Fitness for Operational Requirements of CAF Employment ( FORCE )

[Haggis]

The coopers test, It is a good check of general fitness, or the PT 500.....

......I realise that this may be a simple and easy test for some, and most would easily get a 425 or more, but, as for CF wide, I think it is alot better off of a starting point then this "Forces Test"

And your basing this conclusion on what?  Remember, once again, that the FORCE test is the minimum standard for ALL CAF members; Regular, Reserve, male, female, SOF to sock counter, Army, Navy Air Force, 17 to 60 years of age.  One standard fits all.  The same cannot be said for the true Cooper's test which has different benchmarks for different ages and genders.

 

[PMedMoe]

And your basing this conclusion on what?  Remember, once again, that the FORCE test is the minimum standard for ALL CAF members; Regular, Reserve, male, female, SOF to sock counter, Army, Navy Air Force, 17 to 60 years of age.  One standard fits all.  The same cannot be said for the true Cooper's test which has different benchmarks for different ages and genders.

:goodpost:

I agree.  What is required for the CAF as a whole differs from that required of the Army, Air Force or Navy.  Let's stop reinventing the wheel. 

 

[Biggoals2bdone]

The coopers test, It is a good check of general fitness, or the PT 500,
for those that dont know PT 500 is like the cooper with some exceptions

1. 2.4 km run (increasing scores depending on time, max score was at 9 min)
2. Situps, (or a variation as situps have been shown to be useless, and just put more pressure on the hips without as much benefit as expected unlike other core exercises)(lets say timed planks, etc, or leg raises,
3. Bench press 100lbs max reps ( im fairly certain points maxed at 25 so 4 pts per press)
4. Chin ups Max Reps, (max score at 10)
5. Pushups

I think the max scores for most of those were that, not 100% sure, it was near those points I think.

Each part of the test counts for 100, say you suck at chin ups, but can bench press 100lbs till the cows come home, then you make up for it. Its a good way to test overall, your end score is a good result of your fitness level, and it is noticeable who is not in shape and who is in good shape.

I realise that this may be a simple and easy test for some, and most would easily get a 425 or more, but, as for CF wide, I think it is alot better off of a starting point then this "Forces Test"

I don't get the point of having TWO endurance/stamina based chest/pushing tests.  If you've already got push ups, why do bench at such a light weight for reps, either eliminate it, or get smart and go for max weight.

 

[x_para76]

So, let's say 2.5 km?

I like the Army's 5 km fitness check.

Either way it seems as though we agree that just a simple timed run is a good way to assess the overall cardiovascular fitness of service members. 

It sounds as though it would be easier to administer at the unit level than the FORCE test.

 

[CombatDoc]

Either way it seems as though we agree that just a simple timed run is a good way to assess the overall cardiovascular fitness of service members. 

It sounds as though it would be easier to administer at the unit level than the FORCE test.

As it said in the movie, we're here to protect democracy, not practice it.

It doesn't matter if "we  agree" on a timed run as the way forward. D Fit staff developed the FORCE test, higher signed off on it and it is defensible from a BFOR point of view. It is the current standard and no amount of armchair quarterbacking is going to change that. 

Let's move on go more important things, like pips & crowns and hi vis rank insignia.  ;D

 

[x_para76]

The question is have they tried to create a job-specific fit test that even the fatties can pass? Is it really a true determination of whether or not someone is fit (or unfit)?

 

[dapaterson]

The question is have they tried to create a job-specific fit test that even the fatties can pass? Is it really a true determination of whether or not someone is fit (or unfit)?

No.  FORCE is not job-specific; it's CAF common.

There is science and math behind it.  And according to press reports, it's failing twice as many as Expres was failing.  Which may not be a bad thing.

 

[Old EO Tech]

No.  FORCE is not job-specific; it's CAF common.

There is science and math behind it.  And according to press reports, it's failing twice as many as Expres was failing.  Which may not be a bad thing.

Not a bad thing at all.  I would imagine that it is the shuttle run that is the failure point for most people as it is the only part that time is pretty tight.  But even an old guy like myself with worn out knees can still do it in the mid 40 sec area.

 

[DAA]

The question is have they tried to create a job-specific fit test that even the fatties can pass? Is it really a true determination of whether or not someone is fit (or unfit)?

Think about what you just said "job specific".  Do you realize just how many occupations there are within the CF?

The FORCE test, takes ALL occupations into consideration based on what your "daily/routine" duties are.  Nothing more.

 

[ModlrMike]

I think it's important to remember that we're forming our opinion of the test without access to the data that developed it. For example, how do our standards relate to the Canadian public as a whole? What level of fitness do our standards mean when measured against a civilian population? Are we at the high end, the middle, or the low end? Without the data points, it's difficult to say that our test is a poor predictor of fitness.

I would like to see the test administered to a similarly aged civilian population to see how we correlate to the general public. We might be surprised by the result.

 

[McG]

The FORCE test, takes ALL occupations into consideration based on what your "daily/routine" duties are.  Nothing more.

Actually, it takes all occupations into consideration based on potential universal emergencies ... Like extracting a casualty.

 

[DAA]

I think it's important to remember that we're forming our opinion of the test without access to the data that developed it. For example, how do our standards relate to the Canadian public as a whole? What level of fitness do our standards mean when measured against a civilian population? Are we at the high end, the middle, or the low end? Without the data points, it's difficult to say that our test is a poor predictor of fitness.

I would like to see the test administered to a similarly aged civilian population to see how we correlate to the general public. We might be surprised by the result.

Think about it.  These are merely minimum predicted performance "standards".  Developed by people with bigger brains, crunching numbers based on prior samplings.  Nothing is perfect.

:facepalm:

 

[ModlrMike]

I know it's not perfect, but I'd still like to see how we correlate to the general public.

 

[GnyHwy]

The test is fine.  Everyone has memory lapse or conveniently forgets that this is just a bar.  Albeit a low bar, it doesn't really matter.  For those that suggest Cooper's tests or the like, that is fine if a CO wants to have a "competition", but not for a standard.  The FORCE was designed to capture basic physical elements that anyone could be expected to do. 

Try this comparison to determine what a person in the CAF is more likely to do in an operation (full spectrum):

1.  Move quickly, from the ground to their feet repeatedly and rapidly; lift moderately heavy objects by themselves from one place to another in a fairly rapid pace; carry a moderately heavy object around at a fairly rapid pace; and drag a very heavy object a short distance; or

2.  Do a bunch of push ups, sit ups, chin ups, run a few kilometres, and then knock out a bunch of presses.  I guess this could pertain to the persons that "go on operations", but really spend most their time in the gym and suntanning; hopefully these people are an extreme minority.

Which brings me to fitness incentives.  I don't get this incentive thing at all.  We already reward athletes and soldiers with allowing them time to practice and compete in their sports/events/competitions.  We also already have fitness awards for very high performers.

What they are suggesting here seems like a 10th place medal for being above average.  We don't need no stinkin' badges.  For anyone who doesn't think the CoC already recognizes high levels of fitness, it's time to snap out the delusional place your mind is living in.

Just like education, fitness needs to be balanced with actual work.  We don't want a bunch of intellectuals that are learning anything but Army stuff, just like we don't need a bunch of fitness freaks that don't really know how to do their job, other than looking good (if that's part of the job description). 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

How long did it take before the FORCE started being picked apart...likely just like the EXPRES did way back when.  The more things change...

 

[OldSolduer]

Not everyone has to be infantry/JTF2/CSOR/Navy SEAL fit. There are those at all rank levels that think this should be the case.

 

[wilki249]

I just did the FORCE test last night.
From experience the test is a joke. Any soldier who is in decent shape should be able to complete the test with ample time left on each component.
The timings are very generous, and I do hope they raise the standard.

That's because you're a beast, Lau!

 

[devil39]

The test is fine.  Everyone has memory lapse or conveniently forgets that this is just a bar.  Albeit a low bar, it doesn't really matter.  For those that suggest Cooper's tests or the like, that is fine if a CO wants to have a "competition", but not for a standard.  The FORCE was designed to capture basic physical elements that anyone could be expected to do. 

Try this comparison to determine what a person in the CAF is more likely to do in an operation (full spectrum):

1.  Move quickly, from the ground to their feet repeatedly and rapidly; lift moderately heavy objects by themselves from one place to another in a fairly rapid pace; carry a moderately heavy object around at a fairly rapid pace; and drag a very heavy object a short distance; or

2.  Do a bunch of push ups, sit ups, chin ups, run a few kilometres, and then knock out a bunch of presses.  I guess this could pertain to the persons that "go on operations", but really spend most their time in the gym and suntanning; hopefully these people are an extreme minority.

Which brings me to fitness incentives.  I don't get this incentive thing at all.  We already reward athletes and soldiers with allowing them time to practice and compete in their sports/events/competitions.  We also already have fitness awards for very high performers.

What they are suggesting here seems like a 10th place medal for being above average.  We don't need no stinkin' badges.  For anyone who doesn't think the CoC already recognizes high levels of fitness, it's time to snap out the delusional place your mind is living in.

Just like education, fitness needs to be balanced with actual work.  We don't want a bunch of intellectuals that are learning anything but Army stuff, just like we don't need a bunch of fitness freaks that don't really know how to do their job, other than looking good (if that's part of the job description).

I agree the FORCE test is fine.  BFT or 2X10 were never enough for real operational infantry fitness.  We have always trained well beyond that.  Troops that got broken along the way found another occupation. 

Your last paragraph kills me though....yup we want a bunch of dumb fat slugs who somehow know how to do their job??? Not in the combat arms they won't.

Actually the more i read your post the more irritated i get...

Do a bunch of push ups, sit ups, chin ups, run a few kilometres, and then knock out a bunch of presses.  I guess this could pertain to the persons that "go on operations", but really spend most their time in the gym and suntanning; hopefully these people are an extreme minority.

Guys I know who did that PT test (Coopers) for a living will do  more tours in 10 years than most of us will do in two careers.

 

[Sub_Guy]

The force test, it is supposed to represent common tasks.  The only time I lift a sand bag is on the force test.

It's a baseline, and it's easy, unless you are very short with little upper body strength, in which case I suspect there could be problems with the sandbag lifting to the line test.    That being said if I were supervising the loading of sandbags into a truck, I would not put that person at the end of the line anyway.

I know it's crazy, but there's more to the CF than Combat Arms, and those people don't need to be at the peak of physical fitness.

 

[OldSolduer]

To a certain extent I agree with Dolphin Hunter.

I want my infantry guys to be fit but not at the expense of their mental capacities and mental fitness.