New CF Fitness Policies Coming

[Rescue Randy]

I understand the scepticism when it comes to fair and equitable enforcement across the ranks, but it does happen - there was a cleanup of the EXPRES system at Comox in 2002, to get full compliance, and a Major was put on RW.  He subsequently passed the test after a period of fitness training.

 

[SHELLDRAKE!!]

When on a SUE with the marines in Fort Sill Oklahoma, I liked the fact that every morning all ranks were out for a run, unit pennant in hand. It ensures that all ranks are fit and gives the lowliest private the added confidence in the fitness of the people that would be watching his back on the battlefield.

It would seem that too often in the CF, higher ranks are using "class preparation" as an excuse to opt out of PT. A bit of time management the night prior would ensure everyone could participate in PT.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

7 of us did it on our PLQ a week ago. All passed, all PRes Class A.

The funny part was about 4 meatheads wern't allowed to do the test because their heart rate was too high. (ephedrine and smoking/drinking coffee all day).
Edit: we're Ottawa area.

You're on your plq after only 1 year in?

 

[GO!!!]

Is there objective information the CF massively promotes members who in the same year failed PT tests?

Yes, because all the information from the boards is made available to the public, along with pers files, medical records etc.  :

If you can't see that we, as a military are out of shape, you have your head in the sand.

Theres alot of perceptions of what a "fat" member is.  What's overweight or too pudgy in terms of
a CF medical or fitness standard or your standard?  This is nothing but slagging people for the sake of it
until you define it.

Yes, I know, some people are "fat fit" and you know a guy with a gut who can run a 4:45 mile and do a hundred chinups blah blah blah.

I've seen the Col. in Trenton who sits on two chairs, and the men who wear maternity wear - those guys passed the beep test? Please. I'm guessing you're worried about these new policies, and are thus concerned about the definition.

Like PBI wrote, the CF is better to create a more healthier lifestlye and perhaps further by improving
collective PT and setting an objective standard for body fat percentage taking the US Marines and US
Army as examples.  However even in comparasion of US miliary branches (as examples), PT standards
are not the same.

And that is the problem. Our standards are pitifully low, if you can still pass them at 45 years of age and 50lbs overweight.  When the standards are tightened up, and applied with max aggression, it will be impossible to be in the military and disgrace the uniform with a lack of fitness.

 

[Bert]

Im not saying your wrong Go!!!.  Its just statements like the above don't reflect objective information.  If we are out of
shape as a military, then whats your criteria of whats in shape.  If theres a Col who sits on two chairs in Trenton,
then is it common for all Cols or a special issue with this one Col?  Can you run a 4.45 min mile and do a hundred chinups?
The current standard may be too lax if a 45 year old 50 lbs overweight can pass, however the CF has a standard. 
According to the CF, they are fit enough if they pass the test.  Should the standard be increased? Perhaps. The CF does
not have a body fat standard.  If you think members are fat, whats your objective standard; 8% too fat, 10% too fat,
15%, too fat, 25 % too fat, 40% to fat??  If the average member is fat, why and how do we fix it?  My point is to
separate the subjective and objective as threads like this become a broken record of sorts.

I'm not in total disagreement GO!!!, I think the CF and the members can go alot further in respect to fitness, BMI reduction
and standardizing programs throughout the CF rather than focusing on deployable units.  The transformation occuring
in the air force has improved PT programs, made members more aware of standards, and a majority are training for
deployed ops.  As others have stated, our tempo of operations has increased substancially over the recent years.

 

[ZipperHead]

I think that when I (and others whom I won't name, but if they want to agree, feel free) say "fat", it is a generalization that there are too many unfit pers in the CF, and yes Virginia, the majority are as fat as Santa Claus, and are not Tiny Tim (how's that for working in a Xmas reference (4 days too late)!?!?!).

BMI testing went out years ago, and I don't think that I was ever in the sub-25 range (except maybe at the end of Basic Trg). That's not to say I wasn't fit, but my body type prevents me from being that light/thin/whatever. But I think it is fair to say that the aforementioned Col who takes up 2 chairs, or the maternity wearing male "soldiers" have great difficulty in meeting the standard, if they actually realistically pass it, that is.

Arguing that we should get everyone to meet the standard we have is noble, but guess what??? They should already be meeting it. If we wait for every sorry-assed POS to FINALLY get to the low standard we have, my grandchildren will be ready for retirement (my oldest child is 7, so do the math). I think that a new, battle-standards ready standard should be adopted, implemented, and then a reasonable (I would argue no more than 6 months, otherwise "reasonable" becomes 5 years or more) period to get people there, and then BOOM!!!! the hammer falls on those that can't make it.

This isn't about pointing fingers at people, calling them fat, having them sulk and cry that somebody called them fat, and "boo-hoo, woe is me". This is about creating a military culture of fitness (USMC, US Army-style), not excuses and low standards for the sake of including everyone so that they feel good about themselves.

The new Fitness manual, with it's testing programs, and workouts is a good start, as it gets away from simply running 5 days a week, or just bench pressing 200lbs, 6 times. If more people were to use the testing as an objective way of looking at what they have to work on, and then work on all those elements (rather than just the one's that they did well on, which usually seems to be the case, as people don't like practicing their weaknesses, only their strengths), we would have a military full of fit, confident pers, not MIR Commando's, using lame-ass excuses to cover their inadequacies.

Al

 

[Armymedic]

We had a medic SSGT and PA (Capt) from the US Army medical service come up for a briefing to 2 Fd Amb in early Dec.

While sitting in the Mess afterward, the SSGT told us about the enforcement of the US Army standard by the new Army Chief (thier Army CWO).

He had a Command Sgt Maj (CSM) conference in Washington. The first day, all the CSMs were to report in PT gear. After a short speach by the Army Chief, all CSMs underwent the PT test. The PT test was filmed. Those who failed were stripped of thier appointment (I don't recall exactly how many failed, but it was more then 2.)

Now thats how you set a standard. You think they take thier fitness testing seriously?

 

[ZipperHead]

We had a medic SSGT and PA (Capt) from the US Army medical service come up for a briefing to 2 Fd Amb in early Dec.

While sitting in the Mess afterward, the SSGT told us about the enforcement of the US Army standard by the new Army Chief (thier Army CWO).

He had a Command Sgt Maj (CSM) conference in Washington. The first day, all the CSMs were to report in PT gear. After a short speach by the Army Chief, all CSMs underwent the PT test. The PT test was filmed. Those who failed were stripped of thier appointment (I don't recall exactly how many failed, but it was more then 2.)

Now thats how you set a standard. You think they take thier fitness testing seriously?

Now that's what I'm talkin' about!!!!

When it comes down to it (as somebody has already mentioned) it is a leadership issue. Nothing more, nothing less. How seriously do you think a young soldier takes a big sack of pooh, whether they are wearing a crown, 2 hooks, a full braid, a thin bar, whatever??? First impressions last a lifetime. And falling back on "Well, I used to be in shape when I was 25..." doesn't mean jack-squat.

You should forward your post to the CDS, Ash. Maybe that would get him riled up (or maybe that is what he has planned..... I would love to be there holding the video camera .... might need a wide angle lens for some of the larger lads > )

Al

Al

 

[Spr.Earl]

This part is new, isn't it?

Just like it was in the past.

 

[Haggis]

When it comes down to it (as somebody has already mentioned) it is a leadership issue. Nothing more, nothing less. How seriously do you think a young soldier takes a big sack of pooh.

I've said it before...

...there's nothing more demoralizing than doing personal PT all year long and then being "led" on an FTX by a red-faced, wheezing senior member with a huge shytelocker hanging out below his Tac Vest.

Those who need this kick in the keester know who they are.  And when I go back to work I'll bet the gym will be packed... PACKED I tell ya, right up until 31 March.  Then, unless something drastic is seen to happen to those who don't/won't measure up, the status quo will return.

If people put as much effort into doing PT as they did in finding ways to avoid it, we'd be a LOT fitter Forces.

 

[KevinB]

The problem is a LOT of CF members dont think that they shoudl be held to the same standard as the Light Inf.  They view that the idea of them trooping in the mountain of Kandahar is ridiculous and thus they feel comfortable with the idea of gulping down 2-3 XL Triple Triples a day and a few fat pills w/o any PT to wokr it off is acceptable.

We need to go back to a REAL PT standard - one that involves a REAL gut check - and yet is also realistic.

IMHO Their has to be both a cardio inclusion - and some sort of fighting skill involved (shooting - falling plate)
When we used to do the Ruck one day and then the 16km webbing shuffle with 10" wall and falling plate shoot at least there was something, and we also had the PT400 as well as a biannual test in the unit.

A 13km walk with 35lbs is a farce for a Warrior culture -- people need to either 1) Get the F*ck out or 2) Accept the CF is the profession of warrior and saddle up to the bar.

True not everyone is a Paratrooper, - but there will come a day very shortly (IMHO) that the CF is goign to pay very heavily for the laxity in standards for so long.

 

[Armymedic]

IMHO Their has to be both a cardio inclusion - and some sort of fighting skill involved (shooting - falling plate)
When we used to do the Ruck one day and then the 16km webbing shuffle with 10" wall and falling plate shoot at least there was something, and we also had the PT400 as well as a biannual test in the unit.

If the PT400 is similar to the Cooper's test, then I agree.

How's this: You must pass minimun PT standard, either BFT or Express Test yearly. Then once in the 12 month period you must do Coopers Test. Your score is ratio'd by age/sex to a maximum of 5.0 for fitness. This score (neutralised to remove sex age info) is then included onto PER to be included into your promotion merit score.

We get an additional 2 points for bilingualism. Why not give incentive for fitness?

 

[KevinB]

The PT400 was the Coopers without the BenchPress.

I agree with your testing idea 100% -- but I'd include a PER bonus for shooting too, and make the ruck a 29km with 50lb ruck PLUS Fighting and Dying gear - thats a gut check.

Bring back the Gen Waters March...

 

[Haggis]

The problem is a LOT of CF members dont think that they should be held to the same standard as the Light Inf.

Nor should they be.  But there IS a standard, low as it is, and that's where we need to be on 31 Mar 06.

We need to go back to a REAL PT standard - one that involves a REAL gut check - and yet is also realistic.

I think that if the current standard is stridently enforced, lots of folks are in for a rude wake-up.  From there... who knows???.

A 13km walk with 35lbs is a farce for a Warrior culture

It's 52.5 lbs and it is a farce.  We're not a Warrior culture.... yet.

True not everyone is a Paratrooper, - but there will come a day very shortly (IMHO) that the CF is going to pay very heavily for the laxity in standards for so long.

We already do. We pay for it in extra sick days, in poor public image and perception (remember the "Fat Troops on the Street" thread?), in increased injuries.  But mostly we pay for it in the increased staff effort wasted on having to produce documents like this CANFORGEN.  In making the leadership effort to ensure that our soldiers, sailors and air personnel actually get out and do what they should have been doing all along.

I, for one, have a lot better things to do with my time than chase people that shouldn't need to be chased.  As I said above:
If people put as much effort into doing PT as they did in finding ways to avoid it, we'd be a LOT fitter Forces.

 

[ZipperHead]

I really like KevinB's idea: a kick-ass ruck-marck and THEN a must pass rifle shoot (in other words, the good old March and Shoot, which the last time I'd done/heard of was on my CLC in '92 at the PPCLI Battle School). That would sort the wheat from the chafe, alright.

We really need to focus on being warriors, not civvies in CADPAT. Something that is definitely missing in our culture in the CF is TRAINING. We do these PT tests, PWT's, and other tests, PRAYING that everyone will pass, and if they don't we pull out the 5.56mm pencil, or say "well, he/she was CLOSE to the 2hr26min20sec mark, so let's pass them.....". If we TRAINED people (not just in Basic, or DP time) all the time, and said fuq the paper battles, O Gps, mess dinners, coffee breaks, sports afternoons,etc (things that we cling to because they are "traditions", but not realizing we have lost the real tradition of honest soldiering), we wouldn't have to be pissed off (at the shit-pumps) all the time; we would actually have the majority of the people at a high standard, just because they were trained to be there. Some would slip through the cracks, but then THEIR feet need to be held to the fire to improve, or be gone.

This all (everything we have been advocating) takes a lot of WORK and effort, and that is what scares everyone off: it costs money, it breaks our cozy work schedules, it requires thought and innovation, so the status quo rules supreme, and then it becomes the next guys problem. I'm hoping that the buck stops at Gen Hillier, and he starts kicking some severe asses, and that will allow the leadership down the chain to really start doing the same (without the frustration of watching Tubby McTubby beat the rap with a Human Rights challenge).

Hopefully we can all fight the good fight, and see the results.

Al

 

[Gunner]

0730-0900 hrs - Mandatory CF PT.

 

[ZipperHead]

0730-0900 hrs - Mandatory CF PT.

This is part of the problem: Ever been to the gym at 0730 (or 0800) hrs??!?!?! Everyone and their dog is there, and every piece of equipment is three people deep waiting. And how about the medics? Sick parade must carry on.... And the cooks, who have been up since 0330hrs..... or the training staff on courses..... One size does NOT fit all. However, saying 90 mins of PT per day, per soldier, would work, if........

There needs to be a move AWAY from the traditional, and into the innovative. Have units stagger off the gym timings so that it isn't a dog's breakfast at the gym, or running trail, or pool, or whatever. That would require forethought, but they are able to do it for ice-timings at the rink, so why not for the other facilities??? Myself and others have argued for this type of change at the Regt, and here at the School, but we are always met with the typical: "What about the CO's/OC's/Canteen Queen's O Gp??" "Don't you know Sr NCO coffee break is at that time?!?!?!?" "I've NEVER done PT at 0930hrs, and I am not about to start after 10/15/20/100 yrs in.....". Some things will never change.

As it is, the fit get fitter, and the fat get fatter......

Al

 

[Gunner]

This is part of the problem: Ever been to the gym at 0730 (or 0800) hrs??!?!?! Everyone and their dog is there, and every piece of equipment is three people deep waiting. And how about the medics? Sick parade must carry on.... And the cooks, who have been up since 0330hrs..... or the training staff on courses..... One size does NOT fit all. However, saying 90 mins of PT per day, per soldier, would work, if........

All PT doesn't have to be in the gym... 

As far as medics, cooks, training staff, etc, change the way we do business.  Sick parade can be at 0900 hrs instead of 0730 hrs.  You will never get the 100% solution but isn't 90% better than what we currently have. 

As it is, the fit get fitter, and the fat get fatter......

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink....

 

[Armymedic]

As far as medics, cooks, training staff, etc, change the way we do business.  Sick parade can be at 0900 hrs instead of 0730 hrs. 

That will mean I am not as busy because half the people we see is because they are not fit (mentally or physically) to do PT at 0730.

BTW, my UMS locks its door at 1400, and we do PT until 1530, or longer if I so desire. (work hours are 0700-1530) It takes another level of motivation to go and give it all in an end of the day workout, esp in the summer.

 

[GO!!!]

I like the earlier thought on fitness testing the SNCOs and firing the ones that failed - because quite frankly, I've had it hearing "this is how we did it back in * ***" from "leaders" who have been in staff jobs for the last five years and conspicuously absent in the ranks of the "cooper's test gold standard" t-shirt wearers.

There is no such thing as bad soldiers - only bad officers.

There is also a great deal to be said for the "Warrior Culture" that the Marines have exemplified in all of my experiences with them. Too many CF soldiers seem convinced that they are a technician first, and a rifleman when they have to be - and too many leaders seem willing to overlook that person's riding out the BFT in the back of the box amb - there is more than enough blame to go around here - but the fix has to start at the top.

I would simply demand a minimum score of 50 on the coopers test, and a minimum of 5pts /yearly/6 months improvement as a condition for promotion, courses etc. (with the obvious exceptions for injuries etc). Violations start with a written warning and progress from there.

The idea of a system adjusted for sex/age is foolish. Do sex or age count at the merit boards? At the pay scales (other than for seniority)?
For leave considerations? Of course not. One standard. Pass or Fail, none of this BS that women are weaker, or that old men can't soldier as hard any more, that is paternalistic and fosters the victim mentality that we currently suffer from.

Think if we had an entire platoon of 45 year old women - it could happen with our employment laws - who are exempt from half of the tests and only have to do half of the rest - who would carry the SF kit/84/C6/trauma kit? would it be left behind in the hopes that the enemy would "consider their age and sex" before ambushing them?