Roots of Hyper-strict USAF Aerobic Fitness Standards
Multipliers can be applied to events such as the 1.5 mile run and the 1 mile walk, to estimate what a man's time in the 2-mile walk would be given knowledge of the man's time in the 1.5 mile run.
Looking at the data produced by such multipliers, it appears that the current USAF 'Fitness Standards' are excessively demanding in terms of speeds at which Air Force men are required to run 1.5 miles. I estimate the root of this errors, is to be found in mistakes made by Canadian military officers, when in 1977 they wrongly concluded that the existing Canadian military standards for 2-mile walk speeds were too liberal, and exceedingly tolerant of slow speeds.
The multiplier I came up with for converting time in the 1.5 mile run USAF) to estimated time in the 2-mile walk (Senior Canadian Officers), is 2.08. Based upon this multiplier, the current (from at least 2005 - 2013) USAF projected standards for the 2-mile walk would be:
Men age 20-29: < 22 mins excellent; 22-27 mins good; 28 mins, marginal; >28 mins, poor.
Men age 30-39: < 23 mins excellent; 23-27 mins good; 28 mins, marginal; >28 mins, poor.
Men age 40-49: < 23 mins excellent; 23-28 mins good; 29-30 mins, marginal; >30 mins, poor.
Men age 50-59: < 25 mins excellent; 26-32 mins good; 33 mins, marginal; >33 mins, poor.
In 1977, A Canadian Armed forces study, concluding that the Canadian 2-mile walk standards were too lax, advised that the new more strict standards should be:
Men age 40-44: < 21 mins excellent; 21-24 mins good; 25-29 mins, average; 30-34 mins, fair; >34 mins, poor.
Men age 45-49: < 23 mins excellent; 23-25 mins good; 26-31 mins, average; 32-35 mins, fair; >31 mins, poor.
Men age 50-54: < 24 mins excellent; 24-27 mins good; 28-32 mins, average; 33-36 mins fair; >36 mins, poor.
Men age 55-59: < 25 mins excellent; 26-29 mins good; 30-35 mins, average; 36-39 mins fair; >39 mins, poor.
The 'lax' Canadian standards for the 2-mile walk in place in 1977:
Men age 40-44: < 26 mins excellent; 26-28 mins good; 29-33 mins, average; 34-37 mins, fair; >37 mins, poor.
Men age 45-49: < 27 mins excellent; 27-29 mins good; 30-35 mins, average; 36-40 mins, fair; >40 mins, poor.
Men age 50-54: < 28 mins excellent; 28-30 mins good; 31-36 mins, average; 37-41 mins fair; >41 mins, poor.
Men age 55-59: < 30 mins excellent; 30-33 mins good; 34-39 mins, average; 40-43 mins fair; >43 mins, poor.
You can see that my extrapolation is that the USAF if it was grading 2-mile walk times, would label a 55 year old man to be in 'poor' aerobic condition if his time in the 2-mile walk was >33 minutes. Having done a timed 2-mile walk almost daily for about 3 weeks now, this strikes me as too harsh.
If every 55 year old man whose 2-mile walk time was above 33 minutes was considered to be in 'poor' aerobic condition, most of the 55 year old men would be diagnosed as in 'poor' aerobic condition. if a 55 year old man were to be considered to be in 'excellent' aerobic shape only if he could walk the 2-miles in less than 25 minutes, almost nobody would be considered 'excellent'.
(IMHO as of now) the Canadians who analyzed the Canadian 2-mile walk standards and recommended stricter standards, failed to account for the fact that aerobic fitness is not the only factor influencing 2-mile walk speeds. They found some Canadian military men who had been marching all their lives, hooked their mouths up to gas analyzers to measure their VO2 Max scores, and found that (gasp) despite their low aerobic conditioning as reported by the gas-meters, they were being graded as 'good' or 'excellent' for their 2-mile walk times. And so the Canadian revisionists called for harsher grading of the 2-mile walk times.
What the Canadian revisionists failed to understand, is that aerobic fitness is not the only determinant of 2-mile walk speed. Factors such as talent (the military attracts men who are good at marching), time spent practicing marching/walking, skill, muscular strength, pain, pain-tolerance, and ligament/tendon/joint fitness also effect 2-mile walk speed.
Hence, a man who has had much practice and training in marching, is capable of a fast 2-mile walk time despite a weak aerobic fitness level.
Therefore, the fact a man with a low aerobic fitness level is able to walk 2 miles quickly, does not mean that standards should be tightened so that the time in which he walks the 2-miles is no longer judged as 'good', but is judged as 'poor' instead.
North American militaries being too strict and demanding with regards to speeds in events such as the 1.5 mile run and the 2 mile walk, could negatively impact said militaries, and harm the nation and the world. The over-emphasis on speed in walking/running events results in an under-emphasis of other important attributes. Over-exercised men, are tired men lacking in physical and mental energy (athletes at college track meets often seem tired out due to overexertion). Men who put alot of time and energy into training for events such as the 1.5 mile walk and the 2 mile run, have less time and energy available for other activities.
Regarding the public health in general, the lesson here appears to be: the fact that you are capable of an excellent time in some walking or running event, does not necessarily mean that your aerobic health is excellent, because aerobic fitness is only one determinant of speed in such events.
The potential combination of the error of hyper-strict aerobic fitness standards, PLUS the error of over-emphasis on a low abdominal circumference, both errors occurring in the USAF Fitness Test, gives cause for alarm.
References:
2-Mile Walk Times & Fitness Status
David Virgil's Blog: USAF Fitness Test Defects
USAF Fitness Charts
An Evaluation of the Canadian Forces Two-Mile Walk as a Test of Aerobic Fitness in Males over 45 Years of Age
Looking at the data produced by such multipliers, it appears that the current USAF 'Fitness Standards' are excessively demanding in terms of speeds at which Air Force men are required to run 1.5 miles. I estimate the root of this errors, is to be found in mistakes made by Canadian military officers, when in 1977 they wrongly concluded that the existing Canadian military standards for 2-mile walk speeds were too liberal, and exceedingly tolerant of slow speeds.
The multiplier I came up with for converting time in the 1.5 mile run USAF) to estimated time in the 2-mile walk (Senior Canadian Officers), is 2.08. Based upon this multiplier, the current (from at least 2005 - 2013) USAF projected standards for the 2-mile walk would be:
Men age 20-29: < 22 mins excellent; 22-27 mins good; 28 mins, marginal; >28 mins, poor.
Men age 30-39: < 23 mins excellent; 23-27 mins good; 28 mins, marginal; >28 mins, poor.
Men age 40-49: < 23 mins excellent; 23-28 mins good; 29-30 mins, marginal; >30 mins, poor.
Men age 50-59: < 25 mins excellent; 26-32 mins good; 33 mins, marginal; >33 mins, poor.
In 1977, A Canadian Armed forces study, concluding that the Canadian 2-mile walk standards were too lax, advised that the new more strict standards should be:
Men age 40-44: < 21 mins excellent; 21-24 mins good; 25-29 mins, average; 30-34 mins, fair; >34 mins, poor.
Men age 45-49: < 23 mins excellent; 23-25 mins good; 26-31 mins, average; 32-35 mins, fair; >31 mins, poor.
Men age 50-54: < 24 mins excellent; 24-27 mins good; 28-32 mins, average; 33-36 mins fair; >36 mins, poor.
Men age 55-59: < 25 mins excellent; 26-29 mins good; 30-35 mins, average; 36-39 mins fair; >39 mins, poor.
The 'lax' Canadian standards for the 2-mile walk in place in 1977:
Men age 40-44: < 26 mins excellent; 26-28 mins good; 29-33 mins, average; 34-37 mins, fair; >37 mins, poor.
Men age 45-49: < 27 mins excellent; 27-29 mins good; 30-35 mins, average; 36-40 mins, fair; >40 mins, poor.
Men age 50-54: < 28 mins excellent; 28-30 mins good; 31-36 mins, average; 37-41 mins fair; >41 mins, poor.
Men age 55-59: < 30 mins excellent; 30-33 mins good; 34-39 mins, average; 40-43 mins fair; >43 mins, poor.
You can see that my extrapolation is that the USAF if it was grading 2-mile walk times, would label a 55 year old man to be in 'poor' aerobic condition if his time in the 2-mile walk was >33 minutes. Having done a timed 2-mile walk almost daily for about 3 weeks now, this strikes me as too harsh.
If every 55 year old man whose 2-mile walk time was above 33 minutes was considered to be in 'poor' aerobic condition, most of the 55 year old men would be diagnosed as in 'poor' aerobic condition. if a 55 year old man were to be considered to be in 'excellent' aerobic shape only if he could walk the 2-miles in less than 25 minutes, almost nobody would be considered 'excellent'.
(IMHO as of now) the Canadians who analyzed the Canadian 2-mile walk standards and recommended stricter standards, failed to account for the fact that aerobic fitness is not the only factor influencing 2-mile walk speeds. They found some Canadian military men who had been marching all their lives, hooked their mouths up to gas analyzers to measure their VO2 Max scores, and found that (gasp) despite their low aerobic conditioning as reported by the gas-meters, they were being graded as 'good' or 'excellent' for their 2-mile walk times. And so the Canadian revisionists called for harsher grading of the 2-mile walk times.
What the Canadian revisionists failed to understand, is that aerobic fitness is not the only determinant of 2-mile walk speed. Factors such as talent (the military attracts men who are good at marching), time spent practicing marching/walking, skill, muscular strength, pain, pain-tolerance, and ligament/tendon/joint fitness also effect 2-mile walk speed.
Hence, a man who has had much practice and training in marching, is capable of a fast 2-mile walk time despite a weak aerobic fitness level.
Therefore, the fact a man with a low aerobic fitness level is able to walk 2 miles quickly, does not mean that standards should be tightened so that the time in which he walks the 2-miles is no longer judged as 'good', but is judged as 'poor' instead.
North American militaries being too strict and demanding with regards to speeds in events such as the 1.5 mile run and the 2 mile walk, could negatively impact said militaries, and harm the nation and the world. The over-emphasis on speed in walking/running events results in an under-emphasis of other important attributes. Over-exercised men, are tired men lacking in physical and mental energy (athletes at college track meets often seem tired out due to overexertion). Men who put alot of time and energy into training for events such as the 1.5 mile walk and the 2 mile run, have less time and energy available for other activities.
Regarding the public health in general, the lesson here appears to be: the fact that you are capable of an excellent time in some walking or running event, does not necessarily mean that your aerobic health is excellent, because aerobic fitness is only one determinant of speed in such events.
The potential combination of the error of hyper-strict aerobic fitness standards, PLUS the error of over-emphasis on a low abdominal circumference, both errors occurring in the USAF Fitness Test, gives cause for alarm.
References:
2-Mile Walk Times & Fitness Status
David Virgil's Blog: USAF Fitness Test Defects
USAF Fitness Charts
An Evaluation of the Canadian Forces Two-Mile Walk as a Test of Aerobic Fitness in Males over 45 Years of Age
posted by David Virgil at 5:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home