Air Force getting Fit to Fight

[Otis Willie]

Air Force getting Fit to Fight

(EXCERPT) , By Fred Zimmerman, Stars and Stripes Pacific edition,
Saturday, January 10, 2004

KADENA AIR BASE, Okinawa — Kadena’s 18th Wing airmen — and the wing’s
commander — sweated through push-ups, crunches and a 1.5-mile run
Thursday as they completed their first Fit to Fight physical fitness
test.

Fit to Fight replaced the Air Force’s cycle ergometry test.

“We need to be physically fit to fight alongside the other services,”
said Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Remington, 18th Wing Commander. “I think
everyone was waiting for this … ready for this.”

Air Force members also are measured at the waist for a s...

U.S. and friendly nation laws prohibit fully reproducing
copyrighted material. In abidance with our laws this report
cannot be provided in its entirety. However, you can read it
in full today, 09 Jan 2004, at the following URL. (COMBINE
the following lines into your web browser.) The
subject/content of this report is not necessarily the
viewpoint of the distributing Library. This report is provided
for your information and discussion.

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=19748

---------------------------
Otis Willie
Associate Librarian
The American War Library
http://www.americanwarlibrary.com

[fudog50]

You have got to be kidding me! It's a watered down version of the
Navy's fitness assessment!!! ( and it took them a year to copy it)
Same aerobic (run 1.5 miles) and the same muscle excersises (push-ups
and sit-ups). After looking at the AF charts for scores, I could be a
fatass (36 inch abdomen) and I could walk the 1.5 miles in 16 minutes
and I would have a high enough point total to be exempt from having to
do any pushups or situps!!! And I wouldn't be testable again for 12
months!!! LOL The Navy's standards are MUCH higher, I only have a 33
abdomen, run the 1.5 in 11:30 and routinely do 50 pushups and 80
situps in the 2 min time allotted and I can never score higher than a
"good". This AF article has got to be a joke?? Well, I suppose its an
improvement over the old way.

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 21:55:49 GMT, Otis Willie >
wrote:

>Air Force getting Fit to Fight
>
>(EXCERPT) , By Fred Zimmerman, Stars and Stripes Pacific edition,
>Saturday, January 10, 2004
>
>KADENA AIR BASE, Okinawa — Kadena’s 18th Wing airmen — and the wing’s
>commander — sweated through push-ups, crunches and a 1.5-mile run
>Thursday as they completed their first Fit to Fight physical fitness
>test.
>
>Fit to Fight replaced the Air Force’s cycle ergometry test.
>
>“We need to be physically fit to fight alongside the other services,”
>said Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Remington, 18th Wing Commander. “I think
>everyone was waiting for this … ready for this.”
>
>Air Force members also are measured at the waist for a s...
>
> U.S. and friendly nation laws prohibit fully reproducing
> copyrighted material. In abidance with our laws this report
> cannot be provided in its entirety. However, you can read it
> in full today, 09 Jan 2004, at the following URL. (COMBINE
> the following lines into your web browser.) The
> subject/content of this report is not necessarily the
> viewpoint of the distributing Library. This report is provided
> for your information and discussion.
>
>http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=19748
>
>---------------------------
> Otis Willie
> Associate Librarian
> The American War Library
> http://www.americanwarlibrary.com

[BUFDRVR]

>LOL The Navy's standards are MUCH higher

On paper only. I'm not sure what it takes to get a waiver in the USN for weight
and fitness, but some of the worst physical specimens I've seen in uniform I
saw on a one month "cruise" on the USS Theodore Roosevelt.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[fudog50]

Yeah BUFDRVR
I won't argue the point about the TR, I've never done a cruise on her,
but your observation during your short cruise doesn't match my overall
observations. There has been a SIGNIFICANT improvement in the overall
fitness of Navy personnel in the last 5 years since our new
instruction came out. It will take a few years to tweak the new AF
instruction, at least it's a step in the right direction, and has to
be a huge improvement over just riding a lifecycle? By the way, I'd be
interested (probably a lot of us that read this NG would be too) here
if you could post some current cool stuff about the B-52??? Thanks!

On 10 Jan 2004 13:21:52 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

>>LOL The Navy's standards are MUCH higher
>
>On paper only. I'm not sure what it takes to get a waiver in the USN for weight
>and fitness, but some of the worst physical specimens I've seen in uniform I
>saw on a one month "cruise" on the USS Theodore Roosevelt.
>
>
>BUFDRVR
>
>"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
>everyone on Bear Creek"

[mg]

"fudog50" > wrote in message
...
> You have got to be kidding me! It's a watered down version of the
> Navy's fitness assessment!!! ( and it took them a year to copy it)
> Same aerobic (run 1.5 miles) and the same muscle excersises (push-ups
> and sit-ups). After looking at the AF charts for scores, I could be a
> fatass (36 inch abdomen) and I could walk the 1.5 miles in 16 minutes
> and I would have a high enough point total to be exempt from having to
> do any pushups or situps!!! And I wouldn't be testable again for 12
> months!!! LOL The Navy's standards are MUCH higher, I only have a 33
> abdomen, run the 1.5 in 11:30 and routinely do 50 pushups and 80
> situps in the 2 min time allotted and I can never score higher than a
> "good". This AF article has got to be a joke?? Well, I suppose its an
> improvement over the old way.

I am not sure which chart you are looking at or what age group, but you
would be required to to be tested every 3 months by what you stated. And
the time limit is 1 minute not 2 for the pushups and situps. I am sure you
got a generic chart without the color coded breakdown of what the
requirements are for each level.

In any event I still have question about the whole thing. Why are there
different requirements depending on age and sex? If the reason for doing it
is so the AF can keep up with the rigors of combat, there should be no
difference. There should be one standard. Or would some fatass women say
"hold on bad guy, I am not suppose to run that fast, my PFT says so."

And besides that, why does the size of someones abdomen have anything to do
with physical fitness. I know some rather large folks who could easily
outrun me. Rather, it has everything to do with looking good in a uniform
and presenting a "good image". The real reason they changed was because too
many fat people were passing the bike test with ease and they couldn't do
anything about it. You will note that if you max out the pushup/situp
requirement, it adds very little to the point total. Get a couple inches
too fat and it easily wipes out a good chunk of the pushup/situp gains.

MG

[Ragnar]

"mg" > wrote in message
...
>
> "fudog50" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You have got to be kidding me! It's a watered down version of the
> > Navy's fitness assessment!!! ( and it took them a year to copy it)
> > Same aerobic (run 1.5 miles) and the same muscle excersises (push-ups
> > and sit-ups). After looking at the AF charts for scores, I could be a
> > fatass (36 inch abdomen) and I could walk the 1.5 miles in 16 minutes
> > and I would have a high enough point total to be exempt from having to
> > do any pushups or situps!!! And I wouldn't be testable again for 12
> > months!!! LOL The Navy's standards are MUCH higher, I only have a 33
> > abdomen, run the 1.5 in 11:30 and routinely do 50 pushups and 80
> > situps in the 2 min time allotted and I can never score higher than a
> > "good". This AF article has got to be a joke?? Well, I suppose its an
> > improvement over the old way.
>
> I am not sure which chart you are looking at or what age group, but you
> would be required to to be tested every 3 months by what you stated. And
> the time limit is 1 minute not 2 for the pushups and situps. I am sure
you
> got a generic chart without the color coded breakdown of what the
> requirements are for each level.
>
> In any event I still have question about the whole thing. Why are there
> different requirements depending on age and sex? If the reason for doing
it
> is so the AF can keep up with the rigors of combat, there should be no
> difference. There should be one standard. Or would some fatass women say
> "hold on bad guy, I am not suppose to run that fast, my PFT says so."
>
> And besides that, why does the size of someones abdomen have anything to
do
> with physical fitness. I know some rather large folks who could easily
> outrun me. Rather, it has everything to do with looking good in a uniform
> and presenting a "good image". The real reason they changed was because
too
> many fat people were passing the bike test with ease and they couldn't do
> anything about it. You will note that if you max out the pushup/situp
> requirement, it adds very little to the point total. Get a couple inches
> too fat and it easily wipes out a good chunk of the pushup/situp gains.

The weird/stupid part about the waist measurement thing is that they don't
take height into account. If a guy is 5ft 8in tall and has a 32-inch waist
he's good to go. Make the same guy 6ft 6in and I guarantee he won't have a
32-inch waist. The tall guy will lose points in a fitness assessment purely
because he's tall.

[BUFDRVR]

>The weird/stupid part about the waist measurement thing is that they don't
>take height into account. If a guy is 5ft 8in tall and has a 32-inch waist
>he's good to go. Make the same guy 6ft 6in and I guarantee he won't have a
>32-inch waist. The tall guy will lose points in a fitness assessment purely
>because he's tall.

I brought this issue up and, according to an exercise physiologist in my
office, height and waistline are not inter-related except in the extremes. In
other words, every guy between 5'-2" and 6'-5" should have the same waistline.
In extreme cases like Shaq at 7'-2" (is he taller than that?), his waist may be
larger, but not greater than 40". Not really an issue for most people I know,
but I was curious.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>There has been a SIGNIFICANT improvement in the overall
>fitness of Navy personnel in the last 5 years since our new
>instruction came out.

This cruise was Jan-Feb '99. Some of the biggest people I saw were CPOs.
Apparently this was not uncommon. The two AH-1W pilots I hung out with said
the hatch covers (closed for simulated battle stations, leaving only a small
round hole to get between decks) were known as; "chief screens".

>By the way, I'd be
>interested (probably a lot of us that read this NG would be too) here
>if you could post some current cool stuff about the B-52??? Thanks!

Well, fortunately I keep in close contact with buds at the units, so I am still
"plugged in" despite my current staff job :(

ECMI (Electronic Counter Measure Improvement program) is progressing on
schedule (which is s l o w) as well as Litening II. Also ready to begin is AMI
- Avionics *Mid*-Life Improvement program that will nearly triple our offensive
avionics memory, install a ring laser gyro and upgrade our avionics computer
processing speed. Several other programs are being accelerated as well, but
none so much that they're ready to slap hardware on the jet yet.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Ragnar]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >The weird/stupid part about the waist measurement thing is that they
don't
> >take height into account. If a guy is 5ft 8in tall and has a 32-inch
waist
> >he's good to go. Make the same guy 6ft 6in and I guarantee he won't have
a
> >32-inch waist. The tall guy will lose points in a fitness assessment
purely
> >because he's tall.
>
> I brought this issue up and, according to an exercise physiologist in my
> office, height and waistline are not inter-related except in the extremes.
In
> other words, every guy between 5'-2" and 6'-5" should have the same
waistline.
> In extreme cases like Shaq at 7'-2" (is he taller than that?), his waist
may be
> larger, but not greater than 40". Not really an issue for most people I
know,
> but I was curious.

I suspect the guy was parroting the party line. But look at the tables for
running and pushups/situps. There are some really weird things happening
there.

1. I can get 7.5 points in situps if I do 29 OR 30 of them in 1 minute.
But I can get 8.0 points for doing 31. Why doesn't 30 count as 7.75?
2. If I run the 1.5 mile in 12:00 I get 50 points. Then the "window" for
49 points is 12:11 to 12:25. Then, somehow the "window" for 48 points is
12:25 to 12:49. Huh? Literally none of the "windows" are consistent - some
are 12 seconds, some 17, others 24, even one of 39. And forget trying to
score 45 points on the run - in my table the score of 46 is followed by 44
points, with no window in between for 45. Huh?

[BUFDRVR]

>I suspect the guy was parroting the party line.

I doubt it. I work in an office where "spouting the party line" is not a
positive attribute, out of the box thinking is.

>1. I can get 7.5 points in situps if I do 29 OR 30 of them in 1 minute.
>But I can get 8.0 points for doing 31. Why doesn't 30 count as 7.75?
>2. If I run the 1.5 mile in 12:00 I get 50 points. Then the "window" for
>49 points is 12:11 to 12:25. Then, somehow the "window" for 48 points is
>12:25 to 12:49. Huh? Literally none of the "windows" are consistent - some
>are 12 seconds, some 17, others 24, even one of 39. And forget trying to
>score 45 points on the run - in my table the score of 46 is followed by 44
>points, with no window in between for 45. Huh?


Yeah, I haven't looked at these issues in any kind of detail, but does it
surprise you? I mean, for the most part the people inventing this stuff are
still the people that brought you the bike test.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"