fitness and motivation, there are some tasks that they simply have a very difficult time doing. Very small female soldiers, regardless of fitness, have a hell of a time ruck marching because they are carrying far more than 1/3 of their body mass when fully rucked up. Once I am armoured and rucked up and add my share of platoon ammo etc. I am usually past 1/3 of my weight, and it is a hell of a burden (and you know how big I am).

The other reason that I am a supporter (in general) of standard and universal fitness tests is that regardless of age or gender, a GPMG will ALWAYS weigh 11kg without the tripod; do I force certain troops to constantly carry the big and heavy stuff simply because the older or female troops have a lower standard of fitness? Now I also know that Loggies, cooks and clerks don't do Infantry tasks, but given the ever shifting defense environment, where there is no secure rear and people of every trade (and even environment) might be expected to fight riding shotgun in a convoy, defending an airfield or boarding a ship, we should ask that there is a fitness level set where people can function in combat as well as in their primary trade. I just don't know where to find that sweet spot.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on November 03, 2013, 01:28:44
... I just don't know where to find that sweet spot.

Well, I think the CF has said that sweet spot is the FORCE Test.  I agree on the motivation.  I'm also akin to thinking that if the crap hit the fan, I'd rather have the beast because I know he can drag my ***.

If someone is willing to put more than 24 hours into a day so that trades like mine can go to the gym for hours, or twice a day etc, then we'd be more fit I am sure.  But, as long as we have a primary trade to do with the numbers we have and no more hours, we'll never be as combat fit as as combat troop.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: caocao on November 03, 2013, 07:45:57
Sounds to me like a leadership problem.  Everybody should be given access to PT during working hours to achieve the minimum standard, full stop.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Nerf herder on November 03, 2013, 08:37:36
Sounds to me like a leadership problem.  Everybody should be given access to PT during working hours to achieve the minimum standard, full stop.

Sometimes there isn't enough time in a day to achieve that goal, mostly due to manning issues.

Perhaps you'd like to see everyone stay past 1700 everyday or come in at 0500 and give up family time?

Unit leadership can do that if you'd like.

Regards
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Hamish Seggie on November 03, 2013, 08:44:15
Sounds to me like a leadership problem.  Everybody should be given access to PT during working hours to achieve the minimum standard, full stop.
If you think you can sort it out, step up to the plate.
Your post adds nothing.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: X_para76 on November 03, 2013, 09:25:29
;D

Unfortunately, many of us have seen 40 year old Snr NCOs run faster than 20 year old privates. 

Just saying.
Which is was why I said it is unlikely but not impossible.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: George Wallace on November 03, 2013, 09:34:16
Which is was why I said it is unlikely but not impossible.

Unlikely....Impossible....Not much difference.


I have seen many a 40 year old NCO out run 18 year old Ptes.  There is no "unlikely" at all.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: X_para76 on November 03, 2013, 09:42:19
Really? Well I haven't and that's where our experiences differ I suppose.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Eye In The Sky on November 03, 2013, 09:45:57
Despite CDS Guidance to CO's on PT and physical fitness, reality kicks in at times and as Nerf Herder says, you just don't have time for PT.  In our world, if you have a 2130hrs show time for a 10 hour gig, if all goes well you are back on the ground about 1000hrs the next morning.  The last thing you're thinking of is PT.  Crew rest before/after (you need it) so forget PT for those 2 days.  Your email has X amount of things requiring actioning after you get back.  Secondary duties to do.  It is not easy for folks who have to leave the desk or crew room to do their primary job to fit PT in on a daily basis.

Having said that, here are a few quotes from the CDS Guidance to Commanding Officers's, Ch 22 - Canadian Forces Physical Fitness Programs.  The policy and direction on PT/fitness for the CAF are already there.

- physical fitness is a leadership issue (if you read the entire Ch, you will see how this ties in for those who may not agree)

- provide fitness leadership at every level in your respective units. This must include leading by example, helping subordinates get fit, and enforcing fitness policies.

- It is imperative that the requirement for fitness training at least five times a week is respected and applied.

- The mantras of “fitness on your own time” or “we don’t have time for fitness” are to be eliminated. Given what we know of the power of daily fitness to increase morale, reduce stress, and improve work performance, it is incumbent upon us to be innovative in our approach when a formal fitness routine is impractical.

- Seek out every opportunity to promote and reward healthy physical activities and fitness practices.

- Do not turn a blind eye to obesity. Obesity is a valid indicator of current or developing health problems. We have solid evidence-based weight loss programs in the CF, the utilization of which will benefit both our operational readiness and the health of the CF member.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Hamish Seggie on November 03, 2013, 09:50:29
All good points EITS.

Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: caocao on November 03, 2013, 10:03:43
If you think you can sort it out, step up to the plate.
Your post adds nothing.

Your post adds nothing either.  Folks in my unit take the time to do PT, i sometime have time to do my own PT during working hours, my CO really does but the troops do and that is what matters.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: caocao on November 03, 2013, 10:05:48
Despite CDS Guidance to CO's on PT and physical fitness, reality kicks in at times and as Nerf Herder says, you just don't have time for PT.  In our world, if you have a 2130hrs show time for a 10 hour gig, if all goes well you are back on the ground about 1000hrs the next morning.  The last thing you're thinking of is PT.  Crew rest before/after (you need it) so forget PT for those 2 days.  Your email has X amount of things requiring actioning after you get back.  Secondary duties to do.  It is not easy for folks who have to leave the desk or crew room to do their primary job to fit PT in on a daily basis.

Having said that, here are a few quotes from the CDS Guidance to Commanding Officers's, Ch 22 - Canadian Forces Physical Fitness Programs.  The policy and direction on PT/fitness for the CAF are already there.

- physical fitness is a leadership issue (if you read the entire Ch, you will see how this ties in for those who may not agree)

- provide fitness leadership at every level in your respective units. This must include leading by example, helping subordinates get fit, and enforcing fitness policies.

- It is imperative that the requirement for fitness training at least five times a week is respected and applied.

- The mantras of “fitness on your own time” or “we don’t have time for fitness” are to be eliminated. Given what we know of the power of daily fitness to increase morale, reduce stress, and improve work performance, it is incumbent upon us to be innovative in our approach when a formal fitness routine is impractical.

- Seek out every opportunity to promote and reward healthy physical activities and fitness practices.

- Do not turn a blind eye to obesity. Obesity is a valid indicator of current or developing health problems. We have solid evidence-based weight loss programs in the CF, the utilization of which will benefit both our operational readiness and the health of the CF member.

Great post, agreed that sometime you will have to put PT aside for op requirements but that should be the exception not the rule.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on November 03, 2013, 10:33:50
Sounds to me like a leadership problem.  Everybody should be given access to PT during working hours to achieve the minimum standard, full stop.

No leadership problem;  we do PT for an hour each and every day.  It's mandatory in our Unit.  It will never make us as fit as infantry guys.  We still work our regular jobs a minimum of 8-9 hours each and every day after that hour of PT.  Like I said, want to add more hours for PT time, then add more hours to the day or get more staff for us because those "regular work hours" are not going anywhere no matter how much time we spend on PT.  Other trades have quite a few more hours in their "work day" that they can hit the gym; some of us do not have that luxury.

The fact that I can't run has nothing to do with how many hours I spend at PT ... I couldn't run as a super fit 20 year old either.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on November 03, 2013, 10:41:57
Your post adds nothing either.  Folks in my unit take the time to do PT, i sometime have time to do my own PT during working hours, my CO really does but the troops do and that is what matters.

So, you seem to be someone who believes that if someone can't run then that means they are unfit.  Bullshit.  Full stop.  All you seemed to take from my post that I couldn't run was "that there must therefore be a leadership problem and PT should occur daily".  You. my friend, are one of the ones I was talking about.

It's like I used to tell my ex (a 3 CDO boy) who used to get the gold every year on the warrior test while I got the bronze ('cause I couldn't run) when he used to ask when I'd be re-doing my run until I got the gold standard:  "Laugh if you want honey, but I kick your *** on the range every time and it doesn't matter if you can out-run me because my bullet is guaranteed to catch your *** every time."
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: caocao on November 03, 2013, 10:49:17
So, you seem to be someone who believes that if someone can't run then that means they are unfit.  Bullshit.  Full stop.  All you seemed to take from my post that I couldn't run was "that there must therefore be a leadership problem and PT should occur daily".  You. my friend, are one of the ones I was talking about.

It's like I used to tell my ex (a 3 CDO boy) who used to get the gold every year on the warrior test while I got the bronze ('cause I couldn't run) when he used to ask when I'd be re-doing my run until I got the gold standard:  "Laugh if you want honey, but I kick your *** on the range every time and it doesn't matter if you can out-run me because my bullet is guaranteed to catch your *** every time."

Where did i say anything about running in my posts?  Your post seemed to imply that there wasn't enough time in a day for PT.  If i miss read it, my bad.   And stop that bullet $hit right now young lady, you're not scaring anyone!
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Nerf herder on November 03, 2013, 11:26:03
Where did i say anything about running in my posts?  Your post seemed to imply that there wasn't enough time in a day for PT.  If i miss read it, my bad.   And stop that bullet $hit right now young lady, you're not scaring anyone!

Back on topic folks.

The Army.ca Staff
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Navy_Pete on November 03, 2013, 11:48:46
I think the FORCE test is a reasonable baseline test but should be augmented by job specific tests as well (BFT, FF test etc) as required.

No one expects an infanteer to be able to do my job, why should I be able to competently do theirs?  I think the Universality of service looks good on paper but is a bad policy considering the range of possible employment anyone in uniform has.

I guess the question is, if it does wash out a 4'2" 90 lb superfit and highly competent support trade, does it really matter if they can't drag someone, or strap on a bunch of weight and carry it around?  I can think of a number of big strong guys that the last thing I really want to be around is them with a rifle, as they are more likely to accidentally shoot me then a bad guy.  At the very least they should allow easy transfer into a related DND civilian job for someone like that, so that the competencies aren't lost but there isn't the requirement to deploy anywhere.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: caocao on November 03, 2013, 12:03:33
I hear you but it does matter if that person is expected to deploy which ultimately everyone should be able to. 
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Northalbertan on November 03, 2013, 12:19:11
Even the CIC are completing the FORCE fit.  We have the PSP folks coming out to all of the courses in our region to administer the tests.  The expectation in our world right now is that everyone will have to complete the test by 1 April 14.  Not sure if they have to pass yet, or what happens if they don't.  I passed it easily enough.

I think it is good to have the standard applied to the CIC.  My personal opinion is if you wear the uniform, meet the standard.  As an organization I am still unclear as to what will happen if you fail to meet the standard.  Big push to make everyone aware of and sign up with DFIT so maybe (hopefully) it will apply to COATS.

NorthAlbertan
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Nerf herder on November 03, 2013, 14:11:55
Now that I've purged the tit-for-tat....take it to PMs.

The Army.ca Staff
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on November 04, 2013, 19:20:32
I hear you but it does matter if that person is expected to deploy which ultimately everyone should be able to.

I would rather have a 90 lb but competent girl with me than a super fit glue bag. That said, fitness is important and necessary. The Idea of military PT is to get a TEAM to meet the deployment standard, not to make them ready for an audition on American Gladiator.

Deployment for that matter may mean on a ship, on a plane, or with the army, meaning all pers have different physical and technical requirements. The force gives us a baseline capability to deploy in 3 elements. If you want to go for jtf 2 it's a worthy endeavour. For me, personally, I prefer to be technically competent and maintain my army level 3 fitness level than spend more time in the gym.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Hamish Seggie on November 05, 2013, 19:36:24
That said, fitness is important and necessary. The Idea of military PT is to get a TEAM to meet the deployment standard, not to make them ready for an audition on American Gladiator.

The force gives us a baseline capability to deploy in 3 elements. If you want to go for jtf 2 it's a worthy endeavour. For me, personally, I prefer to be technically competent and maintain my army level 3 fitness level than spend more time in the gym.

Good points. I tell my troops that it ain't required to be Navy Seal fit. Pass the FORCE test and I will be happy.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: daftandbarmy on November 05, 2013, 20:02:03
I'm wondering if they factored in the need to prepare 175lb soldiers to carry 138lbs of weapons and equipment on operations and, if not, what the fitness experts say we should do to kick it up a notch.

Viz: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEEm6d77pZA

Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Eye In The Sky on November 05, 2013, 21:49:59
Those aren't issued, made in Canada boots!  Holy handgrenade!!!

 :panic:
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Transporter on November 05, 2013, 21:53:55
Did the test today for the first time. I found the times allotted for each of the exercises to be fairly generous but I guess with one standard they have to factor in all ages, etc. Did the sand bag lifts in 60 secs, loaded shuttles in 2:50, 20M rushes in 39 secs, and sand bag drag in 22 secs. I'm on the downside of my career not far off CRA but do my PT regularly (but certainly not a gym rat by any stretch). All to say, I don't think anyone should have a problem doing this test provided they make the effort to stay reasonably fit day-in and day-out. There were two females in my group and they were both what I'd consider to be on the smaller side. They both passed without any problems, though I think both were worried most about the sand bag drag. Overall, I liked the new test more so than the EXPRESS test. It was actually fun to do whereas the EXPRESS test had gotten a little boring over the years I thought.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MCG on November 12, 2013, 02:56:21
... if it does wash out a 4'2" 90 lb superfit and highly competent support trade, does it really matter if they can't drag someone, or strap on a bunch of weight and carry it around?
Anyone in the CAF could find themself in a position wher they have to get a casualty out of somewhere.  It does matter.

Of course, this same concern could (and maybe should) be used to establish an unconditional CAF individual weight limit.  If you are "super-fit" but so heavy that nobody could extract you as a casualty, then should you be in harms way?
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Ice97 on November 12, 2013, 10:47:07
The times are a little high because it is the first year for it and they are probably trying to get a baseline ie exemptions and such.  Which is why they time your drag even though you have as much time as you need as long as you don't stop. 

The times definately need to be adjusted.  3:30 for the lift is quite a bit of time....most people were between 1:00-1:10.  The 5+ mins allotted for the run/lift is way too much time.  A few people walked the entire thing and still did it in 4 mins.  The 51 secs for the dashes was a bout right as most people were between 38-45 seconds.

The only thing I didn't agree with was the drag.  In the NCR we were told that Gatineau was the only location we could do it at.....but because of the lack of grip on the floor they had to add 60lbs.  So instead of 220....it was 280.  I didn't agree that people were failing....when the weight they had to drag exceeded the standard.

I do like this test alot better than the Express Test
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PMedMoe on November 12, 2013, 10:49:10
So, what you're saying is that the times used for the FORCE test are not the actual times?  So people who have "passed" this test haven't really passed?    ???

Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: recceguy on November 12, 2013, 11:05:45
Your post adds nothing either.  Folks in my unit take the time to do PT, i sometime have time to do my own PT during working hours, my CO really does but the troops do and that is what matters.

Most of the military doesn't work at Disneyland on the Rideau, or it's general vicinity, either.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ModlrMike on November 12, 2013, 11:16:34
The only thing I didn't agree with was the drag.  In the NCR we were told that Gatineau was the only location we could do it at.....but because of the lack of grip on the floor they had to add 60lbs.  So instead of 220....it was 280.  I didn't agree that people were failing....when the weight they had to drag exceeded the standard.

[geek alert]

This is where I have the most difficulty accepting the "standard". If you have to alter the weight due to the resistance of the floor then how do you measure the baseline coefficient of friction*, the coefficient of friction for the test location surface, and how do you know how much additional weight to add or subtract? While simply adding or subtracting weight will affect the resistance of the drag, A + B =/= C because the math is logarithmic not linear.

The best solution would be to develop or select a specific type of flooring and issue an appropriately sized portion to each testing location. Then the variables would be reduced to a minimum and the test would become more standardized. The current practice of adding weight without accurate measurement of the effect defies the definition of standard.


Quote
I do like this test a lot better than the Express Test

I agree, a more realistic representation of the expectations of the job.


*Coefficient of friction: the ratio of the force of friction between two bodies and the force pressing them together.

[/geek alert]
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: upandatom on November 12, 2013, 12:50:06
I'm wondering if they factored in the need to prepare 175lb soldiers to carry 138lbs of weapons and equipment on operations and, if not, what the fitness experts say we should do to kick it up a notch.

Viz: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEEm6d77pZA

Which is funny because a while ago on this thread I read that "The typical soldier is expected to be small and wirey"
I find that an old school mentality. Compare the Kit we would carry on a regular PP from more recent operations to those of past, we are carrying alot more.
We are becoming a more mobile force, more vehicles, faster vehicles, safer vehicles. The need to be able to run or march from here to the end of the earth is slowly going the way of the dinosaur.
 
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: George Wallace on November 12, 2013, 12:55:20

We are becoming a more mobile force, more vehicles, faster vehicles, safer vehicles. The need to be able to run or march from here to the end of the earth is slowly going the way of the dinosaur.

I guess you don't understand that one has to be able to do the "basics".  The "basics" here is that a soldier has to be able to "run or march from here to the end of the earth" to survive.  Move vehicles, faster vehicles, safer vehicles, etc. only means one thing: more and bigger IEDs/mines/ambushes/etc.  In the end, the soldier will only be left with the basics once his/her vehicle is incapacitated......That means physically fit and able to run and march.  There is no going the way of the dinosaur here.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Ice97 on November 12, 2013, 14:34:29
So, what you're saying is that the times used for the FORCE test are not the actual times?  So people who have "passed" this test haven't really passed?    ???

They are the real times...and people that passed...passed.  Can't speak for every unit....but at my unit everyone has to do the FORCE Test this year.  If you pass then great.  If you don't pass then you do the regular express test.  But we were told that come April 2014....the FORCE Test will be the only test.

But the times can and most likely will change.  It's the first year for it....it's still brand new.  We were told that the average times and such will be calculated and within a few years there will probably be an exemption.  And even the times needed to pass will probably go down.  I'm not saying that i'm the fittest person ever.....but 5 1/2 mins for 400m is pathetic...sandbag or not.

It's all speculation at this point and all we can do is wait til something concrete is in writing.  I for one liked the FORCE Test and cannot wait until there is an exemption for it.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Towards_the_gap on November 12, 2013, 15:30:35
We are becoming a more mobile force, more vehicles, faster vehicles, safer vehicles. The need to be able to run or march from here to the end of the earth is slowly going the way of the dinosaur.

And that mindset is probably a large factor in the burgeoning obesity epidemic in the forces. As GW stated, you don't understand why soldiers will always need to do 'the basics'.

Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: X_para76 on November 12, 2013, 15:48:01
Which is funny because a while ago on this thread I read that "The typical soldier is expected to be small and wirey"
I find that an old school mentality. Compare the Kit we would carry on a regular PP from more recent operations to those of past, we are carrying alot more.
We are becoming a more mobile force, more vehicles, faster vehicles, safer vehicles. The need to be able to run or march from here to the end of the earth is slowly going the way of the dinosaur.

I'm afraid that G.W and I are in agreement on this one for a change.  As you said we're carrying more weight than ever before and even though our methods of transport have improved the basic job has stayed the same. There's no point in getting someone up to the start line of an attack that doesn't have the physical fitness to actually conduct one. 
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on November 12, 2013, 16:03:47
The standard will not change - it's been validated against the tasks that all CF members must be able to provide.  Incentive levels may be introduced, however, the pass/fail levels are supported by hard research and won't be changed unless the common military tasks are changed.

And there's nothing to prevent a unit or sub-unit command team from fostering competition; for example, a CO could offer a day of short to anyone who can beat his times in all the tests.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Journeyman on November 12, 2013, 16:09:49
The standard will not change - it's been validated against the tasks that all CF members must be able to provide.
Breathe without assistance AND carry own tray at Mess Hall?! 
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: dapaterson on November 12, 2013, 16:20:09
Breathe without assistance AND carry own tray at Mess Hall?!

You're confusing Commissionaires with CF.

The common military tasks are:

* Escape to cover
* Pickets and wire carry
* Sandbag fortification
* Picking & digging
* Vehicle extraction
* Stretcher carry

The FORCE test elements are strongly correlated with success at the common military tasks.  It's an applied sciene thing - you know, numbers, math, statistics - that kind of stuff...


(see https://www.cfmws.com/en/aboutus/psp/dfit/fitness/forceprogram/pages/cmtfe.aspx)
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Eye In The Sky on November 12, 2013, 17:20:58
I did FORCE for the first time last week.  A few comments:

1.  The PSP staff said incentive levels will be reintroduced.

2.  Like the EXPRES test, the FORCE test requirements will also have variations introduced for sex, age.   (stupid.  there is one standard when the SHTF and it doesn't care about your age or sex).

3.  Lastly, this is NOT a "combat fitness" test anymore than the EXPRES test was.  Thank unification, universality of service, whatever but it is what it is.  It is a test that is doable in terms of time and dollars that is "a decent predictor of a mbr's ability to do stuff". 

Personally, I think the standard is still low but the test is an improvement over EXPRES (which isn't saying much).
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on November 12, 2013, 17:55:26
Which is funny because a while ago on this thread I read that "The typical soldier is expected to be small and wirey"
I find that an old school mentality. Compare the Kit we would carry on a regular PP from more recent operations to those of past, we are carrying alot more.
We are becoming a more mobile force, more vehicles, faster vehicles, safer vehicles. The need to be able to run or march from here to the end of the earth is slowly going the way of the dinosaur.

You can't actually be serious?

If anything we need soldiers to be more physically fit then they have been in the past as modern technology has made things move a lot quicker and warfare is far more dynamic.  Take recent operations conducted by the French in Mali, I harp on this topic a lot but with the new Force 2021 model and our move towards Adaptive Dispersed Operations, we need soldiers to be more fit then ever, especially with our military wanting to be more focused on conducting expeditionary operations.  I think the way the french fought in Mali is exactly how we want to conduct future operations.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Transporter on November 12, 2013, 18:04:42
Having completed the FORCE test recently, my general observation (other than what I mentioned earlier) is that it seems to be more focused on physical strength versus aerobic fitness, whereas i think the EXPRESS test was the other way. So, if you're a gym guy/gal, you'll probably like this test better. If you're predominantly a runner, you'll likely prefer the EXPRESS test. Either way though, most shouldn't have a problem.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: daftandbarmy on November 13, 2013, 01:22:05
You're confusing Commissionaires with CF.

The common military tasks are:

* Escape to cover
* Pickets and wire carry
* Sandbag fortification
* Picking & digging
* Vehicle extraction
* Stretcher carry

The FORCE test elements are strongly correlated with success at the common military tasks.  It's an applied sciene thing - you know, numbers, math, statistics - that kind of stuff...


(see https://www.cfmws.com/en/aboutus/psp/dfit/fitness/forceprogram/pages/cmtfe.aspx)

Those tasks seem defensive or 'run away and lick your wounds' focused.

Looks like they missed the most basic, and important, common military task:

Close with and destroy the enemy 

:nod:

Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PrairieThunder on November 13, 2013, 04:31:19
Those tasks seem defensive or 'run away and lick your wounds' focused.

Looks like they missed the most basic, and important, common military task:

Close with and destroy the enemy Double-Doubles

:nod:

FTFY
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Hamish Seggie on November 13, 2013, 08:23:22
Those tasks seem defensive or 'run away and lick your wounds' focused.

Looks like they missed the most basic, and important, common military task:

Close with and destroy the enemy 

:nod:

Agreed.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Tank Troll on November 13, 2013, 10:23:50
Close with and destroy the enemy is only important to be able to do for a very low percentage of the CAF. So that should be a speciality training for those that need it. Like balance and load a 50 lb round while spinning around in close confined spaces is for others.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Eye In The Sky on November 13, 2013, 10:52:32
Close with and destroy the enemy is only important to be able to do for a very low percentage of the CAF. So that should be a speciality training for those that need it. Like balance and load a 50 lb round while spinning around in close confined spaces is for others.

Or a sonobuoy/other ord, and throw in bouncing around off a sea state a few hundred feet off the deck/pulling a few Gs that make your X lb's of ord go to XX, XXX in a flash all the while NOT dropping that sandwich  you just made. 

* critical component(s) are highlighted in yellow.


In all seriousness though, the new test does apply to some things we actually do:
 
- In my primary job, the sandbag lift kind of ties in to the loading of ordnance, so some relevance there.  Check.
- the sandbag casualty bag ties into dragging a wounded crewmember down the tac tube to a ditching station, so some relevance there.

I know some people have mentioned the tiny person who struggles with the casualty drag and question its validity in todays world.  For me, this one matters.  If we wet ditch and I eat a console or something and am out cold, that 80lb person might end up having to drag my 220lbs carcass down the tac tube that is filling up with water and likely nosing in.  If they can't, I don't get out and my wife gets a Memorial Cross.  There doesn't have to be a war going on for that to happen, its a possibility every time you go up.   The standard for the drag, IMO and world, should be the weight of the heaviest person on Sqn who works in the tube. 
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: darknsmelly on November 14, 2013, 12:12:17
i'll be taking my FORCE evaluation on the 28th of this month. if the standards are any different than what's been posted, i'll give an update.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PuckChaser on November 22, 2013, 21:42:33
Not sure if it was posted here previously, but as of 1 Apr 2014, if you do not have a valid FORCE completion on file, you are not allowed to participate in the CAF Sports Program (regional/national sports). I hadn't heard this policy before for the EXPRES, but its a good change to ensure those 1% who are "hurt" and can't do a PT test but can play softball/hockey etc.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Eye In The Sky on November 22, 2013, 22:39:30
Not sure if it was posted here previously, but as of 1 Apr 2014, if you do not have a valid FORCE completion on file, you are not allowed to participate in the CAF Sports Program (regional/national sports). I hadn't heard this policy before for the EXPRES, but its a good change to ensure those 1% who are "hurt" and can't do a PT test but can play softball/hockey etc.

Not that I doubt you, but is this a CANFORGEN, LFCO, or something?  Didn't hear anything yet...
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PuckChaser on November 22, 2013, 22:42:33
Not that I doubt you, but is this a CANFORGEN, LFCO, or something?  Didn't hear anything yet...

When I'm back to work Monday, I'll grab the document. Wasn't in the form of anything like that, came from PSP to the unit Sports O.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MJP on November 22, 2013, 22:55:16
Not sure if it was posted here previously, but as of 1 Apr 2014, if you do not have a valid FORCE completion on file, you are not allowed to participate in the CAF Sports Program (regional/national sports). I hadn't heard this policy before for the EXPRES, but its a good change to ensure those 1% who are "hurt" and can't do a PT test but can play softball/hockey etc.

I think that is an excellent idea.  I have always wondered how a person unable to do the basic pt test was able to continue playing sports to their hearts content.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Haggis on November 23, 2013, 00:38:49
1.  The PSP staff said incentive levels will be reintroduced.

Not surprising.

2.  Like the EXPRES test, the FORCE test requirements will also have variations introduced for sex, age.   (stupid.  there is one standard when the SHTF and it doesn't care about your age or sex).

I daresay your PSP are mistaken.  The CMFTE "the Gold Standard of CAF Fitness" makes no allowances for gender or age.  Never did.

You're bang on.  The 20 kg ammo box (Army), keg of rum (Navy) or suitcase (Air Force) doesn't get any lighter as you age. 
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Nerf herder on November 23, 2013, 07:39:02
Did it last week. Definitely requires some tweeking with tighter timelines to take into account for age.

Pretty bad when I beat a guy half my age in every activity. It wasn't by a little bit either.

Regards
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: daftandbarmy on November 23, 2013, 11:22:12
Close with and destroy the enemy is only important to be able to do for a very low percentage of the CAF. So that should be a speciality training for those that need it. Like balance and load a 50 lb round while spinning around in close confined spaces is for others.

"We're not the public service of Canada. We're not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people."

The Big Cod
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Tank Troll on November 24, 2013, 13:26:42
"We're not the public service of Canada. We're not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people."

The Big Cod

That is the roll of the infantry, it is not every on else's roll. It would not make sense for a hard Navy trade to train to do that. The test is the basic fitness level. If your trade or branch wants/needs some thing more then have at it.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on November 24, 2013, 13:52:15
Reading this blog led me to this conclusion-

Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Eye In The Sky on November 24, 2013, 15:55:02
That is the roll of the infantry, it is not every on else's roll. It would not make sense for a hard Navy trade to train to do that. The test is the basic fitness level. If your trade or branch wants/needs some thing more then have at it.

 ???  I think you are thinking "to close with and destroy the enemy".

What is posted is correct;  example ASW = killing people.  ASW isn't a role of the Infantry. 
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: recceguy on November 24, 2013, 18:30:35
Boiled down to the bottom line, everyone in the Forces is meant to kill people, if required, otherwise we wouldn't give everyone weapons training and expect them to stay proficient. Even if it's just once a year.

Trade be damned.

It's not a hobby.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Towards_the_gap on November 24, 2013, 19:49:54
Not only that. Good level of fitness = less prone to injury/illness = less money spent on entirely preventable illnesses and injuries.

Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: daftandbarmy on November 24, 2013, 20:13:18
6. CONDITION

High physical condition is vital to victory.

There are more tired corps and division commanders than there are tired corps and divisions.

Fatigue makes cowards of us all. Men in condition do not tire.


http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?action=read&artid=384
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: X_para76 on November 24, 2013, 22:11:54
 :goodpost:
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Navy_Pete on November 25, 2013, 18:00:21
That is the roll of the infantry, it is not every on else's roll. It would not make sense for a hard Navy trade to train to do that. The test is the basic fitness level. If your trade or branch wants/needs some thing more then have at it.

This is actually a reasonably good test for the Navy as well as there are common activities that could use the same sort of motions.

Lift things up = general strength test, varies from storing ship, humping ammo (with kid gloves) and also general damage control type activities (dragging charged hoses, AFFF canisters, fighting floods etc)

Casualty drag = Oddly enough, people in the navy could get hurt to and need to be dragged out of an area (fire zone).  They could even be in bunker gear with air tanks on.  The difference is you can't go more then 20 feet without having to go through a watertight door and over a coaming.  You may or may not be alone at the time, and odds are good they weigh more, but still.

sprints with jazz hands = Run ashore to the bars?  Just a general aerobic/speed test.

Sure, we don't carry our stuff around ourselves but we are pretty reliant on our ship to stay floating and moving along, and train to do all these kind of thing as well.  There may be better tests, but makes more sense to me then doing sit ups or push ups.  The difference is that the ship is our weapon, whereas infantry carries theirs.  You need your crew operating properly for the ship to be able to kill people and wreck their stuff (or whatever the mission happens to be; could easily be saving people and fixing their stuff as well), and having a fit crew not making poor decisions due to fatigue is a good thing.

My only thing is that the standard is low enough that it's hard to fail, but the PT test really shouldn't be your only tool to combat obesity, and don't think that's the goal.  All it is really supposed to do is give a baseline standard for the universality of service requirements, which it seems to do. :2c:

Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: daftandbarmy on November 25, 2013, 18:26:30
This is actually a reasonably good test for the Navy as well as there are common activities that could use the same sort of motions.

Lift things up = general strength test, varies from storing ship, humping ammo (with kid gloves) and also general damage control type activities (dragging charged hoses, AFFF canisters, fighting floods etc)

Casualty drag = Oddly enough, people in the navy could get hurt to and need to be dragged out of an area (fire zone).  They could even be in bunker gear with air tanks on.  The difference is you can't go more then 20 feet without having to go through a watertight door and over a coaming.  You may or may not be alone at the time, and odds are good they weigh more, but still.

sprints with jazz hands = Run ashore to the bars?  Just a general aerobic/speed test.

Sure, we don't carry our stuff around ourselves but we are pretty reliant on our ship to stay floating and moving along, and train to do all these kind of thing as well.  There may be better tests, but makes more sense to me then doing sit ups or push ups.  The difference is that the ship is our weapon, whereas infantry carries theirs.  You need your crew operating properly for the ship to be able to kill people and wreck their stuff (or whatever the mission happens to be; could easily be saving people and fixing their stuff as well), and having a fit crew not making poor decisions due to fatigue is a good thing.

My only thing is that the standard is low enough that it's hard to fail, but the PT test really shouldn't be your only tool to combat obesity, and don't think that's the goal.  All it is really supposed to do is give a baseline standard for the universality of service requirements, which it seems to do. :2c:

Speaking as an Airborne guy with a tiny bit of experience with the Navy, I think that we should use 'firefighting on a burning ship at night in a heavy sea while under air attack' as the standard for everyone.  :nod:
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Tank Troll on November 26, 2013, 05:22:20
???  I think you are thinking "to close with and destroy the enemy".

What is posted is correct;  example ASW = killing people.  ASW isn't a role of the Infantry.

You missed the first part of the discussion where D&B said that the new tasks were very defensive and that they missed the whole concept of "Close with and destroy the enemy"  Then he just quoted Gen Hillier as his come back.

N_P I concur that it is a good standard for as the basics for all trades, and elements. What I was saying was that hard Navy trades wouldn't benefit from specific training that infantry would need or like in a PT test.

Recce Guy Not every one does ranges every year we had a couple of pers on our work up training that had not touched a rifle since the FN in basic.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: ArmyVern on November 26, 2013, 18:58:52
...

Recce Guy Not every one does ranges every year we had a couple of pers on our work up training that had not touched a rifle since the FN in basic.

True that;  I only did my PWTs when I was actually CFTPOd to deploy overseas while serving with the RCAF and the RCN.  I've done them ever year only in the Cdn Army and Joint.

On my last tour, 2010/11, we actually had an augmentee type from Disney on the Rideau state that it was his first time firing the "new" weapon (the C7 ...).  :-X
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: armrecceman on December 16, 2013, 17:06:09
So, once in full effectiveness on 1 Apr 14, will the FORCE test be used as the PT test in the recruitment process for the reserves? Or will that remain what it is now (push-ups, sit-ups, step test/beep test, I believe)? Also, will there still be a beep test used in the FORCE eval? Or are they only evaluating the cardio aspects covered in the FORCE, such as the 20m rushes?
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Matt_k on December 16, 2013, 17:09:12
As I posted in the Basic training forms, its seem some changes are being made, for reg force at least, effective Jan 1. like a combination of the two. I don't know if this is across the board or just reg. 
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: PMedMoe on January 15, 2014, 08:43:15
I'm surprised with the FORCE test rolling out, that this thread hasn't been updated.  Found this page with the Initial Physical Fitness Evaluation (changing as of 01 Feb 2014):

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/training-establishments/recruit-school-basic-training.page
Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: DAA on January 15, 2014, 09:44:41
I'm surprised with the FORCE test rolling out, that this thread hasn't been updated.  Found this page with the Initial Physical Fitness Evaluation (changing as of 01 Feb 2014):

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/training-establishments/recruit-school-basic-training.page

Here is what CFRC's are providing to newly enrolled personnel.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,113543.0.html

Title: Re: For those joining - New PT test rules at CFLRS
Post by: PMedMoe on January 15, 2014, 10:05:30
Perhaps that other thread should be "stickied". 
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: rebeccag19 on January 19, 2014, 23:41:26
I wonder if this rule applies to those already in service..

"The new testing, which is in a year-long transitional period until April 1 2014, will replace old standards which had different requirements for women and older personnel." ... "If someone doesn’t pass the new test during the transitional period they can revert back to the old one, which consisted of pushups, sit-ups, strength and cardio testing".

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/our-communities/metro/Canadian-Forces-roll-out-universal-physical-test-206501191.html?device=mobile


Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PuckChaser on January 19, 2014, 23:48:19
I wonder if this rule applies to those already in service..

It was specifically designed for people who are already in the service. You must attempt FORCE. If you fail, you can do BFT or EXPRES, and the FORCE fail is not grounds for remedial measures. If you fail FORCE and EXPRES, you can be placed on remedial measures. That transition is gone as of 1 Apr 14, you will have to pass FORCE.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: rebeccag19 on January 20, 2014, 00:13:26
That's some awesome information. I just happened to see the above link and wondered who it applied to.
Thanks!
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jarnhamar on January 26, 2014, 20:16:45
Warrior platoon questions.

If a member is placed in warrior platoon how often are they tested (in terms of graduating from platoon)?

What is the time limit a member can stay in warrior platoon before they are released?
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MPHopeful13 on January 26, 2014, 21:44:33
Don't think fat camp's changing. Tests every 30 days, get the boot after 3 failures (90 days).
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jarnhamar on January 26, 2014, 22:27:14
Thanks.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: PteAJL on January 31, 2014, 10:37:57
I just did the FORCE test last night.
From experience the test is a joke. Any soldier who is in decent shape should be able to complete the test with ample time left on each component.
The timings are very generous, and I do hope they raise the standard.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Hamish Seggie on January 31, 2014, 11:40:01
I just did the FORCE test last night.
From experience the test is a joke. Any soldier who is in decent shape should be able to complete the test with ample time left on each component.
The timings are very generous, and I do hope they raise the standard.

Perhaps fast forward your self thirty years and see how you feel then. It's a bit different then.

Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: MJP on January 31, 2014, 11:50:51
Perhaps fast forward your self thirty years and see how you feel then. It's a bit different then.

Well I admit there may be outliers Jim, I have yet to see anyone in a shape less than obese and without any medical limitation, at any age fail the FORCE test outright.  Granted my sample size is small (Svc Bn) compared to the CAF as a whole, but we certainly have a lot of folks at the upper range of the age scale complete the test with little difficulty.  Some people display difficulty with aspects of the test at the onset due to unfamiliarity to either the testing protocol (shuttle run) or how to use their body properly (sand bag drag) but once given some direction they have no issues with the test itself.

I am glad that there is one standard for all regardless of age and gender.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Hamish Seggie on January 31, 2014, 13:00:02
MJP fully agree. I didn't like the tone of his post, given the fact that he is the ripe old age of 17.

Kinda like a new private giving the RSM the benefit of his vast experience.

BTW I passed the FORCE test. A few in my peer group didn't.
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Jarnhamar on January 31, 2014, 13:16:38
MJP fully agree. I didn't like the tone of his post, given the fact that he is the ripe old age of 17.

Kinda like a new private giving the RSM the benefit of his vast experience.

BTW I passed the FORCE test. A few in my peer group didn't.

A good friend of mine just passed the BMQs fitness test a couple of days ago.  She went from an absolutely sedimentary lifestyle 3 months ago (She started at almost being able to do one pushup and went into BMQ being able to do 9-10). She's in her 30s and passed, sounds like almost a dozen or so people didn't- including some young 19-20 year olds.

A 17 year old  bragging about passing the FORCE test is like a teenager bragging about being mature because they have acne :nod:
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: daftandbarmy on January 31, 2014, 14:49:25
MJP fully agree. I didn't like the tone of his post, given the fact that he is the ripe old age of 17.

Kinda like a new private giving the RSM the benefit of his vast experience.

BTW I passed the FORCE test. A few in my peer group didn't.

Just to clarify: your peer group runs 1/2 marathons.... the people who failed are not in your peer group (but they friggin' well should be  ;D)
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Hamish Seggie on January 31, 2014, 14:59:11
Just to clarify: your peer group runs 1/2 marathons.... the people who failed are not in your peer group (but they friggin' well should be  ;D)

Now that you put it that way,,,,,,
Title: Re: Fitness for Operational Requirements of CF Employment (FORCE): New PT test stds
Post by: Canadian.Trucker on February 05, 2014, 12:16:57
Perhaps fast forward your self thirty years and see how you feel then. It's a bit different then.
You still have 15 years to hit that benchmark, no?  /suck up  ;)

For me I too felt that the test was a little light, but it still got the blood flowing and wasn't a complete blowout for younger personnel.  There's never going to be a one size fits all solution, but maybe with a few tweaks the FORCE test is on the right track.

Title: Re: Armed Forces Consider incentives to keep soldiers fit
Post by: Harris on April 09, 2014, 22:08:24
Question for you guys.  How do you propose the Reserves handle this issue?  I ask because FORCE is not mandatory for my Class A soldiers.  The only time they have to do it is if they are going on a leadership course, deploying, promotion, or for Snr appt (CO/RSM).  Nor am I funded to conduct FORCE.  Finally, the LBM is recommended but not mandatory.  I have put FORCE testing for all in the OP Plan, but something else won't get done as well as it should to compensate.  I have also put ruck marches into the Op Plan, but again something else will suffer.  The only paid time my guys get to do PT is one period every Thur.  Not much but better then most of the other Units in the Brigade.  I get that it should be a personal commitment, but it's hard to say that when the full timers get paid time (if they use it) to do PT every day.

I appreciate any thoughts/ideas.
Title: Re: Re: Armed Forces Consider incentives to keep soldiers fit
Post by: NFLD Sapper on April 09, 2014, 22:14:18
Harris, I may be mistaken but FORCE is required for everything i.e. Career Courses (not leadership courses), Taskings, etc... so to me it seems to be a catch 22.... CFSME has already stated that any staff or students arriving without FORCE will be RTU'ed at unit expense....
Title: Re: Re: Armed Forces Consider incentives to keep soldiers fit
Post by: DAA on April 09, 2014, 22:15:29
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.

CF Express was around for quite sometime and look how long that lasted and then how long it took for the recent change to be implemented.  Come to think about it, so was the "Fit to Fight", "13k", "Warrior Trg", etc, etc, etc.

Regretably, BFOR's are only applicable to the CF in general.  What you are "advocating" is an "Environmental" fitness standard which is pretty much location/posting specific.  Should have, could have been done years and years ago.

I know what you are saying, not arguing your point. Just pointing out the obvious.

Harris, I may be mistaken but FORCE is required for everything i.e. Career Courses (not leadership courses), Taskings, etc... so to me it seems to be a catch 22.... CFSME has already stated that any staff or students arriving without FORCE will be RTU'ed at unit expense....

FORCE Testing, is a mandatory requirement for employment, period.
Title: Re: Re: Armed Forces Consider incentives to keep soldiers fit
Post by: dapaterson on April 09, 2014, 22:22:16
You can easily run two platoons through FORCE testing in a single training night.  I'm reasonably confident you can find one night somewhere between September and May to do that.
Title: Re: Re: Armed Forces Consider incentives to keep soldiers fit
Post by: Harris on April 09, 2014, 22:29:09
Harris, I may be mistaken but FORCE is required for everything i.e. Career Courses (not leadership courses), Taskings, etc... so to me it seems to be a catch 22.... CFSME has already stated that any staff or students arriving without FORCE will be RTU'ed at unit expense....

Interesting, I'll check the actual wording in the Brigade Comd Op Plan tomorrow.  Certainly my staff interpret it to be leadership courses.  Thanks for the heads up.  Of course that just makes getting FORCE harder and more expensive for something I've received no funding for.

To go along with this, I can't imagine what possible incentive the system could come up with for reservists.  More bling?  The last time we tried that it was a flopper.  I personally saw "Gold" level Cpls trying to tell "Bronze" Cpls what to do because they scored higher.
Title: Re: Re: Armed Forces Consider incentives to keep soldiers fit
Post by: NFLD Sapper on April 09, 2014, 22:30:40
You can easily run two platoons through FORCE testing in a single training night.  I'm reasonably confident you can find one night somewhere between September and May to do that.


Assuming they have staff that are FORCE trained...
Title: Re: Re: Armed Forces Consider incentives to keep soldiers fit
Post by: Harris on April 09, 2014, 22:33:37
You can easily run two platoons through FORCE testing in a single training night.  I'm reasonably confident you can find one night somewhere between September and May to do that.

Perhaps so if my Unit wasn't located in four different locations with up to an hour driving time between each one.  Currently I'll have two instructors qualified as of tomorrow.  Have asked for more spots but not likely until the fall.  Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the standard require 4 FORCE trained monitors per session?

Like I said I've got three sessions scheduled, but no funding for any of them.
Title: Re: Re: Armed Forces Consider incentives to keep soldiers fit
Post by: NFLD Sapper on April 09, 2014, 22:34:06
Interesting, I'll check the actual wording in the Brigade Comd Op Plan tomorrow.  Certainly my staff interpret it to be leadership courses.  Thanks for the heads up.  Of course that just makes getting FORCE harder and more expensive for something I've received no funding for.

To go along with this, I can't imagine what possible incentive the system could come up with for reservists.  More bling?  The last time we tried that it was a flopper.  I personally saw "Gold" level Cpls trying to tell "Bronze" Cpls what to do because they scored higher.

 :dunno: I know this is how we are doing it at my unit....
Title: Re: Re: Armed Forces Consider incentives to keep soldiers fit
Post by: NFLD Sapper on April 09, 2014, 22:35:09
Perhaps so if my Unit wasn't located in four different locations with up to an hour driving time between each one.  Currently I'll have two instructors qualified as of tomorrow.  Have asked for more spots but not likely until the fall.  Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the standard require 4 FORCE trained monitors per session?

Like I said I've got three sessions scheduled, but no funding for any of them.

We have ran 20+ pers through with only two instructors but that eats up most of the trg night....
Title: Re: Re: Armed Forces Consider incentives to keep soldiers fit
Post by: Harris on April 09, 2014, 22:35:24
FORCE Testing, is a mandatory requirement for employment, period.

Not in 36 CBG, at least not according to the current DRAFT Op Plan.
Title: Re: Re: Armed Forces Consider incentives to keep soldiers fit
Post by: dapaterson on April 09, 2014, 22:37:56
Perhaps so if my Unit wasn't located in four different locations with up to an hour driving time between each one.  Currently I'll have two instructors qualified as of tomorrow.  Have asked for more spots but not likely until the fall.  Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the standard require 4 FORCE trained monitors per session?

Like I said I've got three sessions scheduled, but no funding for any of them.

Then run the FORCE test before the Christmas dinner, when everyone is together.


And a valid fitness and medical profile are requirements for full-time employment; for short duration tasks you may be able to dodge them, but not for others.
Title: Re: Re: Armed Forces Consider incentives to keep soldiers fit
Post by: NFLD Sapper on April 09, 2014, 22:40:30
Then run the FORCE test before the Christmas dinner, when everyone is together.


And a valid fitness and medical profile are requirements for full-time employment; for short duration tasks you may be able to dodge them, but not for others.

I believe that varies too... we had to get ppl FORCE tested before we did a 1 day Regimental Dml Trg in Gagetown....then again we were going out side the province (half of the regiment is in NL the other in NB)
Title: Re: Re: Armed Forces Consider incentives to keep soldiers fit
Post by: Harris on April 09, 2014, 22:46:29
Then run the FORCE test before the Christmas dinner, when everyone is together.

And a valid fitness and medical profile are requirements for full-time employment; for short duration tasks you may be able to dodge them, but not for others.

Your missing my point.  I agree I have to run FORCE, but something else is going to give.  As for the "have a current fitness and medical profile" bit, I also agree that is a requirement, however since Class A reservists are also not entitled to current medicals except for promotion/deployment in general, those too are done on a case by case basis.  All of these small numbers of FORCE testing, or medicals cost me extra funds and time I wasn't given to start with.  I can't send a van load of troops for a medical until they fit into a category above.  Therefore I'm sending one or two pers at a time all year long and then sending a driver and van to take them or paying mileage.
Title: Re: Re: Armed Forces Consider incentives to keep soldiers fit
Post by: NFLD Sapper on April 09, 2014, 22:50:12
Your missing my point.  I agree I have to run FORCE, but something else is going to give.  As for the "have a current fitness and medical profile" bit, I also agree that is a requirement, however since Class A reservists are also not entitled to current medicals except for promotion/deployment in general, those too are done on a case by case basis.  All of these small numbers of FORCE testing, or medicals cost me extra funds and time I wasn't given to start with.  I can't send a van load of troops for a medical until they fit into a category above.  Therefore I'm sending one or two pers at a time all year long and then sending a driver and van to take them or paying mileage.

Umm.. don't medicals expire in 5 years so irregardless they should be entitled?
Title: Re: Re: Armed Forces Consider incentives to keep soldiers fit
Post by: Harris on April 09, 2014, 22:55:36
Umm.. don't medicals expire in 5 years so irregardless they should be entitled?

That used to be the case.  Currently in 5 Div in Halifax and Greenwood at least that is no longer the case.  The medical side of the house isn't funded for Class A so they have stopped doing them when they used to before.  I was supposed to get one this year and I was told no go unless I'm promoted or deploying.  Div HQ confirmed.  After 40 it's every two years.
Title: Re: Re: Armed Forces Consider incentives to keep soldiers fit
Post by: DAA on April 09, 2014, 23:05:49
Not in 36 CBG, at least not according to the current DRAFT Op Plan.

Fitness testing standards are/should be universal right across all components (Reg and Res) of the CF.  So if someone is listed as "On Strength" for a unit and are parading Class A, they are subject to the same standard.

It just doesn't make any sense, that a Class A would not have to do a fitness test.
Title: Re: Re: Armed Forces Consider incentives to keep soldiers fit
Post by: NFLD Sapper on April 09, 2014, 23:10:22
Remember we are the red headed step-child that no one wants....
Title: Re: Re: Armed Forces Consider incentives to keep soldiers fit
Post by: dapaterson on April 09, 2014, 23:12:27
Medicals are good for 5 years to age 40, then 2 years beyond.  And I empathize with trying to get a valid medical for a class A soldier, and with more demands on your time than funds to pay for it, and with having a unit spread over a wide geographic areas.

CANARMYGEN 006/13 (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?topic=106313.msg1233003#msg1233003) provides the last Army Direction I've seen.  While FORCE is not mandatory for class A Army Reservists, I suspect most weeknight training plans have enough flex to fit in one testing period.  For units in multiple locations, those tests do not necessarily have to be on the same night.
Title: Re: Re: Armed Forces Consider incentives to keep soldiers fit
Post by: ballz on April 09, 2014, 23:44:29
Regretably, BFOR's are only applicable to the CF in general.  What you are "advocating" is an "Environmental" fitness standard which is pretty much location/posting specific.  Should have, could have been done years and years ago.

I'm n