stacker1
LE
I've already started smoking and I'm eating more pies than usual in preparation.let us know how you get on then
I've already started smoking and I'm eating more pies than usual in preparation.let us know how you get on then
Walking to the fridge.I'm out and the only fitness I now have to do is to wake up breathing
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.
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.My hand is up....many times. Suffice it to say we will agree to disagree with the thrust of your post.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.
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.
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.
The average "she" will not be dragging anyone from a fireswept battlefield.
One? Your having a giraffeIs this 'one' test replacing the PFT, AFT, and OFT?
They already have and they have the medals to prove it.