Draft 52-18 (Cadet Physical Fitness Program) Posted

Started by Ned, December 05, 2015, 12:15:24 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ned

Greetings,

We have posted the first draft of the new CAPP 52-18 on the Cadet Proving Grounds page of the NHQ CP webpage.  You will also be able to review the cover letter which contains our timetable for the review, revisions, and roll out of the new program.

I invite all cadets and others interested in cadet programs to review the materials and let us know what you think.  The best place to post feedback is on the The Cadet Blog and through your chain of command.  I'll be watching here, of course, but it's best to put the feedback where the staffers and officers responsible for revisions can easily see it.

Any significant change in our terrific cadet program should be reviewed carefully before implementation.  We remain committed to transparency as we develop the program.  We will carefully consider comments and suggestions, and we are also committed to extensive field testing of the program to ensure that it is both comprehensive and easy for units to administer.

Feel free to engage in discussions, but I may not be able to respond to all questions and concerns as quickly as you may like.

Ned Lee
Col, CAP
National Cadet Program Manager

Shutterbug

#1
After initially reading through this draft, I would like to say that these are certainly some drastic changes, and feathers will be ruffled once this gains more exposure among the CAP inter-webs.

I applaud the efforts to overhaul the Cadet Physical Fitness Program as a whole. Areas that haven't received much attention in the past are now getting the face lift they deserve. I was not surprised to see our CPFT standards evolve into what some might refer to as "watered down", and it was fascinating to see how most got easier while some became more difficult.

For example, the jump from the cadet achievement mile times to the Spaatz mile times is a tad drastic, but in the end it gives cadets something to strive for if they intend to earn their triple diamonds someday, instead of just scraping by on the bare minimums up to the Eaker.

In just about every CPFT I've taken, I've tried to push myself and go above and beyond the bare minimums, and have encouraged my cadets to do the same. I see these standards as a adequate guidelines, and as long as we keep encouraging our cadets to strive for excellence in all they do, things will work out just fine.

There's more to the Cadet Physical Fitness Program than just "taking the test", and this draft showcases that well. I look forward to seeing what the future holds.

abdsp51

Col Lee.  After looking at it what was the driving force behind changing the curl ups from a timed measurement to a cadence measurement?  Also I have noticed that the "form" has changed on it.  Is this something that has been determined as safer or easier? 

I am all for incorporating more PT type stuff but looking at seems like its been made easier to pass. Is this part of the intent?

TheSkyHornet

Quote from: abdsp51 on December 05, 2015, 09:48:44 AM
Col Lee.  After looking at it what was the driving force behind changing the curl ups from a timed measurement to a cadence measurement?  Also I have noticed that the "form" has changed on it.  Is this something that has been determined as safer or easier? 

I am all for incorporating more PT type stuff but looking at seems like its been made easier to pass. Is this part of the intent?

I have to agree. I favor the timed measurement as opposed to the cadence, and most cadets that I know seem to prefer it to be timed. So I'm wondering why push-ups went from timed to cadence in the old format, and now curl-ups in this draft.

abdsp51

Quote from: TheSkyHornet on December 06, 2015, 01:29:47 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on December 05, 2015, 09:48:44 AM
Col Lee.  After looking at it what was the driving force behind changing the curl ups from a timed measurement to a cadence measurement?  Also I have noticed that the "form" has changed on it.  Is this something that has been determined as safer or easier? 

I am all for incorporating more PT type stuff but looking at seems like its been made easier to pass. Is this part of the intent?

I have to agree. I favor the timed measurement as opposed to the cadence, and most cadets that I know seem to prefer it to be timed. So I'm wondering why push-ups went from timed to cadence in the old format, and now curl-ups in this draft.

Since I have been back (2012) push-ups was always cadence based.  When I was a cadet it was all timed, push ups, sit ups, and the run.  The only thing not timed was the sit and reach. 

LSThiker

Quote from: abdsp51 on December 06, 2015, 02:40:09 AM
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on December 06, 2015, 01:29:47 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on December 05, 2015, 09:48:44 AM
Col Lee.  After looking at it what was the driving force behind changing the curl ups from a timed measurement to a cadence measurement?  Also I have noticed that the "form" has changed on it.  Is this something that has been determined as safer or easier? 

I am all for incorporating more PT type stuff but looking at seems like its been made easier to pass. Is this part of the intent?

I have to agree. I favor the timed measurement as opposed to the cadence, and most cadets that I know seem to prefer it to be timed. So I'm wondering why push-ups went from timed to cadence in the old format, and now curl-ups in this draft.

Since I have been back (2012) push-ups was always cadence based.  When I was a cadet it was all timed, push ups, sit ups, and the run.  The only thing not timed was the sit and reach.

When push-ups were introduced in 2004, they were cadence. At no point were they timed except by those units doing it incorrectly.

abdsp51

Quote from: LSThiker on December 06, 2015, 03:24:53 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on December 06, 2015, 02:40:09 AM
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on December 06, 2015, 01:29:47 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on December 05, 2015, 09:48:44 AM
Col Lee.  After looking at it what was the driving force behind changing the curl ups from a timed measurement to a cadence measurement?  Also I have noticed that the "form" has changed on it.  Is this something that has been determined as safer or easier? 

I am all for incorporating more PT type stuff but looking at seems like its been made easier to pass. Is this part of the intent?

I have to agree. I favor the timed measurement as opposed to the cadence, and most cadets that I know seem to prefer it to be timed. So I'm wondering why push-ups went from timed to cadence in the old format, and now curl-ups in this draft.

Since I have been back (2012) push-ups was always cadence based.  When I was a cadet it was all timed, push ups, sit ups, and the run.  The only thing not timed was the sit and reach.

When push-ups were introduced in 2004, they were cadence. At no point were they timed except by those units doing it incorrectly.

Push ups were introduced as a timed event the same as sit-up's 96/97.  I was a cadet then and had to take the new PT test to promote to C/2d LT.  Prior to that the only pt requirement for cadets to promote was a mile run.

LSThiker

Sorry I was only referring to the introduction post-2004.

NIN

IIRC, the cadence-based pushups was a thing from the Presidential Physical Fitness program (or whatever name the program was going by at the time/now).  Since much of the CPFT was based on that program, the cadence-based exercises were a carry-thru.

Honestly, I'm not a fan, but I administer the test as prescribed. 

Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

vesryn

These changes look quite drastic, and it will be interesting to see them implemented in a small squadron such as mine. It'll certainly help with not having to do mile runs in the freezing winter. Congrats to the drafters of this new CPFT, there are some great ideas. The six month HFZ seems a lot like what I've heard from my JROTC friend about their fitness testing. This testing is also a lot like current military testing (from what I've heard). I (as a cadet) approve, but I'll have to really read more in depth into this to give some solid conclusions about it.

Also a minor spelling error(?) that has probably already been caught - Appendix A, One Mile Run, Scoring : 

"The object of the test for these younger students is simply to complete the one-mile distance at a comfortable pace and to prac-tice pacing, so it is not necessary to time the run for these students."
Eaker #3363
NYWG Encampment Cadet Commander 2018
NYWG Encampment '13, '14, '15, '18, '19

Ned

Thanks for the feedback so far, please keep it up!



Quote from: abdsp51 on December 05, 2015, 09:48:44 AM
Col Lee.  After looking at it what was the driving force behind changing the curl ups from a timed measurement to a cadence measurement?  Also I have noticed that the "form" has changed on it.  Is this something that has been determined as safer or easier? 

I am all for incorporating more PT type stuff but looking at seems like its been made easier to pass. Is this part of the intent?

The "mechanics" of the events are taken directly from the extensively-researched Presidential Youth Fitness Program (PYFP).  One of the major objectives of the draft CPFT revision is to ensure that it is based on the science of youth fitness and health assessment, rather than subjective standards of how many pushups or curl ups a given cadet "should" be able to do based on their age, gender, and CAP grade.

And part of that is basing our standards on the documented results of thousands of assessments administered to millions of young people in the CAP cadet age-group.  Not old standards and test from decades before videogames, mobile devices, and ubiquitous fast food, but real measurements of middle and high school students today.  Accordingly we need to run the tests the same way that the PYFP folks do to make sure we are comparing "apples to apples," so to speak.  They use the cadenced assessments for push-ups and curl-ups, so we have to do so.

I have not spoken with the right people at the PYFP to be able to say exactly why their curl-up assessment changed from timed to cadenced with slightly different mechanics, but I think we can safely assume they changed based on input from physiologists and physicians to reduce the possibility of sports injuries during the exam.  I'll see if I can find some specifics.


lordmonar

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

SARDOC

if they are running the Presidential Youth Fitness program at their school, can we accept the results for our purposes?

Ned

Quote from: SARDOC on December 06, 2015, 08:28:59 PM
if they are running the Presidential Youth Fitness program at their school, can we accept the results for our purposes?

Remembering that the assessment is only one part of the Physical Fitness Program, the answer is "yes" subject to the discretion of the commander.  See paragraph 5-11 of the draft.


ranger0305

I would like to know why they changed the form of the curl-ups. I don't like the changing from a timed exercise to cadence but it doesn't matter too much, but the new form seems slightly ridiculous to me. Also the mile run i just had to get an 8:08 to pass, now all i would have to do is about 10:00? That wouldn't even be trying to me, PT is supposed to be a challenge. I understand that cadets fitness isn't what it used to be but the higher ranks should challenge you, now the fastest run time would be 8:04, and 7:35 for fitness badge.
The one thing i agree with is giving cadets in their first phase rank without a test, as i have lost a few cadets who were active and interested but couldn't pass PT.

Of course please remember this is my personal opinion.

Respectfully,
Ranger.
"IT'S BETTER TO DIE FIGHTING FOR SOMETHING, THAN TO LIVE FOR NOTHING." 

C/MSgt
GTM3
MRO*
FLM*

LSThiker

61 push-ups for the Spaatz?  That is going to get a lot of cadets. 

Keep up the good work, Ned.

almostspaatz

Quote from: lordmonar on December 06, 2015, 07:58:20 PM
Stop using science!!!! :)

IKR, right? Why won't they just do whatever WE want...instead of asking all those experts and stuff..... ;D
C/Maj Steve Garrett

lordmonar

Quote from: ranger0305 on December 07, 2015, 12:38:09 AMPT is supposed to be a challenge. I understand that cadets fitness isn't what it used to be but the higher ranks should challenge you
Why?   What does being a faster runner, able to do more push ups or curl ups have to do with being a better leader?

That was one of the problems with the current system.    The higher percentiles for higher ranks was an arbitrary standard.    Being in good physical health is important in a good leader, but there is no correlation (as far as I have heard) between being in "better' physical shape and leadership ability. 

Even on active duty there are no extra points for being in better shape then the minimums.   They do give out awards and rewards for doing better....but they do not directly relate to your promote-ability.   

To Ned and the CP folks.....this looks very good.   

I was wondering why we are keeping the 2+Run standard and not changing back to a 3+Run.   I think this sends a mixed message about being well rounded and balanced in your fitness.

I also see an issue with the quarterly testing cycle.   Right now if a cadet fails a test he/hes can retest in four weeks.....with the new system they must wait for the next quarter(or more if they can't make the next Saturday testing session).    I think we need to make sure that we include language that leaves it open for units to perform tests out of cycle if they choose to do so.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

arajca

IRT the 2+run, I have had several cadets with long legs who could not pass the sit-&-reach. These cadet were typically bean-poles with very little fat. Their physiology made it impossible for them to pass. We made them attempt it, of course, but no one expected them to pass. Should they have been denied promotion because they were physically incapable of meeting the standard? Or should they been put in a CPFT Category III status?

Garibaldi

Quote from: arajca on December 07, 2015, 02:04:17 PM
IRT the 2+run, I have had several cadets with long legs who could not pass the sit-&-reach. These cadet were typically bean-poles with very little fat. Their physiology made it impossible for them to pass. We made them attempt it, of course, but no one expected them to pass. Should they have been denied promotion because they were physically incapable of meeting the standard? Or should they been put in a CPFT Category III status?

Were they able to pass the Sit and Reach and Push Ups, in addition to the mile (or shuttle run)?
Still a major after all these years.
ES dude, leadership ossifer, publik affaires
Opinionated and wrong 99% of the time about all things

ranger0305

Quote from: lordmonar on December 07, 2015, 04:52:39 AM
Why?   What does being a faster runner, able to do more push ups or curl ups have to do with being a better leader?

Directly perhaps it doesn't, in my opinion however achieving a challenging physical test shows commitment.

Does anyone know why they changed the form of curl-ups? Is it supposed to be some back saver thing also? The new form seems extremely easy to me, which goes back to my point above. So perhaps they geared this new program toward your thinking Lordmonar. I am sure in many cases you are right on your point about PT not having do do anything with leadership, its just my opinion. One thing we do that does require somewhat good physical condition is ground team. Without having a fitness test for the first rank will we be putting cadets who cant walk a mile or two on a ground team?
I am not trying to bash the new program just trying to understand it better.

Thanks,
Ranger.

"IT'S BETTER TO DIE FIGHTING FOR SOMETHING, THAN TO LIVE FOR NOTHING." 

C/MSgt
GTM3
MRO*
FLM*

lordmonar

A.  Not my program
B. The current CFPT is putting cadets who can't walk a mile or two on ground teams. And since there is no similar test for seniors your point is null and void.
C. Sticking with the cadet program and the time in grade requirement shows commitment.

To Arajca:  I have seen that too but that was either the old arbitrary percentile standards.   This new standard seems much more sensible and achievable. 
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

winnipegbarley

Quote from: Ned on December 06, 2015, 07:41:05 PM
And part of that is basing our standards on the documented results of thousands of assessments administered to millions of young people in the CAP cadet age-group.  Not old standards and test from decades before videogames, mobile devices, and ubiquitous fast food, but real measurements of middle and high school students today.
Physical fitness standards need to be lowered because the general population has adopted a lot of unhealthy habits? That doesn't sound right...

LSThiker

Quote from: ranger0305 on December 07, 2015, 02:59:44 PM
Does anyone know why they changed the form of curl-ups?

CAP changed the curl-ups in order to meet the standards presented in the Presidential Youth Fitness Program.  If the current method of performing the curl-ups was used, then the standards used in the PYFP could not be applied since the forms are different. 

Now if you are asking why the PYFP is using this form as opposed to other forms, then the answer is there:

QuoteThe curl-up
with knees flexed and feet unanchored has been
selected because individually these elements have
been shown to a) decrease movement of the fifth
lumbar vertebra over the sacral vertebrae, b) minimize
the activation of the hip flexors, c) increase the
activation of the external and internal obliques and
transverse abdominals, and d) maximize abdominal
muscle activation of the lower and upper rectus
abdominals relative to disc compression (load)
when compared with a variety of sit-ups.
Few results are available on the consistency and
accuracy of the curl-up. Reliability is higher for college
students than for children but the values are
acceptable for this type of assessment. Determination
of validity has been hampered by the lack of an
established criterion measure. Anatomical analysis
and electromyographical documentation provide
the primary support for the use of the curl-up test
to determine abdominal strength and endurance.

arajca

Quote from: Garibaldi on December 07, 2015, 02:17:00 PM
Quote from: arajca on December 07, 2015, 02:04:17 PM
IRT the 2+run, I have had several cadets with long legs who could not pass the sit-&-reach. These cadet were typically bean-poles with very little fat. Their physiology made it impossible for them to pass. We made them attempt it, of course, but no one expected them to pass. Should they have been denied promotion because they were physically incapable of meeting the standard? Or should they been put in a CPFT Category III status?

Were they able to pass the Sit and Reach and Push Ups, in addition to the mile (or shuttle run)?
The were able to pass the curl-up, push-up and shuttle run.

Ned

Quote from: winnipegbarley on December 07, 2015, 03:37:59 PM
Physical fitness standards need to be lowered because the general population has adopted a lot of unhealthy habits? That doesn't sound right...

The original standards were based on "contemporary" measurements made in the '70s and '80's if I recall correctly.  The PYFP simply stopped making assessments at that point and relied on increasingly older data for their program.  Countless CAP members complained that the CPFT baseline data was based on "old" data and unfairly punished cadets in the 21st Century.

And about five years ago, the PYFP significantly changed its focus and assessments.

But much more importantly, the new standards are based on the science of health.  Restated, the experts are able to determine when a given level of fitness supports good health.  Individuals below that level are much more likely to suffer from chronic conditions that require professional intervention and adversely affect lifestyles.

We are in the business of developing lifelong habits of regular activity and fitness for our cadets.   

jeders

Quote from: LSThiker on December 07, 2015, 03:52:59 PM
Quote from: ranger0305 on December 07, 2015, 02:59:44 PM
Does anyone know why they changed the form of curl-ups?

CAP changed the curl-ups in order to meet the standards presented in the Presidential Youth Fitness Program.  If the current method of performing the curl-ups was used, then the standards used in the PYFP could not be applied since the forms are different. 

I'm not so sure that's true since what you quote below states that there's very little data on curl-ups being any good period (emphasis mine). However, the safety benefits of the new form over the old form are worth the changes. And since the new form requires the head to touch the surface for every rep, it's good that it is slowed down. If I tried to bang out 50 curl ups in a minute while being required to touch my head to the ground each time, I'd be severely injured even with a mat.

QuoteNow if you are asking why the PYFP is using this form as opposed to other forms, then the answer is there:

QuoteThe curl-up
with knees flexed and feet unanchored has been
selected because individually these elements have
been shown to a) decrease movement of the fifth
lumbar vertebra over the sacral vertebrae, b) minimize
the activation of the hip flexors, c) increase the
activation of the external and internal obliques and
transverse abdominals, and d) maximize abdominal
muscle activation of the lower and upper rectus
abdominals relative to disc compression (load)
when compared with a variety of sit-ups.
Few results are available on the consistency and
accuracy of the curl-up.
Reliability is higher for college
students than for children but the values are
acceptable for this type of assessment. Determination
of validity has been hampered by the lack of an
established criterion measure.
Anatomical analysis
and electromyographical documentation provide
the primary support for the use of the curl-up test
to determine abdominal strength and endurance.

All of that said, the new curl up form is going to require quite additional equipment that most squadron don't have or don't have room for (mats). Is national going to provide mats of some sort, or will this be another unfunded mandate for the squadrons?
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse

jeders

Quote from: LSThiker on December 07, 2015, 01:00:56 AM
61 push-ups for the Spaatz?  That is going to get a lot of cadets. 

I have found that when you do as many push-ups as possible in a set time, you usually end up doing more than you can doing them by cadence. I've seen cadets that can only do 15 cadence push-ups easily bust out 30+ non-cadence push-ups.
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse

LSThiker

Quote from: jeders on December 07, 2015, 06:03:07 PM
I'm not so sure that's true since what you quote below states that there's very little data on curl-ups being any good period (emphasis mine).

That is not my point.  My point is that you cannot use the current CAP grading standards and apply those to the PYFP grading standards.  Otherwise, you will be comparing apples and oranges as the current grading standards created by the PYFP is using the PYFP form.  To use the CAP form, you would need to create the grading data based on that form, which is what the current form did with the PCPFS did.  Therefore, the PCPFS form and the PYFP form are not interchangeable.   

In those lines that you bolded, what the authors are stating is that the consistency and/or accuracy of measuring the abdominal strength and endurance cannot be determined for the curl-up in general.  Meaning, does the curl-up test consistently measure the abdominal strength in children?  The answer is not sufficient evidence because no criteria have been established.  They are not comparing methods. 


LSThiker

Quote from: jeders on December 07, 2015, 06:09:21 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on December 07, 2015, 01:00:56 AM
61 push-ups for the Spaatz?  That is going to get a lot of cadets. 

I have found that when you do as many push-ups as possible in a set time, you usually end up doing more than you can doing them by cadence. I've seen cadets that can only do 15 cadence push-ups easily bust out 30+ non-cadence push-ups.

Agreed.  When I do the APFT, I was able to knock out way more push-ups than I could do with CAP's cadence form.  Nevertheless, 61 push-ups will be difficult for some cadets as it is difficult for even some Service Members. 

It must be noted that I am not saying it should be changed, modified, or otherwise lowered.  Just simply stating an observation.

avguy

Here's my comment I left at the CP blog:

"For the sake of all the new cadets in northern climate squadrons who are not conditioned to run a passing mile, and do not have access to an indoor training facility to allow safe daily indoor running workouts to get into passing condition, please issue an ICL ASAP waiving the mile run for Phase I cadets. If PT standards for Phase I are going to be waived for Phase I cadets anyways, now (the onset of winter) is the time to ensure that northern squadrons don't lose a significant number of our new recruits over the next 6 months."

Will Craig, Maj, CAP
CC
NCR-MN-042




CAPs1

Less than two secs per Spaatz push-up is ridiculous (61 in 2mins).





abdsp51

Quote from: avguy on December 07, 2015, 07:00:55 PM
Here's my comment I left at the CP blog:

"For the sake of all the new cadets in northern climate squadrons who are not conditioned to run a passing mile, and do not have access to an indoor training facility to allow safe daily indoor running workouts to get into passing condition, please issue an ICL ASAP waiving the mile run for Phase I cadets. If PT standards for Phase I are going to be waived for Phase I cadets anyways, now (the onset of winter) is the time to ensure that northern squadrons don't lose a significant number of our new recruits over the next 6 months."

Why should only northern tier be exempt?  It's cold plenty of places and hot as well. 

thebeggerpie

I can beat out +35 Pushups without a cadence. When I do it with a cadence, I dropped to around 17 pushups. It sucks. I think timed is far better, imho...

The new Curl-Ups look super-easy, compared to a full Sit-Up.

New Sit-N-Reach looks handy, but I still question the point of having a stretch among a bunch of exercises. I support Pull-Ups as an option.  >:D


vorteks

Quote from: abdsp51 on December 08, 2015, 10:31:30 PM
Quote from: avguy on December 07, 2015, 07:00:55 PM
Here's my comment I left at the CP blog:

"For the sake of all the new cadets in northern climate squadrons who are not conditioned to run a passing mile, and do not have access to an indoor training facility to allow safe daily indoor running workouts to get into passing condition, please issue an ICL ASAP waiving the mile run for Phase I cadets. If PT standards for Phase I are going to be waived for Phase I cadets anyways, now (the onset of winter) is the time to ensure that northern squadrons don't lose a significant number of our new recruits over the next 6 months."

Why should only northern tier be exempt?  It's cold plenty of places and hot as well.

Perhaps you misread that. He said "please issue an ICL ASAP waiving the mile run for Phase I cadets."

LSThiker

Quote from: varitec on December 08, 2015, 10:54:03 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on December 08, 2015, 10:31:30 PM
Quote from: avguy on December 07, 2015, 07:00:55 PM
Here's my comment I left at the CP blog:

"For the sake of all the new cadets in northern climate squadrons who are not conditioned to run a passing mile, and do not have access to an indoor training facility to allow safe daily indoor running workouts to get into passing condition, please issue an ICL ASAP waiving the mile run for Phase I cadets. If PT standards for Phase I are going to be waived for Phase I cadets anyways, now (the onset of winter) is the time to ensure that northern squadrons don't lose a significant number of our new recruits over the next 6 months."

Why should only northern tier be exempt?  It's cold plenty of places and hot as well.

Perhaps you misread that. He said "please issue an ICL ASAP waiving the mile run for Phase I cadets."

Northern was stated 10 words from the beginning and 16 words from the ending.  I bolded it for you in the above quote.

abdsp51

Quote from: varitec on December 08, 2015, 10:54:03 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on December 08, 2015, 10:31:30 PM
Quote from: avguy on December 07, 2015, 07:00:55 PM
Here's my comment I left at the CP blog:

"For the sake of all the new cadets in northern climate squadrons who are not conditioned to run a passing mile, and do not have access to an indoor training facility to allow safe daily indoor running workouts to get into passing condition, please issue an ICL ASAP waiving the mile run for Phase I cadets. If PT standards for Phase I are going to be waived for Phase I cadets anyways, now (the onset of winter) is the time to ensure that northern squadrons don't lose a significant number of our new recruits over the next 6 months."

Why should only northern tier be exempt?  It's cold plenty of places and hot as well.

Perhaps you misread that. He said "please issue an ICL ASAP waiving the mile run for Phase I cadets."

Didn't misread anything.  Legit question...

avguy

Quote from: abdsp51 on December 08, 2015, 10:31:30 PM
Why should only northern tier be exempt?  It's cold plenty of places and hot as well.

I didn't recommend that only the northern tier should be exempt.  I cited the effect of the current program requirements on the northern tier cadet members.
Will Craig, Maj, CAP
CC
NCR-MN-042




vorteks

Quote from: LSThiker on December 08, 2015, 10:57:32 PM
Quote from: varitec on December 08, 2015, 10:54:03 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on December 08, 2015, 10:31:30 PM
Quote from: avguy on December 07, 2015, 07:00:55 PM
Here's my comment I left at the CP blog:

"For the sake of all the new cadets in northern climate squadrons who are not conditioned to run a passing mile, and do not have access to an indoor training facility to allow safe daily indoor running workouts to get into passing condition, please issue an ICL ASAP waiving the mile run for Phase I cadets. If PT standards for Phase I are going to be waived for Phase I cadets anyways, now (the onset of winter) is the time to ensure that northern squadrons don't lose a significant number of our new recruits over the next 6 months."

Why should only northern tier be exempt?  It's cold plenty of places and hot as well.

Perhaps you misread that. He said "please issue an ICL ASAP waiving the mile run for Phase I cadets."

Northern was stated 10 words from the beginning and 16 words from the ending.  I bolded it for you in the above quote.

Yep, the word "northern" appears in the post. Yet nowhere did he say that only northern climates should be exempt.

sarmed1

Quote from: LSThiker on December 07, 2015, 01:00:56 AM
61 push-ups for the Spaatz?  That is going to get a lot of cadets. 

Keep up the good work, Ned.

I dont know my last USAF PT test I did 55 non cadenced, and I am in no way some kind of PT stud.  I am 43, mildly overweight and only go to the gym 3 times a week for about an hour between strength training and cardio.  I am sure a 17-21 year old that is working out plays sports and has a naturally low body fat could pull it off

mk
Capt.  Mark "K12" Kleibscheidel

Майор Хаткевич


TheSkyHornet

Quote from: Ned on December 06, 2015, 07:41:05 PM
Thanks for the feedback so far, please keep it up!



Quote from: abdsp51 on December 05, 2015, 09:48:44 AM
Col Lee.  After looking at it what was the driving force behind changing the curl ups from a timed measurement to a cadence measurement?  Also I have noticed that the "form" has changed on it.  Is this something that has been determined as safer or easier? 

I am all for incorporating more PT type stuff but looking at seems like its been made easier to pass. Is this part of the intent?

The "mechanics" of the events are taken directly from the extensively-researched Presidential Youth Fitness Program (PYFP).  One of the major objectives of the draft CPFT revision is to ensure that it is based on the science of youth fitness and health assessment, rather than subjective standards of how many pushups or curl ups a given cadet "should" be able to do based on their age, gender, and CAP grade.

And part of that is basing our standards on the documented results of thousands of assessments administered to millions of young people in the CAP cadet age-group.  Not old standards and test from decades before videogames, mobile devices, and ubiquitous fast food, but real measurements of middle and high school students today.  Accordingly we need to run the tests the same way that the PYFP folks do to make sure we are comparing "apples to apples," so to speak.  They use the cadenced assessments for push-ups and curl-ups, so we have to do so.

I have not spoken with the right people at the PYFP to be able to say exactly why their curl-up assessment changed from timed to cadenced with slightly different mechanics, but I think we can safely assume they changed based on input from physiologists and physicians to reduce the possibility of sports injuries during the exam.  I'll see if I can find some specifics.

No offense, Col Lee, and please don't take this as me being snippy, this sounds an awful lot like you're saying that you're going to run with a program because it seems to work but have no idea why it works.

Why is it that cadets awould be subjected to a youth fitness program in which a cadence is used for the timing rather than putting out maximum effort in an allotted time frame, being that there must be some form of physiological science behind it, yet the military, in which recruits can begin physical training at 17, go into a time-based PT structure? Between 16 and 17, there isn't some magic transition in the body that says "Now you can start the countdown clock." At least, I'm not a physician so I can't speak for that on an official level.

Granted, you did say you'll try to find some specifics, so I would appreciate that.

I guess my overall point is this---Why not take a military PT test and tone it down for the applicable ages? I'm sure we may come across some scenarios where we might be told that 12-year-olds should be subjected to certain physical activities over others due to their body composition and development, but the same standards for 12-year-olds in CAP apply to the 18-year-olds, who I think are more than capable of a military-style PT regimen. Of course, even the military has always had the debate of what is and isn't acceptable PT. I'm just wondering if we're over-complicating this and going off of answers to questions that weren't really researched.

So far, the feedback from my cadets who I've asked to read through this, has been sporadic. Some like it. Some don't. The cadenced curl-ups seem to be the majority concern. There's some confusion over the new exercises, which is understandable, and I won't get on top of that much at this point. I'd like to re-read the proposal again in a few days just to let it marinade better.

Ned

Quote from: TheSkyHornet on December 11, 2015, 07:27:38 PM
I guess my overall point is this---Why not take a military PT test and tone it down for the applicable ages?

Good question.  The military (well, in this case the militaries since each seem to have their own PT test) have invested a huge amount of time and effort into creating science-based fitness tests.  Goodness knows I certainly took the APFT many, many times before I retired from the Army.  And the military certainly has standards for folks 17 and older.

It's easy to say "just tone it down" for a 12 year old, but we were unable to find any evidence that would allow us to do it with any confidence.  And we looked very, very hard.  We did not particularly want to change the CPFT in the first place, but to paraphrase Ronald Reagan " we didn't leave the CPFT, the CPFT left us."

IOW, we can be pretty sure that a 12 year-old is not just "12/17ths" of a 17 year-old.  There are huge physiological differences between adolescents and pre-adolescents that Uncle Sam simply did not need to address in developing the military standards.  We would have been reduced to just hip-shooting how fast we think a 13-year old female should be able to run a mile.  That simply did not seem fair to our younger cadets.

But just as importantly, we wanted the test to be based on less on arbitrary standards, and more on the science of health and fitness.  We consulted experts, sent staffers to youth health conferences, and worked closely with school PE professionals and found the only science based data for young Americans in the cadet age range cohort - the PYFP.

Interestingly enough, we were discussing the field testing, revision, and roll-out schedule on a staff call just this week when a member pointed out that many, if not most, of the cadets are already familiar with the cadenced exercises since most schools already use the PYFP assessments.  IOW, many of the troops have already been exposed to and participated in something very much like the proposed new CPFT.  I'll be interested in their comments.

SarDragon

Ned got to this before I did, and presented an (as usual) outstanding response. The only thing I have to add is that we aren't the military. I'm a 6 yr cadet, 20+ yr military vet, and 4x yr CAP member, and I haven't really seen the need for cadets to operate in the same manner and conditions as the military in general. The fitness needs are different between the two groups. As Ned and Hatkevich have noted, this is something cadets are seeing in school, so it's not totally strange.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

TheSkyHornet

My argument is that this is an organization in which we are supposed to be able to conduct emergency services in harsh, outdoor conditions. Physical fitness in CAP is not just about youth health; you also have a mission that requires it. Does the new CPFT provide the physical capabilities of performing that mission?

Perhaps we should open discussions regarding ground team members requiring a physical performance standard. We have some severely overweight and out of shape cadets and senior members who I'm not so sure would be capable of performing in the field if they needed to. It's one thing to have a physical fitness program to promote health and wellness and gear it toward promotion standards for each age. But it's an entirely separate issue to gear a physical fitness program toward search and rescue operations in wooded, rugged terrain or disaster areas where physical performance is essential to not just mission success but safety.

I know this isn't a discussion about senior fitness, but why isn't there a voluntary senior member fitness program as well? Is that not as equally important?

Ned


Great points!

We (as in both here on CT and the broader CAP community) have certainly discussed SM fitness programs before, and it has been difficult to arrive at anything resembling a consensus on a path forward.

While we generally agree that a voluntary fitness program would be good for every senior, it is frankly hard to design one that effectively meets the needs of a highly diverse membership (in terms of age, fitness, CAP job, etc.)  It's been a while since I looked up the mean age of a SM, but my best recollection is that it is north of 45 years of age.  For the record, I passed that particular landmark a long time ago. 

And many of our seniors have a significant disability.  Heck, the whole point of CAP was to allow citizens who did not qualify for military service because of age, fitness, disability, etc. to serve their county.

It is very difficult to design even a voluntary program for the widest possible range of ages and ability levels.

Even when we try to focus just on folks who are engaged in ES, we've had trouble agreeing on what an appropriate fitness standard should be.  Ideally, I suppose, it should be job-related like the ability to hike x miles in y minutes while carrying z pounds. 

But given the differences in terrain across the country (the Sierras in PCR versus no mountains to speak of in FL), it has been difficult to agree on even rough standards.  Should all GT members, for instance, be able to fill and lift 50lb sandbags?  Might make sense in LAWG, but perhaps not in Nevada.

Additionally, some members are just sensitive about the whole topic, and concerned that even a "voluntary" program might create undue bureaucracy for units and even be improperly used by poor leaders to harass or discriminate against some members.

It's a difficult and sensitive subject.

But if it helps, I personally support outreach to all of our members to improve their health and fitness.  It's a cliché, but also true:  members are our most important asset, and we should try to provide encouragement and assistance to all of our members to maintain their health.

Quote from: TheSkyHornet on December 14, 2015, 06:59:32 PM
My argument is that this is an organization in which we are supposed to be able to conduct emergency services in harsh, outdoor conditions. Physical fitness in CAP is not just about youth health; you also have a mission that requires it. Does the new CPFT provide the physical capabilities of performing that mission?

Perhaps we should open discussions regarding ground team members requiring a physical performance standard. We have some severely overweight and out of shape cadets and senior members who I'm not so sure would be capable of performing in the field if they needed to. It's one thing to have a physical fitness program to promote health and wellness and gear it toward promotion standards for each age. But it's an entirely separate issue to gear a physical fitness program toward search and rescue operations in wooded, rugged terrain or disaster areas where physical performance is essential to not just mission success but safety.

I know this isn't a discussion about senior fitness, but why isn't there a voluntary senior member fitness program as well? Is that not as equally important?

LTC Don

I'm sure this happens a lot, but why is a Pamphlet requiring something a Regulation should --

QuoteEach unit will create and maintain a Hall of Fame board recognizing individuals with the highest achievement in fitness.

and

QuoteEach unit will create and maintain a Personal Best Board recognizing the achievements of each individual in the unit.

Once again, CAP sets up the units to fail.  My unit (and there are many like mine) that don't have a home to hang bulletin boards up. Was this in the old Pamphlet or is this new? I would love to be able to comply with this but simply can't since my unit doesn't have a headquarters.

The above requirements need to be changed to 'highly recommended', not 'will be done'.

I'm sure there are some online options for creating virtual boards.  Is there some easy way of doing this in Facebook? Are there any units posting here that actually comply with the above requirements?



Donald A. Beckett, Lt Col, CAP
Commander
MER-NC-143
Gill Rob Wilson #1891

wacapgh

Quote from: LTC Don on December 14, 2015, 07:55:27 PM
I'm sure this happens a lot, but why is a Pamphlet requiring something a Regulation should --

QuoteEach unit will create and maintain a Hall of Fame board recognizing individuals with the highest achievement in fitness.

and

QuoteEach unit will create and maintain a Personal Best Board recognizing the achievements of each individual in the unit.


An issue that happens often enough to make it one of the specific goals of the "Regulation Rewrite":

g. CAP should consider employing a two-publication construct whereby mandatory
compliance items are recorded in a regulation (directive) and non-mandatory/"how to"
items are placed in pamphlets (non-directive). The pamphlet should align with the
number of the regulation (i.e. CAPR 60-1 marries up with CAPP 60-1). It is conceivable
that CAP might want to standardize a particular process ("how to"). In this case, the
process should be in the regulation and not the pamphlet.

Ned

Quote from: LTC Don on December 14, 2015, 07:55:27 PM
[Concerning the Hall of Fame and Personal Best Boards]  My unit (and there are many like mine) that don't have a home to hang bulletin boards up. Was this in the old Pamphlet or is this new? I would love to be able to comply with this but simply can't since my unit doesn't have a headquarters.?

Excellent point.  I'm pretty sure that the primary author was anticipating "virtual boards" on the squadron website for units like yours, but we definitely need to change the language to make that clear.

Thank you.

Keep up the excellent feedback.

LSThiker

Ned, will the rewrite of CAPP 52-18 be affected by the publications rewrite moratorium? 

Ned

Quote from: LSThiker on December 14, 2015, 09:36:30 PM
Ned, will the rewrite of CAPP 52-18 be affected by the publications rewrite moratorium?

Excellent question.

Answer:  We don't think so, but are not entirely sure.  In any event, our projected effective date is next fall so we have plenty of time to figure it out.

BTW, the chapters on nutrition, lesson planning, target heart rates, etc., are planned for a separate publication "Training Guide for Fitness Leaders" (still working on the title.)



TheSkyHornet

Quote from: Ned on December 15, 2015, 05:05:38 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on December 14, 2015, 09:36:30 PM
Ned, will the rewrite of CAPP 52-18 be affected by the publications rewrite moratorium?

Excellent question.

Answer:  We don't think so, but are not entirely sure.  In any event, our projected effective date is next fall so we have plenty of time to figure it out.

BTW, the chapters on nutrition, lesson planning, target heart rates, etc., are planned for a separate publication "Training Guide for Fitness Leaders" (still working on the title.)

Mucho likey on this idea

jeders

Ned,

I just posted the following on the cadet blog for this topic, but I wanted to post here as well.

QuoteFirst, let me say that I generally like what I'm seeing in the new CPFT. As a product of the late 90s/early 00s CPFT, I think that this is a good shift from outdated standards to standards more aligned with teaching an overall healthy lifestyle.

My one big concern, which I haven't heard or seen commented on, is the change to the physical fitness categories. Currently, a cadet in Cat 2 cannot attempt a milestone test. Under the new proposed system, a cadet in Cat 2 can attempt a milestone test. As we all know, Cat 2 requires only squadron commander certification that a cadet is unable to attempt the PFT, and while it is recommended that it be used for no more than 6 months, there is no requirement that it not be used more than 6 months.

I believe that some of our less scrupulous commanders and DCCs will take advantage of this for those cadets who are not in shape or don't want to get in shape. With the inability of a cadet in Cat 2 to attempt a milestone test, we have a safety valve that helps maintain the validity and credibility of the system, much like the requirement for written tests for milestones when we went to online testing.
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse

lordmonar

We should not hold the hands of CP leaders who are doing the right thing and add more hoops for them to jump through because an unknown number of CP officers may be abusing that authority.  The answer is not to hold back cadets but to monitor CP operations more. 

YMMV
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

vorteks


lordmonar

By visiting units more.  By spot checking CFPT results.  By firing those commanders we know are not doing it right.   Folding back C/SrA with a broken leg for six months from making SSgt because some commander across the country is using Cat II to give a pass to his less then physically fit cadets is not the way I would do it.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

vorteks

No doubt you would do things right, but in the real world your remedy is pure fantasy. Fire commanders who aren't doing things right? LOL!

lordmonar

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

vorteks


Spam

From the perspective of someone with a CP and IG background who just handed his DCP job over this summer to take a unit command slot (yet again, sigh):


1/ CPFT monitoring and inspection is not as useful as it used to be, given an IG system which just has completed dumbing down the SUI CP Tab inspection items to little more than safety items and online CI record checks. It is illogical to keep proposing adding "shall" and "will" compliance items for tests and billboards and so forth, holding unit commanders to these more complex standards, without any expectation of ever actually inspecting them to standards. I speak as a recent DCP who highlighted a number struggling units who failed to measure their run courses, failed to use cadenced pushups, and so forth. Many of these units were poorly staffed, marginally trained, and were doing their best to stay afloat given that many of their officers were non prior service, valiantly trying to keep their units afloat and serve the complex CP program requirements. (Lets be honest, this program is not designed to be run easily by three adults). Some of those units failed and were shuttered, rather than compromise standards; is this result a "win", or a "fail", overall, I would ask?


2/ KISS principle is being vastly ignored here in the new CPFT draft. Making a program element and its associated verification methods (i.e. tests) MORE complex than it has ever been, regardless of its provenance from a science standpoint, is a recipe for disaster from the viewpoint of this subset of generally well intentioned yet moderately trained volunteers we have in CAP. The ratio is gradually getting worse over time, for NHQ-mandated workload vs. available time for the average small unit with perhaps three adult officers directly working with cadets. In several of these cases, the general response to my counseling during inspections and SAVs, and during TLC events on how to correctly administer the CPFT was blank incredulous stares and then unprintable comments, added to general expressions of the high workload involved in the mandatory boards, testing, inspections, monthly content required, etc. The CAP cadet program is not designed for small units to run easily, and it frequently falls apart in those cases (*viewed from my perspective of five Midwest and east coast Wings over the past 35 years of watching the CP program get more and more complex over time).


3/ Verification measures of program effectiveness (MOEs) in the form of a Test should be succinctly and clearly written in a CAPT (Test) not in a Pamphlet. The overarching requirement "Shall" and "Will" language needs to be contained only in a Reg or Manual, not in a Pamphlet. Pamphlets are as mentioned herein suitable for class guidelines and informative material, not test
standards.


4/ Comment from two of my CP officers: "The new six-month "Healthy Fitness Zone" certification effectively does an end-run around other regulations by adding additional cadet promotion requirements and an administrative burden on senior members".
and "What is the HFZ and what is it for? Why not just accept a passing grade"?


5/ ES standards of fitness need to be task-based, not normed to populations based on age cohorts or nominal measures of fitness. If CAP ever does move to establish physiological quals for field teams and aircrew, those should be established on the basis of a mission task decomposition which breaks down tasks to establish required KSAs (Knowledge/Skills/Abilities) to document the physical requirements if any. We do knowledge and skills now, but not strength stamina and endurance. In the mid 1990s, NAVAIRSYSCOM 4.6 (Aircrew Systems Engineering Branch) responded to a Naval Aviation Medical Research Lab request to establish required strength factors for each Navy aircraft (e.g. AV-8B Harrier manual canopy pulls, SH-60 collective failure arm pulls at ~150 lbs, etc.) Doing this for CAP would be the only non-controversial, science based way to avoid sex and age biases in using physio measures for duty selections (i.e. no question about females, minorities, or older or younger crew, as long as they could do the tasks).  Having been involved in this research from the NAVAIR (Pax River) end, I don't see us doing this easily for CAP, but that's the path to go if we do.


6/ Comments from another of my officers: "The new program requires the use of slow cadenced exercises (which target slow-twitch muscles) for the entire cadet program, then suddenly switches to the maximum-effort USAFA PT test (which requires the use of fast-twitch muscles) for the Spaatz award" and "At the specified 3-second cadence, it is not possible to do 61 push-ups or 81 curl-ups in only two minutes.  The max is 40.  (The USAFA test does not specify a cadence, which is why those numbers are possible for academy applicants.)  Those numbers are also a huge jump from the CAP standards of 18 and 24, respectively.  At what point are the Spaatz candidates supposed to make such a quantum leap in fitness"?

These inconsistent mismatches (in both the cadenced standard, as well as the numbers) embody negative transfer of training along a continuum of PT training towards an ill defined goal. This indicates a need for a more systematic approach before approval of this revision.


6/ So, I argue that a balance of taking a science based approach and meeting our internal (cadet) and external (military) customer expectations is needed. Looking forward as well as backwards in terms of tracing our requirements is necessary, in a good Systems Engineering approach. Requirements traceability is a serious issue when planning requirements verification (aka "tests"). This is behind the "good science" justification COL Lee mentions, and I support that approach. Yet, a CPFT approach entirely focused on the PYFP is focused backwards, where our cadet customers have been, and not forwards, on where they may intend to go. One of the recommendations of our Wing CAC (to which I was advisor as DCP) when examining this issue was to ensure that CAPs revised program did more to prepare cadets for military entrance exams of all types.   By spending years teaching cadets to do cadenced exercises not as performed by the services, and only single mile runs versus the 1.5 miles done by many services, and by omitting training on common DoD trainee eval items such as pull ups, the proposed CPFT actually MAL-trains our cadet customers who look to our program to help prepare them for competitive Academy/ROTC and other military scholarship and entrance evals.  Recommend that the directorate specifically extend the requirements trace beyond the primary and secondary school science based approach to entry exam standards, and consider adopting a best fit curve to acclimate and train our cadets "to be prepared for service to the ... nation" - physically.


7/ What can be done with a customer based focus vice a strictly science based approach?  Everything. My unit now has three USAFA cadets, six full scholarship ROTC cadets, and several AD enlisted right now including a 22 year old former cadet PJ credited with saving ten lives. This draft CPFT is unpopular with my troops, and if implemented as is will get in our way, but we will execute to it, and continue to run 3 mile runs, continue to administer pull ups, and continue to train to our Customer requirements because, as our unit motto says, "We Expect More".


R/S (Respectfully Submitted)
Spam






lordmonar

That is fine.  So long as you test to the standards and not to what you thing is right.   
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Spam

See my "we will execute to it" portion, which you probably missed.

I know that the non-adherence rate will climb, though, at least in my AO.

V/R
Spam

jeders

Quote from: lordmonar on December 16, 2015, 12:07:14 AM
Holding back C/SrA with a broken leg for six months from making SSgt because some commander across the country is using Cat II to give a pass to his less then physically fit cadets is not the way I would do it.

If they have a broken leg and are in a cast, that means they probably saw a doctor. Have the doc fill out a medical evaluation and put that cadet in cat 3, problem solved.

Quote from: varitec on December 16, 2015, 12:03:16 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on December 15, 2015, 11:42:27 PM
The answer is [...] to monitor CP operations more. 

How?

I'll echo the 'how'? Where are you going to get the people at all levels to go out and inspect/spot check the squadrons with any sort of regularity to make it worth doing. (One wing staff guy coming by once every 5 years doesn't cut it). It's not just the squadrons that are short staffed, it's group, wing, region, and national; there simply aren't the capable people available to do what you suggest. So instead, we make common sense rules to try and keep the problems to a minimum.
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse

lordmonar

#63
Jeaders,

That's my point.  More hoops to jump through.  The cadet's in a cast...I know he is in a cast, I don't need to send the cadet and his parents back to his doctor to sign a note.   

If the problem is "CP officers gaming  the system" notes from the doctor or not is not going to stop them.  Oversight and repercussions will.

Adding more rules only puts road blocks in the way of people following the rules.  Those CP officers gaming the system will continue to game the system.  They don't care about the rules.

So stopping cadets from promoting beyond a mile stone due to a CAT II condition as a stop gap to CAP officers pencil whipping their less then fit cadets through a promotion is next to worth less.   "I will cheat and give you a by on an achievement 3 promotion....but not Wright Brothers because that's important." was never said by anyone.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Ned

Jeff,

Thank you for the feedback.  Comments below:



Quote from: Spam on December 16, 2015, 02:31:01 AM

1/ CPFT monitoring and inspection is not as useful as it used to be, given an IG system which just has completed dumbing down the SUI CP Tab inspection items to little more than safety items and online CI record checks. It is illogical to keep proposing adding "shall" and "will" compliance items for tests and billboards and so forth, holding unit commanders to these more complex standards, without any expectation of ever actually inspecting them to standards. I speak as a recent DCP who highlighted a number struggling units who failed to measure their run courses, failed to use cadenced pushups, and so forth. Many of these units were poorly staffed, marginally trained, and were doing their best to stay afloat given that many of their officers were non prior service, valiantly trying to keep their units afloat and serve the complex CP program requirements. (Lets be honest, this program is not designed to be run easily by three adults). Some of those units failed and were shuttered, rather than compromise standards; is this result a "win", or a "fail", overall, I would ask?

I can only agree that any unit with only three adult leaders is going to be challenged.  But that was certainly true before any CPFT revisions were even considered.  Three is the legal minimum, and trying to be successful with the minimum staffing will always be tough.  My personal vision is that each unit with cadets assigned have a minimum of three master-rated CP folks (in addition to AE and an important support slice) to provide adequate "depth on the bench" for our admittedly overtasked CP crews at the local level.  Beyond a cadet alumni association to re-engage former members, I haven't been able to figure out a way to make that happen, however.

It is also important to remember that our IG system is a compliance system designed to support the units, not the other way around.  I'm sure you agree with me on that.


Quote2/ KISS principle is being vastly ignored here in the new CPFT draft. Making a program element and its associated verification methods (i.e. tests) MORE complex than it has ever been, regardless of its provenance from a science standpoint, is a recipe for disaster from the viewpoint of this subset of generally well intentioned yet moderately trained volunteers we have in CAP. The ratio is gradually getting worse over time, for NHQ-mandated workload vs. available time for the average small unit with perhaps three adult officers directly working with cadets. In several of these cases, the general response to my counseling during inspections and SAVs, and during TLC events on how to correctly administer the CPFT was blank incredulous stares and then unprintable comments, added to general expressions of the high workload involved in the mandatory boards, testing, inspections, monthly content required, etc. The CAP cadet program is not designed for small units to run easily, and it frequently falls apart in those cases (*viewed from my perspective of five Midwest and east coast Wings over the past 35 years of watching the CP program get more and more complex over time).

I honestly don't think that the new events are significantly more complex than what we have now.  There is a slight variation in the sit-ups and curl-ups.  The mile run is the same, and the PACER replaces the shuttle run.  Not really much more to it than that in terms of the actual event.  A big plus from the administration standpoint should be that the CPFT will be administered less often (quarterly) and we are encouraging neighboring units to cooperate on the event, if feasible.  And of course, many - if not most - cadets will already be familiar with the specific events since most schools already use the PYFP.

There are absolutely a lot of requirements in our terrific  CP.  But as long as we agree that physical fitness is one of the four components, we need to periodically review and improve it just like AE, Leadership, and CD.


Quote3/ Verification measures of program effectiveness (MOEs) in the form of a Test should be succinctly and clearly written in a CAPT (Test) not in a Pamphlet. The overarching requirement "Shall" and "Will" language needs to be contained only in a Reg or Manual, not in a Pamphlet. Pamphlets are as mentioned herein suitable for class guidelines and informative material, not test
standards.

We continue to have an active discussion about what belongs in a "reg", "pam," or other document.  Indeed since we began this project, Gen Vazquez has directed a significant overhaul of our publications and this question may well be resolved by that.

However, you may recall that I tried to roll the 52-10's requirement's into the 52-16 and received a LOT of feedback that it made the 52-16 too large and complex to be useful to the average CP volunteer professional at the unit level.  Like the 39-1, at some point it is just too much.

But we will continue to look at how best to put the information into the field.


Quote4/ Comment from two of my CP officers: "The new six-month "Healthy Fitness Zone" certification effectively does an end-run around other regulations by adding additional cadet promotion requirements and an administrative burden on senior members".
and "What is the HFZ and what is it for? Why not just accept a passing grade"?

I'm not sure I understand their concerns, because for the purpose of the CPFT, the HFZ is the passing grade.  If you perform at the HFZ, you pass.  If you don't, you fail.  Although I'd probably tell the cadet he "needs improvement" before she can be promoted.


Quote5/ ES standards of fitness need to be task-based, not normed to populations based on age cohorts or nominal measures of fitness. If CAP ever does move to establish physiological quals for field teams and aircrew, those should be established on the basis of a mission task decomposition which breaks down tasks to establish required KSAs (Knowledge/Skills/Abilities) to document the physical requirements if any. We do knowledge and skills now, but not strength stamina and endurance. In the mid 1990s, NAVAIRSYSCOM 4.6 (Aircrew Systems Engineering Branch) responded to a Naval Aviation Medical Research Lab request to establish required strength factors for each Navy aircraft (e.g. AV-8B Harrier manual canopy pulls, SH-60 collective failure arm pulls at ~150 lbs, etc.) Doing this for CAP would be the only non-controversial, science based way to avoid sex and age biases in using physio measures for duty selections (i.e. no question about females, minorities, or older or younger crew, as long as they could do the tasks).  Having been involved in this research from the NAVAIR (Pax River) end, I don't see us doing this easily for CAP, but that's the path to go if we do.

Personally, that makes sense to me.  But officially, the CP shop has no opinion on ES qualifications or standards.  That is simply not in our lane.  If the ES shop asks, we'd be happy to share our research and contacts with them.


Quote6/ Comments from another of my officers: "The new program requires the use of slow cadenced exercises (which target slow-twitch muscles) for the entire cadet program, then suddenly switches to the maximum-effort USAFA PT test (which requires the use of fast-twitch muscles) for the Spaatz award" and "At the specified 3-second cadence, it is not possible to do 61 push-ups or 81 curl-ups in only two minutes.  The max is 40.  (The USAFA test does not specify a cadence, which is why those numbers are possible for academy applicants.)  Those numbers are also a huge jump from the CAP standards of 18 and 24, respectively.  At what point are the Spaatz candidates supposed to make such a quantum leap in fitness"?

These inconsistent mismatches (in both the cadenced standard, as well as the numbers) embody negative transfer of training along a continuum of PT training towards an ill defined goal. This indicates a need for a more systematic approach before approval of this revision.

You're absolutely correct that there is an abrupt switch between the standards for the achievements and the test for the Spaatz.  We were in a bit of a "[darn]ed if you do, [darn]ed if you don't situation.  When we shared the draft with our colleagues and friends at the Spaatz Association (I'm a life member), they were very concerned that we keep the requirements for our most prestigious award "in the same neighborhood".  And frankly, if we used the PYFP, they would not have been.  So, in a nod to Gen Spaatz' legacy, we looked for another objective exam and found the USAFA Entrance exam which has standards for 16 & 17 year olds (but not 12-15 year olds).

While this is an important discussion, we should not lose sight of the fact that the PYFP will work fairly well for the 99% of our cadets who do not attempt the Spaatz exam.


Quote6/ So, I argue that a balance of taking a science based approach and meeting our internal (cadet) and external (military) customer expectations is needed. Looking forward as well as backwards in terms of tracing our requirements is necessary, in a good Systems Engineering approach. Requirements traceability is a serious issue when planning requirements verification (aka "tests"). This is behind the "good science" justification COL Lee mentions, and I support that approach. Yet, a CPFT approach entirely focused on the PYFP is focused backwards, where our cadet customers have been, and not forwards, on where they may intend to go. One of the recommendations of our Wing CAC (to which I was advisor as DCP) when examining this issue was to ensure that CAPs revised program did more to prepare cadets for military entrance exams of all types.   By spending years teaching cadets to do cadenced exercises not as performed by the services, and only single mile runs versus the 1.5 miles done by many services, and by omitting training on common DoD trainee eval items such as pull ups, the proposed CPFT actually MAL-trains our cadet customers who look to our program to help prepare them for competitive Academy/ROTC and other military scholarship and entrance evals.  Recommend that the directorate specifically extend the requirements trace beyond the primary and secondary school science based approach to entry exam standards, and consider adopting a best fit curve to acclimate and train our cadets "to be prepared for service to the ... nation" - physically.

You sure have a lot of "#6"s.   8) 

Even speaking as a retired Army officer whose career was greatly enhanced by my cadet experience, I can't agree that the military is our primary stakeholder / external customer in this regard.  Don't get me wrong, our AF colleagues and support are absolutely critical to our success, but our figures show that less than 10% of our cadets find their way into the AF.  Even counting the other services, it is still less than 20%.

The overwhelming majority of our cadets, of course, go on to become leaders in their communities, businesses, and faith groups.  And all of us need to be healthy to continue to engage in these important activities.  And that's where the science-based HFZ comes into play.

Maybe it's just a matter of perspective.


Quote7/ What can be done with a customer based focus vice a strictly science based approach?  Everything. My unit now has three USAFA cadets, six full scholarship ROTC cadets, and several AD enlisted right now including a 22 year old former cadet PJ credited with saving ten lives. This draft CPFT is unpopular with my troops, and if implemented as is will get in our way, but we will execute to it, and continue to run 3 mile runs, continue to administer pull ups, and continue to train to our Customer requirements because, as our unit motto says, "We Expect More".


R/S (Respectfully Submitted)
Spam

As always, outstanding work, sir.  I can only hope that all units could be successful as yours.

Thank you for your work with our cadets and your feedback on the proposed revisions to the 52-18.  We take them very seriously.

Ned Lee
Col, CAP
National Cadet Program Manager

TheSkyHornet

I'm going to comment on the OP and the response

Quote from: Ned on December 16, 2015, 05:32:08 PM
Jeff,

Thank you for the feedback.  Comments below:



Quote from: Spam on December 16, 2015, 02:31:01 AM

1/ CPFT monitoring and inspection is not as useful as it used to be, given an IG system which just has completed dumbing down the SUI CP Tab inspection items to little more than safety items and online CI record checks. It is illogical to keep proposing adding "shall" and "will" compliance items for tests and billboards and so forth, holding unit commanders to these more complex standards, without any expectation of ever actually inspecting them to standards. I speak as a recent DCP who highlighted a number struggling units who failed to measure their run courses, failed to use cadenced pushups, and so forth. Many of these units were poorly staffed, marginally trained, and were doing their best to stay afloat given that many of their officers were non prior service, valiantly trying to keep their units afloat and serve the complex CP program requirements. (Lets be honest, this program is not designed to be run easily by three adults). Some of those units failed and were shuttered, rather than compromise standards; is this result a "win", or a "fail", overall, I would ask?

I can only agree that any unit with only three adult leaders is going to be challenged.  But that was certainly true before any CPFT revisions were even considered.  Three is the legal minimum, and trying to be successful with the minimum staffing will always be tough.  My personal vision is that each unit with cadets assigned have a minimum of three master-rated CP folks (in addition to AE and an important support slice) to provide adequate "depth on the bench" for our admittedly overtasked CP crews at the local level.  Beyond a cadet alumni association to re-engage former members, I haven't been able to figure out a way to make that happen, however.

It is also important to remember that our IG system is a compliance system designed to support the units, not the other way around.  I'm sure you agree with me on that.

1/ I'm the sole CP officer in my squadron even with two other TLC-trained officers in the squadron; although, it was previously ran by just about every other senior member taking on some oversight of the cadet program. I'm since remedied that, and while it is improving, that does take time and some extra help. But I've restructured it so that we know exactly what roles are filled, what needs to be filled, and where we can get an extra hand if need be, all under the oversight of the CDC when applicable. It's starting to mold into a very functional system, albeit there are still some training deficiencies that I'm trying to work on, which can't be overcome overnight. But I come from a unit that was very much "We're structured...but we need to make some exceptions," and those exceptions turned into standard operating procedures that were used on a "okay, fair enough" basis. Not having my own cadet in my program, nor any ties to seniors, despite some unintentional opinions that have formed over time, I feel that I have nothing that holds me to favor anyone or striving to do well other than for the benefit of the cadet program. I guess you can argue it could go the opposite direction, and I could just frankly not care, but I wouldn't have stuck around if that was the case.

The new CPFT isn't disrupting the CP leadership in any squadron. Our own squadron, due to staffing, requires other seniors to get involved during the CPFT in order to monitor the activities for safety reasons. Some seniors also participate. And I'm totally fine with that. So the changes to the exercises and scoring isn't detrimental to how the cadet program runs. I disagree, however, with wanting to require three master-rated CP members in the squadron. I guarantee you that would absolutely kill squadrons. You have a cadet who grows up, isn't in CAP anymore, and mom or dad decide to drop off as well, and there goes the cadet program. We just don't have the manpower and training resources to accomplish this. It's a vision, but it isn't feasible. I do heavily agree with more oversight of squadron cadet programs, not as a tool to point fingers, but to mitigate problems and start looking for trends throughout groups, wings, and nationwide that need to be addressed. Compliance is a huge problem in squadrons, and we all know there is a lot of stuff that goes on under the noses of group/wing commanders that squadrons get away with that would be shredded on CAP Talk. I myself have brought some of these up. But this goes back to having the manpower to address it, because a lot can happen between inspections. The frequency of reviewing units should be amplified.

Quote
Quote2/ KISS principle is being vastly ignored here in the new CPFT draft. Making a program element and its associated verification methods (i.e. tests) MORE complex than it has ever been, regardless of its provenance from a science standpoint, is a recipe for disaster from the viewpoint of this subset of generally well intentioned yet moderately trained volunteers we have in CAP. The ratio is gradually getting worse over time, for NHQ-mandated workload vs. available time for the average small unit with perhaps three adult officers directly working with cadets. In several of these cases, the general response to my counseling during inspections and SAVs, and during TLC events on how to correctly administer the CPFT was blank incredulous stares and then unprintable comments, added to general expressions of the high workload involved in the mandatory boards, testing, inspections, monthly content required, etc. The CAP cadet program is not designed for small units to run easily, and it frequently falls apart in those cases (*viewed from my perspective of five Midwest and east coast Wings over the past 35 years of watching the CP program get more and more complex over time).

I honestly don't think that the new events are significantly more complex than what we have now.  There is a slight variation in the sit-ups and curl-ups.  The mile run is the same, and the PACER replaces the shuttle run.  Not really much more to it than that in terms of the actual event.  A big plus from the administration standpoint should be that the CPFT will be administered less often (quarterly) and we are encouraging neighboring units to cooperate on the event, if feasible.  And of course, many - if not most - cadets will already be familiar with the specific events since most schools already use the PYFP.

There are absolutely a lot of requirements in our terrific  CP.  But as long as we agree that physical fitness is one of the four components, we need to periodically review and improve it just like AE, Leadership, and CD.

2/ I agree that KISS is being thrown out the door in CAP. It's becoming more and more complex, and it's to the point where CP seniors stand around in huddled groups debating what something means or is intended to do. Cadets ask questions that seniors can't always explain, and you find a common issue when you go to other squadrons to see what their take is. Try walking into a group of 4 or 5 other CP seniors and asking for their input, and they spend the next half hour arguing over it before we just agree that nobody knows. This isn't so specific to the CPFT, but just CAP and cadet programs in general.

As for the CPFT, I have my concerns, but this could just be me, and maybe I'll get comfortable with it once it's in the works and I get more used to it. I can't really say until I'm stuck doing it. I've made it a practice of requiring a demonstration of each graded exercises before starting that CPFT event to eliminate questions from the cadets. It's amazing how many cadets have been in a unit for over a year that still ask every time "Is this how we're supposed to do it?" It's not so much a complexity issue from my end. I just have my personal disagreements with the way the activities are being performed, and I'm obviously not the only one. Maybe I'm overthinking it, maybe not.


Quote
Quote3/ Verification measures of program effectiveness (MOEs) in the form of a Test should be succinctly and clearly written in a CAPT (Test) not in a Pamphlet. The overarching requirement "Shall" and "Will" language needs to be contained only in a Reg or Manual, not in a Pamphlet. Pamphlets are as mentioned herein suitable for class guidelines and informative material, not test
standards.

We continue to have an active discussion about what belongs in a "reg", "pam," or other document.  Indeed since we began this project, Gen Vazquez has directed a significant overhaul of our publications and this question may well be resolved by that.

However, you may recall that I tried to roll the 52-10's requirement's into the 52-16 and received a LOT of feedback that it made the 52-16 too large and complex to be useful to the average CP volunteer professional at the unit level.  Like the 39-1, at some point it is just too much.

But we will continue to look at how best to put the information into the field.

I completely agree regarding the differences between what belongs in a pamphlet versus a regulation document. The rules need to be in the reg. This is what we refer to when we need to maintain a level of authority and accountability. I will not hold anyone to a pamphlet. It's not regulatory. I go by the regs. I do this for a living. I'm not pointing to a poster on a wall and saying "that has all of the information you need."

To Col Lee's point, yes, adding more to 52-16 does make it longer; however, that's why pamphlets exist. A pamphlet should reflect what's in 52-16 and be used as a guidance material, but that's not where we put criteria and requirements. Split the reg into multiple pamphlets. I do this at our squadron. I have SOPs based off of the standard that must be met by regs, and I have supplemental techniques on how to accomplish tasks in those SOPs. Everything points back to the reg in the end, but this is smaller, easier reference material that provides all of the "should be done this way" and not the "shall/must be done this way," which is the reg side of it.

Quote
Quote4/ Comment from two of my CP officers: "The new six-month "Healthy Fitness Zone" certification effectively does an end-run around other regulations by adding additional cadet promotion requirements and an administrative burden on senior members".
and "What is the HFZ and what is it for? Why not just accept a passing grade"?

I'm not sure I understand their concerns, because for the purpose of the CPFT, the HFZ is the passing grade.  If you perform at the HFZ, you pass.  If you don't, you fail.  Although I'd probably tell the cadet he "needs improvement" before she can be promoted.

I'll be honest here. I'm somewhat lost on the HFZ. Is this the score they need to have in that event? This sounds like funky wording to me.

Quote
Quote5/ ES standards of fitness need to be task-based, not normed to populations based on age cohorts or nominal measures of fitness. If CAP ever does move to establish physiological quals for field teams and aircrew, those should be established on the basis of a mission task decomposition which breaks down tasks to establish required KSAs (Knowledge/Skills/Abilities) to document the physical requirements if any. We do knowledge and skills now, but not strength stamina and endurance. In the mid 1990s, NAVAIRSYSCOM 4.6 (Aircrew Systems Engineering Branch) responded to a Naval Aviation Medical Research Lab request to establish required strength factors for each Navy aircraft (e.g. AV-8B Harrier manual canopy pulls, SH-60 collective failure arm pulls at ~150 lbs, etc.) Doing this for CAP would be the only non-controversial, science based way to avoid sex and age biases in using physio measures for duty selections (i.e. no question about females, minorities, or older or younger crew, as long as they could do the tasks).  Having been involved in this research from the NAVAIR (Pax River) end, I don't see us doing this easily for CAP, but that's the path to go if we do.

Personally, that makes sense to me.  But officially, the CP shop has no opinion on ES qualifications or standards.  That is simply not in our lane.  If the ES shop asks, we'd be happy to share our research and contacts with them.

I think the ES standards go back to my previous point in an earlier post about having PT qualification requirements for actually serving on mission teams. So it doesn't seem like this needs to be addressed further. This is a CPFT outline for line cadets, not team members.

Quote
Quote6/ Comments from another of my officers: "The new program requires the use of slow cadenced exercises (which target slow-twitch muscles) for the entire cadet program, then suddenly switches to the maximum-effort USAFA PT test (which requires the use of fast-twitch muscles) for the Spaatz award" and "At the specified 3-second cadence, it is not possible to do 61 push-ups or 81 curl-ups in only two minutes.  The max is 40.  (The USAFA test does not specify a cadence, which is why those numbers are possible for academy applicants.)  Those numbers are also a huge jump from the CAP standards of 18 and 24, respectively.  At what point are the Spaatz candidates supposed to make such a quantum leap in fitness"?

These inconsistent mismatches (in both the cadenced standard, as well as the numbers) embody negative transfer of training along a continuum of PT training towards an ill defined goal. This indicates a need for a more systematic approach before approval of this revision.

You're absolutely correct that there is an abrupt switch between the standards for the achievements and the test for the Spaatz.  We were in a bit of a "[darn]ed if you do, [darn]ed if you don't situation.  When we shared the draft with our colleagues and friends at the Spaatz Association (I'm a life member), they were very concerned that we keep the requirements for our most prestigious award "in the same neighborhood".  And frankly, if we used the PYFP, they would not have been.  So, in a nod to Gen Spaatz' legacy, we looked for another objective exam and found the USAFA Entrance exam which has standards for 16 & 17 year olds (but not 12-15 year olds).

While this is an important discussion, we should not lose sight of the fact that the PYFP will work fairly well for the 99% of our cadets who do not attempt the Spaatz exam.

I don't know why we're doing cadenced exercises to begin with. I'll address that in response to the second #6 bullet point. But I agree that the change in pace is nonsense. Either we treat the exercises to be the same, expecting greater performance under the same conditions, or we drop the whole thing. It does disrupt the progress process and makes goal setting nonuniform and even more difficult.

To Col Lee's point on the Spaatz Association's requirement to keep it the way it is, that's a fair and legitimate point, and that's what they want to see from Spaatz cadets. I think copying the CFA is a compromise, and that's another fair counterpoint. I don't necessarily agree with the CFA, but that goes with saying that I'm not a fitness expert.

Quote
Quote6/ So, I argue that a balance of taking a science based approach and meeting our internal (cadet) and external (military) customer expectations is needed. Looking forward as well as backwards in terms of tracing our requirements is necessary, in a good Systems Engineering approach. Requirements traceability is a serious issue when planning requirements verification (aka "tests"). This is behind the "good science" justification COL Lee mentions, and I support that approach. Yet, a CPFT approach entirely focused on the PYFP is focused backwards, where our cadet customers have been, and not forwards, on where they may intend to go. One of the recommendations of our Wing CAC (to which I was advisor as DCP) when examining this issue was to ensure that CAPs revised program did more to prepare cadets for military entrance exams of all types.   By spending years teaching cadets to do cadenced exercises not as performed by the services, and only single mile runs versus the 1.5 miles done by many services, and by omitting training on common DoD trainee eval items such as pull ups, the proposed CPFT actually MAL-trains our cadet customers who look to our program to help prepare them for competitive Academy/ROTC and other military scholarship and entrance evals.  Recommend that the directorate specifically extend the requirements trace beyond the primary and secondary school science based approach to entry exam standards, and consider adopting a best fit curve to acclimate and train our cadets "to be prepared for service to the ... nation" - physically.



You sure have a lot of "#6"s.   8) 

Even speaking as a retired Army officer whose career was greatly enhanced by my cadet experience, I can't agree that the military is our primary stakeholder / external customer in this regard.  Don't get me wrong, our AF colleagues and support are absolutely critical to our success, but our figures show that less than 10% of our cadets find their way into the AF.  Even counting the other services, it is still less than 20%.

The overwhelming majority of our cadets, of course, go on to become leaders in their communities, businesses, and faith groups.  And all of us need to be healthy to continue to engage in these important activities.  And that's where the science-based HFZ comes into play.

Maybe it's just a matter of perspective.

I go back to my point on times exercises rather than cadenced. I think it is fair enough to only require a mile run as opposed to 1.5-2 miles, since we are not training cadets for military service, but standard field performance in a non-combat arena. This seems doable; although, I would like to see, as pointed out, more behind the reasoning for a single mile. This is important in briefing leadership as to why it is this way. "Because this is what they do" isn't a good answer. That's not a reason, it's a deflection. So Spam makes some very good points here. Back to the matter of cadences, I just don't get this. I don't know of any fitness test in a grade school or military branch (excluding AFA) that makes you do this. It must be something youth-based, but the cadenced push-ups is one of the biggest complaints I get on the CPFT from cadets, aside from not wanting to run, that they don't understand why they don't do it timed, which is what they have to do in school (those schools that still force gym and didn't ban dodgeball yet). Granted, I've been a big advocate of multiple PT sessions each month. I think once a month is not enough. Sure, cadets are supposed to work out on their own on the side, but let's be realistic and not visionaries. My big question: Are we testing cadets or are we training cadets? The CPFT is an evaluation of performance. Cadenced exercises, to me, seem to be more performance improvement and training rather than evaluating physical capabilities. Once again, I'm not a fitness expert, and I'll never claim to be one.

I agree with Col Lee on the point that the community is our primary customer once our cadets leave the cadet program. If cadets want to go into the military, it's their job to do the final prep to qualify. We can't do that for them, and it's not our job to do so. I'm willing to help any cadet who wants to work alongside me to join ROTC, go active duty, or any other military career path. I'm in total support of it. But that's a side activity, not something I'm going to do at a meeting. So, I think we're on the same page here.

Quote
Quote7/ What can be done with a customer based focus vice a strictly science based approach?  Everything. My unit now has three USAFA cadets, six full scholarship ROTC cadets, and several AD enlisted right now including a 22 year old former cadet PJ credited with saving ten lives. This draft CPFT is unpopular with my troops, and if implemented as is will get in our way, but we will execute to it, and continue to run 3 mile runs, continue to administer pull ups, and continue to train to our Customer requirements because, as our unit motto says, "We Expect More".


R/S (Respectfully Submitted)
Spam

As always, outstanding work, sir.  I can only hope that all units could be successful as yours.

Thank you for your work with our cadets and your feedback on the proposed revisions to the 52-18.  We take them very seriously.

Ned Lee
Col, CAP
National Cadet Program Manager

I commend Jeff's fitness program as his unit. It goes well above the minimums, which I love to see. As I said before, I believe we should have more fitness activities, and I'm glad that this is authorized; however, most squadrons, due to scheduling, resources/manpower, or lack of organization, don't go beyond a monthly CPFT. I brought this up last weekend with our Deputy Commander that I'm absolutely willing to take an evening outside of the normal meeting, or spend a weekend, and get together with some seniors and cadets and do some PT, even if it includes administering additional CPFT's for those who are ready to give it another shot if they didn't do so great the last time. I was never a huge physical fitness person early on, and PT kicked my butt when I started out. It does get better with effort, but you also need that motivation. So I'm very go-to on it now, and I'll be right alongside the cadets during a workout if they want to give it a try. And I'm sure those 14-year-olds will make me feel old and decrepit.

I want to say that I do appreciate Col Lee's hard work to get some changes implemented in CAP, especially in the cadet program. It has some ways to go, but it's progress. I don't agree with all of it, but then again, I'm sure he disagrees with a lot of stuff I've said on here since my CAP Talk tenure. But it's great to see that the higher ups do care and are trying.





Spam

All this time, and no one has commented on quidditch as a recommended fitness activity?

Saturday night fun!
Spam

PS... perhaps I missed if someone else already caught this and commented, but the length and complexity of the document has taken me three readings to notice it.


USACAP

#67
Right?
We'd be better off if they did! There isn't much "scientific" about "exercise science."
This new reg doesn't really specify much ... Lost me with mention of "Yogacize." Shall we add Zoomba too?
It DOES look like a direct-lift from PYFP, right down to the pics and language - so should be easy to have a HS PE teacher administrate it.
Quote from: lordmonar on December 06, 2015, 07:58:20 PM
Stop using science!!!! :)

The US Military, on the whole, has a strong focus on low-intensity cardio-respiratory and what it sees as muscular fitness. Most military service members aren't very strong, however, given the emphasis on calisthenics.

This CAP reg is in-line with what the .Mil likes to see when recruits show up for training and intake.
The minimum standards for military PT tests are disappointing while the maximum standards are pretty easily achievable.
Looking at the overall fitness of the force today coupled with Military obesity rates, I'd say we have a failed model.
It's certainly not CAP's fault but it's disappointing to see kids/cadets get sucked into the notion that pushups and situps make one strong.

Spaceman3750

The CPFT is not about making cadets strong, it's about promoting fitness and lifelong exercise. In other words, it's about being healthy, not about how much you can dead lift.

thebeggerpie

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on March 06, 2016, 06:54:09 PM
The CPFT is not about making cadets strong, it's about promoting fitness and lifelong exercise. In other words, it's about being healthy, not about how much you can dead lift.

Besides, if we wanted to get the cadets stronger(which is done via weight resistance, or weight lifting.) every unit would have to shell out a ton of money they don't have to either buy gym memberships or get a full set of weights and benches.

I always make sure to discuss with my cadets about setting up a fitness routine of their own and talk about eating healthy.