Author Topic: Study on training injuries reveals patterns among recruits and officer cadets  (Read 7150 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline OceanBonfire

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,735
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 119
    Quote

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


    Marie-Andrée Laroche, who is an exercise specialist with the Personnel Support Programs (PSP) and involved with Phase 1 (injured members) of the Training and Reintegration Program (TRP) at the Canadian Forces Leadership and Recruit School (CFLRS), has been leading a study of injury patterns among recruits and officer cadets.

    A few years ago, noticing the significant number of injuries that candidates suffered, Ms. Laroche took the initiative of compiling data on the subject. She and Captain Carole-Anne Dufour, a physiotherapist, presented the results analysis in mid-October during The Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research convention.

    Ms. Laroche has been developing a database since 2014 made up of a sample of over 10,000 entries. This is the first study to be conducted involving recruits and officer cadets within the Canadian Army.

    Among other things, this large-scale study has revealed that the frequency of injury is 3.5 times higher among recruits than among officer cadets (7% and 2% respectively). At the time of their arrival, women make up 16 to 19% of the members of a platoon, but they make up 38 to 40% of Phase 1 candidates.

    As for the type of injuries that people suffer, 70% are lower body injuries, and 58% of those are due to accumulation (walking, stairs, basic drill, running, etc). There is also a link between having a higher score on the FORCE test and having a higher rate of injury.

    Given these results, Marie-Andrée Laroche maintains that it is essential to prepare future candidates as soon as they register at the Canadian Armed Forces recruiting centre, and to promote interventions to prevent injuries.


    Pedometer results

    With regards to the high number of lower body injuries, Marie-Andrée Laroche conducted an analysis of the number of steps that recruits and officer cadets took during their basic training last spring. To do that, one platoon of recruits and one platoon of officer cadets wore pedometers from the start of their training to their end-of-course ceremony. The results were as follows:

    - 13,500 steps per day was the average for recruits and officer cadets;
    - Walking is better distributed among officer cadet platoons than among recruit platoons;
    - There is no difference in the total number of steps taken, despite candidates’ lower body restrictions.

    Note that the tool used is not very precise, but it provided an overview of the situation. Other analyses with a more reliable tool will be conducted soon.

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

    http://www.journalservir.com/nouvelle.php?id=1665[/list]
    « Last Edit: December 31, 2018, 16:04:47 by OceanBonfire »
    Recruiting Center: Montreal
    Regular/Reserve: Regular Force
    Officer/NCM: Officer (DEO)
    Occupation choice: Logistics Officer
    Current application: March 28, 2017
    CFAT: Previously completed in November 2011
    Interview: July 11, 2017
    Medical: August 2017
    Competition list: October/November 2017
    Position Offered: May 25, 2018
    Swearing In: August 21, 2018
    BMOQ: August 25, 2018
    BMOQ Graduation: November 16, 2018

    Offline PuckChaser

    • Directing Staff
    • Army.ca Fixture
    • *
    • 919,220
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 8,163
      • Peacekeeper's Homepage
    Would be nice to see the whole study. Also interesting is the link between having a higher (be "fitter") FORCE test score, and a higher injury rate. I wonder if they looked at whether the higher score individuals were doing more PT than the lower scored pers (who physically couldn't complete as much PT), or just left it open ended.

    Offline Not a Sig Op

    • Army.ca Veteran
    • *****
    • 59,142
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 2,836
    • I'm just a musical prostitute, my dear.
    Would be interesting to see the injuries categorized as well between healing over over the duration of the course, requiring an individual to be recoursed, and career ending.

    Offline Bruce Monkhouse

      Is a pinball wizard.

    • Lab Experiment #13
    • Army.ca Subscriber
    • Army.ca Legend
    • *
    • 246,175
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 14,869
    • WHERE IS MY BATON?
      • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
    Or what exactly an 'injury' is.  Is DOMS an 'injury?  I see it as the result of a great day in the gym...
    IF YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS SITE AND WISH TO CONTINUE,THEN PLEASE WIGGLE UP TO THE BAR AND BUY A SUBSCRIPTION OR SOME SWAG FROM THE MILNET.CA STORE OR IF YOU WISH TO ADVERTISE PLEASE SEND MIKE SOME DETAILS.

    Everybody has a game plan until they get punched in the mouth.

    Offline PMedMoe

      is retired and loving it!

    • Army.ca Subscriber
    • Army.ca Legend
    • *
    • 254,685
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 10,369
    Also interesting is the link between having a higher (be "fitter") FORCE test score, and a higher injury rate. I wonder if they looked at whether the higher score individuals were doing more PT than the lower scored pers (who physically couldn't complete as much PT), or just left it open ended.

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

    My guess is people who are "fitter", do more PT and by doing more PT they are subject to more injuries.  Or maybe the fitter people just tough it out when they do get an injury and make it worse.  :dunno:
    "A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving".
    ~ Lao Tzu~

    Offline BeyondTheNow

    • Directing Staff
    • Army.ca Veteran
    • *
    • 64,460
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 1,089
    That's quite the assumption.  Maybe they just didn't want to do as much PT.

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

    Futher to that I’d also argue that “PT” is far too general. (Personal PT in addition to unit) There are those who focus primarily on certain types of PT and those who focus on others. (Not to mention body type, height, weight etc etc.) I’ve seen individuals whose regular PT regimen is fewer times/wk than that of others, but who had better scores on the FORCE simply because they were faster. All individuals were easily considered “fit” in every sense of the word though.
    « Last Edit: January 01, 2019, 11:10:38 by BeyondTheNow »

    Offline PuckChaser

    • Directing Staff
    • Army.ca Fixture
    • *
    • 919,220
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 8,163
      • Peacekeeper's Homepage
    My guess is people who are "fitter", do more PT and by doing more PT they are subject to more injuries.

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

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

    Offline Jarnhamar

    • Army.ca Subscriber
    • Army.ca Legend
    • *
    • 286,336
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 10,716
    I'm not very mathy, is that study suggesting women are disproportionately injured more than men?

    Quote
    There is also a link between having a higher score on the FORCE test and having a higher rate of injury.
    Surprised to read that, I'd have expected the opposite.

    In my limited experience the majority of lower body injuries I seen were from people over weight or out of shape. With a number of them I suspect faking injuries in order to get out of pt.
    There are no wolves on Fenris

    Offline daftandbarmy

    • Army.ca Legend
    • *****
    • 235,660
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 13,405
    • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
    I'm not very mathy, is that study suggesting women are disproportionately injured more than men?
    Surprised to read that, I'd have expected the opposite.

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

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

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

    The questions is, of course, is to what extent that's acceptable. My sense is that, as the quantity of qualified recruits declines, the more we need to pay attention to our qualitative approach to fitness training.
    "The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

    Offline Baden Guy

      Full Member.

    • Question everything. Learn something. Answer nothing.
    • Army.ca Subscriber
    • Army.ca Veteran
    • *
    • 47,617
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 1,860
    That's quite the assumption.  Maybe they just didn't want to do as much PT.

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

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

    Offline BeyondTheNow

    • Directing Staff
    • Army.ca Veteran
    • *
    • 64,460
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 1,089
    I'm not very mathy, is that study suggesting women are disproportionately injured more than men?

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

    Offline cld617

    • Member
    • ****
    • 4,185
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 106
    I'm not very mathy, is that study suggesting women are disproportionately injured more than men?

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

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

    Offline Bruce Monkhouse

      Is a pinball wizard.

    • Lab Experiment #13
    • Army.ca Subscriber
    • Army.ca Legend
    • *
    • 246,175
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 14,869
    • WHERE IS MY BATON?
      • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
    Fitness?  I don't think that's a woman/man issue. 
    Strength Training.....I could agree to that. 

    My knees hurt all the time when I was younger. When I got out I added weights to my regime and sore knees went away....and still don't hurt to this day.  Arthritic hip sure does .....but neither of those types of exercise will help that.
    IF YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS SITE AND WISH TO CONTINUE,THEN PLEASE WIGGLE UP TO THE BAR AND BUY A SUBSCRIPTION OR SOME SWAG FROM THE MILNET.CA STORE OR IF YOU WISH TO ADVERTISE PLEASE SEND MIKE SOME DETAILS.

    Everybody has a game plan until they get punched in the mouth.

    Offline cld617

    • Member
    • ****
    • 4,185
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 106
    Fitness?  I don't think that's a woman/man issue. 
    Strength Training.....I could agree to that. 

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

    Offline Bruce Monkhouse

      Is a pinball wizard.

    • Lab Experiment #13
    • Army.ca Subscriber
    • Army.ca Legend
    • *
    • 246,175
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 14,869
    • WHERE IS MY BATON?
      • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
    They perform worde in fitness tests or actual assignments in real life situations? ?
    IF YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS SITE AND WISH TO CONTINUE,THEN PLEASE WIGGLE UP TO THE BAR AND BUY A SUBSCRIPTION OR SOME SWAG FROM THE MILNET.CA STORE OR IF YOU WISH TO ADVERTISE PLEASE SEND MIKE SOME DETAILS.

    Everybody has a game plan until they get punched in the mouth.

    Offline cld617

    • Member
    • ****
    • 4,185
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 106
    They perform worde in fitness tests or actual assignments in real life situations? ?

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

    Offline Jarnhamar

    • Army.ca Subscriber
    • Army.ca Legend
    • *
    • 286,336
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 10,716
    Disregard a reply I made to you...I clearly read too quickly the first time over.
    All good  ;)
    « Last Edit: January 01, 2019, 17:28:44 by Jarnhamar »
    There are no wolves on Fenris

    Offline daftandbarmy

    • Army.ca Legend
    • *****
    • 235,660
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 13,405
    • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
    Gauging peformance in performing their duties physically is difficult, but we do know they accumulate more injuries, limiting their ability to continue performing at the same level as their peers. Take rucking for example, it was found women are injured 2.4x more often and their level of injury was considered serious 2.5x more often than men.

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

    And FWIW, I know several females in the Infantry who could kick most peoples a$$es physically, as well as a couple of female Olympians, so it's clearly not a gender thing....
    "The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

    Offline garb811

    • MP/MPO Question Answerer
    • Directing Staff
    • Army.ca Veteran
    • *
    • 79,795
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 1,524
    I think it could also be beneficial if they were to dig into patterns within certain platoons. I've heard first hand about how different Pls have different "intensities" based on their DS and that certainly will affect injury rates as physical activities outside the official training syllabus are layered on.

    Offline cld617

    • Member
    • ****
    • 4,185
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 106
    All the more reason to have something available that is more sophisticated than the typical 'one size fits all' fitness program.

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

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

    It is a gender thing for 9x% of individuals, there will always be outliers. When you get women up to the same fitness level as their male peers, the injury levels even out and there is no statistically significant difference. The reality is however most females do not achieve these levels, a late 20's female who achieves platinum on her Force test would only score bronze in the male category. Very very few achieve the same standards as fit males in strength, this is where the training focus needs to be.
    « Last Edit: January 03, 2019, 13:34:28 by cld617 »

    Offline daftandbarmy

    • Army.ca Legend
    • *****
    • 235,660
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 13,405
    • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
    I think it could also be beneficial if they were to dig into patterns within certain platoons. I've heard first hand about how different Pls have different "intensities" based on their DS and that certainly will affect injury rates as physical activities outside the official training syllabus are layered on.

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

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

    Casualties? We just shuffled them off to the MIR and carried on...
    "The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

    Offline Journeyman

    • Army.ca Subscriber
    • Army.ca Legend
    • *
    • 542,600
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 12,992
    Very very few [females] achieve the same standards as fit males in strength, this is where the training focus needs to be.
    Curiosity:  why does the focus need to be on strength? 

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


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

    Offline cld617

    • Member
    • ****
    • 4,185
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 106
    Curiosity:  why does the focus need to be on strength? 

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

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

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3633121
    « Last Edit: January 03, 2019, 22:12:37 by cld617 »

    Offline Jarnhamar

    • Army.ca Subscriber
    • Army.ca Legend
    • *
    • 286,336
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 10,716
    Quote from: Journeyman


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





     ;D
    There are no wolves on Fenris

    Offline Jarnhamar

    • Army.ca Subscriber
    • Army.ca Legend
    • *
    • 286,336
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 10,716
    Quote from: daftandbarmy

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


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

    Still I thought the instruction was pretty good. I think I'd like it if we had what the British army still has and our own pt instructor trade.
    There are no wolves on Fenris

    Offline dapaterson

      Mostly Harmless.

    • Army.ca Subscriber
    • Army.ca Myth
    • *
    • 448,190
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 16,439
    I think I'd like it if we had what the British army still has and our own pt instructor trade.

    In the mid 90s we chose musicians over fitness instructors as a continued military trade...
    This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
    Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
    http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

    Offline Journeyman

    • Army.ca Subscriber
    • Army.ca Legend
    • *
    • 542,600
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 12,992

    Offline PMedMoe

      is retired and loving it!

    • Army.ca Subscriber
    • Army.ca Legend
    • *
    • 254,685
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 10,369
    "A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving".
    ~ Lao Tzu~

    Offline dapaterson

      Mostly Harmless.

    • Army.ca Subscriber
    • Army.ca Myth
    • *
    • 448,190
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 16,439
    Or one who plays some sport...    ;)

    Like "I'm from Newfoundland and I play hockey"?
    This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
    Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
    http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

    Offline garb811

    • MP/MPO Question Answerer
    • Directing Staff
    • Army.ca Veteran
    • *
    • 79,795
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 1,524
    In the mid 90s we chose musicians over fitness instructors as a continued military trade...
    Are you actually implying that we should have kept a support trade that had no war-fighting role, at all?  :Tin-Foil-Hat:

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

    Offline Brihard

    • Army.ca Veteran
    • *****
    • 205,095
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 4,478
    • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
    A pretty decent article on US army fitness by Mark Rippetoe, the author of Starting Strength:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    If Heavy is the problem, Strong is the solution. And you don't get strong while running. We are wasting the strength potential of every man in the service by misunderstanding the nature of this problem. It can be addressed by the systematic application of the correct PT. Unfortunately, I'm not in charge.
    Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

    Offline Infanteer

    • Directing Staff
    • Army.ca Myth
    • *
    • 169,715
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 15,196
    • Honey Badger FTW!
    I'm a big believer is barbell-based strength training as a core of any physical training regime.  It is simple (you only need to master a half-dozen movements), it's flexible, its progressive, and it produces results.  In the military, it is something that can be done collectively.

    I think one of the problems is that using barbells doesn't convey the same image as what Rippetoe has labelled "conditioning."  If I run a platoon through barbell training, their muscles are sore, but they aren't panting and sweating as much as if they went out for a 5km run.  That can be perceived by some as "lazy."
    "Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

    Offline Humphrey Bogart

    • Directing Staff
    • Army.ca Veteran
    • *
    • 112,139
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 3,011
    A pretty decent article on US army fitness by Mark Rippetoe, the author of Starting Strength:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





    Offline Humphrey Bogart

    • Directing Staff
    • Army.ca Veteran
    • *
    • 112,139
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 3,011
    I'm a big believer is barbell-based strength training as a core of any physical training regime.  It is simple (you only need to master a half-dozen movements), it's flexible, its progressive, and it produces results.  In the military, it is something that can be done collectively.

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

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

    Offline Quirky

    • Full Member
    • *****
    • 7,700
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 266
    Maybe it's time to transition basic training into it's own respective elements, have Army instructors run Army candidates, Air Force for Air Force etc etc. What good is it having RCAF and RCN recruits train like the Army - scale obstacle courses and endlessly walk with ruck sacks. The Army already does a great job of destroying the body of a soldier, I see re-musters every year with guys in their late 20s to mid 30s who have shoulder, hip, back, knee problems that will likely translate to VAC claims. Do we really need to train everyone the same, even in basic training, considering how drastically different deployments and careers will be for the three elements?







    Offline PuckChaser

    • Directing Staff
    • Army.ca Fixture
    • *
    • 919,220
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 8,163
      • Peacekeeper's Homepage
    Most of the rucking is gone from BMQ. Maybe instead of splitting the services back up, we put an emphasis back on fitness and healthy lifestyle?

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

    Offline Humphrey Bogart

    • Directing Staff
    • Army.ca Veteran
    • *
    • 112,139
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 3,011
    Most of the rucking is gone from BMQ. Maybe instead of splitting the services back up, we put an emphasis back on fitness and healthy lifestyle?

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

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

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


    Offline daftandbarmy

    • Army.ca Legend
    • *****
    • 235,660
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 13,405
    • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
    Maybe it's time to transition basic training into it's own respective elements, have Army instructors run Army candidates, Air Force for Air Force etc etc. What good is it having RCAF and RCN recruits train like the Army - scale obstacle courses and endlessly walk with ruck sacks. The Army already does a great job of destroying the body of a soldier, I see re-musters every year with guys in their late 20s to mid 30s who have shoulder, hip, back, knee problems that will likely translate to VAC claims. Do we really need to train everyone the same, even in basic training, considering how drastically different deployments and careers will be for the three elements?

    Good idea.

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

    I can't believe that it's outside the realms of the reasonably possible, given that we already have a well developed system of tailoring other kinds of training accordingly.
    "The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

    Offline Target Up

      ........pull, patch, and score.

    • Army.ca Subscriber
    • Army.ca Fixture
    • *
    • 222,320
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 5,819
    • that's how we roll in redneck land
    Funny that we live in a country where everyone is categorized, sub-categorized, and hyphenated into ever shrinking special interest groups, but the idea of soldiers training soldiers, sailors training sailors, and airpersons training airpersons is horrifying.
    Apparently, a "USUAL SUSPECT"

    “In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility; but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favor'd rage.”

     Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats

    Offline cld617

    • Member
    • ****
    • 4,185
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 106
    I think one of the problems is that using barbells doesn't convey the same image as what Rippetoe has labelled "conditioning."  If I run a platoon through barbell training, their muscles are sore, but they aren't panting and sweating as much as if they went out for a 5km run.  That can be perceived by some as "lazy."

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

    Offline Oldgateboatdriver

    • Army.ca Veteran
    • *****
    • 139,385
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 3,618
    I have no doubt that fitness and healthy lifestyle should form part of our basic training, as much as it ought to be taught in High School across the country, but mostly is not. And that is not "element" specific: it applies to all three elements just the same.

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

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

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

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

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

    Offline PMedMoe

      is retired and loving it!

    • Army.ca Subscriber
    • Army.ca Legend
    • *
    • 254,685
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 10,369
    Are you actually implying that we should have kept a support trade that had no war-fighting role, at all?  :Tin-Foil-Hat:

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

    At the very least, the PERIs could have done the welfare/morale positions on tour without us having to bring in PSP.
    "A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving".
    ~ Lao Tzu~

    Offline garb811

    • MP/MPO Question Answerer
    • Directing Staff
    • Army.ca Veteran
    • *
    • 79,795
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 1,524
    And our musicians do....what?  Now, I'm not referring to some Infanteer or Construction Engineer who also happens to play bagpipes; I'm talking about someone in the CF whose trade is Musician.

    At the very least, the PERIs could have done the welfare/morale positions on tour without us having to bring in PSP.
    :off topic: I'm not really sure how you're extrapolating that I'm somehow advocating that retaining musicians was a sound choice; it wasn't a one or the other proposition anyway.

    Offline PMedMoe

      is retired and loving it!

    • Army.ca Subscriber
    • Army.ca Legend
    • *
    • 254,685
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 10,369
    :off topic: I'm not really sure how you're extrapolating that I'm somehow advocating that retaining musicians was a sound choice; it wasn't a one or the other proposition anyway.

    K.  My bad. 
    "A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving".
    ~ Lao Tzu~

    Offline Dimsum

      West coast best coast.

    • Mentor
    • Army.ca Fixture
    • *
    • 170,725
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 5,043
    • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
    Yeah, the Army breaks people physically. The RCAF breaks people financially (Cold Lake) and the RCN breaks people mentally (constant deployments if you're sea fit). Pick your poison. :facepalm:

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

    But I digress.
    Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

    Reply:  "If."

    Offline Navy_Pete

    • Army.ca Subscriber
    • Sr. Member
    • *
    • 24,175
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 745
    I have no doubt that fitness and healthy lifestyle should form part of our basic training, as much as it ought to be taught in High School across the country, but mostly is not. And that is not "element" specific: it applies to all three elements just the same.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Offline Quirky

    • Full Member
    • *****
    • 7,700
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 266
    Maybe instead of splitting the services back up, we put an emphasis back on fitness and healthy lifestyle?

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

    Offline Journeyman

    • Army.ca Subscriber
    • Army.ca Legend
    • *
    • 542,600
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 12,992
    And our musicians do....what? 
    Well historically, Commonwealth Army musicians tended to also be stretcher-bearers.

    /history geek   ;)

    Offline Haggis

    • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
    • Army.ca Veteran
    • *****
    • 62,090
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 2,747
    • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
    Still too many obese dinosaur SNCOs who think going to the base fitness center during work hours is AWOL.
    The other thing that used to irritate the crap out of me when I worked at NDHQ was those people who would track me down at the NDHQ gym and hold an impromptu "meeting" with me at the squat rack. (In some cases that was the only time they ever darkened the door of the gym except for fitness testing.) That's one reason why I opted to spend a bit of my own money to go to a non-DND gym.
    « Last Edit: January 05, 2019, 10:33:48 by Haggis »
    Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

    Offline PMedMoe

      is retired and loving it!

    • Army.ca Subscriber
    • Army.ca Legend
    • *
    • 254,685
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 10,369
    Well historically, Commonwealth Army musicians tended to also be stretcher-bearers.

    /history geek   ;)

    That I knew.  Pretty sure you don't need any special training to carry a stretcher.   ;)
    "A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving".
    ~ Lao Tzu~

    Offline Journeyman

    • Army.ca Subscriber
    • Army.ca Legend
    • *
    • 542,600
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 12,992
    Pretty sure you don't need any special training to carry a stretcher.   ;)
    To bring the discussion full circle..... fitness.   ;D

    Offline daftandbarmy

    • Army.ca Legend
    • *****
    • 235,660
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 13,405
    • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
    That I knew.  Pretty sure you don't need any special training to carry a stretcher.   ;)

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

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

    "The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

    Offline PMedMoe

      is retired and loving it!

    • Army.ca Subscriber
    • Army.ca Legend
    • *
    • 254,685
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 10,369
    However, there's a reason that the PARAs, and others, include a 'stretcher race' of some kind in their selection programs. Probably one of the hardest events I've ever done!

    One year, in Ottawa, after the 13km rucksack march, instead of the fireman's carry, we did a stretcher carry.  No, not easy.  Have done it in the field too, while schlepping webbing, med bag and weapons....even more difficult.   :(
    "A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving".
    ~ Lao Tzu~

    Offline Blackadder1916

    • Army.ca Veteran
    • *****
    • 175,085
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 2,901
    That I knew.  Pretty sure you don't need any special training to carry a stretcher.   ;)

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

    Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky.

    Offline medicineman

    • Well stuck into my new job and thoroughly enjoying it.
    • Army.ca Fixture
    • *****
    • 146,420
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 7,260
    • In Arduis Fidelis
      • Fed By The Firehose
    Well historically, Commonwealth Army musicians tended to also be stretcher-bearers.

    /history geek   ;)

    So were the PERI's  :nod:

    MM
    MM

    Remember the basics of Medicine - "Pink is GOOD, Blue is BAD, Air goes in AND out, Blood Goes Round and Round"

    I may sound like a pessimist, but I am a realist.

    Offline PuckChaser

    • Directing Staff
    • Army.ca Fixture
    • *
    • 919,220
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 8,163
      • Peacekeeper's Homepage
    I feel like the PERIs would be far better at doing that then someone who plays jazz flute in a uniform.

    Offline mariomike

    • Directing Staff
    • Army.ca Fixture
    • *
    • 497,845
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 9,198
      • The job.
    Pretty sure you don't need any special training to carry a stretcher.   ;)

    You would think so, until . . .

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


    Offline Old Sweat

    • Army.ca Fixture
    • *****
    • 217,775
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 7,794
    That I knew.  Pretty sure you don't need any special training to carry a stretcher.   ;)

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

    Offline PMedMoe

      is retired and loving it!

    • Army.ca Subscriber
    • Army.ca Legend
    • *
    • 254,685
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 10,369
    Then why did the army teach me how to carry a casualty on a stretcher on recruit training in the RCA Depot back in 1958?

    :dunno:
    "A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving".
    ~ Lao Tzu~

    Offline Underway

    • Donor
    • Sr. Member
    • *
    • 20,065
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 888
    One year, in Ottawa, after the 13km rucksack march, instead of the fireman's carry, we did a stretcher carry.  No, not easy.  Have done it in the field too, while schlepping webbing, med bag and weapons....even more difficult.   :(

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

    Offline daftandbarmy

    • Army.ca Legend
    • *****
    • 235,660
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 13,405
    • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
    I agree. My section PT before Afghanistan included stretcher carry.  Carrying your buddy with all their gear, and your gear over rough terrain is not easy.  I actually changed my workouts to add more free weights so that my grip endurance improved.  Grip strength was fine, but after 5 min of hanging onto that stretcher.... ouch

    As seen at about 0:46, it takes a whole community raise a stretcher across rough ground :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkg5Cr2_F18
    "The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

    Offline Old Sweat

    • Army.ca Fixture
    • *****
    • 217,775
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 7,794
    Then why did the army teach me how to carry a casualty on a stretcher on recruit training in the RCA Depot back in 1958?

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

    Offline dapaterson

      Mostly Harmless.

    • Army.ca Subscriber
    • Army.ca Myth
    • *
    • 448,190
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 16,439
    Then why did the army teach me how to carry a casualty on a stretcher on recruit training in the RCA Depot back in 1958?

    Probably someone said "Well, he's not as smart as a musician or a PERI who can do this on their own, so we better give him a hand..."
    This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
    Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
    http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

    Offline Target Up

      ........pull, patch, and score.

    • Army.ca Subscriber
    • Army.ca Fixture
    • *
    • 222,320
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 5,819
    • that's how we roll in redneck land
    We spent a whole day in basic doing all sorts of stretchery things, including lashing the casualty in and lowering out an upper floor window. More to it than "hands on, prepare to lift".
    Apparently, a "USUAL SUSPECT"

    “In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility; but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favor'd rage.”

     Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats

    Offline Blackadder1916

    • Army.ca Veteran
    • *****
    • 175,085
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 2,901
    Then why did the army teach me how to carry a casualty on a stretcher on recruit training in the RCA Depot back in 1958?

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

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

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

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


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

    From that same study

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


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

    /history geek   ;)

    So were the PERI's  :nod:

    MM

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

    (From a 1952 Canadian Army HQ Historical Section report) http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/his/rep-rap/doc/ahqr-rqga/ahq047.pdf
    Quote
    35. K.R. (Can.) states that bandsmen will be
    trained as stretcher bearers and in first aid to the
    wounded (K.R.(Can). 1939, para 686). However, the
    number of wounded Canadian soldiers who were attended by
    bandsmen - stretcher bearers must be small indeed
    . In the
    first place, few Canadian units had bands with them in
    combat areas. In the second place, most of those units
    which did have bandsmen or pipers found it advisable
    to hold them out of the forward areas
    . The Cape Breton
    Highlanders kept their pipers looking after stores in
    "B" Echelon; the Essex Scottish used their pipers in "B"
    Echelon as general duty personnel; the Irish Regiment of
    Canada had their pipers handling baggage in the rear for
    "stretcher·bearers were easier to come by than pipers"
    .
    (376.003(D2): Personal Recollections of Serving Officers).

    36. P.P.C.L.I. had a bugle band in Italy and in
    North-West Europe. However, the band did not have a
    continuous existence: it was more or less reformed every
    time the unit went into a rest area. Only the band sergeant
    and band corporal were considered permanent. To assure their
    permanence both were given comparatively safe duties. When
    the battalion returned to action, the bandsmen dispersed,
    some to their companies, some to Bn H.Q. defence platoon, and
    some to the medical section as stretcher bearers
    (Ibid).

    37. The R.C.R. bugle band was disbanded before the
    battalion left England in 1943 since a band was "not on the
    War Establishment of an assault battalion in the invasion of
    Sicily" (Galloway, Maj S., 55 Axis (Montreal, 1945) p. 11;-6) •
    . Nevertheless, the instruments were "smuggled" ashore in Sicily
    and then stored at Campobasso during the long winter campaign
    on the Adriatic Front. In June 1944 the band was reformed and
    became part of the battalion's life. At a ceremonial
    promulgation of sixteen Courts-Martial, the culprits were
    drummed out of the regiment to the unhappy beat of the
    "Rogue's March". The band also played on happier unit and
    corps occasions and claimed to be the first Allied military
    band to play in St. Peter's Square in Rome (Ibid: pps.
    145-147). During the battle for the airfield at Rimini, the
    the band was made into an ammunition carrying detail.
    While
    bringing ammunition to "D" Company they attacked and cleared
    a houseful of Germans who had reoccupied the place after "D"
    Company passed through. In so doing, they saved "D" Company
    from considerable embarrassment and likely casualties (Ibid:
    162, 163). This is one of the few instances where bandsmen
    as a group took an active part in the fighting
    .

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

    Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky.

    Offline UnwiseCritic

    • Member
    • ****
    • 3,185
    • Rate Post
    • Posts: 232
    Fitness and Healthy Lifestyle.  Wouldn't that be just Grand?

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

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