RAF to encourage Fat WAAFs

[Jobza Guddun]

ZH, I am not saying that PT should come ahead of aircraft servicing, or any other primary task that a section might have. But it's very interesting that when a Boss who likes fitness comes into a section that has previously been 'too busy', the section suddenly seems to have time...
MM[/QUOTE]

Got some experience of this and, as I alluded to earlier, we paid for it on the night shift. Thank you Wg Cdr -----------. Therein lies the problem.

FFS let's do it properly or not at all.

[Vage Rot]

Originally Posted by musclemech

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).

If that is the case then surely the female level should be closer to the male level? Even at 30% it cannot simply be men at level 10, women at level 7 as the hiher the level the more shuttles you run, so 30% off 10:5 must be around 8:7 - a rough guess.

Originally Posted by musclemech

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.

And smaller muscles, with a smaller frame that require less oxygen! Quid Pro Quo, the same! (work = ass times distance moved, ooops - Freudian slip!)

Originally Posted by musclemech

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.

Have to agree with this based on some of the WAAF/WRAF that I've seen about!

Originally Posted by musclemech

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 why do we let them fight on equal terms?

Originally Posted by musclemech

but in essence girls are not encouraged to build up their fitness in the same way boys are.

-they would be encouraged more if their fitness test was more demanding.

Originally Posted by musclemech

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.

A cripple could complete the ladies test to a satisfactory standard!

Originally Posted by musclemech

Hope that explains (what was actually the original question!!!)
MM

Cheers - it did - but still wasn't a satisfactory answer!
Like I said - we all need to be fit, not arguing that one, but my grandmother could do the ladies test ...........and she's dead!

[wannabe87]

Putting the scientific/genetic differences between genders to one side, I wouldn't or couldn't care less if the expected levels of fitness were the same for females... In fact I think I would prefer it if they were the same- then we there would be no need for threads like this!

[brit bus driver]

Shouldn't this thread be merged with the 'What is the Role of the Air Engineer' one?

[Airborne Aircrew]

Magic... someone dragged up a two year old thread about fitness in the RAF...

Do we get to insult all the fat, lady boys again?

[Charlie Luncher]

In bad taste

Vage
Now you have retired from the frontline of moa I thought a slower WAAF would be easier to catch in your slippers, hope they are tartan. I am trying to ensure the RAAF's summer pinny for the girls is only available in size 12 and below much to the disgust of a few air engineers
Keep safe
Charlie sends
from the land of Kylie

[Pontius Navigator]

Charlie, what bait are you using? That sprat you just landed died 2 years ago.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

I suspect WAAFs have a fair way to go yet;

[FATTER GATOR]

Christ on a bike mate. I'm having breakfast.

[mad_jock]

Is that ginger lad looking at her bum?

[GolfSierra]

Is that ginger lad looking at her bum?

Not intentionally, it is down to gravity.

[brakedwell]

Is that ginger lad looking at her bum?

I bet her bum is looking at the ginger lad!

[unclenelli]

I have recently failed the RAFFT due mainly to a 4yr sedentary job away from home.
On posting, I ramped up my physical training, as I now had the time for it (all out of hours), rather than spending 10+hrs a week sat in my driving seat.

I passed 1 discipline at better than EXCELLENT (Dark Blue) for a 17-y-o, but because I MARGINALLY (Yellow) failed the other 2 disciplines for a 35-y-o, I am deemed a failure.

Before being put on remedial, I was given "Lifestyle Counselling", which was a waste of time: I was never asked about my lifestyle, smoking, drinking, diet, exercise etc. It was merely a chance to sign my career away if I didn't attend the compulsary PT!
So I started remedial training, but binned that after 2 weeks as I'm OOA.
What hope is there for anyone who really doesn't care about their fitness. I'll have climbed Everest by the time I return from OOA

[Truckkie]

Didn't think you could deploy OOA unless you had completed and passed the RAFFT.

[Wrathmonk]

Needs must in the same way that you no longer require a "full" medical cat to deploy (although in both cases they are generally to the less hostile regions!). Stops the (deliberate) Desert Dodgers from doing their share of the pain. Not that I am sure there are any deliberate desert dodgers out there - it's not their fault. They really really want to go. Right up until they get to the top of the list .....