Recruits to Fat to fight?

#2
That shouldn't be even a remote option. Allowing extra time for an interested lad or ladess (hell, as I was typing that, I was thinking lardarse) to meet the standard might pay off, though. It would cost more, of course, but all those empty slots aren't drawing pay. Those empty slots, on the other hand, are plugging part of the budget shortfall.
 
#3
If the bloke is big but fit. Let them in. I'll work with them.

But if he cant keep up with me on a CFT how can we expect him to keep up on an advance to contact.

Lower the fitness levels = Lower the life expectancy of the soldier in theatre.
 
#4
BMI is a flawed scale anyway as (as probably highlighted countless times on here already) it does not take into account muscle weight. I'm 14 stone and fit enough that I can outperform someone 5 years younger and 4 stone lighter than me in all aspects of the PFT. However last time I has a BMI (a cycle to work event last summer) I was told that I was pre-obese! So I can understand not being so reliant on the BMI, but I don't think its a case of making the PFT easier.
 

untallguy

Old-Salt
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#5
Ventress said:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13550232,00.html

Are they making the BPFA easy?
Bear in mind, this is the entry standard for training. I accept that some of these guys will get through training and still be a bit lardy but the majority should come out fighting fit.
 
#6
now that 16 year olds are too fat to join and unfit. does that mean i can become unfit and fail my pfa's
 
B

Brandt

Guest
#7
BMI is a flawed system to chose recruits anyway. James Cracknell (Olympic multi- gold medal winnder, Atlantic rower, etc) apparently did the test and was told he would be considered 'obese' and prevented from joining the Army.

I don't care what shape they are as long as they can do the phys and keep up with the rest.

I did a CFT earlier in the year- about four blokes (all young, none particularly fit) dropped out. The QM (46 years old, rather rotund) passed.
 
#8
GuybrushThreepwood said:
BMI is a flawed scale anyway as (as probably highlighted countless times on here already) it does not take into account muscle weight. I'm 14 stone and fit enough that I can outperform someone 5 years younger and 4 stone lighter than me in all aspects of the PFT. However last time I has a BMI (a cycle to work event last summer) I was told that I was pre-obese! So I can understand not being so reliant on the BMI, but I don't think its a case of making the PFT easier.
Yeah, maybe they're all buff as f*#k. Lots of 16-year-olds who can deadlift 500 lbs and do 20 consecutive pull-ups. Because that's the kind of person we're talking about whose muscles are so large that their BMI is 30+.

I mean, I agree with you that the BMI is flawed - I'm also supposedly borderline obese according to my BMI, and my body fat percentage (much more accurate) hovers around 7.5%. But are we kidding ourselves that 2/3 of our recruits have more muscle than most serving soldiers?
 
#9
Remember that old training film "Too Fat to Fight"?

What a classic, it was almost as good as the dangers of drugs fim.
 
#10
For the last six years of my 23, I used to do a BFT once a day. OK until last six months, 6 days a week. Mind you depending on posting sometimes Morning and evening.
Fitness is very much a personal matter and young entrants NEED to be encouraged to up the standards.
John
Its far easier when your young then when your approaching old nakker status.
 
#11
If they can pass the fitness tests then they must be worth at least beginning phase 1 training. I personally have a very low tolerance level for fat people in the army. Once you are in then it surely must be part of your personal responsibliltiy to keep your weight (and fitness) within recognisible limits for your height and gender.
 
#12
Hellloooooo,
most 16yrs. old do not have a balanced life, let alone a balanced food intake. I want it fast and I want it now, K fried rat or M. Ds. Fat in makes fat grow.
Result FAAAAAATTT. oooppps forgot me Pizza. More fat.
Mum forgot basics, 5 a day helps work, rest and play. What's play? Me, i'm always resting 'cos I got to play me x-box, me playstation, not forgetting me Nintendo retro games.

So, youth of today means.... no imagination to create for ones self!!
Let alone that they can't exercise or think for themselves.

Oh! and did I tell you I am 53 and have seen this comming.
 
#13
tsark said:
Hellloooooo,
most 16yrs. old do not have a balanced life, let alone a balanced food intake. I want it fast and I want it now, K fried rat or M. Ds. Fat in makes fat grow.
Result FAAAAAATTT. oooppps forgot me Pizza. More fat.
Mum forgot basics, 5 a day helps work, rest and play. What's play? Me, i'm always resting 'cos I got to play me x-box, me playstation, not forgetting me Nintendo retro games.

So, youth of today means.... no imagination to create for ones self!!
Let alone that they can't exercise or think for themselves.

Oh! and did I tell you I am 53 and have seen this comming.
now this is dead easy to point at the fat kids, but who let them get to that state? The parents so whose fault is it really? Or didn't they have the balls to say no, or did they not take their kids on holiday campling and hiking. The kids only do what they have been shown!!!!!!!!

Lead by example ring any bells?

And this whole fat issue is a typical government example of government sidestepping te issue of people not wanting to join up because tyey will get sent to a war that isn't their fight!!

At the end of the day, it is our fault, we didn't step up and stop the kids from being like this and we voted this government in! (i count myself in that)

os
 
#14
GuybrushThreepwood said:
BMI is a flawed scale anyway as (as probably highlighted countless times on here already) it does not take into account muscle weight. I'm 14 stone and fit enough that I can outperform someone 5 years younger and 4 stone lighter than me in all aspects of the PFT.

Agree totally - BMI is fundamentally flawed: many athletes will be classed "overweight" (eg I know a nationally ranked decathlete, & a judo player who won a medal in the Commonwealth games, both of whom have been thus categorized by brainless idiots!) whilst many youngsters are what I'd call "skinny fat"; physically hopeless - flabby, powerless, lacking stamina/ cv fitness etc, but "fine" in terms of BMI. A joke.
 
#15
I'm a fat cnut at the min, but I'm fitter than I was when I joined as a scrawny 17 year old. Fitness is definitely one of the most important aspects of soldiering.
 
#16
I think that 'being fit' requires a good deal of 'desire to be fit' and the mental strength to go with it. I have no doubt that in our current small and over-committed Army fitness is enormously important.
My 87 year old neighbour, an 'old soldier' of the 'old school', has rheumatism and arthritis in almost all his joints. He has to negotiate 96 stair-steps to go in and out of flat. He does this at least twice a day, because he knows if he stops he will quickly not be able to so. No chance of moving him to the ground floor - he would not go! His 'secret' was to lose 4 stones of 'good living weight' over the last five years or so.
I remember being told some years ago that Gurkha recruits had to be made to put weight on. I don't know if that is still true.
 
B

Brandt

Guest
#17
cheesypoptart said:
But are we kidding ourselves that 2/3 of our recruits have more muscle than most serving soldiers?
The article isn't saying this- it says that 2/3 of all teenagers would meet the old requirements.

I agree with Invicta: if they pass the entry tests they could be 20 stone for all I care. Once in, it is part of the deal: self-discipline to keep yourself capable doing what the job requires. None of our tests are hard.
 
#18
I must admit, the BMI is questionable at best as an admitance criteria.

One guy from my AOSB was considered overweight when measured, but he was 6'3", weighed 14stone and played regulary for his local and university rugby club. He passed all physical tests with ease, so why should his large size prevent him from serving???? :?
 

Top