RAF Fitness Test - Soon to be twice a year!
That is the problem with these threads. Eventually it is just the old duffers banging on about how hard it was in their day. Well in your day you didn't actually have to do a fitness test!!!!
Practice..
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: EU Region 9 - apparently
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't need to mate; 7.57 mins for the 1.5 mile 2 counties at Wittering and that was at 29. I have the cert to prove it and I was no no athlete.
doing a fitness test 'soon', just before handing in all kit and leaving
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still run four miles in under 35 minutes... I'll be 50 in less than six months and I quit smoking after 30+ years just over a year ago, (30 a day for most of that time).
While there is no guarantee you'll live longer by getting off your corpulent posteriors there is a body of evidence that suggests that a certain minimum level of fitness does aid in your longevity. I'd think that that might be, at least, some motivation.
More importantly you chose to join "the military"... Look it up... It means that you are part of the defense of this country. It doesn't mean that you will start training and learning when the enemy attack. It means you'll be ready for them the moment they do. As such, there may come a time when, rather than just stacking shelves, fixing kites etc. you might come face to face with your enemy. The fitter and stronger you are when that occurs the better chance you have of seeing the other end of the meeting. Again, this should be a bit of a motivator.
Lastly, women prefer men... Not gasping, overweight, sexually inept men... Just men... Even you married chaps don't have an excuse... the reason you are w@nking to internet porn rather than boffing your cute little wife is because your wife followed your opulence and became a reflection of yourself... a fat munter who can't manage more that a few minutes exertion before falling flat in a quivering mass of lard.
See, the point here is that there are no good reasons, no matter how much you try to justify it, for being a fat, lazy b@stard... But there are certainly plenty of reasons for not being. So quit pontificating and go for a run... You know your chair will thank you for it...
Oh, and to the moron who tried to imply that "fitties" are a bunch of muscle brained retards and the "fatties" have an IQ that reaches into triple figures... Get F$CKED d1ckhead... That was the most puerile and transparent attempt to deflect an argument away from your inadequacy I have ever come across.
While there is no guarantee you'll live longer by getting off your corpulent posteriors there is a body of evidence that suggests that a certain minimum level of fitness does aid in your longevity. I'd think that that might be, at least, some motivation.
More importantly you chose to join "the military"... Look it up... It means that you are part of the defense of this country. It doesn't mean that you will start training and learning when the enemy attack. It means you'll be ready for them the moment they do. As such, there may come a time when, rather than just stacking shelves, fixing kites etc. you might come face to face with your enemy. The fitter and stronger you are when that occurs the better chance you have of seeing the other end of the meeting. Again, this should be a bit of a motivator.
Lastly, women prefer men... Not gasping, overweight, sexually inept men... Just men... Even you married chaps don't have an excuse... the reason you are w@nking to internet porn rather than boffing your cute little wife is because your wife followed your opulence and became a reflection of yourself... a fat munter who can't manage more that a few minutes exertion before falling flat in a quivering mass of lard.
See, the point here is that there are no good reasons, no matter how much you try to justify it, for being a fat, lazy b@stard... But there are certainly plenty of reasons for not being. So quit pontificating and go for a run... You know your chair will thank you for it...
Oh, and to the moron who tried to imply that "fitties" are a bunch of muscle brained retards and the "fatties" have an IQ that reaches into triple figures... Get F$CKED d1ckhead... That was the most puerile and transparent attempt to deflect an argument away from your inadequacy I have ever come across.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: england
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Duh!
The cut and thrust of witty repartee jus amazes me!
Get real - this new policy is nothing more than an attempt to force those people who do not get fit on their own to get fit.
2 options then -
1. Those who disagree with it either disagree with the extra jobs that we all have to suffer
or
2. They disagree that being fitter increases operational effectiveness.
Get real - this new policy is nothing more than an attempt to force those people who do not get fit on their own to get fit.
2 options then -
1. Those who disagree with it either disagree with the extra jobs that we all have to suffer
or
2. They disagree that being fitter increases operational effectiveness.
doing a fitness test 'soon', just before handing in all kit and leaving
I think we all got a certificate stating 7.57
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hants
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The childish insults of the muddy oafs are actually in the finest traditions of the British military. Unfortunately they are the traditions of Lord Raglan, Lord Elphinstone and Sir Redvers Buller. These men were undoubtedly brave, but alas they were also stupid and caused the needless deaths of many of their men. Public school men and sportsman all.
“Gentlemen” you are missing the point: physical fitness is laudable, but so is religious faith. “Fizz” it is not, as you suggest, a magic cure all. It is a single element only of personnel suitably trained, equipped, experienced, motivated and sustained for their role. The point that those who are not narcissistic dopamine junkies make is that the policy is unscientific, unsupported, and inconsistent.
Those who enjoy service sport (and consequently throw additional work onto others) are not doing it to boost their professional effectiveness, but for fun and personal gratification as well as the honour of their Service. No problem, but don’t imply (or state) that your running fast provides you with either virtue or competence or that those who do not run fast are morally depraved or incompetent.
Next time you fly, consider whether you trust your safety equipment because it was maintained by a racing snake or because it was maintained by a professional who gives a st*ff about your sorry *rse even whilst you are looking down your Aryan nose at him (or her).
The testing policy indicates that lip service is being paid to this issue: if fitness were really important then it would be properly resourced and manning levels would be such to allow regular training during “office hours” and the playing of unit sport. Those who have been in more than five minutes may remember that this used to be the case. The PTIs used to be organising competitions and refereeing, not administering arbitrary tests to justify their existence. It is as if the policy were generated on the basis of Gandhi’s comment on Western civilisation: “I think it would be a good idea”
Since this is not how the resources are allocated, it follows that other aspects of training and fitness for purpose are more important. QED.
Oh, and AA, I think you will find simple posession of a membrum virile does not qualify you as a man. You may find that your "repeat business" may increase if you develop a sense of humour and grow up.
“Gentlemen” you are missing the point: physical fitness is laudable, but so is religious faith. “Fizz” it is not, as you suggest, a magic cure all. It is a single element only of personnel suitably trained, equipped, experienced, motivated and sustained for their role. The point that those who are not narcissistic dopamine junkies make is that the policy is unscientific, unsupported, and inconsistent.
Those who enjoy service sport (and consequently throw additional work onto others) are not doing it to boost their professional effectiveness, but for fun and personal gratification as well as the honour of their Service. No problem, but don’t imply (or state) that your running fast provides you with either virtue or competence or that those who do not run fast are morally depraved or incompetent.
Next time you fly, consider whether you trust your safety equipment because it was maintained by a racing snake or because it was maintained by a professional who gives a st*ff about your sorry *rse even whilst you are looking down your Aryan nose at him (or her).
The testing policy indicates that lip service is being paid to this issue: if fitness were really important then it would be properly resourced and manning levels would be such to allow regular training during “office hours” and the playing of unit sport. Those who have been in more than five minutes may remember that this used to be the case. The PTIs used to be organising competitions and refereeing, not administering arbitrary tests to justify their existence. It is as if the policy were generated on the basis of Gandhi’s comment on Western civilisation: “I think it would be a good idea”
Since this is not how the resources are allocated, it follows that other aspects of training and fitness for purpose are more important. QED.
Oh, and AA, I think you will find simple posession of a membrum virile does not qualify you as a man. You may find that your "repeat business" may increase if you develop a sense of humour and grow up.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: GONE BY 2012
Age: 51
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad to see this thread has descended into the usual immature, purile banter that gives the RAF it's bad name and image.
Man up and dry your eyes - the RAFFT is hardly a challenge. Those that can't manage it should really have a good look at themselves and ask if they are in the right job.
Nearly all stns have a gym and PTIs who, if you ask them, can offer advice and training programmes for those who are unsure.
Exercise will help you live longer and make you more capable of undertaking your primary role in demanding, austere climates.
And before you ask, yes - I am aircrew in my late 30s who likes a drink, good food and the odd cigarette and have passed my RAFFT since it's introduction, unlike the fat weezy 20-somethings who seem to think that the Air Force owes them their jobs.
Rant off
Man up and dry your eyes - the RAFFT is hardly a challenge. Those that can't manage it should really have a good look at themselves and ask if they are in the right job.
Nearly all stns have a gym and PTIs who, if you ask them, can offer advice and training programmes for those who are unsure.
Exercise will help you live longer and make you more capable of undertaking your primary role in demanding, austere climates.
And before you ask, yes - I am aircrew in my late 30s who likes a drink, good food and the odd cigarette and have passed my RAFFT since it's introduction, unlike the fat weezy 20-somethings who seem to think that the Air Force owes them their jobs.
Rant off
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fawkes conceded;
You seem to be getting the point here, nice one . On its own, physical fitness won't win wars but it does provide us with one aspect of the ability to do so. The others, as you concede, are training, eqpt, and rationing seems to be alluded to.
I would be interested to know though, how you arrive at the conclusion that the policy is 'unscientific, unsupported, and inconsistent'. This might go back to my offer (as yet, one not taken up) that you might like to post some data to support your assertion?
“Fizz”.. is a single element only of personnel suitably trained, equipped, experienced, motivated and sustained for their role. The point that those who are not narcissistic dopamine junkies make is that the policy is unscientific, unsupported, and inconsistent.
. On its own, physical fitness won't win wars but it does provide us with one aspect of the ability to do so. The others, as you concede, are training, eqpt, and rationing seems to be alluded to.I would be interested to know though, how you arrive at the conclusion that the policy is 'unscientific, unsupported, and inconsistent'. This might go back to my offer (as yet, one not taken up) that you might like to post some data to support your assertion?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: london
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pot belly linked to heart disease
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6944279.stm
"Fitties" can take solace in the fact that the "fatties" with a reduced life expectancy will subsidise their retirement/pensions by not drawing off the public purse for so long after retirement. Also, surely the incentive to see off the Govt for as much dosh as you can by living longer is as good as reason as any to get fit(ter).
"Fitties" can take solace in the fact that the "fatties" with a reduced life expectancy will subsidise their retirement/pensions by not drawing off the public purse for so long after retirement. Also, surely the incentive to see off the Govt for as much dosh as you can by living longer is as good as reason as any to get fit(ter).
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hants
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But remember to go easy on the deep heat as well as the steroids:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...tes-death.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...tes-death.html
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
purile banter that gives the RAF it's bad name and image.
The testing policy indicates that lip service is being paid to this issue:
Now, rather than exercise your greasy fingers typing some cop-out response try going out and doing a little exercise - you'll feel better, look better and generally be "better" for it.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hants
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA If this thread were giving the Forces a bad name, then your breathtaking combination of naivite, illiteracy and insult are of far greater concern than a few fatties. Please tell me that you are actually a walt, not a serving individual, much less a matelot.
Is it the Spratleys, the Falklands of the Scillies that you are rolling in? You may mean aisles. I do hope that you do not have control over any anual appraisal. Indeed I hope that you have to bale out over cannibal lands (or possibly a region governed by Lynn Truss) where your inability to think and write would have immediate fatal personal consequences.
I do not for a moment imagine anyone suggesting our brave boys and girls need to be fatter and slower (or indeed more stupid), what was being debated (largely without personal insult) was that the policy was disconnected and set disproportionate store (and effort) into testing rather than training and that much fine work had been done in two world wars and other campaigns without a Fitness Test
Edited for typographical error.
Is it the Spratleys, the Falklands of the Scillies that you are rolling in? You may mean aisles. I do hope that you do not have control over any anual appraisal. Indeed I hope that you have to bale out over cannibal lands (or possibly a region governed by Lynn Truss) where your inability to think and write would have immediate fatal personal consequences.
I do not for a moment imagine anyone suggesting our brave boys and girls need to be fatter and slower (or indeed more stupid), what was being debated (largely without personal insult) was that the policy was disconnected and set disproportionate store (and effort) into testing rather than training and that much fine work had been done in two world wars and other campaigns without a Fitness Test
Edited for typographical error.
Last edited by fawkes; 14th Aug 2007 at 13:46.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA, I couldnt give a rats monkeys about what the other 2 services say or how they perceive; perhaps if they tried harder at school (like the PTI's) then they could have joined the thinking man's service! 
By the way, been away anywhere hot and dangerous recently? Or have you been too busy in the Gym or recovering from a sports-related injury?
By the way, been away anywhere hot and dangerous recently? Or have you been too busy in the Gym or recovering from a sports-related injury?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope.. Sorry to disappoint you but I'm not a walt. I'm not serving any more either and I was neither a sailor nor a pongo.
When you resort expending 1/3rd of your entire post to picking up a spelling error you have conceded that you have nothing further of value to add to the conversation. Thank you.
Your "disconnected" and "place disproportionate store in testing" policies are your objective view of them. Others see them as the policymakers realizing there is a problem but allow you to determine how you wish to address it. The test is there to see if you got off your duff... Plain and simple. Saying that an annual test is/was sufficient is utter rubbish. I pulled a muscle two weeks ago and took a week off running. I ran last weekend and re-pulled the same muscle so I took last week off too, (I don't heal like I used to). So, I had only run 1.8 miles in two weeks... When I ran on Saturday I was significantly slower and more stressed running two miles than I was just two weeks before. So, if you can't be trusted to stay fit on your own the tests should probably be administered every month since, from my experience, bi-annually would be far from sufficient.
Let's face it, people administer tests to ensure that you maintain a standard. If you could be left to your own devices in this matter they wouldn't feel the need to test you. They don't keep coming back and having you redo your GCSE's do they?
Lastly, before you try to elicit the support of the entire service by trying to imply that I am insulting all of them read what I write more carefully. I place a distinction between those that train and those that don't. You just don't like the way I refer to them... Not PC enough for you? If you're fat then your fat, period. Can't handle that? That's your problem not mine. Fortunately for you it's one of life's little problems you can easily do something about... if you want to. If you don't then you are in the wrong career because, as you have noted, the policymakers have determined that being a fatty is not part of the job description.
When you resort expending 1/3rd of your entire post to picking up a spelling error you have conceded that you have nothing further of value to add to the conversation. Thank you.
Your "disconnected" and "place disproportionate store in testing" policies are your objective view of them. Others see them as the policymakers realizing there is a problem but allow you to determine how you wish to address it. The test is there to see if you got off your duff... Plain and simple. Saying that an annual test is/was sufficient is utter rubbish. I pulled a muscle two weeks ago and took a week off running. I ran last weekend and re-pulled the same muscle so I took last week off too, (I don't heal like I used to). So, I had only run 1.8 miles in two weeks... When I ran on Saturday I was significantly slower and more stressed running two miles than I was just two weeks before. So, if you can't be trusted to stay fit on your own the tests should probably be administered every month since, from my experience, bi-annually would be far from sufficient.
Let's face it, people administer tests to ensure that you maintain a standard. If you could be left to your own devices in this matter they wouldn't feel the need to test you. They don't keep coming back and having you redo your GCSE's do they?
Lastly, before you try to elicit the support of the entire service by trying to imply that I am insulting all of them read what I write more carefully. I place a distinction between those that train and those that don't. You just don't like the way I refer to them... Not PC enough for you? If you're fat then your fat, period. Can't handle that? That's your problem not mine. Fortunately for you it's one of life's little problems you can easily do something about... if you want to. If you don't then you are in the wrong career because, as you have noted, the policymakers have determined that being a fatty is not part of the job description.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hants
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for a temperate and polite post. Perhaps supporting those (even the fat ones) who are still doing their bit would be appreciated by your colleagues.
Accuracy is important.
There is a difference between "spare him!" and "spear him!"
In Modern warfare inaccurate data can be even more dangerous because it can be trickier to spot.
I think (mirabile dictu) we now agree. If tests need to be once a month, then testing twice a year is no better than testing once a year. Ergo it is a waste of time and resources, and an avoidable embuggerance to test twice a year. Thus the policy has nothing to do with real standards, and everything to do with mistaking activity for action. (See threads about morale/cuts/conditions passim). Incidentally, remind me, how often is the aircrew medical?
I hope that your leg gets better soon: usual advice is to resume gently or try something lower impact like swimming or cycling.
Cheers.
Edited for punctuation.
Accuracy is important.
There is a difference between "spare him!" and "spear him!"
In Modern warfare inaccurate data can be even more dangerous because it can be trickier to spot.
I think (mirabile dictu) we now agree. If tests need to be once a month, then testing twice a year is no better than testing once a year. Ergo it is a waste of time and resources, and an avoidable embuggerance to test twice a year. Thus the policy has nothing to do with real standards, and everything to do with mistaking activity for action. (See threads about morale/cuts/conditions passim). Incidentally, remind me, how often is the aircrew medical?
I hope that your leg gets better soon: usual advice is to resume gently or try something lower impact like swimming or cycling.
Cheers.
Edited for punctuation.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope that your leg gets better soon:
), I shall run another couple tonight at a more ambitious pace.
Incidentally, remind me, how often is the aircrew medical?
We got annual flying checks too while I was in. These were tests that were administered to ensure that we were maintaining/adhering to standards. Training was ongoing for that too throughout the year though it was a supervised activity.
You go to the dentist every six months don't you? But you know you clean your teeth every day... So why are you going to the dentist? Is it to see if you are doing the old teeth cleaning bit effectively? Of course it is. So why the drama over a fitness test? You're only taking the test to make sure you are doing your physical training effectively...
Please... Don't tell me you are from Arkansas...
