Army Says Screw the Long Run

[gobbla]

Link

For whatever reason it won't let me copy text.
CLEP NOTES:

-Distance Running doesn't do shit.
-No running over 30min
-More sprints
-More grass drills
-More calisthenics

Ironically enough I've been giving our PT program a hard time wanting to make a shift to a format like this...pretty hard for about a week. Even introduced a program specifically designed for our test. No one wanted to do it because it didn't include running 30+min 4+ times a week. You can bet your ass this article is going to find it's way to my wing. If the god damned Army can figure it out, we sure as fuck out to be able to.

[JoshDunn]

Good article. Lets see how long it takes for become policy everywhere.

Old quote just came to mind; train slow, become slow.

[jj]

Its about time they realize whats going on. Gobbla, it will not be long. I can't believe the Army is one of the first to adopt this. We are usually last to change.

[gobbla]

We don't have a "standard" PT guidance, most of what we do have (suggested) is driven from the Army's guidance. So this is good in that regards. Like it or not the Army does demand\DO PT. Fat they may be...but they can run . The more "blatant face slapping" of the marathoning = fit dogma, the better off we'll all be. I've got nothing against running, but let's not pretend that our training methods are appropriate for our training goals.

[jj]

Originally Posted by gobbla

We don't have a "standard" PT guidance, most of what we do have (suggested) is driven from the Army's guidance. So this is good in that regards. Like it or not the Army does demand\DO PT. Fat they may be...but they can run . The more "blatant face slapping" of the marathoning = fit dogma, the better off we'll all be. I've got nothing against running, but let's not pretend that our training methods are appropriate for our training goals.

My sentiments exactly.

[Jason B]

Finally! The Air Force better follow suit. It cracks me up that the military (Air Force in particular) thinks just because you can 17,000 miles and have a good BMI that you're healthy. Even though you sit at your desk for 8 hours snacking on whatever crap somebody brought in, your only break is a trip to the burger king drive thru, then go home and have a nice big meal of bad fats, starchy carbs, little to no protein or vegetables, and dessert before bed. But hey, I ran 10 miles this morning and have a 12 inch waist, so I must be healthy and fit, right? Gimme a break. Thank god the army is realizing that marathon runners don't make good soldiers (physically anyway).

[vuduchyld]

That's good stuff...but just to be the devil's advocate, I'll point out that they DO advocate:
--30 min runs up to 4 times per week
--a period of lower intensity, longer runs as people get in shape

I've never completely bought off on the HIIT dogma I see on various message boards in part because I just want to laugh every time some guy comes on saying, "Hi...new to the board...I'm 5'10" and 325 pounds. I'm 40% bodyfat. How do I lose some weight?" and everybody tells him to go do 3 HIIT sessions per week.

I guess the Army isn't reading the same message boards as vuduchyld!

[twinsavsvikingsfan]

I don't quite agree with the "train slow, become slow" quote, but I do agree that , for most people- especially those around here who are more advanced, slow, long-distance cardio is a waste of time. I run long distance for two reasons: first and foremost, I love it. Second, I want to run a better marathon (as well as intermediate distances).

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I use running as my meditative/introspective thinking time but it has totally wreaked havoc on all the muscle and strength building I had done for the two years before I picked up distance running.

So, what I'm trying to say is, do it because you either want to or are training for something. It's not going to help you with your body comp or strength.

[gobbla]

Originally Posted by vuduchyld

That's good stuff...but just to be the devil's advocate, I'll point out that they DO advocate:
--30 min runs up to 4 times per week
--a period of lower intensity, longer runs as people get in shape

I've never completely bought off on the HIIT dogma I see on various message boards in part because I just want to laugh every time some guy comes on saying, "Hi...new to the board...I'm 5'10" and 325 pounds. I'm 40% bodyfat. How do I lose some weight?" and everybody tells him to go do 3 HIIT sessions per week.

I guess the Army isn't reading the same message boards as vuduchyld!

I think you might be looking at it at a slightly different angle. The quote is

"We have recommended no more than 30 minutes of running, and no more than three or four times a week," Bullock said.

. They aren't recommending that you run 30min 4x a week, they're recommending that you don't run MORE than that. That is the extreme end of it.

The low and slow is still high intensity for a person that's out of shape, the big difference is that you're doing it with the intention to not do it any more. It's not an end all be all to aggressive tactical conditioning required for war.

IMO the slow run is a great tool for recovery or a zen thing (TVF), like most things it does have a place. Let's make sure it stays there.

[BamaDave]

More diversity = better fitness. That just sounds like good common sense.

HIIT is a more efficient way of getting an intense workout done in less time. I'm not convinced that HIIT is necessarily better, *IF* your long distance running is challenging your fitness level. If you're not putting any oomph into your long distance cardio and just shuffling along or pedaling leisurely, then it makes sense that it's not going to do much for you when compared with a challenging HIIT workout.

[ODBSGIRL]

Thanks Gobbla. I noticed that during training for my first half marathon, my weight stayed the same or moved up a little but my body fat actually went UP. I was thoroughly embarrassed when I ran into JP at the packet pickup and used his little Hand Held Humiliation machine to measure BF. I thought my long endurance "jogs" were enough to replace my usual activities like cycling behind that mountain goat hubby of mine but this is just one more piece of evidence to the contrary. I have enough issues with my wobbly bits, I may be able to jog 15 miles or more but bathing suit season is still scarey so BAH. One more push toward speed intervals and strength training!! Oh, and getting my ass back on the saddle of my bike too!

[bullandbear]

I agree with BamaDave that diversity = better fitness. I do not think that long distance running should be abolished totally although the frequency should be reduced.

In spite of technological advances, military ground operation sometimes still requires a platoon to cover a long distance on foot for long hours. Something tells me if the veterans at world war II focused solely on muscular strength and sprinting, they would be the first to die compared to those who were able to move long distances and had muscular endurance to scale through unforgiving terrains.

For those who are not combat active, I think the new guidelines would be excellent.

[BeachHead]

Personally, I avoid running at all costs. I excell at the pushup situp portion and just pain through the run, because running is boring and in my opinion, entirely useless. We need to ruck march more, sprint more, slow run much less, and do more strength focused calisthenics.

Slap a ruck on my happy ass and I can go 9, 12, 15 miles no problem. Make me run for 3 miles and I just get bored.

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by BamaDave

More diversity = better fitness. That just sounds like good common sense.

HIIT is a more efficient way of getting an intense workout done in less time. I'm not convinced that HIIT is necessarily better, *IF* your long distance running is challenging your fitness level. If you're not putting any oomph into your long distance cardio and just shuffling along or pedaling leisurely, then it makes sense that it's not going to do much for you when compared with a challenging HIIT workout.

Here's a thing or two or three I can see in this:

1. Most soldiers in combat don't run long distances, except in full retreat. Then they might cover two miles or more, but only if they aren't lugging that heavy ass ruck at the same time. I don't see a running offensive much anymore with today's battlefield. Perhaps at a good quick step, but most images I see on the news are men running from position to position, move and cover style, not a mile across a field.
2. HIIT will improve their VO2 max faster than SS cardio.
3. HIIT should help them to develop some lactic acid tolerance, which will help them to continue when the body tells them to stop.

There's still a place for disstance running, but a good median between sprints and distance running is needed.

[Lost Dog]

Originally Posted by bullandbear

In spite of technological advances, military ground operation sometimes still requires a platoon to cover a long distance on foot for long hours. Something tells me if the veterans at world war II focused solely on muscular strength and sprinting, they would be the first to die compared to those who were able to move long distances and had muscular endurance to scale through unforgiving terrains.

I don't think there's much carryover between running and rucking.

I don't have problem with some running. Owen Wilson sure ran a lot to get back form "Behind Enemy Lines," but for most soldiers, they'd be marching long distances carrying heavy loads. They should do that to train for that.

[gobbla]

Originally Posted by bullandbear

In spite of technological advances, military ground operation sometimes still requires a platoon to cover a long distance on foot for long hours.

perfect reason for a ruck march. running for 6 miles isn't going to prepare you for walking 6 miles with 40lbs of body armor, a weapon, and whatever else gear you're lugging.

that is the crux of the problem. It's not that we have a random requirement..."you must be able to function in a combat environment" "a lack of physical ability can kill you and everyone around you". you've got X amount of poo that you have to haul around doing X type things.

I think polquin had an article on T-nation not too long ago speaking about the canadian forces or FBI...someone...that was going through this same thing. The bottom line is that there is a very obvious task orientated requirement...and no one actually trains for it!

It's not a debate so much of what is better for me, or you, or johnny "naked pants"...it's a question if we're "training" war fighters to fight wars. As it stands the answer is "no".

[I. Kay]

This is good to see. I have a friend who is currently completing a 3-month federal training camp (I could tell you what he does, but then he'd have to kill you... and me too, I guess!) and he told about some of the things they're tested on. They have to run a mile in X mins, do X number of situps, and complete a certain bw% barbell bench press. Not the greatest test of fitness. Especially since nobody there was teaching the bench press... that's why he called me! (Not that I'm the bench expert... but when I asked him where the bar was when he lowered it, he said - you guessed it - his collar bone.)

Anyway, good to see that things may be slowly changing at the top!