Fitness Test

[Vman921]

Don't know how true it is, but i've heard of people popping pills to keep their heart rates down in order to pass the bike test (heard beta blockers can do this).

That would be pretty bad that people are cheating the system for a fitness test mate. It sounds like the Olympics. lol.

What people who haven't undertaken the bike should know that it isn't your max heart rate anymore.

When I was downgraded I had to take it. 1 year it was max heart rate (I think it was under 166 bpm for me at the time), then 6 months later if I went over 150 bpm then the test was stopped and I had to see the Doc.

The test is not as easy as people make out. You have to cycle at 75 rpm for however long while every min the PTI will increase the resistance. If your heart rate goes over the recomended bpm then you fail the test.
DT_Xtremez_35:

 

[Mug?]

so naive

so naive

That would be pretty bad that people are cheating the system for a fitness test mate. It sounds like the Olympics. lol.

What about the guy who knows the PTI and gets a pass without getting changed, or the guy that gets his mate to go and do it for him, or that guy who's mate counts his press ups in 2s, or the ones that don't reach the line before turning around, or those that run in a circle.

When so much is now at stake, people will push the rules.

Back on topic a bit but what if a guy falls down dead on ops while being on a warning for his fitness test?

 

[Tyson]

What limits how high the standard can be set? If command had to reduce the RAF by half say, could they just put the pass level up to level 16 on the bleep test? I was just wandering as I've been in 14 years and it seems every time I get 5 years older the level goes up again so I'm marking time, shame I'm not female. On the subject of female standards, would the RAF/MOD win or lose a court case brought by a male serviceman if he went for wrongful dismissal if he got the chop for failing, but could pass the female standard?

 

[busby1971]

What about the guy who knows the PTI and gets a pass without getting changed, or the guy that gets his mate to go and do it for him, or that guy who's mate counts his press ups in 2s, or the ones that don't reach the line before turning around, or those that run in a circle.

When so much is now at stake, people will push the rules.

Back on topic a bit but what if a guy falls down dead on ops while being on a warning for his fitness test?

What if a senior officer died whilst on official sport but was exempt his fitness test?

 

[busby1971]

Go for it

Go for it

What limits how high the standard can be set? If command had to reduce the RAF by half say, could they just put the pass level up to level 16 on the bleep test? I was just wandering as I've been in 14 years and it seems every time I get 5 years older the level goes up again so I'm marking time, shame I'm not female. On the subject of female standards, would the RAF/MOD win or lose a court case brought by a male serviceman if he went for wrongful dismissal if he got the chop for failing, but could pass the female standard?

We need a brave fatty to do this if kicked out, I guess the RAF wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Climebear]

We need a brave fatty to do this if kicked out, I guess the RAF wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

And back to the earlier point. No one is kicked out for failing the fitness test.

If the RAF Fitness Test was related to an indivdiual's ability to do their job then it must be gender free. The Employment Tribunal noted below is a case in point:

Mr D V Allcock v Chief Constable, Hampshire Constabulary

Case no: 3101524/97

Mr Allcock was a serving police officer in Hampshire Constabulary. In January 1997 he applied for a vacancy in the dog section. The job description included a requirement that applicants should be able to pass and maintain a fitness standard that included the completion of a 2 mile multi-terrain course in a certain time. The time for male applicants was 16 minutes, and 17 minutes for women. Mr Allcock completed the course in 16 minutes 46 seconds. Therefore, if he had been a woman, he would have passed the test – he alleged that this constituted direct sex discrimination under the terms of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

Hampshire Police said that the reason that they operated two different standards was because women would suffer an unfair disadvantage if they were required to complete the test run in the same time as male officers. Men have greater aerobic and anaerobic potential than women and they considered that that should be compensated for. The fitness test was intended to demonstrate an acceptable general level of fitness that must be maintained if officers working with dogs were not to suffer physically in the performance of their duties.

The Tribunal said “whether or not the treatment is less favourable on the ground of sex is not saved from constituting unlawful discrimination by the fact that the respondents acted from a benign motive……In failing to conduct a gender neutral test to establish whether a particular candidate is capable of undertaking the duties of a dog handler, the respondents have unfairly directly discriminated against the applicant on the grounds of his sex.”

However, the RAF Fitness test is not related to performance of duties but to measure an indivdual's personal attitidude to their own health and fitness. This is clearly spelt out in all of the literature published as well as on the RAF Website:

The RAFFT provides a general measurement of physical conditioning which is not specific to trade. It aims to ensure that all personnel are able to maintain themselves at the minimum recommended conditioning level, relative to their age and sex. The RAFFT gives commanders at every level, from the stn cdr to line managers, a level of assurance that their staff are fit for the rigours of daily life and are prepared for operations. The Strategy thus ensures that all personnel meet a minimum fitness requirement rather than a need to achieve any form of physical excellence. In short, if personnel maintain a healthy lifestyle they should easily meet the required standards.

and

Aerobic Standards

The standards for all three elements of the RAFFT have reflected population norms since its introduction in 1994. This means that the pass standard for each element (MSFT, press ups and sit ups) reflects what the 'average' person (by age and gender) should achieve, by a particular percentile of the population in question. However, the RAFFT is a measure of 'healthiness' and population norms are likely to be very inaccurate in this respect, particularly as the population is becoming more and more sedentary and overweight (population fitness norms are likely to reduce in future!). For this reason, and to increase our confidence in the RAFFT being a measure of 'health', scientific evidence has now been adopted from professional research studies. Meeting the new RAFFT standards have been proven, through the ‘gold standard’ of research, to give an individual the best possible chance of ageing 'healthily' and 'disease free'. Going beyond the new pass standard to 'best efforts' will indicate that an individual is giving him/herself even greater levels of protection against chronic diseases associated with the ageing process, many of which result in premature death. The new aerobic standards therefore accurately and objectively reflect the degree of aerobic fitness required by an individual to remain 'healthy'. This has been proven through extensive research.

Muscular Fitness Standards

The amended muscular fitness standards are more aligned with the number of press ups/sit ups set by other NATO services (Canada, U.S, UK). The standards for the RAF have for a long time, been very low, resulting in low credibility in comparison to other services and a lack of association with the available research. The time is right to increase them appropriately. A good level of muscular fitness is required for all round health, effective weight management and to enable us all to carry out our activities of daily living, whether in the UK or whilst on operations, in demanding and austere conditions. Muscular fitness not only improves general robustness but may also protect our personnel from injury. Whilst research is not available at present linking muscular fitness levels to levels of protection against chronic disease and premature death, the standards are now more in line with NATO population norms.

Anyone who has been involved with the admin procedure that follows a FT failure should have noticed that the indivdiual is (should) not be warned for failing the fitness test but the warning relates to the individual's personal qaulities - specifically, their attitude to their own personal fitness. It would appear that the level of fitness required to achieve such a level of 'healthiness' vary dependent of gender and age and tha the RAFFT has been desigend to take this into account.

Therefore, as any subsequent discharge is on the grounds of an indvidual's attitude towards their own health, rather than their ability to perform their job - there would be not be the same legal gounds to claim discrimination as in the case against Hampshire Constabulary.

 

[Oberon305]

Blimey CB......I was JUST about to raise a claim of discrimination against the MOD....but now....forget it!!!!!DT_Xtremez_30:

Seriously though, the comments about those who aren't in date RAFFT and injure themselves/die whilst on exped/Ops is an interesting one and I wonder what would occur if it happened???

 

[raflad67]

What about the guy who knows the PTI and gets a pass without getting changed, or the guy that gets his mate to go and do it for him, or that guy who's mate counts his press ups in 2s, or the ones that don't reach the line before turning around, or those that run in a circle.

When so much is now at stake, people will push the rules.

Back on topic a bit but what if a guy falls down dead on ops while being on a warning for his fitness test?

I have it on good authority that the powers that be are considering allowing PTLs to 'administer' the RAFFT....if that doesn't make it open to cheating I don't know what does.....especially if your mate is a PTL...DT_Xtremez_34:

 

[timaloy]

I have a friend who is undergoing the application process to get into the RAF and he has been "told with a wink" and a nudge the MSFT is done for, I personally don't believe it but has anyone else heard this?

 

[Webbo]

I have a friend who is undergoing the application process to get into the RAF and he has been "told with a wink" and a nudge the MSFT is done for, I personally don't believe it but has anyone else heard this?

Don't know but heard in work that early 2011 the RAF MSFT is under a massive equality check. Anyone else heard this?

 

[busby1971]

A mute point

A mute point

And back to the earlier point. No one is kicked out for failing the fitness test.

If the RAF Fitness Test was related to an indivdiual's ability to do their job then it must be gender free. The Employment Tribunal noted below is a case in point:



However, the RAF Fitness test is not related to performance of duties but to measure an indivdual's personal attitidude to their own health and fitness. This is clearly spelt out in all of the literature published as well as on the RAF Website:



and



Anyone who has been involved with the admin procedure that follows a FT failure should have noticed that the indivdiual is (should) not be warned for failing the fitness test but the warning relates to the individual's personal qaulities - specifically, their attitude to their own personal fitness. It would appear that the level of fitness required to achieve such a level of 'healthiness' vary dependent of gender and age and tha the RAFFT has been desigend to take this into account.

Therefore, as any subsequent discharge is on the grounds of an indvidual's attitude towards their own health, rather than their ability to perform their job - there would be not be the same legal gounds to claim discrimination as in the case against Hampshire Constabulary.

I think that this is a bit of a smoke screen, individuals attitudes are only gathered by completing a gender specific test.

I notice that you quote the RAFs publications and literature, which I'm guessing was published by the RAF and therefore not exactly unbiased.

Whilst I have never failed a fitness test and have no intention to do so I feel that if somebody misses out on an immediate pension then they will have a lot to gain from taking this further.

Gilbert Blades "So how do you gauge the individuals attitude to fitness"

RAFs Lawyer "by his continual failure to pass a gender specific fitness test"

or

Gilbert Blades " So how did you assess Cpl X's attitude to meeting the standards of the RAF"

RAFs Lawyer "by ordering Cpl X to undertake a gender specific fitness test"

Like most things the RAF have implemented a policy and will wait for the courts to check it is okay once somebody has the gaul to stand up to them.

 

[Climebear]

The point is what is the test measuring:

If it is measuring that an indvidual is fit to undertake their job, then it must be gender free.

If it is measuring, as the RAF claim, that it is a measure of health and if, again as the RAF claim, that the 'minimum recommended conditioning level' as 'proven by extensive research' then the MOD could be in breach of the law if it did not use gender and age specific testing.​

Equality and Diversity legislation does not, necessarily, mean that everyone must be treated exactly the same. Many recent devlopments seem to be evolving the rational on sex discimination beyond the original 'women should be teated the same as men' more towards 'women should be differently to men so that they can achieve the same levels and have the same opportunities as their male counterparts'.

Off Topic
I have seen Mr Blades in action. I do not believe that he is nearly as good as his publicity makes out. Given the choice, I believe that there are many more capable lawyers out there that outshine Mr Blades ten-fold.
Off Topic

 

[Realist78]

I think that this is a bit of a smoke screen, individuals attitudes are only gathered by completing a gender specific test.

I notice that you quote the RAFs publications and literature, which I'm guessing was published by the RAF and therefore not exactly unbiased.

Whilst I have never failed a fitness test and have no intention to do so I feel that if somebody misses out on an immediate pension then they will have a lot to gain from taking this further.

Gilbert Blades "So how do you gauge the individuals attitude to fitness"

RAFs Lawyer "by his continual failure to pass a gender specific fitness test"

or

Gilbert Blades " So how did you assess Cpl X's attitude to meeting the standards of the RAF"

RAFs Lawyer "by ordering Cpl X to undertake a gender specific fitness test"

Like most things the RAF have implemented a policy and will wait for the courts to check it is okay once somebody has the gaul to stand up to them.

Would you care to expand on this point, are you talking about someone given the boot before their 22yrs is up?

 

[busby1971]

Don't want to push a point here but

Don't want to push a point here but

The point is what is the test measuring:

If it is measuring that an indvidual is fit to undertake their job, then it must be gender free.

If it is measuring, as the RAF claim, that it is a measure of health and if, again as the RAF claim, that the 'minimum recommended conditioning level' as 'proven by extensive research' then the MOD would be in breach of the law if it did not use gender and age specific testing.​

Equality and Diversity legislation does not, necessarily, mean that everyone must be treated exactly the same. Many recent devlopments seem to be evolving the rational on sex discimination beyond the original 'women should be teated the same as men' more towards 'women should be differently to men so that they can achieve the same levels and have the same opportunities as their male counterparts'.

Off Topic
I have seen My Blades in action many times. He is not nearly as good as his publicity makes out. Given the choice, there are many more capable lawyers out there that outshine Mr Blades ten-fold.
Off Topic

From my own personal experience I would doubt that the levels of fitness (sorry physical conditioning) displayed by both males and females doing the MSFT are equal. It would be interesting to see the success and failure rates of the test based on sex. I'm guessing you've been involved in the fitness test programme somewhere and would defer to your greater knowledge on the facts, however the RAF have a policy of enforcing rules and waiting for them to be challenged in the courts (it's much cheaper than playing for good lawyers).

I think that the courts would look at all the facts and as has been discussed on another thread the courts enforce the law not what the RAF think is the law.

Whilst I personally don't like the MSFT my biggest gripe is the fact the RAF still wants all the work done as before but now wants everybody to do more and more whilst at the same time getting less and less back.

By the way I'm not jaundiced, I've not done Guard since the late 90s and very few extra duties to do, none of which are unpleasant or take me away from home too often, I just feel that there needs to be a rebalancing as things have gone way to far one way.

 

[Climebear]

From my own personal experience I would doubt that the levels of fitness (sorry physical conditioning) displayed by both males and females doing the MSFT are equal. It would be interesting to see the success and failure rates of the test based on sex. I'm guessing you've been involved in the fitness test programme somewhere and would defer to your greater knowledge on the facts, however the RAF have a policy of enforcing rules and waiting for them to be challenged in the courts (it's much cheaper than playing for good lawyers).

I think that the courts would look at all the facts and as has been discussed on another thread the courts enforce the law not what the RAF think is the law.

Whilst I personally don't like the MSFT my biggest gripe is the fact the RAF still wants all the work done as before but now wants everybody to do more and more whilst at the same time getting less and less back.

By the way I'm not jaundiced, I've not done Guard since the late 90s and very few extra duties to do, none of which are unpleasant or take me away from home too often, I just feel that there needs to be a rebalancing as things have gone way to far one way.

I'm afraid that my involvement with the RAFFT programme is the about the same as yours ie restricted to running up and down for about 12 minutes a year then sitting up a few times and then lying down, pushing arms out and lying down again a few times.

However, I do have a background in employment legislation. You will have noticed that I haven't given an opinion on the test or its validity; merely highlited the published rational for the test and how that could be measured against various aspects of employment legislation.

I do understand that the MSFT gives an indication of an indiividual's VO2 Max (their maximal aerobic capacity) see this website: MSFT VO2 Max Table. And that the published Normative data for VO2 Max differs dependant on age and gender - see this website (table about 3/4 of the way down the page): VO2 Max.

I'll go away and have a play to see how the VO2 max rates published there compared to the RAFFT.

 

[PTR Hoar]

Sorry to dig up the bike test thing again, i haven't personally done one before but having chatted to a pti about them, the bike test is a far more ACCURATE indication of a person's VO2 max thingymajig. Having very little biological knowledge i have no idea what this means but its basically what we use the MSFT to give us an indication for isn't it?

I know people who **** the fitness test but when i go out for say a 5 mile run with them they need to stop a few times to catch thier breath and i'm not talking about a fast pace, just around 10min/miles.

Just throwing random thoughts out there for yas!

 

[Climebear]

Well back again..

Right, first the disclaimer, this doesn't equal detailed research just comparisons against the first site I found on Google.

So I have compared the MSFT pass rates detailed here to give a VO2 max figure from the table here and then against the normative data on this page (the grade ranges are quite wide so I have indicated where in each range the actual VO2 max figure sits).

Resulting in:

20yo male RAFFT Pass = 9.10 = 46.3 VO2 = Good (top end)

20yo female RAFFT Pass = 7.02 = 37.1 VO2 = Excellent (bottom end)


30yo male RAFFT Pass = 9.04 = 44.5 VO2 = Good (top end)

30yo female RAFFT Pass = 6.08 = 35.7 VO2 = Excellent (bottom end)


40yo male RAFFT Pass = 8.03 = 40.8 VO2 = Good (middle)

40yo female RAFFT Pass = 5.08 = 32.4 VO2 = Good (top end)
​

So it would appear, from this set of data, that the relative assessments between men and women are there or thereabouts - if anything it is slight harder for the girls.


Wow you guys make me work hard for these posts.

 

[Climebear]

Sorry to dig up the bike test thing again, i haven't personally done one before but having chatted to a pti about them, the bike test is a far more ACCURATE indication of a person's VO2 max thingymajig. Having very little biological knowledge i have no idea what this means but its basically what we use the MSFT to give us an indication for isn't it?

I know people who **** the fitness test but when i go out for say a 5 mile run with them they need to stop a few times to catch thier breath and i'm not talking about a fast pace, just around 10min/miles.

Just throwing random thoughts out there for yas!

The website qouted above mentions several different methods of assessing VO2 Max:

VO2max evaluation tests
An estimate of your VO2max can be determined using any of the following tests:

2.4km Run Test
Astrand Treadmill test - VO2max test running on a treadmill
Astrand 6 minute Cycle test - VO2max test on a static bike
Balke VO2max test - suitable for endurance sports
Balke Incremental treadmill protocol test- VO2max test on a treadmill (male and female tests)
Bruce Incremental treadmill protocol test- VO2max test on a treadmill (male and female tests)
Cooper VO2max test - suitable for endurance sports
Conconi test
Critical Swim Speed - measure of a swimmers aerobic capacity
Home Step Test - a step test you can conduct at home
Harvard Step Test - measure of cardiovascular fitness
Multistage Fitness Test or Bleep test - VO2max test for endurance sports
Queens College Step Test - VO2max test
Rockport Fitness walking test - VO2max test
Tecumseh Step Test - measure of cardiovascular fitness
Treadmill VO2max test - VO2max test
VO2max from non-exercise data - VO2max test
VO2max from a one mile jog
VO2max from a race result (time for a distance)
VO2max Step Test
Wheelchair VO2max Test​

It doesn't indicate any difference in the relative reliability of bike vs MSFT methods.

 

[Deserter]

Well back again..

Right, first the disclaimer, this doesn't equal detailed research just comparisons against the first site I found on Google.

So I have compared the MSFT pass rates detailed here to give a VO2 max figure from the table here and then against the normative data on this page (the grade ranges are quite wide so I have indicated where in each range the actual VO2 max figure sits).

Resulting in:

20yo male RAFFT Pass = 9.10 = 46.3 VO2 = Good (top end)

20yo female RAFFT Pass = 7.02 = 37.1 VO2 = Excellent (bottom end)


30yo male RAFFT Pass = 9.04 = 44.5 VO2 = Good (top end)

30yo female RAFFT Pass = 6.08 = 35.7 VO2 = Excellent (bottom end)


40yo male RAFFT Pass = 8.03 = 40.8 VO2 = Good (middle)

40yo female RAFFT Pass = 5.08 = 32.4 VO2 = Good (top end)
​

So it would appear, from this set of data, that the relative assessments between men and women are there or thereabouts - if anything it is slight harder for the girls.


Wow you guys make me work hard for these posts.

I really fail to see how a 40 year old male should be able to do more than a 20 year old female (highlighted above) how is that harder for the girls. It is simpley wrong!DT_Xtremez_25:

 

[Stewie]

Im a 50 yr old male, I had to get 7.01 or above recently at Halton, I did but how can 20 yr old female have the same requirements as a knackered old **** like me ?