Shuttle Run Moratorium

Started by Майор Хаткевич, July 30, 2015, 10:00:26 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Майор Хаткевич

As per the release of the Cadet News (http://www.capmembers.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/News_Innovations_2015b_2716B9803C8A9.pdf), the shuttle run is to be immediately suspended as a PT event.


I'm not going to go into the pros and cons on this, or the assertion that the "shuttle is harder" and "few cadets use the shuttle run to pass the CPFT", because I have first hand experience as a cadet and a CP officer, but needless to say, did I miss some sort of announcement about this?


I JUST ran a PT night on Tuesday, and had cadets ONLY do the shuttle as the temps outside were not conductive to a mile run. I've also never seen a cadet actually hurt in my time as an active cadet or while administrating it to cadets as a SM.

Ned

(Stuck on a layover heading home after COS)

The Cadet News is the announcement of an impending ICL.

Short version:  during our research conducted in support of the upcoming significant modification of the CPFT (draft of which is due out for comment in a couple of months, with likely effective date of about a year from now - whic deserves its own thread or two), we discovered that no researchers now believe that the shuttle run is an effective measure of cardiovascular fitness.

Which is the only reason we have it - as an alternative to the mile run.

Plus, looking at the data, we injure about twice as many cadets doing the shuttle run as we do on the mile run.

So, if it doesn't measure what we need to measure, and it actually causes injuries, then rudimentary ORM suggests that we suspend it pending the comprehensive CPFT revisions.

Right now it is a request / suggestion to commanders.  Draft ICLs to the 52-16 and 52-18 are in coordination and should appear soon.  Then it will be official.

More when I get a real keyboard.

Ned Lee
CP Guy

Майор Хаткевич

Thanks Ned!

While it's certainly phrased as a request...does that leave it open to attempts?

I've got some newer cadets who struggle on the mile, but can pass the shuttle, and this will certainly be bad news for them. If we're truly a year out from the rollout of a changed program, will the stop gap "banking" go in effect for this winter? What if a cadet is not able to pass the current mile standards by winter?

As a side note, I never realized we had the shuttle considered a cardiovascular activity. Agility/burst strenght is what I always understood it. The pacer makes sense as a replacement, but creates its own problems with the required size of track and time in the winter months.


arajca

So, those units without access to a track or a safe road course will basically be SOL as far as promotion go when this takes effect, correct?

NIN


Quote from: arajca on July 31, 2015, 01:19:06 AM
So, those units without access to a track or a safe road course will basically be SOL as far as promotion go when this takes effect, correct?

Yes.

Find a track, get a road course, make a deal with the local Y, something.

I realize that's a crappy answer (speaking as a guy in a Northern tier squadron where running outdoors isn't the best 4-ish months a year) but Ned is right: the shuttle run is in no way a measure of cardiovascular fitness like the mile run is, and we were breaking a lot of cadets doing it.

It's literally -not- a "mile run equivalent"

Yes, this will force some (many?) units to modify how they administer PFT. There may be ways around that, too, depending on the results of the staff coordination and member feedback. 

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.

A.Member

#5
 :clap: :clap: :clap:

Shuttle run is and always has been a crap PT measure.  Glad to see the mile run becoming the standard.  This common sense change is long, long overdue.  Strongly support the decision!  (I'd also support having more of a stretch goal and push cadets to 1.5 miles but that's another discussion; a mile is fine). 

And for those that may say a mile run is a "challenge", I say b.s.  The mile run has long been a standard part of many elementary school Phy Ed programs.  I know kids as young as 9, perhaps even younger, are required to complete it in my area.  To be blunt, barring physical disability and true medical issues, virtually anyone should be able to complete a mile run.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

Spam

Likewise, the sit and reach is far more a measure of anthropometric dimensions (measure of limb lengths) and scapular abduction (skeletal shoulder/arm reaching ability) than it is a valid relative yardstick measure of cardio fitness or lower back/hamstring flexibility for individuals against their age cohorts, and should be retired as a selective/promotion measure (although the literature supports continued use as a metric for individual fitness and performance, when measuring individual progress).

A cadet with a 98th percentile seated acromial height, a 98th percentile functional arm length, and a 30th percentile buttock knee length could easily pass the sit and reach even if he/she had a gut to shame a varsity pie eater contestant, while a track star with short arms and trunk but long legs will perpetually score low on this event, just because of genetics. The analogy is King Kong (long arms, short legs) vs Godzilla (short arms, long legs). Kong will win every sit and reach, without ANY valid measure of how "fit" the individual is.

When in the late 90s we rewrote MIL-STD-1472F (Human Factors Engineering Criteria for DoD Systems, etc), Dr. Joe McDaniel of Wright Labs (WPAFB) and I discussed the strength vs. anthropometry relationship, and he confirmed that there was very poor correlations for most, if not all, values. Short arms and trunk/long legs make for poor sit and reaches, but does NOT equate to poor fitness!

Just my 'pinion.

V/R,
Spam





jdh

Quote from: Spam on July 31, 2015, 05:48:06 AM
Likewise, the sit and reach is far more a measure of anthropometric dimensions (measure of limb lengths) and scapular abduction (skeletal shoulder/arm reaching ability) than it is a valid relative yardstick measure of cardio fitness or lower back/hamstring flexibility for individuals against their age cohorts, and should be retired as a selective/promotion measure (although the literature supports continued use as a metric for individual fitness and performance, when measuring individual progress).

A cadet with a 98th percentile seated acromial height, a 98th percentile functional arm length, and a 30th percentile buttock knee length could easily pass the sit and reach even if he/she had a gut to shame a varsity pie eater contestant, while a track star with short arms and trunk but long legs will perpetually score low on this event, just because of genetics. The analogy is King Kong (long arms, short legs) vs Godzilla (short arms, long legs). Kong will win every sit and reach, without ANY valid measure of how "fit" the individual is.

When in the late 90s we rewrote MIL-STD-1472F (Human Factors Engineering Criteria for DoD Systems, etc), Dr. Joe McDaniel of Wright Labs (WPAFB) and I discussed the strength vs. anthropometry relationship, and he confirmed that there was very poor correlations for most, if not all, values. Short arms and trunk/long legs make for poor sit and reaches, but does NOT equate to poor fitness!

Just my 'pinion.

V/R,
Spam

I agree about the sit and reach, as a cadet I always had a problem with it. I have a 36in in-seam and 23 in long arms (shoulder to wrist). When standing at the position of attention my closed hand is a good 11in from my knee. That is measure on my long arm (broke my left arm badly while in middle school destroying a growth plate) which is 3in longer than the other, which was a problem all of itself trying to keep the fingertips together. But then you have cadets (including some in my current unit) that can scratch the bottom of their knees while at attention without enough movement to catch most peoples attention. We have a cadet with an upper body similar to mine but with an in-seam somewhere in the 20in range (a xs/s bdu trouser is very long on him). He can max the sit and reach every time without even having to bend.

Eaker Guy

Quote from: Spam on July 31, 2015, 05:48:06 AM
Likewise, the sit and reach is far more a measure of anthropometric dimensions (measure of limb lengths) and scapular abduction (skeletal shoulder/arm reaching ability) than it is a valid relative yardstick measure of cardio fitness or lower back/hamstring flexibility for individuals against their age cohorts, and should be retired as a selective/promotion measure (although the literature supports continued use as a metric for individual fitness and performance, when measuring individual progress).

A cadet with a 98th percentile seated acromial height, a 98th percentile functional arm length, and a 30th percentile buttock knee length could easily pass the sit and reach even if he/she had a gut to shame a varsity pie eater contestant, while a track star with short arms and trunk but long legs will perpetually score low on this event, just because of genetics. The analogy is King Kong (long arms, short legs) vs Godzilla (short arms, long legs). Kong will win every sit and reach, without ANY valid measure of how "fit" the individual is.

When in the late 90s we rewrote MIL-STD-1472F (Human Factors Engineering Criteria for DoD Systems, etc), Dr. Joe McDaniel of Wright Labs (WPAFB) and I discussed the strength vs. anthropometry relationship, and he confirmed that there was very poor correlations for most, if not all, values. Short arms and trunk/long legs make for poor sit and reaches, but does NOT equate to poor fitness!

Just my 'pinion.

V/R,
Spam

+1000000 this.

NIN

And then a guy showed up with all the medical data. Ouch.
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.

TheSkyHornet

I wouldn't be opposed to this at all.

I, personally, was never big on "exercise" when I was at the cadet age. But I've grown to understand the importance of it as I got older, especially venturing into the military arena. I especially hated running. Still not a fan of it. But it's an excellent way to improve your body and measure those improvements.

A lot of cadets try and duck out of fitness challenges by passing only with the minimal effort and using the shuttle run as the Option B to get out of the mile run. It's been an easy substitution to steer clear of the mile on hot/rainy days, but I see the potential for increased injury with nearly no lasting physical improvement from this "exercise." PT has been limited to one session a month for maybe an hour and a half at the most (including bathroom/water breaks), of the typical stretching, push-ups, curl-ups, sit-and-reach, and shuttle run for the past several months in our squadron. And that is not going to improve anybody's fitness performance as there is such minimal activity compared to the long time span between PT sessions. And most cadets aren't working to improve on their PT in-between PT days, meaning very little personal input resulting in almost no change in physical performance. PT is done as a "meet the standards" event with no regimental workout to sustain those standards and work to exceed them over a prolonged time period.

I will say that we had three new potential cadets who came to one of our PT sessions (I think for all of them it was their second or third face-showing). They were all pretty young, 12-13, mixture of two females and a male. They were fairly quiet, but they paired up during PT and really pushed it. I was impressed to see them get into it the way they did and motivated each other. I'd like to see that expanded on down the road with whatever restructuring comes into the CPFT or the proposed PYFP.

CAPDCCMOM

I applaud anything that will reduce Cadet injuries  :clap:.

What other changes are coming with the CPFT? Is the stretch going to be removed as well? I understand the point that several have made regarding the mile run. When I was in school, and dinorsaurs roamed the Earth, the Elementary PE program required a completed mile run. Today however, in our school district PE is offered at the elementary level once a week, if they can find a licensed teacher. Middle School offers PE as an elective, but students only need one semester. At the High School level PE is only required for one year. Many Cadets are coming to us with no fitness and no real knowledge of how to exercise correctly and safely. It then becomes up to us to teach it, this is not a bad thing as we teach life skills and build character. We can not, however, expect any Cadet to pass the PT Test if we only have them active once per month, but then we take time from Drill, Leadership, AE, ES, Partridge in Pear Tree.

This could lead to people running to a Doctor to get Waivers to avoid PT for their Cadets in order to bypass a requirement. I have not seen the proposed changes. Does anyone have a link that I could look at?

Thanks

TheSkyHornet

Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on July 31, 2015, 02:32:37 PM
I applaud anything that will reduce Cadet injuries  :clap:.

What other changes are coming with the CPFT? Is the stretch going to be removed as well? I understand the point that several have made regarding the mile run. When I was in school, and dinorsaurs roamed the Earth, the Elementary PE program required a completed mile run. Today however, in our school district PE is offered at the elementary level once a week, if they can find a licensed teacher. Middle School offers PE as an elective, but students only need one semester. At the High School level PE is only required for one year. Many Cadets are coming to us with no fitness and no real knowledge of how to exercise correctly and safely. It then becomes up to us to teach it, this is not a bad thing as we teach life skills and build character. We can not, however, expect any Cadet to pass the PT Test if we only have them active once per month, but then we take time from Drill, Leadership, AE, ES, Partridge in Pear Tree.

This could lead to people running to a Doctor to get Waivers to avoid PT for their Cadets in order to bypass a requirement. I have not seen the proposed changes. Does anyone have a link that I could look at?

Thanks

The proposals are on Page 6 of the Cadet News+Innovations document:
http://www.capmembers.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/News_Innovations_2015b_2716B9803C8A9.pdf

I do agree that physical fitness is on the decline in schools, which is why I would highly support a new structure to CPFT, to include not just sustaining physical to meet standards, but a long-term improvement to exceed those standards at the squadron level.

Running a PT test once a month is not a sufficient way, in my personal opinion, to maintain physical fitness.

I see a lot of older men and women stop by meetings, some parents, some grandparents, or relatives, and remark about "When I was in the Boy Scouts" or "When I was in the military..." and they usually get responded to with "This isn't the military." Nobody is saying 14-year-olds should be susceptible to boot camp-style remedial physical training ("getting beat"), but I think we're entering an era where we're starting to avoid adequate fitness altogether with this idea that physical activity is becoming too risky and causing injuries. And this is an extension of the military, just at the childhood level....in regard to cadet programs obviously, not seniors.

Bottom line---
I don't want to see anyone get hurt. And you certainly won't get hurt if you sit in a chair and don't move, at least not in the next hour. But if they are going to perform any level of physical activity, from running to push-ups to sprints, there will be an inherent increase in the risk of injury.

A kid can't play soccer without being vulnerable to taking a shot to the groin...

That's why we have safety briefs and structured programs to address these potentials for injury. But we shouldn't cut back just because two out of a thousand rolled an ankle.

THRAWN

Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on July 31, 2015, 02:32:37 PM
I applaud anything that will reduce Cadet injuries  :clap:.

What other changes are coming with the CPFT? Is the stretch going to be removed as well? I understand the point that several have made regarding the mile run. When I was in school, and dinorsaurs roamed the Earth, the Elementary PE program required a completed mile run. Today however, in our school district PE is offered at the elementary level once a week, if they can find a licensed teacher. Middle School offers PE as an elective, but students only need one semester. At the High School level PE is only required for one year. Many Cadets are coming to us with no fitness and no real knowledge of how to exercise correctly and safely. It then becomes up to us to teach it, this is not a bad thing as we teach life skills and build character. We can not, however, expect any Cadet to pass the PT Test if we only have them active once per month, but then we take time from Drill, Leadership, AE, ES, Partridge in Pear Tree.

This could lead to people running to a Doctor to get Waivers to avoid PT for their Cadets in order to bypass a requirement. I have not seen the proposed changes. Does anyone have a link that I could look at?

Thanks

Look up. It's in the thread.

If you're only doing it "once a month", you're doing it wrong. While it is "up to us to teach it", that's only in a limited way. The physical fitness program is mostly an individual effort. It's designed that way. It's presented that way. PF activities during CAP meetings is no substitute for reading the program and implementing it on your own, as it is designed. As for your local schools: call your board, get active in your district because you're allowing them to rob you of your tax dollars.
Strup-"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
USMC CSCDEP 2023

Ned

Since I was fat-fingering my first response on the phone, I was (uncharacteristically) brief.  I am back in the office post-COS and can provide some additional information.

First, the shuttle moratorium at this point is a request directed at commanders who will make the final decision on a unit-by-unit basis until the ICL hits the streets.  As I mentioned, we are in the final stages of the "staff coordination thing" on the language, but you should see it sooner than later.  We follow regulations in CAP, so until the reg changes, the moratorium request is just that - advice and recommendations to commanders.  No unit or cadet will be "wrong" if they continue to conduct a shuttle run as described in the regulations, until such time as the regulations change.

Second, I can only agree that many of the injuries we have seen related to the shuttle run could have been avoided if local leaders had more carefully considered local hazards and conditions using standard ORM techniques.   We had cadets injured after falling on loose gravel on an asphalt surface in a parking lot, falling after slipping on a polished concrete floor in a National Guard Armory, falling because they were permitted to perform the test barefoot, and even one where a cadet was performing the test in a carpeted squadron hallway when another cadet unexpectedly came out of a doorway and collided with the testee running full tilt down the hall.   Indeed, our first thought was simply to send out some pointed guidance to CP leaders to only perform the test on a suitable athletic surface (like a gym floor) , with cadets wearing appropriate athletic footwear, etc..  IOW, reminding CP leaders to use common sense when administering the test.

But when we realized that the shuttle run was not in any sense really an alternative to the mile run, it just made more sense to suspend it until the new CPFT comes out.

Third, even as a Californian, I fully understand that most units experience the phenomena known as "weather," especially during something you people call "winter."  So you will see language in the ICL that talks about "run banking."  This will allow units to permit a cadet to use a previously recorded run time if weather or other conditions do not permit a mile run during a scheduled CPFT test.

Fourth, the new CPFT is aligned with the Presidential Youth Fitness Assessment which is the only evidence-based assessment available for youth in the CP age cohort.  We are not yet done adapting this scientific assessment to our program, but you can view our initial White Paper on the Cadet Proving Grounds page of the National CP website.  As described, it will be very familiar, and include a mile run, push-ups, curl-ups, a slightly modified sit-and-reach.  The biggest difference is that the shuttle run will be replaced by an event called The Pacer.  (I'm still a little worried by this event - I'm not sure the average unit can get enough cadets through during the time allotted to the quarterly CPFT.  But that's what the Beta testing data will tell us.)

CP takes input from the field very, very seriously.  We strive to be as transparent  as possible while we consider enhancements and changes to our beloved CP.

We will carefully consider each and every comment posted here and on the Cadet Blog.  We will then carefully Beta-test the program at unit who cares to try it and at the winter encampments, make any further modifications suggested as a result of the testing, and hopefully finalize it by next Spring, with and effective date several months after that.

I really do recommend that we split the discussion of the new CPFT into its own thread and leave this one to discussing the shuttle moratorium.

Ned Lee
Col, CAP
National Cadet Program Manager



abdsp51

I have personally seen cadets not advance due to PT and alot of it was one component or the other.  I have seen cadets struggle with the mile and usually its because they run one lap and then walk another and can't/won't start running again to meet their times. 

Personally I never cared for the shuttle run either as a kid or administrating it. 

CAPDCCMOM, your right cadets could go get a Dr's note for PT but depending upon the category they will be hurting themselves in the long run for their milestone achievements. 

Alot of what I have seen is cadets just not exercising enough outside of meetings to pass. 

A.Member

Quote from: abdsp51Alot of what I have seen is cadets just not exercising enough outside of meetings to pass.
Agreed...and that's what it comes down to - they have to put in a little work.

Quote from: abdsp51 on August 01, 2015, 01:25:18 AM
I have personally seen cadets not advance due to PT and alot of it was one component or the other.  I have seen cadets struggle with the mile and usually its because they run one lap and then walk another and can't/won't start running again to meet their times.
It is our role as leaders to challenge our cadets as opposed to throwing up our hands and asking if we can buy them an ice cream cone just because something is hard.  If a cadet is unwilling to put in the effort to improve, they shouldn't advance - plain and simple.  As I mentioned earlier, a 1 mile run is not an unrealistic expectation by any stretch, especially for young people that are typically in upper middle school and high school.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

Panache

Can't say I agree with this.

I've never had the proper body structure as a runner, and I'm pretty sure that the extensive running I did in the Army has done some pretty serious damage to my knees and ankles.

I'm also sure that "yes, we know it's -10 degrees outside with a -30 windchill, but get out there and do your run" direction will be very... popular with both the cadets and their parents during the dead of winter.

I can see this negatively affecting the numbers of cadets we have.  But that shouldn't be a problem, right?  Since we're just overflowing with recruits...

dwb

Panache, did you read the letter from NHQ? They are working on interim guidance that allows cadets to "bank" a fair-weather mile run to get them through the winter. This is to prevent exactly the scenario you described.

As for the efficacy of the mile, two things: (1) the stated goal is to measure cardiovascular fitness, which they admit the shuttle run does not do, and (2) it's "only" a mile; we're not making them run a marathon or do other endurance challenges that will cause long-term harm.

Capt Thompson

I can see where banking a fare weather mile would benefit some, and hurt others. I joined as a lazy out of shape cadet in the 90's, and for the first 6 or 7 achievements I worked hard (outside of CAP) to get my scores above passing. I progressed month by month, and always passed the PFT all the way through Earhart, but it was always a struggle.

I would've been discouraged if, during the winter months, I progressed month by month, but couldn't pass the PFT because I wasn't allowed to do the mile due to weather, and the mile I ran for C/SSgt wasn't good enough to pass C/TSgt or C/MSgt etc.

That said, it would be good for Squadrons to build relationships with local schools that have indoor facilities where a mile could be run, and perhaps have an alternate meeting location on PT night through the winter so the mile wouldn't have to be excluded.
Capt Matt Thompson
Deputy Commander for Cadets, Historian, Public Affairs Officer

Mitchell - 31 OCT 98 (#44670) Earhart - 1 OCT 00 (#11401)

dwb

^ All good points. Keep in mind that this is temporary. We're talking about getting through one winter until NHQ publishes the new CPFT in 2016. Winter-banking is not a new permanent thing.

Майор Хаткевич

Quote from: dwb on August 01, 2015, 02:53:02 PM
^ All good points. Keep in mind that this is temporary. We're talking about getting through one winter until NHQ publishes the new CPFT in 2016. Winter-banking is not a new permanent thing.


Well it kinda-sorta-is.


If the new program will have a quarterly testing schedule with a 6 month currency period, then banking will be the norm.




I would also consider a no PT requirement for Achivements 1-3, with the first "Pass" being necessary at WBA. I've noticed that we get a lot of cadets who are overweight/out of shape, and if they are stuck as C/AB for a year, chances of renewal are VERY slim.


There's already exceptions that can be applied for medical/obesity reasons temporarily, and I fully support that becoming the norm for all cadets. Of course they are encouraged to work on weight/fitness to get to the standard, and milestone tests can't be waived on a temporary situation, so the integrity of the milestone is there, but the morale of cadets is kept up.

NIN

Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on August 05, 2015, 07:08:12 PM
Quote from: dwb on August 01, 2015, 02:53:02 PM
^ All good points. Keep in mind that this is temporary. We're talking about getting through one winter until NHQ publishes the new CPFT in 2016. Winter-banking is not a new permanent thing.


Well it kinda-sorta-is.


If the new program will have a quarterly testing schedule with a 6 month currency period, then banking will be the norm.




I would also consider a no PT requirement for Achivements 1-3, with the first "Pass" being necessary at WBA. I've noticed that we get a lot of cadets who are overweight/out of shape, and if they are stuck as C/AB for a year, chances of renewal are VERY slim.


There's already exceptions that can be applied for medical/obesity reasons temporarily, and I fully support that becoming the norm for all cadets. Of course they are encouraged to work on weight/fitness to get to the standard, and milestone tests can't be waived on a temporary situation, so the integrity of the milestone is there, but the morale of cadets is kept up.

If it takes you a year to be able to run a mile in 11 minutes, there is a bigger problem.
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.

TheSkyHornet

Tell ya what...

I visited another squadron yesterday. What a great bunch of people, but my criticism is the number of out-of-shape cadets I saw. I won't be specific, other than to say some were very heavy, well beyond the point their belt's tension strength.

The uniform and your appearance in it based on weight standards is one subject in itself. But since this is regarding PT and the shuttle run, which the seniors did mention the cadets performing the shuttle run at PT yesterday, I would highly suspect that these cadets are doing a lot of the same acts as other squadrons I've seen, namely using the shuttle run as an alternative to the mile. There's no way some of these kids could run a mile, let alone a football field if I was to put money on it.

There really isn't any excuse for that physical condition other than the staff and leadership allowing it as a cop-out. The shuttle does not build, maintain, nor measure physical fitness.

If an alternative to a mile run is to come in replace of the shuttle, it needs to be an alternative that provides a measurable, sustainable fitness standard that has the same benefit as the mile run. As far as I see it, running is sufficient. I'm not an expert on physical education and fitness, so maybe there's an age range in there that shouldn't be susceptible to running a mile, but I'm just not visually seeing the physical performance of some of these cadets based on current standards.


Майор Хаткевич

Quote from: NIN on August 05, 2015, 07:34:03 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on August 05, 2015, 07:08:12 PM
Quote from: dwb on August 01, 2015, 02:53:02 PM
^ All good points. Keep in mind that this is temporary. We're talking about getting through one winter until NHQ publishes the new CPFT in 2016. Winter-banking is not a new permanent thing.


Well it kinda-sorta-is.


If the new program will have a quarterly testing schedule with a 6 month currency period, then banking will be the norm.




I would also consider a no PT requirement for Achivements 1-3, with the first "Pass" being necessary at WBA. I've noticed that we get a lot of cadets who are overweight/out of shape, and if they are stuck as C/AB for a year, chances of renewal are VERY slim.


There's already exceptions that can be applied for medical/obesity reasons temporarily, and I fully support that becoming the norm for all cadets. Of course they are encouraged to work on weight/fitness to get to the standard, and milestone tests can't be waived on a temporary situation, so the integrity of the milestone is there, but the morale of cadets is kept up.

If it takes you a year to be able to run a mile in 11 minutes, there is a bigger problem.


It all depends on their start weight, age, physical condition.


Some kids come in "chubby", but hit that 13-14 year growth mark, and it normalizes itself. Others struggle more, or are more "behind".


3 stripes is 6 months, and is the range of command authority to allow an obese cadet to get into shape with improvements and progress along the way. If we're going to expand further into what may or may not be a shape of the next version of the Physical Fitness Program, then I'd decouple PT from the initial "learning phase", with emphasis on preparation for the Wright Brothers Award PT test during those monthly PT days.

Майор Хаткевич

Quote from: TheSkyHornet on August 05, 2015, 07:45:43 PM
There really isn't any excuse for that physical condition other than the staff and leadership parents allowing it as a cop-out.


Fixed that for you.

A.Member

#26
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on August 05, 2015, 07:08:12 PM
I would also consider a no PT requirement for Achivements 1-3, with the first "Pass" being necessary at WBA. I've noticed that we get a lot of cadets who are overweight/out of shape, and if they are stuck as C/AB for a year, chances of renewal are VERY slim.
Strong non-concur.   

If running a mile was the reason for not staying in the program or progressing, they came to the wrong place at the start.   PT is key component of the cadet program.  If anything, I'd argue it should be emphasized more (which aligns with why the standard is being re-evaluated), not de-emphasized.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

Ned

We are looking at aligning ourselves with the Presidential Youth Fitness Program, including the FITNESSGRAM Assessment.  This is the "state of the art" evidence-based youth fitness program put out by the experts.

They assessment (which we are looking to adopt as our CPFT) uses the Pacer test as an alternative to the mile run, which remains the gold standard for determining cardiovascular fitness (in terms of VO2 Max).

The Pacer is related to the old shuttle run, but involves running as long as possible back and forth across a  20 meter (65 feet, 8 inches )space at a specified pace that gets faster each minute.  It sounds tricky, but is relatively easy to administer and score.  I'm still concerned about how long it might take to administer the test to a larger squadron, which is one of the questions we will address during field testing.

You can check out the PYFP here.

Our goal is still to have the draft materials out for comment and extensive field testing this fall, with projected finalization in the spring, and made mandatory next summer.  Until then, the old / current CPFT will work just fine, as it has since 2003.

Finally, to address concerns about newer cadets, we will have different (read somewhat lower) standards for Phase I cadets.  Starting with Phase II, all cadets will be expected to be in the Healthy Fitness Zone (HFZ).   We need to do a better job of explaining the new concept.  Come see me at the National Convention in Orlando, and I'll buy you a diet soda and do my best to explain.

(We will also talk about it during the CP workshops.)

Ned Lee
Col, CAP
National Cadet Program Manager

Майор Хаткевич

Quote from: A.Member on August 05, 2015, 08:44:27 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on August 05, 2015, 07:08:12 PM
I would also consider a no PT requirement for Achivements 1-3, with the first "Pass" being necessary at WBA. I've noticed that we get a lot of cadets who are overweight/out of shape, and if they are stuck as C/AB for a year, chances of renewal are VERY slim.
Strong non-concur.   

If running a mile was the reason for not staying in the program or progressing, they came to the wrong place at the start.   PT is key component of the cadet program.  If anything, I'd argue it should be emphasized more (which aligns with why the standard is being re-evaluated), not de-emphasized.


Try reading the message next time.


I'm talking about the requirement, not participation.


We've got a problem with fitness in this country. Why limit the pool of potential cadets because of their baseline?

Майор Хаткевич

Quote from: Ned on August 05, 2015, 08:54:19 PM
We are looking at aligning ourselves with the Presidential Youth Fitness Program, including the FITNESSGRAM Assessment.  This is the "state of the art" evidence-based youth fitness program put out by the experts.

They assessment (which we are looking to adopt as our CPFT) uses the Pacer test as an alternative to the mile run, which remains the gold standard for determining cardiovascular fitness (in terms of VO2 Max).

The Pacer is related to the old shuttle run, but involves running as long as possible back and forth across a  20 meter (65 feet, 8 inches )space at a specified pace that gets faster each minute.  It sounds tricky, but is relatively easy to administer and score.  I'm still concerned about how long it might take to administer the test to a larger squadron, which is one of the questions we will address during field testing.

You can check out the PYFP here.

Our goal is still to have the draft materials out for comment and extensive field testing this fall, with projected finalization in the spring, and made mandatory next summer.  Until then, the old / current CPFT will work just fine, as it has since 2003.

Finally, to address concerns about newer cadets, we will have different (read somewhat lower) standards for Phase I cadets.  Starting with Phase II, all cadets will be expected to be in the Healthy Fitness Zone (HFZ).   We need to do a better job of explaining the new concept.  Come see me at the National Convention in Orlando, and I'll buy you a diet soda and do my best to explain.

(We will also talk about it during the CP workshops.)

Ned Lee
Col, CAP
National Cadet Program Manager


Ned,


I know the pacer is used as a possible alternative to the mile, especially in the winter months in the "weather" states, but I don't think most can find a space with a 25 meter path...

A.Member

#30
Quote from: Ned on August 05, 2015, 08:54:19 PM
We are looking at aligning ourselves with the Presidential Youth Fitness Program, including the FITNESSGRAM Assessment.  This is the "state of the art" evidence-based youth fitness program put out by the experts.

They assessment (which we are looking to adopt as our CPFT) uses the Pacer test as an alternative to the mile run, which remains the gold standard for determining cardiovascular fitness (in terms of VO2 Max).

The Pacer is related to the old shuttle run, but involves running as long as possible back and forth across a  20 meter (65 feet, 8 inches )space at a specified pace that gets faster each minute.  It sounds tricky, but is relatively easy to administer and score.  I'm still concerned about how long it might take to administer the test to a larger squadron, which is one of the questions we will address during field testing.

You can check out the PYFP here.

Our goal is still to have the draft materials out for comment and extensive field testing this fall, with projected finalization in the spring, and made mandatory next summer.  Until then, the old / current CPFT will work just fine, as it has since 2003.

Finally, to address concerns about newer cadets, we will have different (read somewhat lower) standards for Phase I cadets.  Starting with Phase II, all cadets will be expected to be in the Healthy Fitness Zone (HFZ).   We need to do a better job of explaining the new concept.  Come see me at the National Convention in Orlando, and I'll buy you a diet soda and do my best to explain.

(We will also talk about it during the CP workshops.)

Ned Lee
Col, CAP
National Cadet Program Manager
If I understand the explanation of the Pacer correctly, and I think I do, I share your concerns Ned - they're pretty legit.  That being said, why offer the Pacer option at all? Why not just stick to a mile run?  More to that point...

I looked at the PYFP site since I wasn't real familiar with it.  Agreed there appears to be some significant thought put into the development of measures but (and I say this with full disclosure of only looking through their site for about 30 min and not having gone through the assessment process) it also appears extremely complex!  This is great stuff for fitness geeks, not so much for everyone else. 

Example:  They use Health Fitness Zones (HFZs) from FITNESSGRAM to determine assess aerobic capacity...Hmmm.  Get one test to baseline so you can compare to subsequent tests.

Also, from their documentation (bold is my emphasis):
"Do the PACER, One-Mile Run, and One-Mile Walk Tests Give the Same Classification of Fitness?

The PACER, One-Mile Run, and One-Mile Walk tests are all designed to estimate VO2max, but due to differences in the nature of the assessments and means through which they are converted into an estimate of VO2max, they may not always yield the same classification of fitness. This is because there is error in predicting directly measured (actual) VO2max with each of the field tests. Thus, it is possible a child could be classified as being within the Healthy Fitness Zone by one test, but in the Some-Risk or High-Risk Needs Improvement Zones by another test. Summary data from schools may also vary depending on the choice of assessment that is used. It is not possible to determine the exact pattern of agreement since it would vary by age and gender and would be influenced by other variables such as the degree of motivation as well as environmental conditions. Teachers and school officials should be aware that the results from the three assessments cannot be directly compared."

Huh?!

I'll have to read through the info in a lot more detail than I have to understand how they compiled their measures and what they mean. Sorting through that is a whole new member qual!  ;)  Where/how will squadrons get the tools to perform administer a valid and consistent FITNESSGRAM tests?

My request/feedback is that whatever we come up is a more simplified assessment/measure than what PYFP put together; we don't need more bureaucracy/time sucks.  On initial review, PYFP seems a bit Rube Goldberg.

As a leader, parent, participant, etc., I want an easy to understand/reconcile "report" of my physical assessment.  PYFP, while perhaps trying to do the "right" things, doesn't meet that need.  I have to be intimately familiar with every measure to know what it means and where I stand.  The complexity will lead to issues.

Just my $.02.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

A.Member

#31
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on August 05, 2015, 09:06:55 PM
Quote from: A.Member on August 05, 2015, 08:44:27 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on August 05, 2015, 07:08:12 PM
I would also consider a no PT requirement for Achivements 1-3, with the first "Pass" being necessary at WBA. I've noticed that we get a lot of cadets who are overweight/out of shape, and if they are stuck as C/AB for a year, chances of renewal are VERY slim.
Strong non-concur.   

If running a mile was the reason for not staying in the program or progressing, they came to the wrong place at the start.   PT is key component of the cadet program.  If anything, I'd argue it should be emphasized more (which aligns with why the standard is being re-evaluated), not de-emphasized.


Try reading the message next time.


I'm talking about the requirement, not participation.


We've got a problem with fitness in this country. Why limit the pool of potential cadets because of their baseline?
I read your words just fine. 

PT should be a part of every achievement.  You said it should not be a consideration for Achievements 1 - 3 and I strongly disagree with that view.

Maybe your words don't say what you intended.


"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

dwb

The CPFT is tricky, because it's the one promotion requirement you can't master in a short period of time. You can spend a week reading L2L and then pass the test. But if you're 2+ minutes off your mile, and you're huffing and puffing and aching with shin splints... you're not fixing that in a week or two.

Let's go back to CAPR 52-16 and read what the purpose of the fitness component of CP is: "to develop in cadets a habit of regular exercise". The purpose is not to pass CPFT every two months, although we certainly need a good CPFT as our measurement for whether we're succeeding.

If a cadet comes in to our program and they are way out of shape, it might take them months to work on that. Months they're not able to even pin on C/Amn and get their Curry Blues Voucher. I don't want to lose that cadet. I want to develop in that cadet a habit of regular exercise.

I strongly disagree with the sentiment A.Member implies, that out-of-shape cadets are not welcome. They certainly are welcome, and a supportive environment to learn fitness might be just what they need.

The good thing about the language in PYFP is that you can chart a path from "needs improvement" to "healthy fitness zone". I'm actually okay with a cadet pinning on a couple stripes while they make their way to that, as long as they make measurable progress and get there before they complete Phase I.

And I say all this as a former cadet who averages 80-90 mi. per month of running, along with occasional bicycle commuting, using a standing desk, and generally trying to eat well.

The PYFP web site has a good pamphlet about monitoring fitness if you're interested. Assessment is only one component of a wide-ranging fitness education program. It shouldn't be the sole focus of CAP's program.

Ned

Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on August 05, 2015, 09:08:42 PM

Ned,


I know the pacer is used as a possible alternative to the mile, especially in the winter months in the "weather" states, but I don't think most can find a space with a 25 meter path...

I'm pretty sure it was designed with a typical school gym in mind, which most units probably don't have at their meeting sites.  It can be done outside of course, but that tends to defeat the inclement weather incentive / alternative use.  They appear to have data for a 15m Pacer as well.  But that is certainly something we are going to look at very, very closely when we actually start testing this using real cadets in a real unit with real CP leaders and see how it goes.

You may be right that we can't make it work.  In which case we will certainly look at simply using the run and "run banking" during inclement weather.

But we are going to try to make the full boat version work if we can.

A.Member

#34
Quote from: dwb on August 05, 2015, 10:15:12 PM
Let's go back to CAPR 52-16 and read what the purpose of the fitness component of CP is: "to develop in cadets a habit of regular exercise". The purpose is not to pass CPFT every two months, although we certainly need a good CPFT as our measurement for whether we're succeeding.
This is a valid argument.

Quote from: dwb on August 05, 2015, 10:15:12 PM
I strongly disagree with the sentiment A.Member implies, that out-of-shape cadets are not welcome.
This is neither what I stated nor implied. 

What I did imply is that any cadet that is unwilling to put in effort related to PT (or any other aspect of the CP for that matter), selected the wrong organization.  PT is part of our program.  If a cadet is "not able" to run 1 mile, especially after a few months, they're simply not putting in the effort.  To this point, I've seen overweight, out-of-shape cadets come in, put in the work, and make SIGNIFICANT fitness/lifestyle improvements.  That's something we want to encourage.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

Майор Хаткевич

Quote from: A.Member on August 05, 2015, 10:27:01 PM
Quote from: dwb on August 05, 2015, 10:15:12 PM
Let's go back to CAPR 52-16 and read what the purpose of the fitness component of CP is: "to develop in cadets a habit of regular exercise". The purpose is not to pass CPFT every two months, although we certainly need a good CPFT as our measurement for whether we're succeeding.
This is a valid argument.

Quote from: dwb on August 05, 2015, 10:15:12 PM
I strongly disagree with the sentiment A.Member implies, that out-of-shape cadets are not welcome.
This is neither what I stated nor implied. 

What I did imply is that any cadet that is unwilling to put in effort related to PT (or any other aspect of the CP for that matter), selected the wrong organization.  PT is part of our program.  If a cadet is "not able" to run 1 mile, especially after a few months, they're simply not putting in the effort.  To this point, I've seen overweight, out-of-shape cadets come in, put in the work, and make SIGNIFICANT fitness/lifestyle improvements.  That's something we want to encourage.

No one said they can't/won't run a mile. But if a kid comes in with a 12-13 minute mile, and needs a 9 minute mile, that's not a quick turnaround.

The idea is to allow them to be active in the cadet culture, while working on their physical conditioning, instead of stagnating.


jdh

Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on August 06, 2015, 04:11:03 AM
Quote from: A.Member on August 05, 2015, 10:27:01 PM
Quote from: dwb on August 05, 2015, 10:15:12 PM
Let's go back to CAPR 52-16 and read what the purpose of the fitness component of CP is: "to develop in cadets a habit of regular exercise". The purpose is not to pass CPFT every two months, although we certainly need a good CPFT as our measurement for whether we're succeeding.
This is a valid argument.

Quote from: dwb on August 05, 2015, 10:15:12 PM
I strongly disagree with the sentiment A.Member implies, that out-of-shape cadets are not welcome.
This is neither what I stated nor implied. 

What I did imply is that any cadet that is unwilling to put in effort related to PT (or any other aspect of the CP for that matter), selected the wrong organization.  PT is part of our program.  If a cadet is "not able" to run 1 mile, especially after a few months, they're simply not putting in the effort.  To this point, I've seen overweight, out-of-shape cadets come in, put in the work, and make SIGNIFICANT fitness/lifestyle improvements.  That's something we want to encourage.

No one said they can't/won't run a mile. But if a kid comes in with a 12-13 minute mile, and needs a 9 minute mile, that's not a quick turnaround.

The idea is to allow them to be active in the cadet culture, while working on their physical conditioning, instead of stagnating.

They are walking the whole thing if that is their mile time, they are not running. Most teen aged people can walk near a 10 minute mile. What is needed in time spent training the cadets, help them run by pacing them, teach them the right way to run, encourage them as they improve. Maybe set up a weekly or twice a month get together with the cadets on a Sat and help them with their PT, dont just sit back and watch them fail and blame the test or expect them to improve with no input.

SarDragon

Walking a mile in 10 min is a bit of a stretch. That's my steady running pace - 6 mph. I can do 4 miles in about an hour at a steady walk, and I'm more fit than the problem cadets we're talking about.

The Olympic race walkers go faster than 8-9 mph, to give more perspective.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

A.Member

#38
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on August 06, 2015, 04:11:03 AM
No one said they can't/won't run a mile. But if a kid comes in with a 12-13 minute mile, and needs a 9 minute mile, that's not a quick turnaround.

The idea is to allow them to be active in the cadet culture, while working on their physical conditioning, instead of stagnating.
Again, disagree.

A 12 -13 minute mile is only slightly better than a brisk walking pace and well below the 50th percentile for all cadet ages.  Regardless, there will be and indeed are cadets with fitness levels well below the 50th percentile.  However, if a cadet is truly putting forth the effort and has the correct guidance, noticeable PT improvements will not take long - several weeks. 

There will always be outlier exceptions but considering the absolute quickest a cadet is allowed to promote is every 2 months (most take longer - 3 to 4 months), there is more than ample time for noticeable improvement.  This should not at all be an excuse for stagnation.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

A.Member

#39
Quote from: SarDragon on August 06, 2015, 05:53:51 AM
Walking a mile in 10 min is a bit of a stretch. That's my steady running pace - 6 mph. I can do 4 miles in about an hour at a steady walk, and I'm more fit than the problem cadets we're talking about.

The Olympic race walkers go faster than 8-9 mph, to give more perspective.
Concur that a 10-min mile pace would be a very aggressive walk.  That said, FWIW, the youth U.S. 1500m (just under a mile - .93) race walk record for 9 -10 year old girls is 7:30, boys is 7:13.  For 11 -12 yr olds it's 6:44 and 6:53, boys and girls respectively.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

SarDragon

Quote from: A.Member on August 06, 2015, 06:09:32 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on August 06, 2015, 05:53:51 AM
Walking a mile in 10 min is a bit of a stretch. That's my steady running pace - 6 mph. I can do 4 miles in about an hour at a steady walk, and I'm more fit than the problem cadets we're talking about.

The Olympic race walkers go faster than 8-9 mph, to give more perspective.
Concur that a 10-min mile pace would be a very aggressive walk.  That said, FWIW, the youth U.S. 1500m (just under a mile - .93) race walk record for 9 -10 year old girls is 7:30, boys is 7:13.  For 11 -12 yr olds it's 6:44 and 6:53, boys and girls respectively.

The operative word here is record. The kids we are worried about can't walk nearly this fast.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

A.Member

#41
Quote from: SarDragon on August 06, 2015, 06:20:58 AM
Quote from: A.Member on August 06, 2015, 06:09:32 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on August 06, 2015, 05:53:51 AM
Walking a mile in 10 min is a bit of a stretch. That's my steady running pace - 6 mph. I can do 4 miles in about an hour at a steady walk, and I'm more fit than the problem cadets we're talking about.

The Olympic race walkers go faster than 8-9 mph, to give more perspective.
Concur that a 10-min mile pace would be a very aggressive walk.  That said, FWIW, the youth U.S. 1500m (just under a mile - .93) race walk record for 9 -10 year old girls is 7:30, boys is 7:13.  For 11 -12 yr olds it's 6:44 and 6:53, boys and girls respectively.

The operative word here is record. The kids we are worried about can't walk nearly this fast.
Again, I agree.  I was merely pointing out that kids younger than our cadets have proven they're more than capable of walking at paces at or significantly faster than 10min mile.  It's pretty amazing (and kind of depressing...um, I mean inspiring ;) ) to see some young kids capable of walking at about my 1 mile run pace!  Anyway, this discussion is truly an aside.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

Tim Day

Plus one for DWB's re-focus on the mission of the fitness component of the Cadet Program: "to develop in cadets a habit of regular exercise". Start at the mission, develop the program from there.

This will be a great opportunity for us to model the organizational change in a volunteer organization concepts we teach in our Phase IV leadership curriculum! I recommend we roll out discussion guide materials for CAC meetings and DCP/CC/CDCs.
Tim Day
Lt Col CAP
Prince William Composite Squadron Commander

TheSkyHornet

Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on August 05, 2015, 08:34:21 PM
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on August 05, 2015, 07:45:43 PM
There really isn't any excuse for that physical condition other than the staff and leadership parents allowing it as a cop-out.


Fixed that for you.

I'm going to lump parents into that group as well. It's on both ends. CAP leadership at the lower level has the responsibility to enforce the standards employed by the top tier. It's true; they can only do so much with what the cadet brings to the table, and a great deal of what they bring starts at home. However, just like the real world, personal responsibility is key, and you can't simply blame parents for a CAP squadron commander who stands by and tells a cadet "Well, if you really don't feel like doing PT today, I think it's okay if you sit out."

Maybe CAP could implement an ROTC-similar PT concept, where PT is a required event to participate in and achieve to progress, but on a smaller level. Rather than just increasing the standards, such as the number of push-ups, as one increases in grade, but adding on additional criteria---must pass ## PT events to promote to this level, must past all PT events to promote to this level.

What I don't want to see is a participation reduction in PT, and I don't want to see a cadet reduction in CAP, I do recognize that we are limiting ourselves if we mandate more PT participation for cadets. But at the same time, if this is going to be an organization with one of its purposes being to actively participate in real-life missions and training exercises to prepare an individual to conduct high-performance, high-energy, fatiguing activities, they need to be physically prepared to do so as well. CAP is not intended to be a JROTC organization in which cadets play military. It's about time the numerous CAP members who think it is go back and review this group's mission statement.

Eaker Guy

As a cadet, here's my two cents.

I can pass the mile with time to spare(I passed the Spaatz requirement for the mile run when I was 13). I can pass the sit up event with relative ease, and I can wiggle my way through the sit and reach. :) However, I never pass the push up event. If we tightened standards, I would not be able to promote. Does this mean I'm not fit? Of course not. I can run the socks off most anyone, and am pretty strong in my core and flexibility. Just because I can't pass the push ups doesn't mean that I'm not fit. Now, for the cadet that can't pass anything, will tightening standards help? No, I don't think it will. For those that can't pass, we should focus on their individual improvement, not shove them through the proverbial hoop that is the PT standard. As Sky Hornet said, individual responsibility is key. So, maybe instead of freaking out because this cadet can't pass a test, we work with him to improve his score by whatever is reasonable to help him improve himself physically. Therefore, we are fulfilling the goal of the PT program.

As for those that are lazy and don't like PT, I say get over it. In these instances, I go ahead and tighten the standards, if you know they are capable of passing. Again, case by case basis. The standards for everyone should not be raised just to motivate the 10% of lazy cadets(percentage is just a guess).

Make any sense?

--C/Maj Kiss

A.Member

#45
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on August 06, 2015, 01:54:02 PM
CAP is not intended to be a JROTC organization in which cadets play military. It's about time the numerous CAP members who think it is go back and review this group's mission statement.
It's you that may want to go back and review Mission Statements. 

As a comparison:
AFJROTC:
QuoteMission: "Develop citizens of character dedicated to serving their nation and community"

The objectives of JROTC are to educate and train high school cadets in citizenship, promote community service, instill responsibility, character, and self-discipline, and provide instruction in air and space fundamentals.

The AFJROTC program is grounded in the Air Force core values of integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all we do. The curriculum emphasizes the Air Force heritage and traditions, the development of flight, applied flight sciences, military aerospace policies, and space exploration.

Curriculum opportunities include:
•   Academic studies
•   Character education
•   Life skills education
•   Leadership opportunities
•   Team-building experiences
•   Intramural competition
•   Field trips / training opportunities

CAP Cadet Programs (per CAPR 52-16):
Quote
Mission. The Cadet Program transforms youth into dynamic Americans and aerospace leaders. CAP accomplishes its Congressionally-mandated Cadet Program (Title 36, U.S.C. 40302) through a curriculum of leadership, aerospace, fitness and character. The program follows a military model and emphasizes Air Force traditions and values. Today's cadets are tomorrow's aerospace leaders.

The mission statements look nearly identical because the CAP Cadet Program model is very tantamount to AFJROTC.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

A.Member

#46
Quote from: C/Maj Kiss on August 06, 2015, 02:21:16 PM
I can pass the mile with time to spare(I passed the Spaatz requirement for the mile run when I was 13). I can pass the sit up event with relative ease, and I can wiggle my way through the sit and reach. :) However, I never pass the push up event. If we tightened standards, I would not be able to promote. Does this mean I'm not fit? Of course not. I can run the socks off most anyone, and am pretty strong in my core and flexibility. Just because I can't pass the push ups doesn't mean that I'm not fit.
Under the current program, you must pass the run plus 2 out of the 3 remaining evaluated items.  So, the current approach addresses your situation.

An alternate approach I'd support is to have a scoring model similar to the Physical Ability and Stamina Test (PAST) scoring.  Under the PAST system, points are earned.  A minimum total points is required but if you excel in one area, it can potentially make up for under-performing in another area.   

Let me be clear before someone flys off the handle - I'm not advocating adoption of PAST standards for our cadets.  I'm saying the scoring system used could serve as a model.

"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

Eaker Guy

Quote from: A.Member on August 06, 2015, 03:15:47 PM
Quote from: C/Maj Kiss on August 06, 2015, 02:21:16 PM
As a cadet, here's my two cents.

I can pass the mile with time to spare(I passed the Spaatz requirement for the mile run when I was 13). I can pass the sit up event with relative ease, and I can wiggle my way through the sit and reach. :) However, I never pass the push up event. If we tightened standards, I would not be able to promote. Does this mean I'm not fit? Of course not. I can run the socks off most anyone, and am pretty strong in my core and flexibility. Just because I can't pass the push ups doesn't mean that I'm not fit. Now, for the cadet that can't pass anything, will tightening standards help? No, I don't think it will. For those that can't pass, we should focus on their individual improvement, not shove them through the proverbial hoop that is the PT standard. As Sky Hornet said, individual responsibility is key. So, maybe instead of freaking out because this cadet can't pass a test, we work with him to improve his score by whatever is reasonable to help him improve himself physically. Therefore, we are fulfilling the goal of the PT program.

As for those that are lazy and don't like PT, I say get over it. In these instances, I go ahead and tighten the standards, if you know they are capable of passing. Again, case by case basis. The standards for everyone should not be raised just to motivate the 10% of lazy cadets(percentage is just a guess).

Make any sense?

--C/Maj Kiss
Under the current program, you must pass the run plus 2 out of the 3 remaining evaluated items.  So, the current approach addresses your situation.

An alternate approach I'd support is to have a scoring model similar to the Physical Ability and Stamina Test (PAST) scoring.  Under the PAST system, points are earned.  A minimum total points required but if you excel in one area, it can potentially make up for under-performing in another area.   

Let me be clear before someone flys off the handle - I'm not advocating adoption of PAST standards for our cadets.  I'm saying the scoring system used could serve as a model.

Yup, and I am passing PT.  :) One of the suggestions was to make it mandatory to pass all CPFT events to promote. My reply was to share my opinion on that. If that was to occur, a fit cadet like myself would not be able to promote. :( This would only hurt the cadets.

The PAST system in intriguing. Good suggestion. I won't fly off the handle, I promise!

--C/Maj Kiss

jeders

Quote from: A.Member on August 06, 2015, 03:15:47 PM
Quote from: C/Maj Kiss on August 06, 2015, 02:21:16 PM
I can pass the mile with time to spare(I passed the Spaatz requirement for the mile run when I was 13). I can pass the sit up event with relative ease, and I can wiggle my way through the sit and reach. :) However, I never pass the push up event. If we tightened standards, I would not be able to promote. Does this mean I'm not fit? Of course not. I can run the socks off most anyone, and am pretty strong in my core and flexibility. Just because I can't pass the push ups doesn't mean that I'm not fit.
Under the current program, you must pass the run plus 2 out of the 3 remaining evaluated items.  So, the current approach addresses your situation.

An alternate approach I'd support is to have a scoring model similar to the Physical Ability and Stamina Test (PAST) scoring.  Under the PAST system, points are earned.  A minimum total points is required but if you excel in one area, it can potentially make up for under-performing in another area.   

Let me be clear before someone flys off the handle - I'm not advocating adoption of PAST standards for our cadets.  I'm saying the scoring system used could serve as a model.

And that's the way the PT test used to be scored. The run, sit ups, and sit and reach were worth so many points based on how you did, and then each achievement required a certain number of points to earn. Personally, I'd be in favor of going back to a system like that where a cadet who can run like greased lightning but can't touch his toes isn't being held up unnecessarily.

As for the comments made about whether or not to require PT standards at all for Phase I cadets, I'd be in favor of treating PT during Phase I only like we treat Character Development. Cadets must participate in at least 50% of the physical fitness training offered by the squadron, regardless of whether or not they pass the CPFT standards. This allows us to stress the importance of physical fitness throughout their life while not holding them back if they've spent most of their life on a couch.
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse

NC Hokie

Quote from: jeders on August 06, 2015, 05:13:19 PM
And that's the way the PT test used to be scored. The run, sit ups, and sit and reach were worth so many points based on how you did, and then each achievement required a certain number of points to earn. Personally, I'd be in favor of going back to a system like that where a cadet who can run like greased lightning but can't touch his toes isn't being held up unnecessarily.

Agreed.

Quote from: jeders on August 06, 2015, 05:13:19 PM
As for the comments made about whether or not to require PT standards at all for Phase I cadets, I'd be in favor of treating PT during Phase I only like we treat Character Development. Cadets must participate in at least 50% of the physical fitness training offered by the squadron, regardless of whether or not they pass the CPFT standards. This allows us to stress the importance of physical fitness throughout their life while not holding them back if they've spent most of their life on a couch.

Agreed again, with the stipulation that the CPFT standards used in Phase I be identical to the ones used at the beginning of Phase II so that cadets are spending their time practicing to meet those standards when the time comes.  It would stink to have a cadet work towards an 8 minute mile (just pulling the number out of thin air) only to fail the first Phase II CPFT because the standard is 7 minutes.
NC Hokie, Lt Col, CAP

Graduated Squadron Commander
All Around Good Guy

Майор Хаткевич

Quote from: jdh on August 06, 2015, 05:19:36 AM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on August 06, 2015, 04:11:03 AM
Quote from: A.Member on August 05, 2015, 10:27:01 PM
Quote from: dwb on August 05, 2015, 10:15:12 PM
Let's go back to CAPR 52-16 and read what the purpose of the fitness component of CP is: "to develop in cadets a habit of regular exercise". The purpose is not to pass CPFT every two months, although we certainly need a good CPFT as our measurement for whether we're succeeding.
This is a valid argument.

Quote from: dwb on August 05, 2015, 10:15:12 PM
I strongly disagree with the sentiment A.Member implies, that out-of-shape cadets are not welcome.
This is neither what I stated nor implied. 

What I did imply is that any cadet that is unwilling to put in effort related to PT (or any other aspect of the CP for that matter), selected the wrong organization.  PT is part of our program.  If a cadet is "not able" to run 1 mile, especially after a few months, they're simply not putting in the effort.  To this point, I've seen overweight, out-of-shape cadets come in, put in the work, and make SIGNIFICANT fitness/lifestyle improvements.  That's something we want to encourage.

No one said they can't/won't run a mile. But if a kid comes in with a 12-13 minute mile, and needs a 9 minute mile, that's not a quick turnaround.

The idea is to allow them to be active in the cadet culture, while working on their physical conditioning, instead of stagnating.

They are walking the whole thing if that is their mile time, they are not running. Most teen aged people can walk near a 10 minute mile. What is needed in time spent training the cadets, help them run by pacing them, teach them the right way to run, encourage them as they improve. Maybe set up a weekly or twice a month get together with the cadets on a Sat and help them with their PT, dont just sit back and watch them fail and blame the test or expect them to improve with no input.


I was running a 7 minute mile in 7th grade, and IIRC, speed walked in the low 13s, yes. But when a kid who can't run a mile starts running, and then has to walk because they are out of shape, 12-13 minute miles are quite frequent.


Besides, I've got sub-5ft 12 year olds and 6ft+ 16 year olds joining, their walking miles will vary quite a lot.

TheSkyHornet

Quote from: C/Maj Kiss on August 06, 2015, 02:21:16 PM
As a cadet, here's my two cents.

I can pass the mile with time to spare(I passed the Spaatz requirement for the mile run when I was 13). I can pass the sit up event with relative ease, and I can wiggle my way through the sit and reach. :) However, I never pass the push up event. If we tightened standards, I would not be able to promote. Does this mean I'm not fit? Of course not. I can run the socks off most anyone, and am pretty strong in my core and flexibility. Just because I can't pass the push ups doesn't mean that I'm not fit. Now, for the cadet that can't pass anything, will tightening standards help? No, I don't think it will. For those that can't pass, we should focus on their individual improvement, not shove them through the proverbial hoop that is the PT standard. As Sky Hornet said, individual responsibility is key. So, maybe instead of freaking out because this cadet can't pass a test, we work with him to improve his score by whatever is reasonable to help him improve himself physically. Therefore, we are fulfilling the goal of the PT program.

As for those that are lazy and don't like PT, I say get over it. In these instances, I go ahead and tighten the standards, if you know they are capable of passing. Again, case by case basis. The standards for everyone should not be raised just to motivate the 10% of lazy cadets(percentage is just a guess).

Make any sense?

--C/Maj Kiss

That logic can be reversed just the same---
Why should we raise the standards when some people can't pass vs. Why should we lower the standards because some people can't pass?

Because you cannot pass the push-ups, does that mean there shouldn't be a push-up requirement as a mandatory part of PT standards?


Ned

Quote from: A.Member on August 05, 2015, 09:28:35 PM

[. . .]
My request/feedback is that whatever we come up is a more simplified assessment/measure than what PYFP put together; we don't need more bureaucracy/time sucks.  On initial review, PYFP seems a bit Rube Goldberg.

As a leader, parent, participant, etc., I want an easy to understand/reconcile "report" of my physical assessment.  PYFP, while perhaps trying to do the "right" things, doesn't meet that need. [ . . .]

Like you, I am also concerned about how long it will take a typical larger unit to conduct the assessment.

But for the sake of argument, even if it takes a bit longer, you are only going to be doing it quarterly instead of the current monthly requirement, so there should be a substantial net gain of training time for the unit.  Which should be used for fitness activities and education.  Still a win, I think.

Have a little more patience until we can show you a product in the next few months.



thebeggerpie

 I am not a thin guy, I'm pretty stocky. I'm not fast, but I have a lot of stamina. So when I see, for my age and rank that I need to run a mile under 7 minutes, I'm really sweating. Last time I ran a mile that fast, it was 7:40, which is 20 seconds faster than my average, and that was at the height of my running.

Shuttle run is even harder for me, because, like I said, I'm just not that fast. But I can keep a 8:00 mile, average for 5 miles straight. I've won awards in 5K and 10K races because everybody burns out in the first mile or so, but I can keep chugging. But speed is important, not stamina. :/


On sit-ups, I'm slower, I take my time. My father has back problems, and I'm trying not to develop them(I spent a little too much time as a child watching him lay on a couch or bed on his face, because he couldn't move without pain.). The other cadets, when testing, are throwing themselves up and down against the surface(ranging from grass, concrete, and rubber tracking), just to make it in time for the situps. I can't see how this healthy for their backs. I refuse to do it, so I do end up barely making it these days, if I beat the clock.


Push-ups, I'm just a lazy cadet and hate to do them, so it's my fault there.



Just a quick blurp from another cadet.

TheSkyHornet

Well, the way I see it, PT testing standards are required. It is not required to add in additional Physical Fitness Training. Chapter 4 of CAPP 52-18 has some good exercises that can be incorporated into the program, especially on a non-testing day (since you wouldn't normally do a fitness test and non-standard exercises on the same day).

With the shuttle being pulled out, add in some extra exercises on a day that didn't used to have PT as a filler. Obviously, PT is only sustainable by the cadets doing it themselves outside of the program, but it's an encouraging activity to add some cardio in on a meeting day for a half-hour or so.

We just got word with our unit that we're no longer going to conduct the shuttle run. It came down through Ohio Wing, so that's that. Got some feedback from the cadets that a few of them aren't pleased about it since they don't feel confident with the mile run, but we can help some of them out with that and do what we can. It's up to them to maintain the endurance ability themselves.


NC Wing Range Master

Maybe it is just because my background is all Army, (24 years active duty most on AIRBORNE status in the AWESOME 82d AIRBORNE), BUT, what's next?  I agree that we need to do what we can to limit/lessen injuries...Trust me, being a disabled Veteran, I can attest to you that getting hurt sucks...HOWEVER....We are going to stop the shuttle run to lower injuries?  WOW, why don't we just wrap them up in bubble wrap and let them bounce down the road?

This question may seem silly, but think about this.  Our REAL WORLD Mission is Search and Rescue, hence Hawk Mountain, Ground Team running with gear, Stuff you need helmets for...Need I go on?  How can we expect to engender in our Cadets the spirit and attitude needed for survival in harsh environments when we stop a simple thing like a shuttle run because it is "Unsafe".  How many Basketball coaches would choke on their chewing gum if you told them that they had to stop 1/4 Court - 1/2 Court - 3/4 Court- Full Court sprints?  Did no one other than me do this in Gym in High School?

I would submit that Yes, you need to select a solid, non rocky, surface to do the test.  A Hangar floor or a Drill Hall, or a taxiway at the airfield for instance, but it is not the approved solution to end it altogether.
AIRBORNE!  ALL THE WAY
1Lt Roger C. Ayscue, CAP
MER-NC-162 CDC
U.S. Air Force Auxiliary
iredellcap.com  

PHall

Quote from: NC Wing Range Master on August 27, 2015, 02:54:42 AM
Maybe it is just because my background is all Army, (24 years active duty most on AIRBORNE status in the AWESOME 82d AIRBORNE), BUT, what's next?  I agree that we need to do what we can to limit/lessen injuries...Trust me, being a disabled Veteran, I can attest to you that getting hurt sucks...HOWEVER....We are going to stop the shuttle run to lower injuries?  WOW, why don't we just wrap them up in bubble wrap and let them bounce down the road?

This question may seem silly, but think about this.  Our REAL WORLD Mission is Search and Rescue, hence Hawk Mountain, Ground Team running with gear, Stuff you need helmets for...Need I go on?  How can we expect to engender in our Cadets the spirit and attitude needed for survival in harsh environments when we stop a simple thing like a shuttle run because it is "Unsafe".  How many Basketball coaches would choke on their chewing gum if you told them that they had to stop 1/4 Court - 1/2 Court - 3/4 Court- Full Court sprints?  Did no one other than me do this in Gym in High School?

I would submit that Yes, you need to select a solid, non rocky, surface to do the test.  A Hangar floor or a Drill Hall, or a taxiway at the airfield for instance, but it is not the approved solution to end it altogether.

How does the Shuttle Run help a cadet be prepared to be on a Ground Team???  Haven't seen too many teams who run 30 feet, stop, reverse direction and run 30 feet the other way. What exactly is the Shuttle Run testing?

Storm Chaser

Quote from: NC Wing Range Master on August 27, 2015, 02:54:42 AM
Maybe it is just because my background is all Army, (24 years active duty most on AIRBORNE status in the AWESOME 82d AIRBORNE), BUT, what's next?  I agree that we need to do what we can to limit/lessen injuries...Trust me, being a disabled Veteran, I can attest to you that getting hurt sucks...HOWEVER....We are going to stop the shuttle run to lower injuries?  WOW, why don't we just wrap them up in bubble wrap and let them bounce down the road?

This question may seem silly, but think about this.  Our REAL WORLD Mission is Search and Rescue, hence Hawk Mountain, Ground Team running with gear, Stuff you need helmets for...Need I go on?  How can we expect to engender in our Cadets the spirit and attitude needed for survival in harsh environments when we stop a simple thing like a shuttle run because it is "Unsafe".  How many Basketball coaches would choke on their chewing gum if you told them that they had to stop 1/4 Court - 1/2 Court - 3/4 Court- Full Court sprints?  Did no one other than me do this in Gym in High School?

I would submit that Yes, you need to select a solid, non rocky, surface to do the test.  A Hangar floor or a Drill Hall, or a taxiway at the airfield for instance, but it is not the approved solution to end it altogether.

In my experience, many cadets who could pass the shuttle run, could not pass the mile run.

In addition, I haven't seen any situation requiring ground team members to run, much less run with gear. That would not only be unsafe, but plain silly and irresponsible.

Fubar

Quote from: NC Wing Range Master on August 27, 2015, 02:54:42 AMOur REAL WORLD Mission is Search and Rescue, hence Hawk Mountain, Ground Team running with gear, Stuff you need helmets for...Need I go on?

Perhaps I'm spitting hairs here, but SAR is a mission, not the mission of the CAP. Additionally, the physical fitness program and requirements that exist within the cadet program are not to prepare them for SAR, it's supposed to promote a healthy lifestyle.

Perhaps I live a sheltered life, but I've never seen a single ground team member run while wearing their gear. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've never seen one run period.

Brit_in_CAP

Quote from: Fubar on August 27, 2015, 03:29:37 AM
Quote from: NC Wing Range Master on August 27, 2015, 02:54:42 AMOur REAL WORLD Mission is Search and Rescue, hence Hawk Mountain, Ground Team running with gear, Stuff you need helmets for...Need I go on?

Perhaps I'm spitting hairs here, but SAR is a mission, not the mission of the CAP. Additionally, the physical fitness program and requirements that exist within the cadet program are not to prepare them for SAR, it's supposed to promote a healthy lifestyle.

Perhaps I live a sheltered life, but I've never seen a single ground team member run while wearing their gear. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've never seen one run period.
+1  :clap: :clap:

TheSkyHornet

Quote from: PHall on August 27, 2015, 03:23:57 AM
How does the Shuttle Run help a cadet be prepared to be on a Ground Team???  Haven't seen too many teams who run 30 feet, stop, reverse direction and run 30 feet the other way. What exactly is the Shuttle Run testing?

That's an argument that has floated through the military community for a LONG time...
"Why should we train to run 2 miles? How many miles will you run in combat?"
I suppose the standard is to measure overall performance and endurance, not so much the ability to perform a specific task (i.e., urban assault, SAR, etc.)

Maybe a proposal might be to mandate an overall minimum fitness standard, and extend it for those who want to stay current for qualification (ground team). Just a thought.

But I don't agree that the shuttle run is a proper measurement of physical fitness. It does not maintain a healthy lifestyle, nor promote CAP exercise. It's a quick 10-second challenge that really has no benefit. They should drop the sit-and-reach too in my opinion.

Alaric

Quote from: NC Wing Range Master on August 27, 2015, 02:54:42 AM
Maybe it is just because my background is all Army, (24 years active duty most on AIRBORNE status in the AWESOME 82d AIRBORNE), BUT, what's next?  I agree that we need to do what we can to limit/lessen injuries...Trust me, being a disabled Veteran, I can attest to you that getting hurt sucks...HOWEVER....We are going to stop the shuttle run to lower injuries?  WOW, why don't we just wrap them up in bubble wrap and let them bounce down the road?

This question may seem silly, but think about this.  Our REAL WORLD Mission is Search and Rescue, hence Hawk Mountain, Ground Team running with gear, Stuff you need helmets for...Need I go on?  How can we expect to engender in our Cadets the spirit and attitude needed for survival in harsh environments when we stop a simple thing like a shuttle run because it is "Unsafe".  How many Basketball coaches would choke on their chewing gum if you told them that they had to stop 1/4 Court - 1/2 Court - 3/4 Court- Full Court sprints?  Did no one other than me do this in Gym in High School?

I would submit that Yes, you need to select a solid, non rocky, surface to do the test.  A Hangar floor or a Drill Hall, or a taxiway at the airfield for instance, but it is not the approved solution to end it altogether.

While Hawk Mountain may be a fine school, and an excellent training ground (I can neither confirm or deny as I've never been there), GSAR is not THE mission of CAP, it is a part of the ES mission; which in turn is one of the 3 missions ES, Cadet Programs and Aerospace Education. 

Brit_in_CAP

Quote from: Alaric on August 27, 2015, 04:11:12 PM

While Hawk Mountain may be a fine school, and an excellent training ground (I can neither confirm or deny as I've never been there), GSAR is not THE mission of CAP, it is a part of the ES mission; which in turn is one of the 3 missions ES, Cadet Programs and Aerospace Education.

..and again...+1000  :clap: :clap: :clap:


Storm Chaser

The National Ground Search and Rescue School at NESA is one of the finest GSAR schools in CAP and, while its training is physically challenging, there's no running or PT involved.

kwe1009

I said this earlier today during a learning lab at the National Conference when we went down the new CPFT road:

PT programs change to meet the needs of current society.  I have been in the Air Force for over 27 years and I have seen a lot of changes in PT and PT standards (for better and for worse).  I don't necessarily agree with lowering standards but if we can keep more cadets involved and thus getting more fit and learning to be leaders then it is something I think we need to do.

Full time cadet

#65
Only 2-3 people passed PT because of this.

Mod edit:  Post restored.  Further obliteration of posts will result in revocation of editing privileges.

PHall

Quote from: Full time cadet on August 29, 2015, 03:26:06 AM
.


Not cool to nuke your post like that.  And it's against the rules too.

You want to remove a post, ask a Mod to do it.

Eaker Guy

Integrity Cadet. One of our core values. You post here, you stick by it. You can change your mind, but you cannot change what you say/said. Good life principle.

Semper Vigilans,

C/Maj Kiss, CAP
C/CC of some squadron in the CAP. :)

NC Wing Range Master

How many high school coaches would concur with this?  Really? Because we want to stop skinned knees we eliminate an exercise that dates back the 40 years of so since I did Middle School Phys Ed.

Wrap the Cadets in Bubble Wrap or let them run.  I disagree with this planned change.  If you are doing this on gravel, then the problem is with the area you choose to do this.  in a drill hall, on a taxi way or in a gym, this will be just as it always has been.  It has been a staple of Basketball coaches for decades.  This ranks up there with banning Peanut Butter for all kids, because you want to make sure that the one kid that is allergic to it (and should know not to eat it) might be in the same room with Peanut Butter....Give Me A Break!

For 24 years I jumped out of US Air Force Aircraft, Carried big heavy rucksacks and ate MRE's for long periods at the time. I skinned my knees, twisted, sprained or broke stuff, and would do it again in a minute.

We are supposed to be SAR and Ground Team specialists.  Perhaps, and I am just guessing here, that the shuttle run is NOT the most dangerous ting we train cadets to do....Just Sayin'

easier than eatin' Pancakes.

AIRBORNE!  ALL THE WAY
1Lt Roger C. Ayscue, CAP
MER-NC-162 CDC
U.S. Air Force Auxiliary
iredellcap.com  

PHall

Quote from: NC Wing Range Master on November 04, 2015, 04:36:08 AM
How many high school coaches would concur with this?  Really? Because we want to stop skinned knees we eliminate an exercise that dates back the 40 years of so since I did Middle School Phys Ed.

Wrap the Cadets in Bubble Wrap or let them run.  I disagree with this planned change.  If you are doing this on gravel, then the problem is with the area you choose to do this.  in a drill hall, on a taxi way or in a gym, this will be just as it always has been.  It has been a staple of Basketball coaches for decades.  This ranks up there with banning Peanut Butter for all kids, because you want to make sure that the one kid that is allergic to it (and should know not to eat it) might be in the same room with Peanut Butter....Give Me A Break!

For 24 years I jumped out of US Air Force Aircraft, Carried big heavy rucksacks and ate MRE's for long periods at the time. I skinned my knees, twisted, sprained or broke stuff, and would do it again in a minute.

We are supposed to be SAR and Ground Team specialists.  Perhaps, and I am just guessing here, that the shuttle run is NOT the most dangerous ting we train cadets to do....Just Sayin'

easier than eatin' Pancakes.




It would be nice if it were just skinned knees, but it isn't.  It's stuff like sprained and tore up ankles and knees.
And the injury rate for the shuttle run is about double of what it is for the mile run or any other part of the CPFT.


Ned

Plus the fact that the shuttle run does not measure what the mile run measures.  Cardiovascular fitness.

Looks like they never should have been offered as "alternatives."

So, working with the Safety folks it was an easy call.  If the test doesn't actually measure what we wanted to measure AND it hurts a significant number of cadets, then we shouldn't do it.

Physical fitness tests are difficult to design and implement in a meaningful manner.  And reasonable people (including reasonable scientists and health professionals) often disagree about some of the specifics.

Watch for the new CPFT draft to be published for comment soon.

Ned Lee
Col, CAP
National Cadet Program Manager

TheSkyHornet

As Ned said, the key issue, even though there was a safety factor, is that the shuttle run is an easy out to the mile run. Cadets who couldn't pass the mile just did the shuttle run, which lasted all of 10 seconds. That's not a physical feat that measures your abilities. It doesn't indicate that you're a healthy teen or that you can ruck to find a missing person.

Perhaps the published reason behind removing the shuttle run was because it took a safety issue to finally address it as an event, but it wasn't good to begin with as part of the CPFT. How many cadets do we know who would "skip" the mile run and just use the shuttle run for their score, which, in my opinion, was almost shameful.

"I can't run and won't promote because of it"
"Then I guess you better start training, eh?"

Ned

Quote from: TheSkyHornet on November 04, 2015, 09:07:13 PM
Cadets who couldn't pass the mile just did the shuttle run, which lasted all of 10 seconds. That's not a physical feat that measures your abilities. It doesn't indicate that you're a healthy teen or that you can ruck to find a missing person.

A gentle non-concur on one aspect.  The shuttle run certainly measures something.  As I understand it, mostly agility with some indication of an overall fitness level.  I know I can't pass it, for instance, because at my age I am considerable less agile than I once was.

But it doesn't measure cardiovascular fitness which would be the only reason we would consider it an "alternative" to the mile run.  Which mostly measures cardio, and not much else.




Fubar

There has been a tremendous amount of teeth-gnashing in my wing about all the cadets that will no longer promote (and subsequently quit) with the removal of the shuttle run.

At a time that recruiting and retention are a part of every national, regional, and wing briefing, couldn't this have been postponed until the new CPFT was released?

Alaric

Quote from: PHall on November 04, 2015, 06:08:40 AM
Quote from: NC Wing Range Master on November 04, 2015, 04:36:08 AM
How many high school coaches would concur with this?  Really? Because we want to stop skinned knees we eliminate an exercise that dates back the 40 years of so since I did Middle School Phys Ed.

Wrap the Cadets in Bubble Wrap or let them run.  I disagree with this planned change.  If you are doing this on gravel, then the problem is with the area you choose to do this.  in a drill hall, on a taxi way or in a gym, this will be just as it always has been.  It has been a staple of Basketball coaches for decades.  This ranks up there with banning Peanut Butter for all kids, because you want to make sure that the one kid that is allergic to it (and should know not to eat it) might be in the same room with Peanut Butter....Give Me A Break!

For 24 years I jumped out of US Air Force Aircraft, Carried big heavy rucksacks and ate MRE's for long periods at the time. I skinned my knees, twisted, sprained or broke stuff, and would do it again in a minute.

We are supposed to be SAR and Ground Team specialists.  Perhaps, and I am just guessing here, that the shuttle run is NOT the most dangerous ting we train cadets to do....Just Sayin'

easier than eatin' Pancakes.




It would be nice if it were just skinned knees, but it isn't.  It's stuff like sprained and tore up ankles and knees.
And the injury rate for the shuttle run is about double of what it is for the mile run or any other part of the CPFT.

Not debating the numbers but where are they?  I have never had a cadet injured during PT testing so I'm just curious, where can I find these numbers?

THRAWN

Quote from: PHall on November 04, 2015, 06:08:40 AM
Quote from: NC Wing Range Master on November 04, 2015, 04:36:08 AM
How many high school coaches would concur with this?  Really? Because we want to stop skinned knees we eliminate an exercise that dates back the 40 years of so since I did Middle School Phys Ed.

Wrap the Cadets in Bubble Wrap or let them run.  I disagree with this planned change.  If you are doing this on gravel, then the problem is with the area you choose to do this.  in a drill hall, on a taxi way or in a gym, this will be just as it always has been.  It has been a staple of Basketball coaches for decades.  This ranks up there with banning Peanut Butter for all kids, because you want to make sure that the one kid that is allergic to it (and should know not to eat it) might be in the same room with Peanut Butter....Give Me A Break!

For 24 years I jumped out of US Air Force Aircraft, Carried big heavy rucksacks and ate MRE's for long periods at the time. I skinned my knees, twisted, sprained or broke stuff, and would do it again in a minute.

We are supposed to be SAR and Ground Team specialists.  Perhaps, and I am just guessing here, that the shuttle run is NOT the most dangerous ting we train cadets to do....Just Sayin'

easier than eatin' Pancakes.




It would be nice if it were just skinned knees, but it isn't.  It's stuff like sprained and tore up ankles and knees.
And the injury rate for the shuttle run is about double of what it is for the mile run or any other part of the CPFT.

Out of the hundreds of kids that I've coached and the hundreds of times that I've done this type of test myself, I've never seen a sprain/"tore up ankle", etc. Ever. In over 30 years of doing this. This includes my time in CAP where I have seen exactly zero cadets injured during a PFT.
Strup-"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
USMC CSCDEP 2023

vorteks

Quote from: THRAWN on November 05, 2015, 02:08:47 PM
Out of the hundreds of kids that I've coached and the hundreds of times that I've done this type of test myself, I've never seen a sprain/"tore up ankle", etc. Ever. In over 30 years of doing this. This includes my time in CAP where I have seen exactly zero cadets injured during a PFT.

You must be doing it wrong.  >:D

jeders

Quote from: THRAWN on November 05, 2015, 02:08:47 PM
Out of the hundreds of kids that I've coached and the hundreds of times that I've done this type of test myself, I've never seen a sprain/"tore up ankle", etc. Ever. In over 30 years of doing this. This includes my time in CAP where I have seen exactly zero cadets injured during a PFT.

Are you doing the test in a narrow hallway? Maybe a slick surface? My guess is no, because you appear, from comments you have made here, to have training that allows you to know how to safely conduct the shuttle run. However, there are a number of well intentioned CP officers around the country who either do not have experience administering physical fitness tests or who are simply trying to get a job done in non-ideal situations.

As for me, I have seen cadets injured doing the PFT. One slipped while turning for the shuttle run, another tripped over a curb while running backwards on the mile run, others have simply tripped over their own feet.
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse

Garibaldi

Quote from: jeders on November 05, 2015, 03:49:23 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on November 05, 2015, 02:08:47 PM
Out of the hundreds of kids that I've coached and the hundreds of times that I've done this type of test myself, I've never seen a sprain/"tore up ankle", etc. Ever. In over 30 years of doing this. This includes my time in CAP where I have seen exactly zero cadets injured during a PFT.

Are you doing the test in a narrow hallway? Maybe a slick surface? My guess is no, because you appear, from comments you have made here, to have training that allows you to know how to safely conduct the shuttle run. However, there are a number of well intentioned CP officers around the country who either do not have experience administering physical fitness tests or who are simply trying to get a job done in non-ideal situations.

As for me, I have seen cadets injured doing the PFT. One slipped while turning for the shuttle run, another tripped over a curb while running backwards on the mile run, others have simply tripped over their own feet.

Not their fault, failure to adhere to ORM and safety procedures, typical teenage clumsiness. In that order.

I've seen the potential for failure in the shuttle run, both in school and in CAP. Kids can and do slip, trip, stumble, and fall in this exercise, no matter what the terrain. I've cringed while watching a gangly 5'11" cadet (who literally went from 5'2" in the span of two months or so it seemed) do the shuttle run. I was afraid he'd break a leg or turn his ankle because he wasn't used to being so big so fast. I always thought the shuttle run was a bad, bad idea. It doesn't do anything IMO to fulfil the PFT requirements and in some cases is harder than the other activities on the body.
Still a major after all these years.
ES dude, leadership ossifer, publik affaires
Opinionated and wrong 99% of the time about all things

Alaric

Quote from: jeders on November 05, 2015, 03:49:23 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on November 05, 2015, 02:08:47 PM
Out of the hundreds of kids that I've coached and the hundreds of times that I've done this type of test myself, I've never seen a sprain/"tore up ankle", etc. Ever. In over 30 years of doing this. This includes my time in CAP where I have seen exactly zero cadets injured during a PFT.

Are you doing the test in a narrow hallway? Maybe a slick surface? My guess is no, because you appear, from comments you have made here, to have training that allows you to know how to safely conduct the shuttle run. However, there are a number of well intentioned CP officers around the country who either do not have experience administering physical fitness tests or who are simply trying to get a job done in non-ideal situations.

As for me, I have seen cadets injured doing the PFT. One slipped while turning for the shuttle run, another tripped over a curb while running backwards on the mile run, others have simply tripped over their own feet.

Then perhaps the solution is proper training rather then banning the test?  I would just like to see the actual numbers, is there a database?

PHall

Quote from: Alaric on November 05, 2015, 05:14:12 PM
Quote from: jeders on November 05, 2015, 03:49:23 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on November 05, 2015, 02:08:47 PM
Out of the hundreds of kids that I've coached and the hundreds of times that I've done this type of test myself, I've never seen a sprain/"tore up ankle", etc. Ever. In over 30 years of doing this. This includes my time in CAP where I have seen exactly zero cadets injured during a PFT.

Are you doing the test in a narrow hallway? Maybe a slick surface? My guess is no, because you appear, from comments you have made here, to have training that allows you to know how to safely conduct the shuttle run. However, there are a number of well intentioned CP officers around the country who either do not have experience administering physical fitness tests or who are simply trying to get a job done in non-ideal situations.

As for me, I have seen cadets injured doing the PFT. One slipped while turning for the shuttle run, another tripped over a curb while running backwards on the mile run, others have simply tripped over their own feet.

Then perhaps the solution is proper training rather then banning the test?  I would just like to see the actual numbers, is there a database?

I'm sure the Safety folks have the data. You might be able to access it through the Safety portal on the National website.

jeders

Or read through prior issues of the Safety Beacon, I know they have reports of cadets getting injured doing PT.

Quote from: November Safety BeaconSince the moratorium on the Shuttle run began earlier this summer, I'm pleased to say that the number of injuries to cadets during CPFT has dropped dramatically.
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse

THRAWN

Quote from: jeders on November 05, 2015, 08:50:49 PM
Or read through prior issues of the Safety Beacon, I know they have reports of cadets getting injured doing PT.

Quote from: November Safety BeaconSince the moratorium on the Shuttle run began earlier this summer, I'm pleased to say that the number of injuries to cadets during CPFT has dropped dramatically.

There is a simpler way. Not sure that anyone has time for that...
Strup-"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
USMC CSCDEP 2023

THRAWN

Actually, looking over some of the EOM closeouts, it looks like the shuttle is one of the safer physical activities that are being conducted....yowza...
Strup-"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
USMC CSCDEP 2023