Depends.
Being “fit” is a broad term. And it winds me up when people say “oh I need to get fit”. Well great, buto Farrah and Arnold schwarzneggar are both fit but completely different.
It depends on your goals. You can use a gym to compliment your athletic skill or area.
But yea, the broscience, protein, don’t eat fruit, bicep curling doorknobs are massively over rated.
Both are good, depends what you want to acheive.
I was informed by the SNCO PT Flt that ATC cadets cannot be members for insurance reasons as they are under 18.
I explained that I am not a cadet, but a 25-year-old staff member, holding a MoD 90 and vehicle pass for the station.
I was told that it would be taken up with the Stn Cdr, who is allegedly the decision maker on who can be a member and who can’t. I have called several times with no updates.
I also explained that ATC cadets are insured under the ATC insurance scheme, which would surely cover them to use a service gym as it is underwritten by the MoD anyway…
Email the Station Commander direct
If you want to achieve knackered knees etc then running is for you.
Running, done properly need not mean knackered knees.
Only if it’s in boots, carrying your body weight in a Bergan, over undulating terrain.
Apart from that humans evolved to be runners. If someone is taught correctly how to run, there’s
No issues.
The issue comes from hyped up marketing, broscience and fads. Interestingly I went running once with a civvie mate who does triathlons and he tried to teach me to run “correctly” but years of heel striking in boots, running and otherwise messed up my gait and I couldn’t get the feel for it. So I stick to what I know.
I would argue the same about OASC as a route to be a youth worker…
…sounds a lot like OASC to me! (particularly for anyone who makes the transition from NCO to Officer)
News to me, it’s an MMA straight away for a fat test fail here.
[quote=“steve679, post:189, topic:237, full:true”
][quote=“Teflon, post:161, topic:237”]I don’t quite know how passing a fitness test would make me a better person?[/quote]
I would argue the same about OASC as a route to be a youth worker…[/quote]
I think this has been said by a few since we were required to prop OASC jobs up. I’ve seen no difference in people going through OASC over the ones who went before. The young guns run around like idiots trying to make people like them and the older ones, come back with all the same problems they had before and trying to do the officer thing as well. Just like it always has been.
I have said that we can only see if OASC has made any difference after 15-20 years, which is when the new breed will have been sqn officers, sqn cdrs and wing staff long enough for a proper compare and contrast against the old guard who never (supposedly) benefited from a couple of days at OASC.
I’ve seen plenty of people pre-OASC whom I wondered how on Earth they wound up wearing the uniform of an RAF officer - since the introduction I can’t recall seeing any new officers about whom I thought that.
Unfortunately I know a couple that got through OASC that should of been told goodbye…
The staff at the local pool (sports centre) I use are not by any stretch all fit looking paragons of virtue, in fact some are quite large.
But I wonder where does mental fitness come into ‘fitness’? I know many people who are overweight but their minds are pin sharp and it takes a lot to get one over them and similarly with us. I would say that mental fitness is far more important than physical.
Negative.
And the reason they have a job? “Political correctness”. “Fat discrimination”. It’s the same argument, why should anyone want to pay for a fat Personal trainer?
If they didn’t get a job, they would claim discrimination, the SJW would go mental and the council/company wouldn’t have the spine to get people told.
Ultimately though, it will cost lives. Lifeguards need to be and should be held to high fitness standards. Same with public services (which are an absolute joke, in the name of “gender equality”) and especially with the military, which is also a bit of a joke. And now they want to drag down standards for political correctness of women joining frontline combat units. (Another debate for another day).
Because we as society have become weak. Caring about feelings, over facts. We keep making excuses for people’s lack of discipline.
Why can we not strive for mental and physical fitness? Socrates said that a mans body was a reflection of his mind.
But overall you are correct, the food that enters the mind is as important as the food that enters the body.
I beleive in freedom and liberty for all, so if people want to get fat, fair enough but don’t expect the rest of us to bend the facts or be held down. For example the “Health at Every Size” pseudoscience that’s now poisoning the youth.
When I left the regulars I hit a bit of a low, wrapped my bangers in with phys and it got to a point where I said enough was enough and dragged my fat ass back. I could recognise the damage I was doing and the shambles that was my fitness. I was walking round wit effectively a set of full webbing on. The damage on my joints, my heart, would have been incredible.
Ultimately it’s up to the individual. Either suffer the pain of discipline, or suffer the pain of regret.
You have no heart.
Cold fusion unit pump I heard.
As long as they can respond to an incident at the pool in a timely manner, does it matter what size they are?
Google tells me that to be a lifeguard, they need to be able to:
Jump / dive into deep water.
Swim 50 metres in less than 60 seconds.
Swim 100 metres continuously on front and back in deep water.
Tread water for 30 seconds.
Surface dive to the floor of the pool.
Climb out unaided without ladder / steps and where the pool design permits.
Does it matter what size they are?
Surely bigger lifeguards means they are more buoyant?
But come with more drag.
Then again, the bigger the drag, the bigger the thrust needed to reach the required standards. Bigger thrust = bigger muscles…
So larger lifeguards are stronger lifeguards, and therefore must be better…?
Larger? Muscular or just fat?
And as far as I am concerned they are minimums. Any self respecting lifeguard and to project that to the forces, soldier would expect and train to exceed those expectations.
And have those standards been “lowered” for “gender neutrality”?
Or have excuses been made and exceptions made? Public services are prime example of dropping standards under the “equality” bracket. The study into women on the frontline even admits that fitness standards will be reviewed for gender neutrality. Which means, dropped.
Key phrase being do the job. If they can’t do the job…
And those standards are embarrassingly low. Climb unaided out of the pool, that’s great but what about the casualty, you just gonna leave them in there?
Having had to drag a body out of a pool. It’s not an easy feat.
And that’s just pools, what about open water or beaches? How is climbing out of a pool unaided going to hell you there.
This is the problem, the bar is set low and people make excuses for it being low. To stop hurting people’s feelings.