• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

National military physical-fitness test fails 1,000 people: report

Status
Not open for further replies.

Armymedic

Army.ca Veteran
Inactive
Mentor
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Report in today's Canoe News, (emphsis mine)

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/11/04/pf-4630590.html

National military physical-fitness test fails 1,000 people: report

By Dean Beeby, THE CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA - More than 1,000 military members flunked the first national physical fitness test the Canadian Forces have conducted in a decade, a newly released report shows.

The failures are a fraction of the 47,000 enlisted men and women who passed the basic four-part test in 2006-07 under orders from Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of the defence staff.

But the demographics of those unfit members point to potential problem areas, such as the navy where the flunk rate was significantly higher than that of the military as a whole.

The report, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act, shows 286 sailors failed to make the grade.

Most of those - 159 men and women - were stationed at Canada's Pacific naval base in Esquimalt, B.C., for a failure rate of 4.6 per cent, or more than twice the national rate for all services.

The East Coast base at Halifax, with 134 failures, recorded a flunk rate of 2.4 per cent by comparison, closer to the national rate of 2.2 per cent.

The detailed statistical report provides numbers only, without any analysis of the results.

The tests, conducted through the year that ended March 31, consist of a so-called shuttle run, pushups, sit-ups and a handgrip strength section.

Standards are based on age and gender, so a male under age 35 must do 19 pushups, for example, while a woman in the same age bracket must do nine. A male over 35 years of age must do 17 sit-ups, while his female counterpart must do 12.

The 30-minute fitness test, in place since 1990, is designed to predict whether serving members can carry out five basic military tasks, including digging a trench and hauling a sandbag.

A few professions in the military, including members of the JTF-2 special forces, are required to meet tougher fitness standards. And members who voluntarily demonstrate a higher level of fitness can be given an exemption from the following year's test.

Hillier, a trim running enthusiast, launched a campaign in December 2005 to build a strong fitness culture in the forces and to do baseline testing of every member. National testing had lapsed in the mid-1990s.

The new results suggest a relatively fit military, though almost 1,300 were excused from testing for medical reasons and another 15,000 remained untested for various reasons, including overseas postings.

Among the somewhat poorer performers in the new report were master warrant officers, sometimes called the backbone of the army. Fifty-three of the 1,408 who were tested flunked, for a failure rate of 3.8 per cent, the highest of all the non-reserve ranks.

None of the 80 officers in ranks higher than colonel flunked. Failure rates were somewhat higher among those over age 55, and women had a slightly higher failure rate than men. Members stuck pushing pencils at headquarters were also somewhat less fit.

Army members were the most fit of all the three services, followed by the air force.

"The failure rate is not a huge issue," said Marie Danais, the civilian who's in charge of physical fitness programs across the military. "It's not a big number."

"I'm pretty sure Canadian Forces members are a lot fitter than the general population."

If a member fails the fitness test, he or she has as many as four chances over 48 weeks to make the grade or face sanctions, including dismissal. But since 1998, only eight people have been released because they could not meet fitness standards, said spokesman Lieut. Desmond James.

"We're in the military - we have to keep ourselves in shape."

Danais said annual testing is only one element of fostering a fitness culture in the military.

"We want to focus on people going into the gym," she said in an interview, adding the Canadian Forces aim to reduce failure rates for next year's report.



 
they have lowered the standards and people are still failing.. that is not good at all.

i think they should abolish the ability to be excused from testing for a determined amount of time due to performance on a previous fitness test.
 
JBoyd said:
i think they should abolish the ability to be excused from testing for a determined amount of time due to performance on a previous fitness test.

Are you saying that they should be ready to try again the next day?
 
JBoyd said:
i think they should abolish the ability to be excused from testing for a determined amount of time due to performance on a previous fitness test.

Says the guy who isn't in.

Regards
 
Well I contemplated going navy for my CT...but everyone in it I knew told me fitness would be a problem. I don't mean to be down on anyone, but the fitness standards are very fair (read low). Not everyone can run or ruck like certain trades and units...but the express test isn't moving a mountain...
 
JBoyd said:
they have lowered the standards and people are still failing.. that is not good at all.

i think they should abolish the ability to be excused from testing for a determined amount of time due to performance on a previous fitness test.

They have not lowered the Express test standard. Not in the last 7 years. And,

The only way you are excused from doing the Express Test is if you make exempt level, which is a respectable level of fitness. Without that incentive, what, other than personal pride would make anyone want to max out on the test?



 
Having done the expres test in Esquimalt there are usually several people who fail every time I go to do mine. (there is something wrong when a 25 year old male can only do 7 push-ups, then beg for another shot because he knows he can get 19)

Thank being said, the PSP staff at ESQ are push-up freaks, 18, 18, 18, 18..... I actually witnessed that she held the pen down as a gauge and his arm was not hitting the pen, hence the fail, he could not get a good 18 to 19 (which isn't saying much as hammering off 19 push ups isn't a big deal)

I am not saying they should ease off, but do they do that on other bases?  I know they didn't do it while I was in Halifax.

Something will be done, it has to be pretty embarrassing for the West Coast fleet to be singled out in such a disgraceful manner.

From now on every time someone from the west coast fleet has to piss, they will pump off 25 push-ups, 25 sit ups, and sprint up to the parking lot (far one over the hill), then back to dockyard.
For those in Naden, sprint up to the 7/11 then back again....  To make it a interesting some raw meat will be placed in backpacks and a pack of starving dogs will be sent after ya.
 
Bruce Monkhouse said:
Are you saying that they should be ready to try again the next day?

no, i am/was under the impression that meeting exempt levels means that personnel would not have to test again next year or next time they were required to. if this is not the case then i rescind my statement.

however if it is, to keep a high level of fitness in our military then no one should be exempt from yearly testing, or perhaps even shorter time frames. Now i know that some organizations that have fitness standards will test upon recruitment however will let that fitness standard slide through years of service, I for one feel that this should never happen.

Yes i may not 'in'  yet, but that doesnt mean that I cant have opinions in the matters, I have applied and hope to do whatever I can to be accepted.

I know the pushups and situp standards have been lowered over the years. I completely agree that there is something wrong with a 20 something male only being able to do 7 push ups, but is 19 really that much better? If i remember correctly it was once 35, is that number so outrageous? pushups are like running, if you can do 20 you can do 25, if you can do 25 you can do 30, and so on. Physical fitness in my mind takes a never quit attitude and an iron will, and those traits are what I feel is most important in an organization such as the Canadian Forces or any military organization for that matter.
 
Clearly, something needs to change.

The general attitude towards fitness here is "Do it on your own time".  That's not a very good way to do business IMO.  PT needs to be done at the departmental or Unit level.  Time needs to be allotted, and there has to be programs in place.

I hear CFB Trenton has a pretty good program.  If other bases can make it work, why can't Esquimalt?
 
JBoyd said:
Yes i may not 'in'  yet, but that doesnt mean that I cant have opinions in the matters, I have applied and hope to do whatever I can to be accepted.

I know the pushups and situp standards have been lowered over the years.

Yes, but nobody cares about your opinions when you have nothing to substantiate them - the CF Physical Fitness standards have not been lowered over the years; I know for a fact that they've been the same since I first did the test 7 years ago.

Keep the chatter down; your drowning out the signal with noise....
 
St. Micheals Medical Team said:
They have not lowered the Express test standard. Not in the last 7 years. And,

The only way you are excused from doing the Express Test is if you make exempt level, which is a respectable level of fitness. Without that incentive, what, other than personal pride would make anyone want to max out on the test?

I should point out that, for Cols & LCols in a command position AND all CWOs have to take the fitness - all the time, regardless of having achieved the exempt level...... Been there, done that & keeping on doing same.
 
+1 Infanteer....
Have been in for a lot longer and the standard has been there..... forever.

BTW - the Shuttle-run (20 m beep test) is a standard in many places - UK, Australia, Canada....

JBoyd,
Note that at 53 AND as a CWO, I make a point of pacing myself AND coming in - up there, with the majority of the troops... That having been said, what'Ms your beef with the exempt level?  If you are sufficiently motivated to keep yourself fit then you will look after yourself regardless of the test.

Note that, while I am now stuck behind a desk, my employer (the CF) provides me with one hour per workday for PT - from my working hours.  It's up to the troops to make use of the tools that have been provided.
 
In my unit we have not had section level/platoon PT since prior to august.
They leave that up to the soldier.However I do work out a few times a week,I think it would greatly help having morning PT again.We will cancel PT to come clean shovels lol.
 
I've never agreed that the Express Test is an indicator of the the soldier's capability. To many road runners can jog their asses off and do some push ups, but can't go a couple of klicks with a ruck, weapon and helmet. The Express is a bullshit test designed to let people that can't BFT get advanced. The Express does nothing but employ a bunch of civvies, and shows no results. Fire them all, ruck up and pass, or fail. My personal $00.02.

I'm also stuck,inherentley, to that idea, so I won't debate it, or change my mind. The BFT isn't that hard. If you can't do it, you shouldn't be in uniform.
 
Dont really have a beef persay with the exempt level, just personal opinion. I agree completely with recceguy, i may not have anything to substaniate my opinions but perhaps modifing the fitness standards to better reflect physical aptitude within the course of duty would be better overall. I know that they set up the fitness levels as a basis to reflect on a soldiers ability to do other things like dig a trench and ruck march, but does it really compare? I cannot answer that as you all have pointed out.

Not that it may pertain to the CF, but this is a general statement. Personally I believe that if a standard is set then it should be maintained by everyone underneath the umbrella, I don't personally believe in an exception rule. I know some organizations will allow certain employees to slide on certain standards as they may not necessarily pertain to the job that employee is employed for, However you should always make it a point to know the job of the man above you in the chain , and to teach your job to the man below you in the chain.
 
The CDS direction is "Soldier First", not your "skinny shorts and PSP" first. Soldiers don't shuttle run to beeps on a tape. They perform to enviromental standards, restrictions and enviroments. You ruck, hump, load ammo or dig holes. The days of sprinting back to Athens with a message from the front have been gone for centuries. Sadly, we still employ many that can only do the latter.
 
I've always felt that we should be doing both the BFT and EXPRES every year. I've seen many troops who can't complete the BFT but meet the minimums on the EXPRES and plenty of  pers who can do the EXPRES but fail the BFT. As one measures strength and aerobic capacity and the other endurance, then it only makes sense to do both.
 
CSA 105 said:
I assume that you wish to apply that standard equally to Regular Force, Reserve Force and those folk who are long term Class B workers at CBG HQs, NDHQ and the like, many of whom play many cards to avoid completing the Land Force Command Physical Fitness Standard for extended periods?

Before the flames start shooting from the collected masses, don't bother.  I know not all folks who fall into that job description are PT-avoiding slugs.  However, look honestly - everyone knows there are some out there who do that - mostly officers, Sr NCOs and Warrant Officers who are in "if we fire him no one else will apply for the job" jobs.

To get some view on your fairly fundamentalist interpretation of the principle, will your rule apply to people unable to do so due to injury, yet still wish to serve in uniform and can contribute to the CF?

Yes, I'd like to see everyone do it.


(Edited to lose the attitude)
 
CSA 105 said:
I assume that you wish to apply that standard equally to Regular Force, Reserve Force and those folk who are long term Class B workers at CBG HQs, NDHQ and the like, many of whom play many cards to avoid completing the Land Force Command Physical Fitness Standard for extended periods?

Before the flames start shooting from the collected masses, don't bother.  I know not all folks who fall into that job description are PT-avoiding slugs.  However, look honestly - everyone knows there are some out there who do that - mostly officers, Sr NCOs and Warrant Officers who are in "if we fire him no one else will apply for the job" jobs.

To get some view on your fairly fundamentalist interpretation of the principle, will your rule apply to people unable to do so due to injury, yet still wish to serve in uniform and can contribute to the CF?
I shot before identifying ;) Absolutely, if someone ha been injured and can still contribute to us, keep them in uniform. However, If you've never been categorised, you perform to the basic standard.
 
recceguy said:
I've never agreed that the Express Test is an indicator of the the soldier's capability. To many road runners can jog their asses off and do some push ups, but can't go a couple of klicks with a ruck, weapon and helmet. The Express is a bullshit test designed to let people that can't BFT get advanced. The Express does nothing but employ a bunch of civvies, and shows no results. Fire them all, ruck up and pass, or fail. My personal $00.02.

I'm also stuck,inherentley, to that idea, so I won't debate it, or change my mind. The BFT isn't that hard. If you can't do it, you shouldn't be in uniform.

Funny, I've always found it the other way around; the BFT is mindless - putting on a relatively light load and just walking for 2 hours doesn't seem to be indicative of all around fitness, especially when I see people nearly collapsing when done or written off for a week due to their feet falling apart; how does that evaluate battle fitness when a soldier completes the march but subsequently becomes a casualty?  At least the CF Express Test demands some exertion and evaluates different aspects of physical fitness.  The standard may be low, but that doesn't prevent us from aiming as high as we can - in the combat arms the exemption level seems, more often than not, to be the standard we aim for.

I'm of two minds on the matter.

1)  A traditional fitness evaluation like the Express Test is valid for measuring general fitness.  The US Army uses something similar, but it's scoring system is different.  I like some of the ideas that the Crossfit guys are propagating with regards to the different elements of fitness.  The new Army Fitness Manual also touched on this with its fitness levels (1-4 + 5-7 for the JTF levels) for different activities.  Perhaps a reevaluation (if necessary) of the express test would change the testing parameters to take these factors into account.  As well, I like how the Mounties have "gateways" for their fitness standard - I believe the Brits may use this in some of their training as well.  You are expected to achieve a certain minimum to commence training, and are retested throughout qualification training with the expectation of showing improvement.  Perhaps we could incorporate this idea and move to elevating our minimum requirements a bit.

2)  I do think the ruckmarch represents a good Battle Fitness Standard.  I have two quibbles with it:

a.  It should include some other elements (not the ones currently included) - I'm thinking a shoot and/or some sort of obstacle course.  Battle fitness is more about simply walking from point A to point B, and demanding that the soldier do a variety of tasks with a combat load on seems reasonable.  These events should be scored - something like a Cooper's test - to provide us with a qualitative indicator of performance.  This score should be on PDR/PERs.

b.  I don't like the CLS' mandate (I think that is where it came from) that the BFT should be a team activity - lowest common denominator fitness.  If we are measuring a fitness level, it should be individual and, like the above point, scored based upon time to help foster competition and promote improvement.  Simply making it in 2h20 minutes each year to check the box doesn't seem to foster this.

As for JBoyd...I'm still hearing the static.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top