I fully realize that we are talking about an obsolete recruiting poster, but there is a message therein which deserves to be addressed.
This entire idea of "Fitness" versus "Endurance" is worthy of discussion - at least in my admittedly limited mind. To whit, I would argue that "Endurance" rather than "Fitness" ought to have been the message all along. I would argue that Endurance (both physical and mental) is the essence of operational soldiering. I will leave the mental "robustness" aspect out of the conversation for the time being, in favour of a discussion concerning the purely physical. After all, it is physical "robustness" that is the foundation of the soldier's lot and the key enabler for the requisite (but equally important) mental durability.
I will begin by noting that "fitness" does not necessarily connote "combat endurance". A minor example may be in order. I personally witnessed a whole bunch of "running-based" troops within another Army who crapped out at a rate of 15%+ casualties when the going got tough at 10,000' ASL with a load on their backs. No names, no pack drill. Let's just say that they did not in any way live up to the expectations of their "Mountain" shoulder tab. In fact, they stunk the joint out.....
Physical "fitness" is a loaded term (no pun implied). Are we talking cardio-vascular/Aerobic fitness? Anaerobic fitness? Or are we talking about "mental robustness" and "drive to succeed" above and beyond all of the above physical attributes? In other words, "intestinal fortitude" and mental toughness coupled with a reasonable degree of physical fitness?
An interesting question, that I will leave as it is for now. I will simply say this. Anyone who thinks that running 5X per week with silk shorts and Nike running shoes will prepare them for combat operations is dangerously delusional and likely to be horribly disappointed when push comes to shove. In the same vein, anyone who thinks that obtaining a maximum score on the XPRES test shuttle-run in any way relates to being "fighting fit" is completely out to lunch.
Think load-marching. Lots, and lots of load-marching. Interspersed with jerry-can races, log PT, HLVW-pulling races, games of "British Bulldog", and other sundry techniques of "combat PT". Yes, running is useful. But I personally wouldn't do it more than once per week. And any running ought to be liberally interspersed with plenty of push-ups, sit-ups, leg-spreaders, etc. Pure running (eg. jogging) as a form of military fitness is the lazy man's route and it is an ineffectual cop-out. It is the "default setting" that leaders (at all levels) fall back on when imagination is lacking. Running may make you "buff", but can you hump 200 lbs of kit up the side of a mountain in an oxygen-deprived environment? That's the skit that we need to be training for. And truth be told, I've seen far more "chunky boys" do the business than I have "gazelles". Quite frankly, on real operations I've never encountered (nor heard of) a need to run more than a few hundred metres at a time. Far more important was the sort of "explosive" short-duration power that comes from sprints and squat-thrusts. And even that sort of running is confined to the few and far between "game on" moments. The rest of the time, soldiering tends to call for long-term "slogging"-type endurance. I am here to tell you that load-marching ability only comes with practice. It may be boring, the troops my hate it, but it certainly paid off in my lifetime.... I therefore have zero regrets about foregoing "fancy pants running" in favour of the more time-consuming (but realistic) ruck marching.
Not to preach, but recent operational experience indicates that long-term physical endurance in the form of "humping" a heavy load is far, far more important than the ability to run/jog for 40 minutes in the latest/greatest hi-tech sportswear.....
