Armed Forces Consider incentives to keep soldiers fit

[McG]

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

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

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

 

[Jarnhamar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ballz]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Jarnhamar]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[armyvern]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ballz]

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

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

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

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

 

[caocao]

:goodpost:

This was meant for Jarnhamar's post!

 

[ballz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ballz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[daftandbarmy]

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

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

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

 

[ballz]

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

It doesn't work that way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree to disagree.  eace:

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I agree to disagree with you, Ballz 

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

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

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

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

 

[ballz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

We just can't win...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

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

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

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

Thus, I believe you are:

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

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

Did I get you right?

 

[ballz]

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

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

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

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

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

Correct.

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

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

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

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

Thus, I believe you are:

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

Correct

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

Correct, although its feels like a pipe dream.

3) any method that would encourage more people to get more fit;

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

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

 

[ModlrMike]

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

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

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

 

[dapaterson]

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

 

[ModlrMike]

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