Originally Posted by
Vage Rot
.......and that's the problem with the whole situation, policy is made by people who think we are still a stay-at-home RAF. We are not.
I'm not saying don't keep fit - we all should. However, and it's a big however, why is there a difference in requirement between men and women?
I use a local gym as I live miles away from the Station, the Instructors there say that, apart from fat distribution, there is little difference between male and female if they both train and eat the same. As we all have to do the same job, it is not acceptable that a woman has to prove a lower level of fitness than a man to get the same job. My advice to any male recruit that failed his selection on fitness would be to sue on the gounds of discrimination.
I don't want to disagree with your gym staff, but what they say is just not true. There is well documented research to show that women have a lower aerobic capacity than men. I mentioned 10% earlier in the thread, but having checked, my ex physiology textbook reports 15-30% difference (or higher depnding on how you express it).
Aerobic capacity is a measure of how well you can extract oxygen from the inspired air, transport it to the working muscles, and then use it in the working muscles. Obviously this only works if you compare like for like ie unfit man cw unfit woman/ fit man cw fit woman, but:
Women have smaller lungs so they will inspire less, and extract less oxygen from it. [Probably] Because they don't have as much testosterone as men, they have lower levels of haemoglobin (which is what transports most of the oxygen in the blood). [Again, possibly because of lower testosterone and higher oestrogen levels] women have smaller muscle mass to use the oxygen and perform the work, and higher fat levels which increases weight without giving any benefit to aerobic capacity. Their smaller muscle mass will also make it more difficult to actually move their body through the air. Plus when you are talking about a running test to measure aerobic capacity, women's bodies are evolved for childbirth in that they have wider hips which leads to knock-knees and flatter feet, all of which just aren't biomechanically suited to running. So they just don't have the machinery to be as fit as men.
You should also consider the socialisation of females (tree hugging alert) in that boys are encouraged from an early age to go out and run around and be active. Girls are not. In adolescence the differences are even more marked. Only about 20% of the general population exercise regularly: in women this is reported to be around 5% This is just a very short summary of this. I could go on... but in essence girls are not encouraged to build up their fitness in the same way boys are.
The RAFFT is designed to encourage individuals to exercise regularly and reach a certain level of fitness in relation to their capacity (if you like, a percentage of their potential maximum). As women have a lower maximum potential, it makes sense that women have to achieve lower scores than males. For example, 60% of 40 is lower tha 60% of 50 (average figures for females and males respectively from my textbook). Because it does so, the test is known as a gender fair test.
If the test were designed to ensure that everyone could carry out a certain task (I believe that the Fire Service use some of these, such as rolling up hoses, and lifting ladders onto vehicles and carrying dummy's up ladders, but I'm not certain), then the test can insist that everyone, regardless of gender and/ or age, has to reach the samme standard. But the RAFFT isn't designed to test your fitness to undertake a task. Rather, it is designed to encourage you to exercise regularly, and in doing so reach a certain percetage of your potential aerobic capacity.
Hope that explains (what was actually the original question!!!)
MM