Gender Neutral Fitness Tests

#3
#4
I saw this on the news this morning.

Now, I'm a matelot, you know, 2 sausages for brekky, don't march - just bimble and what is this fitness thing of which you speak?

However, I think it is a brilliant idea. Does it matter if you are 18 and can pump out 100 press ups? I'd say no. It is more important that EVERYONE can fulfill the (fairly simple) physical tasks shown and described on the news.

I wouldn't care if the person passing me shells / dragging my wounded body was male or female, 16 or 60.

So it's a yes from me.
 
#5
“Combat is gritty, hard and tough and we must prepare our people for it,” he said. “The new test is not harder, just different. It will stretch people. It’s demanding, but certainly achievable.”

Just easier will probably be more apt.
 
#7
Doesn't matter any more, the forces are just above the "fucked" line now,
not enough manpower or equipment
We have rainbow flag though.
 

MrBane

LE
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#8
Sit-ups and press-ups were always pointless. Utterly pointless and no true reflection of a soldier's strength and fitness.

I could pass, but only by ten or so because my strength was core, which meant I could carry a 150lb bergan on patrol and fight with it, in Afghan. Or that I could track bash five fucked Scimitars in a row. Or any other multitude of tasks that sit-ups didn't feature in.

A non-news story.
 
#9
I saw this on the news this morning.

Now, I'm a matelot, you know, 2 sausages for brekky, don't march - just bimble and what is this fitness thing of which you speak?

However, I think it is a brilliant idea. Does it matter if you are 18 and can pump out 100 press ups? I'd say no. It is more important that EVERYONE can fulfill the (fairly simple) physical tasks shown and described on the news.

I wouldn't care if the person passing me shells / dragging my wounded body was male or female, 16 or 60.

So it's a yes from me.
The average "she" will not be dragging anyone from a fireswept battlefield.
 
#10
Sit-ups and press-ups were always pointless. Utterly pointless and no true reflection of a soldier's strength and fitness.
.
They weren’t pointless though, they just weren’t a brilliant measure.

Sit-ups are one way of measuring core strength and stability, it wasn’t about doing sit-ups whilst in contact with the enemy.

Same with press ups. It was one way to measure upper body strength.

PArt of the reasons they were simple measures that didn’t involve weights or kit is also that the tests could be conducted cheaply, en masse and just about anywhere.

Just because you were shite at them doesn’t make them pointless.

Now, if your point was that there are better tests then maybe we could agree.
 
#12
“Combat is gritty, hard and tough and we must prepare our people for it,” he said. “The new test is not harder, just different. It will stretch people. It’s demanding, but certainly achievable.”

Just easier will probably be more apt.[/
“Combat is gritty, hard and tough and we must prepare our people for it,” he said. “The new test is not harder, just different. It will stretch people. It’s demanding, but certainly achievable.”

Just easier will probably be more apt.
let us know how you get on then :)
 
#14
I'm out and the only fitness I now have to do is to wake up breathing :)
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#15
The average "she" will not be dragging anyone from a fireswept battlefield.
Neither will the average "he" either, of course.

Also, hands up who here has been on a "fireswept battlefield". Nobody? How about how many soldiers ever have been? Also vanishingly few, you say? Funny that.

Just because places like Iwo Jima have historically happened, doesn't mean they are anywhere near to the norm or that it is sensible to train to that ultra worst case scenario. Also, behaving as if all war is like a Transformers film on crack - as some are inclined to do - doesn't really help the military in any way.

Example: there are plenty of trades, units or disciplines in the military who get lost in the worst case (usually also the most ally) potential of the job, and so focus their kit, recruitment, training and chat on that. This sounds, to a degree, sensible: except that it often means that the normal running elements of the job, which they actually do day in and out, and which may be the most important part, get ignored. The result is that they are great at stuff they never do, but less than spectacular at their core job. The classic example is recce type units who spend all their training time on contact drills, and little to none on recce skills. There are others. I'm sure anyone with a bit of experience who has been in recently can think of units who big time the mechanics or sexy bits of the unit, but aren't actually much hack at their core role.

Fitness is like that. Training to the ultra worst case scenario all the time just breaks people. Tailoring it to reality is a sensible approach.
 
#16
#18
Don't forget the beer can arm curls!
 

MrBane

LE
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#19
They weren’t pointless though, they just weren’t a brilliant measure.

Sit-ups are one way of measuring core strength and stability, it wasn’t about doing sit-ups whilst in contact with the enemy.

Same with press ups. It was one way to measure upper body strength.

PArt of the reasons they were simple measures that didn’t involve weights or kit is also that the tests could be conducted cheaply, en masse and just about anywhere.

Just because you were shite at them doesn’t make them pointless.

Now, if your point was that there are better tests then maybe we could agree.
Oi. I passed every time. Just. :D

There were always better tests, but you hit it on the head. The army couldn't be fucked doing anything that required effort.

Even the Jerry can walk was a better test. But that required Jerry cans and water.

It was laziness that kept those tests going.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Bax709 The Intelligence Cell 203
ExREME..TECH The NAAFI Bar 302
Forastero The Intelligence Cell 0

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top