Merit of timed runs as fitness test components

csuhar

Most of you likely don't care about this, but the US Air Force just changed a few parts of the physical fitness test. One of the changes was taking the alternative walk test (given to those who are too injured to run) has gone from a test where they scored an individual based on his or her estimated VO2 max, using factors like age, time for completion, and heart rate, and made it a test where all that matteres is completing the test before a set time (which is the same format as the run test).

So we've gone from at least trying to incoproate actual measurements like heart rate to figure out a VO2 max to simply beating the clock.

Now, I can see where a time-only test can be perfectly fine for an individual who wants to see progression. It makes sense to hear someone say "I ran a mile in X minutes. Now I want to take a minute off of that" because the time it takes to cover the distance does indicate a progression in the individual's performance.

However, the military often uses the performance on a test to rank someone among their peers. On top of that, they claim to use these tests to evaluate an individual member's level of fitness. This is where I think a time-only standard begins to seriously fall short. If two sergeants crossed the finish line at the same time, a time-only standard would say they are equally fit. But, in my opinion, they are not equal if, despite finishing at the same time, one is fit enough to keep going for another mile while the other is going to collapse in two steps. It would also seem to me that, if an individual completes the test in the same amount of time as their last attempt, but his / her heart rate is not as elevated, then his / her fitness level has improved despite no change in their time.

What say you, MFP'ers? Is the time it takes to cover a distance all you need to evaluate someone's cardiovascular fitness? Or would we do well by ourselves and others if we tried to incorporate more personal measurements than just the clock?

RunBrew

Some thoughts:

Scoring a Walk test on a go/no-go basis is weak, but still usable because those participating are already understood to be physically limited in that respect. The very fact they're walking not running ranks them below their peers in terms of promotion. The idea is to meet a quarterly minimum fitness standard while presumably rehab'ing from an injury. Unless they're on a permanent profile which is taken into consideration regarding promotion.

The Air Force does it differently than the Army but the 2-mile run portion of an APFT is gradient scored by time in 2-3 sec increments,not large 10-20 sec windows as the AF does. If two runners crossed the line at the same time, the fitness is irrelevant. It's about effort. this is difficult to explain with not visual aids.
Look here:
http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/Prep_For_Basic_Training/Prep_for_basic_pt/apft-male-2mile-run-stand.shtml
e.g., two runners cross at the generally accepted minimum standard for a run test. one virtually collapses at the line and the other considers that a '10k pace'...assuming they fall into the same age group bracket they're raw score is the same. If the 10k guy is ok with barely meeting the minimum standard then his promotion scores will reflect accordingly. This is how servicemembers are ranked. fitness perceived is a function of effort. Again, the problem is the 'resolution of the accuracy not the method of measurement.
The initial problem I see with the AF PT standards are that the groups are too large to adequately rank airmen, particularly the 9:13-9:34 group. that's a long window. That said, it still boils down to effort given.

Here's the crux: The military only cares about fitness up to a certain standard. some will say that standard is 'passing', some will say its a max score. Either way, there's a point where 'better' confers no advantage other than bragging rights. At one point I could run a 10:45 2-mile....That doesn't look any different on paper than a 12:59 according to the Army or AF 9:13 1.5 mile. It's only listed as 'max score'

With a known distance covered in an accurate time, and weight you can get a very good estimate of VO2Max, and can compare fitness, but you need all three of those metrics...The Air Force seems to me to be oversimplifying the fitness measurement to a minimum standard measurement. This system isn't bad because its a 'race the clock' its bad because it makes no distinction between a 9:15 and a 9:33 time.

jwdieter

If the objective is to make sure people can run a certain speed for a certain distance, a timed run is great.

If the objective is to establish a baseline of physical fitness, and the job doesn't actually include the need to run, then a timed run can be a bit silly.

Mr_Knight

So we've gone from at least trying to incoproate actual measurements like heart rate to figure out a VO2 max to simply beating the clock.

I don't see a problem with this. The external world operates on a fixed clock, not on an individual's VO2max metrics.

Ultimately, the question that needs to be answered is "can you get from A to B fast enough?", not "can you get from A to B using an appropriate amount of oxygen?".

alanlmarshall

For baseline fitness it may be fine, but ranking according to timed run or walk for something other than actual running isn't fair. Someone could be naturally large and muscular and quite strong but not be particularly fast.

SonicDeathMonkey80

I'm Air Force (15 years), and while I believe in the merits of the test (I don't concern myself with the walk test), I have issues with the training, methods, and procedures. I've seen numerous people improperly train for the run component and subsequently get injured. This is due to personal accountability (panicking at the last minute, nutrition, etc), and also a lack of education/training from big blue on all aspects of proper running (HR zone training, shoe fittings, run variations, etc). How many people do you see doing useless sprints in J's and basketball shorts 3 weeks out from their tests? Or loafing on the recumbent bike for an hour reading a book? There are 200-some thousand people in the Air Force, and 75% of them b**** and moan. They all want to be snowflakes and have customized PT tests for their oh-so-unique situations.

The greatest hits that I hear:

He's big boned (no, he's fat. show me a fat skeleton)
He's a lifter so yeah he's huge (no, he's fat. Brock Lesnar is huge)
Not everyone is a marathon runner (doesn't take a marathoner to nail a 1.5mi run, sorry)
The runners have weak cores (pretty sure my core could take a cannon shot)

Bottom line, the AF pt test is, and should be, a joke to someone who puts in the given 3 hours of time per week, and makes efficient use of it. I feel no pity on anyone, and yeah, this is a sore subject with me. I used to be the guy griping and complaining and getting high-70s on my test. With minimal effort - not genetics, family/work neglect - I got a 99.3 on my last test.

csuhar

I don't see a problem with this. The external world operates on a fixed clock, not on an individual's VO2max metrics.

Ultimately, the question that needs to be answered is "can you get from A to B fast enough?", not "can you get from A to B using an appropriate amount of oxygen?".

What tends to irritate me about the clock-only approach is that it seems like it's really just measuring compliance with a standard. And that's fine. They're free to set their standards as they want. I have no objection to them saying "we want members to run from A to B at X speed or faster because that's what we want".

HOWEVER... they couch it in this whole argument about measuring cardiovascualr fitness and determining if you're at high, moderate, or low risk of health complications.

So they *say* they're trying to see how healthy you are, when really it seems the only care that you meet a set standard. All they measure is your time. They don't try to take any readings from your body to see how well its holding up. If you complete the run in the same amount of time as you did six months ago, they will say you're the same, even if your cardiovascular system is handling the strain better or worse than before. (The previously mentioned large scoring brackets don't help.)


A large part of what has shaped my perspective is that, since my battle with cancer, I've been doing the older style 1-mile walk, where they tried to take more specific details into account in their VO2 equation in addition to the time it took to complete, including specific age, gender, weight, and heart rate. If all else was equal, a lower heart rate would reflect an improved score because your body has become better conditioned. My performance on those tests was such that they declared I was a "low risk" for cardiovascular health issues. However, I recently was taken off profile and told to take the run test, which was clock-only. I didn't make it in the minimum time, so I was failed and their explanation is that I was now a high-risk for cardiovascular issues because I didn't run fast enough. Then, the next week, I took a full-scale practice *walk* test out of curiosity and not only did the results say I was a "low risk" once again, I was actually a LOWER risk than on my last formal walk test.

The iciing on the cake, for me, is that, just before I was diagnosed with cancer, the tumor was pressing on my heart, windpipe, and lungs, so my cardiovascular system was in trouble (and, it turned out, about a month away from shutting down). So I was, in truth, in a very high risk situation. But I ran the test in under the required time, so the clock-only test said I was only a moderate-to-low risk.



It may just be me, but my thoughts are that, if you're claiming to measure someone's health and fitness level, you should incorporate more aspects than just how quickly they make it around the track. If all you care about is that they meet a standard regarding if they can make it from A to B fast enough, that's fine, but say that. Don't say you're going to measure internal health when all you're measuring is exhibited speed.

SonicDeathMonkey80

It may just be me, but my thoughts are that, if you're claiming to measure someone's health and fitness level, you should incorporate more aspects than just how quickly they make it around the track. If all you care about is that they meet a standard regarding if they can make it from A to B fast enough, that's fine, but say that. Don't say you're going to measure internal health when all you're measuring is exhibited speed.

I completely agree with you. This just adds to the point of a lack of education/training on how to run properly. The Air Force's "wellness check" consists of a 20 page questionnaire (more like a "quiz" if you don't feel like getting flagged for not eating the recommended veggies and drinking like a frat guy) and they wash their hands of you for another year. The PT test is a thinly veiled method of weeding people out of the AF and/or keeping them from getting promoted.

csuhar

This just adds to the point of a lack of education/training on how to run properly. The Air Force's "wellness check" consists of a 20 page questionnaire (more like a "quiz" if you don't feel like getting flagged for not eating the recommended veggies and drinking like a frat guy) and they wash their hands of you for another year. The PT test is a thinly veiled method of weeding people out of the AF and/or keeping them from getting promoted.

Something that has bothered me for a long time is that, despite all the training we go through, the Air Force never sits someone down and talks about how to exercise and eat properly until AFTER they're having trouble. We seem to insist on being reactive in such matters, rather than proactive.

alanlmarshall

Sounds like the Air Force suffers from similar ignorance and delusion regarding diet, exercise, and health as the rest of the culture.