Measuring Physical Fitness (Split: CF weighs releasing combat wounded soldiers)

[McG]

The [Coopers] test is non-discriminatory, and based on the requirements of the job, and it matters not if you're old or young, man or woman, there is one job, one standard.

The Coopers test is not based on job requirements.  It measures based on an arbitrary selection of physical tasks.  While the Coopers Test does measure fitness, it it does not provide a measure of an individuals ability to perform military duties.  The same can be said of the CF Express Test.

I suspect that a proper fitness test will give us a good predictor of who is or is not likely to suffer heart failure under physical or emotional stress.  Such a generic fitness test probably should make accommodation for age, gender, inseam length, etc.  A general fitness test is nice, but we also need the job based fitness test.

The LFCPFS (AKA the BFT) is based on job requirements.  It does provide some measure of an individual's ability to perform military duties (I'd argue that the test is fairly shallow as far as what it measures, but it does measure).  It is one standard that does not discriminate, and that is how it needs to be.  At the same time, IMO, it is a poor test of fitness as one can be well into obese and still pass.

I think we either need both  the job-based and general fitness tests, or we need a better measure of cardio health in the existing job-based test.

Now, going back to the point being argued earlier -> should we demand a universal standard that expects 6 to 8 chin-ups for a woman to be found fit enough to serve?  The only military thing that I've done that was really analogous to a chin-up was pulling parachute risers, and that is actually much easier than a real chin-up.  With the Coopers Test being a non-job-based general fitness test, I would support MJPs assertion that a one size fits all standard is in appropriate.  At the same time, maybe we want to adjust the Army Fitness standard so that (in addition to marching, dragging a casualty, and digging) all soldiers must be able to individually clear an obstacle of height X.

... in any case, this discussion of measuring physical fitness has come well of the topic of retaining medically unfit personnel.  I suspect a thread split is about due.

 

[vonGarvin]

For all
If my post of the pic offends, I cannot apologise for you how you feel.  I didn't post the pic to malign him or his family.  The point has been made, and I stand by it.  If you are angry with me: deduct my MilPoints, mute me, or choose to look away.  I must make it known that I thought long and hard about it, but I felt it was a point that had to be made, and in no way, shape or form was this meant to speak ill of the dead, for it was us who failed him.  That is my point.  We have to learn to say "no" from time to time, and to stand by those decisions.

 

[ModlrMike]

...and we've all see the guy who can get to level 10+ who couldnt operate when on minimum sleep and minimum food.

The 20MSR is indicative of absolutely nothing useful. There is something fundamently flawed about how we establish our standards and it goes beyond the numbers we have set.

This is not directed a you CDN Aviator, but I have to rant an little here.


I have to disagree. I've read the science on the 20MSR and I'm convinced we're at fault here, not the evaluation. The Beep Test, as designed is highly accurate. We fail in the administration of it. When the PSP Staff say you only have to get to level "x", then they've undermined the test at its core.

The 20 MSR is a test of maximal endurance and effort. To stop at the "minimum" does nothing to provide an accurate evaluation. It may sound like semantics, but it is the Expres evaluation, not test. The difference being that a test has a set, known answer, and an evaluation does not.

When the PSP are asked "What do I have to get to?" they should respond "I don't know."


/rant off

 

[Chilme]

I'm hoping I can clear up some myth here:

1) The EXPRES test as we know it (20 MSR, handgrip, push-up, sit-up) is not actually a BFOR.  It is however a predictor of universal CF test known as the "Common Military Task Fitness Evaluation (CMTFE)"

http://canadianmilitaryandefence.blogspot.com/2010/09/common-military-task-fitness-evaluation.html

If you go through the document, you will notice that the CMTFE task a full week to get a group of people through it.  It is currently being conducted by PSP in St. Jean and a few other select areas.  Due to the time involved, cost of equipment, lack of facilities, and complexity of this test, the CF has opted to use the EXPRES as a predictor of the CMTFE.  Previous scientific study determined that one's result  in the EXPRES closely reflected their result in the CMTFE and therefore, we use the EXPRES.  Obviously there are some circumstances where a correlation does not exist.  Not a problem.  After 2 consecutive failures in the EXPRES any CF member is eligible to conduct the CMTFE, but the request goes all the way to the top and one better have a logical reason for it.

2) Regardless of the EXPRES being a BFOR, I still can't rationalize why there are different age/sex minimums given the Universality of Service policy.

3) Regardless of anyone's opinion on a particular fitness test, you have to remember it will always just be a predictive evaluation and cannot perfectly mimic job requirements, especially not all requirements.  Every test has its strong points and weak points.  Bottom line, PSP Research and Development has meticulously determined that there is correlations in the tests and operational requirements and the leadership agrees.  Therefore it is your duty to pass the test. 

4) I will tell you there is light at the end of the tunnels. PSP R&D are currently re-evaluating the EXPRES test and standards, given that they were developed out of the Cold War and we know times have changed.

 

[Pusser]

The problem is whether that light at the end of the tunnel will be warm ray of sunshine of fiery laser beam in both eyes!

I dislike testing in cases like this because all it does is prove how well you do the test.  If you fail the Expres test, the remedial PT you are offered only has the purpose of getting you to pass the test.  It doesn't change anything material.

I think we should get rid of fitness testing altogether, as it is a punitive (i.e. pass this or suffer the consequences) and, therefore, negative incentive to maintain a level of fitness.

I have never understood why we run the crap out of people on basic training and then STOP!  The CF should have a culture of fitness that encourages regular exercise in various forms.  Merely providing facilities and instruction (which, frankly, vary in access and quality) is not enough.  We need senior leadership to take an active role in promoting fitness.  It's better now than it used to be, in that most people in postions of authority allow those personnel who want to exercise the opportunity to do so, but this is not universal, nor is it organized.  Perhaps daily, or at least thrice weekly PT sessions or intramural sports should be required.  Perhaps the Expres test should only be used for personnel who wish to be exempted from regular unit-organized PT.  Unfit personnel should be identified for extra PT by their chain of command, not somebody who judges push-ups with a ruler and a protractor.

I believe that all military personnel need to be fit, but I also believe there are better ways to achieve this goal.  If we're all out there exercising regularly, we can't help but be fit.

 

[Future Pensioner]

For all
If my post of the pic offends, I cannot apologise for you how you feel.  I didn't post the pic to malign him or his family.  The point has been made, and I stand by it.  If you are angry with me: deduct my MilPoints, mute me, or choose to look away.  I must make it known that I thought long and hard about it, but I felt it was a point that had to be made, and in no way, shape or form was this meant to speak ill of the dead, for it was us who failed him.  That is my point.  We have to learn to say "no" from time to time, and to stand by those decisions.

Sometimes our best intentions are just wrong, and when they are pointed out to be wrong, we should accept it and perhaps apologize for offending people, rather than continue to make excuses and blame people for how "they" feel.

The fact of the matter is that the posting of the pic was wrong.  As a matter of fact, in my opinion it also violated the Conduct Rules of this site in reference to "personal attacks" and "posting rules" (ie offensive, defamatory, harassing, etc...).

To try and defend it and/or justify it only makes it worse.

 

[Chilme]

Unfit personnel should be identified for extra PT by their chain of command, not somebody who judges push-ups with a ruler and a protractor.

I believe that all military personnel need to be fit, but I also believe there are better ways to achieve this goal.  If we're all out there exercising regularly, we can't help but be fit.

I think you are making some fundamental errors in your thinking.

1) How is the CoC supposed to determine if someone is fit or not without an evaluation.  Do they look at their appearance and determine it?  Do they watch them playing ball hockey and determine from that that a mbr is unfit? Or do they pick someone in their unit they don't particularly like and decide they are unfit to get them? (Cause that could easily happen and no one could do anything)

The CoC has to have some way to evaulaute the fitness of their pers that is scientifically validated, consistent across the country, and professionally administered.  Otherwise the lawsuit against the crown would be a Lawyer's and dream.

2) What do you think motivates many individuals to exercise regularly?  Well I can tell you one major is a test.  Those who train regularly on their own generally have little to no issue passing a test and it is another day at the gym.  I can tell you with absolute certainty that there are CF members who would absolutely let themselves go if they knew that didn't have to be tested and see the results on their PER.

3) below is a link to the CF Physical fitness DAOD that shows much of what you were talking about is already written into Policy.  Check the first few pages and you will see that.

http://canadianmilitaryandefence.blogspot.com/2010/09/canadian-forces-physical-fitness.html

 

[a_majoor]

The Australian Army has a different idea:

http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/news/6797/?print=true

Push-ups no match for combat

News Item

Date:
    29 November, 2011

DSTO researchers have found a better way to ensure our soldiers have the strength and endurance to perform in combat.

Artillery gunner from 1st Regiment, Royal Australian Artillery (1RGT) performs a box lift and place test
    Artillery gunner from 1st Regiment, Royal Australian Artillery (1RGT) performs a box lift and place test

Presenting at the 2011 Defence Human Sciences Symposium, DSTO researcher Greg Carstairs outlined that current generic fitness assessments (including push-ups, sit-ups and chin-ups) are often poor predictors of performance in strength based job tasks.

“Assessments that are directly relevant to specific tasks give a better indication of a person's ability to perform a role.  This means that the person can perform more effectively with a reduced risk of injury," Mr Carstairs said.

In a DSTO study involving over 100 soldiers, the effectiveness of push-ups, sit-ups and chin-ups was compared to a 'box lift and place' assessment method (pictured) that involves lifting a weighted box in a manner that replicates what is required in the field.

The results of this assessment method were then recorded against five strength based task simulations, including 'bombing up' a tank, repetitively loading an artillery gun, dragging an injured soldier, building a bridge, and lifting a field pack onto the tray of a truck.

Success with the 'box lift and place' assessment method was closely correlated to success in four of the five strength based tasks, while push-ups and chin-ups correlated with only one of the five job tasks (bridge building).

“The box lift assessment is a far superior predictor of job performance,” Mr Carstairs said.

“With combat roles scheduled to soon be open to women, these new methods will help us to objectively assess the physical capacity of our soldiers, irrespective of age, sex, height or weight."

This research forms part of the Physical Employment Standards project, which is developing physical tests that are predictive of job performance. As a flow-on effect, it is hoped that PES will help to improve recruitment, training and retention of capable personnel in the Australian Defence Force (ADF).

The Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) is part of Australia's Department of Defence. DSTO's role is to ensure the expert, impartial and innovative application of science and technology to the defence of Australia and its national interests.

 

[PMedMoe]

The Australian Army has a different idea:

http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/news/6797/?print=true

The CF was looking at something like that years ago (anyone remember the ammo box lift?) but it never seemed to get off the ground.  No pun intended. 

 

[Pusser]

The Australian Army has a different idea:

http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/news/6797/?print=true

Hey, I'm all for it!  When do we start with the briefcase carry, repetitive typing, coffee capacity and Powerpoint endurance tests?  ;D

 

[aesop081]

Hey, I'm all for it!  When do we start with the briefcase carry, repetitive typing, coffee capacity and Powerpoint endurance tests?  ;D

Don't forget "banging your head on the wall for 5 minutes" and "fighting little old ladies for space on the bus to downtown" tests............

 

[Oompah-Loompah@]

I did the Reserve PT at the local YMCA, here's what the guy made me do:

Step test - Two flight of stairs, there will be music and a person telling you to follow the up up up down down down pattern. Each stage is three minutes long. Younger applicants (18-35 I presume) start at level four. To pass, you must finish level four and five. Older applicants start on level one. At level seven, you do both steps at the same time. For females, the speed is a bit slower. After each level, your heart rate will be taken for ten seconds. Your heart rate must be under a specific threshold in order to move on.

Hand grip - Hold the dynamometer at a forty-five degree angle from your body, then squeeze as hard as you can. Your arm must not move erratically, and you must not hold your breath. The person administering told me your maximum strength is generally reached around the three second mark.

Push ups - Not much to say, push ups. It's easier to do it if you put your feet apart. When I trained up for it, my feet were touching.

Sit ups - Hands to your cheeks. Sit ups only count when your shoulder (not head) reaches the matt, and your elbows to your knees. Therefore, don't put your hands behind your head, unless you wish a challenge of course.

Heart rate tests - I did it once at the beginning for finding my resting rate, twice after step test to see if I'm dying (nope). Finally one more time at the very end to confirm.

 

[PMedMoe]

After each level, your heart rate will be taken for ten seconds. Your heart rate must be under a specific threshold in order to move on.

Which I always hated because they never took your starting heart rate into consideration. 

Push ups - It's easier to do it if you put your feet apart.

Say what?    ???

 

[Oompah-Loompah@]

Say what?    ???

First one is easier according to him, and my own experiences. You spread your weight around a bit more. The pic is just a generalization, your legs shouldn't be that far apart.

 

[HItorMiss]

Feet must be together or they don't count on the express test (coopers test to for that matter). If the person testing you allowed you to do them with feet apart he is in violation of the PSP standard for the express test.

 

[PMedMoe]

First one is easier according to him, and my own experiences. You spread your weight around a bit more. The pic is just a generalization, your legs shouldn't be that far apart.

Uh, yeah, I got that.  Thanks.  :

This is what I was referring to:

Feet must be together or they don't count on the express test coopers test to for that matter). If the person testing you allowed you to do them with feet apart he is in violation of the PSP standard for the express test.

 

[dapaterson]

If you go to the PSP website, there are copies of the studies that lead to the adoption of the Expres test.  There's some interesting information there.

There are five common military tasks that all CF members are expected to be able to perform:  Land evacuation, sea evacuation, high/low crawl, trench dig, and sandbag carry.

The Expres standards were set this way: a large group was assessed on the five common tasks - sufficiently large to be statistically reliable, for males and female, and for different age groups.

Those who passed were then assessed using the Expres protocol.  The "PASS" mark for each group was set at the 95th percentile - that is, of those who could successfully complete the five common tasks, 95% would achieve that standard on the Expres test.

The Expres test is a predictor of success in the five common tasks.  It is less costly, requires less equipment and is faster to conduct than the full-up common military tasks evaluation.

 

[Oompah-Loompah@]

Ah oops.  :-[

Gonna have to talk with the guy administering my test then.

 

[aesop081]

Ah oops.  :-[

Military Experience:None
Rank:Applicant

 

[Oompah-Loompah@]

I read so much on this site and I didn't know how to correctly do a push up.
:facepalm: