Draft 52-18 (Cadet Physical Fitness Program) Posted

[Майор Хаткевич]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLA_9kx1AkY

These curl ups were...something in high school.




Here's the other vids from same Gentleman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeWJuwkt5zg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KPskEdeqx8

[TheSkyHornet]

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

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]

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.

[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.

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 --

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

and

Each 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?

[wacapgh]

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

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

and

Each 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]

[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]

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]

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.

First, 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.

[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

[vorteks]

The answer is [...] to monitor CP operations more. 

How?

[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.

[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]

So why bother?

[vorteks]

I sometimes wonder.

[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