The PFA is dead. Long live the PFA!

Sorry - but I did repeat it, rather more obviously, when asked.
Because they all use relevant aerobic tests, such as the beep test or 1.5 miler; none use other non-relevant tests aerobic tests such as Wattbikes, indoor rowers or treadmills which are not only easier to administer but considerably more accurate - that's the point you seem unable or uwilling to grasp.
Yet a few posts ago you were arguing with me that the beep test and 1.5 miler don’t measure aerobic fitness. Yet those are what your references use.

The purpose of an aerobic test is to.......measure aerobic fitness, conventionally in terms of VO2Max. The method of test isn’t relevant; you’ll get the same result with a maximal test on a treadmill or bike.

Where the test method becomes relevant is when you measure other parameters like Maximal Aerobic Power Output which is usually measured on a bike. Doesn’t have to be a Wattbike; other makes will do!). But then MAP isn’t relevant to many disciplines other than cycling.

Sub-maximal tests really need heart rate to be accurate. The calculation method used by high end trackers works out the work done, for which it needs a GPS tracker. It won’t work on a static bike (although the next update of the Apple software will allow it to pick up the data from bikes with the right data. Which is how you get over the pacing issue.

The one exception is the beep test. If it’s done properly it gives a pretty accurate measure. Done properly means conducting the test properly and doing the test properly of course

And no, I’m not obsessed with the word athlete I used it to make a point that many people who take part seriously in amateur sport are used to performance measurement It was you who shouted loudly that soldiers aren’t athletes Only to be proven wrong; soldier athlete is a term used by the Army itself

For once admit you were wrong.....
 
Yet a few posts ago you were arguing with me that the beep test and 1.5 miler don’t measure aerobic fitness. Yet those are what your references use.
Where? You're completely delusional.

I posted the link to the 1.5 miler and the beep test study to show the complete opposite - that they were directly linked and a detailed study of the two proved it scientifically.

As far as arguing that they didn't measure aerobic fitness goes, that's utter nonsense. My point there was that they do measure aerobic fitness but not VO2Max, which @a-t-g said they did. Several others clearly understood that and posted confirming the point.

What I've said, repeatedly and consistently, is that aerobic levels and even a VO2Max reading is useless for measuring fitness for role unless the test is RELEVANT, hence my repeated point on disabled athletes having high aerobic levels but being at a bit of a disadvantage on a tab or lifing weights if they've got no legs or arms.

Of course the test itself has to be relevant. Unbelievable that you don't get this. What's the point in testing a wheelchair athlete's VO2Max or aerobic level in a test for the infantry if he's got no legs???

What's the point in testing a disabled cyclist's VO2Max or aerobic levels in a test for cav or stacking shelves if he's got no arms???

Moron.
 
As far as arguing that they didn't measure aerobic fitness goes, that's utter nonsense. My point there was that they do measure aerobic fitness but not VO2Max, which @a-t-g said they did. Several others clearly understood that and posted confirming the point.
God you’re difficult. As I noted when when I started this discussion, sub-maximal VO2Max tests measure VO2Max by extrapolation and the accuracy depends on the method.

Your Paralympian example is simply moronic and doesn’t contribute to your arguement at all. There is an obvious and clear distinction between aerobic and functional fitness. But take out all of the other variable (technique, sex, mental fortitude, number of legs) and of two otherwise identical individuals, the one with the highest VO2Max will always have higher performance and endurance levels. Compare apples with apples....there’s plenty of data out there to baseline against (Cooper is a start - read the FBI link I posted and do your own googling around it, but I’d say the Army is plenty big enough to build its own data).

All of which is why aerobic measurement is the bedrock of any structured training program. And why, in the absence of being able to directly measure VO2Max, a sub-maximal extrapolation has to be is used.

Not that actual measurement is that hard if you really want to be serious about fitness. Totally pointless for the fatties and biffs for whom a bleep test is plenty accurate enough.
 
There is an obvious and clear distinction between aerobic and functional fitness.
Obviously - except until now you've been refusing to acknowledge the blindingly obvious.
But take out all of the other variable (technique, sex, mental fortitude, number of legs) and of two otherwise identical individuals, the one with the highest VO2Max will always have higher performance and endurance levels.
As I said in the post, the disabled athlete example was an extreme one in order to keep it simple. Exactly the same thing applies across the board - there are no "identical individuals".

It's not just about the number of limbs but about different strengths in different muscle groups. Instead of taking an extreme example of a disabled athlete take a simple example of two similar individuals with identical aerobic / VO2Max levels and identical "technique, sex, mental fortitude, number of legs". One's a runner, one's a cyclist. Put them on a treadmill and a Wattbike, neither of which allow for technique or skill (you can't 'spin' on a Wattbike), and the cyclist will always do better on the Wattbike and the runner on the treadmill.

It depends entirely on the test they're doing as any test (except a full tube's'n'all VO2 Max test, which only gives you a VO2 Max level, nothing else) is unavoidably about muscle groups AS WELL as aerobic levels.

That's why the Army only allows beep tests and the 1.5 miler.

That's why the new tests, whatever their faults, test fitness / aerobic levels doing a range of tasks from running to lifting and carrying.

That's why, thank God, those who think all that matters is aerobic levels so 'take them out for another run, staff, and wear them out' are no longer allowed to inflict training that's counter-productive on soldiers and THOR's a massive step forward despite dinosaurs like you.

The tests may well be pitched at an absurdly low level, but at least the Army's followed sports science and moved on from the decades-dated 1960's idea that aerobic exercise is the be-all and end-all of fitness training whatever the activity being trained for.
 
Aerobic exercise was never supposed to be the be all and end all of fitness training. That's why we had gyms. I always thought they were under used and I always thought Infantry soldiers should be stronger. Yanks may have taken upper body strength too far but we didn't do enough. Watch RM using the ropes for inspiration.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
It depends entirely on the test they're doing as any test (except a full tube's'n'all VO2 Max test, which only gives you a VO2 Max level, nothing else
Not that it really matters for this argument, but even this isn't strictly true. Running VO2 max tests tend to give a higher figure than cycling or rowing ergometer tests. I'm not sure if athletes in a particular sport test comparatively better on their kit but VO2 max definitely isn't test-neutral even with the tubes and lab technicians.
 
Not that it really matters for this argument, but even this isn't strictly true.
Agreed, unless you take a test which is 100% equipment-neutral in which case you get a 100% accurate reading - the problem is no two people are identical even if they do identical training programmes so nothing is strictly equipment-neutral.
Running VO2 max tests tend to give a higher figure than cycling or rowing ergometer tests. I'm not sure if athletes in a particular sport test comparatively better on their kit but VO2 max definitely isn't test-neutral even with the tubes and lab technicians
They do, which is why to be 100% accurate the equipment has to be equipment-neutral. The reason running VO2Max test results tend to be higher than cycling / rowing is that there are more runners than rowers or cyclists, or at least more who spend more time running as part of their fitness programmes so muscle groups come into play as well as the pain threshold.
 
Aerobic exercise was never supposed to be the be all and end all of fitness training. That's why we had gyms. I always thought they were under used and I always thought Infantry soldiers should be stronger. Yanks may have taken upper body strength too far but we didn't do enough. Watch RM using the ropes for inspiration.
Agreed, unsurprisingly.

It's a question of both educating and enabling. On the one hand you've got commanders who are either too out of date to realise aerobic isn't all that's needed or too lazy / unimaginative to do anything else, while on the other you've got individuals at a similar point on the evolutionary scale who concentrate on Op Massive, particularly when it's difficult to do much else in small bases with limited equipment.

Even now the Army only has enough Wattbikes for around an hour per person per week, assuming they're evenly distributed and not concentrated for remedial use.
 
They do, which is why to be 100% accurate the equipment has to be equipment-neutral.
No measurement has ever been made with 100% accuracy and no measurement is ever “equipment neutral”. Measurement is a scientific discipline of its own; metrology.

It doesn’t matter; you just need to know the error spread and set your threshold parameters wider than the error spread. And take enough readings to damp out the rouges.

With VO2 Max the difference between method of measurement is in the low single digit percentages. If you took a measurement on three days a week, the spread would be similar.

My Apple Watch gives me a spread in the range of 2-3 units over a week of training, but the trend over a year is clear. It correlates pretty closely with beep test numbers and is in the same 5 unit range as a running machine test.
 
The problem with measuring someone's true vo2 max is that it requires expensive equipment.
@John G. You are obviously very knowledgeable on the subject of fitness but your continued personal digs at other arrsers is becoming tiresome. Can you not accept the fact that other members may not agree with your pov.
Just saying...
 
The problem with measuring someone's true vo2 max is that it requires expensive equipment.
There is no "problem" with it - from a military fitness for role perspective it's a pointless activity.

(and, FWIW, everyone here bar one seems to be in complete agreement over the type of changes that need to be made and how they should be measured / tested)
 
Last edited:
There is no "problem" with it - from a military fitness for role perspective it's a pointless activity.
I agree with you 100%. Joe Crow does not need to be pushed to work at 100% all of the time during PT. I have stated that PT sessions should be something that people enjoy doing.
Yes, pushing people to their max has it's place. If for no other reason than to prove to them that you can push yourself further than they may have believed possible. And obviously, for testing purposes.
However, I'm sure that 99% of us will agree that PT for the majority of the time should not be a beasting.
It should be something that you look forward to.
 
I agree with you 100%. Joe Crow does not need to be pushed to work at 100% all of the time during PT. I have stated that PT sessions should be something that people enjoy doing.
Yes, pushing people to their max has it's place. If for no other reason than to prove to them that you can push yourself further than they may have believed possible. And obviously, for testing purposes.
However, I'm sure that 99% of us will agree that PT for the majority of the time should not be a beasting.
It should be something that you look forward to.
If someone is a fat **** they generally regard forming up in three ranks at the start of the lesson as a beasting.
 
I agree with you 100%. Joe Crow does not need to be pushed to work at 100% all of the time during PT. I have stated that PT sessions should be something that people enjoy doing.
Yes, pushing people to their max has it's place. If for no other reason than to prove to them that you can push yourself further than they may have believed possible. And obviously, for testing purposes.
However, I'm sure that 99% of us will agree that PT for the majority of the time should not be a beasting.
It should be something that you look forward to.
Yeah I can’t think of a single time on Operations I have been pushed to more than 100%........
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
BFPO The Training Wing 47
W AGC, RAPTC and SASC 9
Davros_the_Dalek The Intelligence Cell 2

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top