Armed Forces Consider incentives to keep soldiers fit

[Eye In The Sky]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[armyvern]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[armyvern]

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

Because the troops want bling.

 

[daftandbarmy]

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

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

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

This.... times 100

 

[BinRat55]

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

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

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

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

:goodpost:

 

[ballz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Lumber]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[donaldk]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[cld617]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[McG]

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

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

 

[George Wallace]

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

Oh YES!  This should be good.    op:

 

[ballz]

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

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

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

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

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


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

 

[OldSolduer]

Here's a strategy that might work:

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

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

 

[Lumber]

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

Age AND gender.

 

[George Wallace]

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

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

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

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

 

[rmc_wannabe]

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

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

 

[MJP]

, but attaching merit points to it when there's clear double standards is BS.

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

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

 

[SupersonicMax]

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

Off Topic:  FTFY!

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

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

 

[daftandbarmy]

Off Topic:  FTFY!

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

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

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

Then again, maybe that's not a problem