a response.

thursday this post is long. and i mean really long. and it is a response to the following forum letter printed in the straits times on the 7th of jan.

---

I refer to the report, 'SAF officer dies after 1.2km run' (ST, Jan 3).

There has been a spate of deaths recently with the victims collapsing while running. Most national servicemen have to complete a 2.4km run in order to fulfil their annual Individual Physical Proficiency Test (IPPT), so I think it is high time the Ministry of Defence looked into revamping this segment of IPPT.

On average, in order to obtain a Gold standard in the IPPT, a national serviceman has to obtain a minimum of four points (out of a maximum of five points) for each of the four stationary fitness stations and then run 2.4km in about 10 minutes, plus or minus half a minute.

Anyone who has ever achieved a sub-10 for a 2.4km run can attest to the power of endurance needed, and the pain and fatigue undergone. Of course, the excitement and sense of achievement are what push one through.

However, it is unrealistic to expect the majority of national servicemen to reach that level of fitness. Many have unintentionally injured themselves trying to break the 10-minute barrier by overtaxing their bodies.

Hence, it is not advisable to set such a short time limit for a 2.4km run.

Fitness experts recommend that we engage in a cardiovascular exercise continuously for at least 20 minutes in order to maximise its benefits. Running a sub-10 does not seem to serve that purpose.

My suggestion is to extend the distance of the run to 4km or 5km, with a time limit of 30 to 40 minutes, thereby focusing more on the endurance and general fitness than speed. This should put less strain on the heart and body, while giving the runners some time to warm up and ready their bodies for the run in a less gruelling manner.

We cannot delude ourselves that these 'running deaths', which have led to the demise of healthy men in their 20s to 50s, are coincidences. Neither can we attribute the concerns expressed over these occurrences to 'sensationalised news' by the press.

Instead of a sudden burst of energy to complete a run in a short time, a longer run may be all it takes to prevent a cardiac arrest.

Rick Lim Say Kiong

---

now. first things first. the "recent spate of deaths in the SAF" attempts to generalize and insinuates that the SAF doesn't look after the well-being of the servicemen. that said. it is by no means the fault of the SAF that servicemen have conditions that medical tests do not pick up. and changing the IPPT system would not solve a thing.

and let me be picky with rick's choice of words. "..not advisable to set such a short time limit..". clearly rick doesn't know that there are different categories for the different age groups. they are split as follows:
Cat X
Cat Y
Cat Z
Cat Z1
Cat Z2

while i can't remember what are the age ranges for each category, all NSFs fall under Cat X because we're relatively young when we enlist (16-21). as you get older, you move down the categorizations. once you're 40-ish, Cat Z is where you are and then depending on what stations you are not required to take, you're further broken down into Z1 and Z2.

for each of the different categorizations, the minimum passing time for the run is lengthened according to the age of the serviceman. so to say that to achieve a gold, one needs to complete the 2.4km in 10 minutes "plus or minus half a minute" is untrue.

achieving "gold timing" for the 2.4km run is the onus of the serviceman. what he wants to achieve and for what intent and purpose is not for the SAF to dictate. if the serviceman chooses to push himself beyond his own limits just to achieve gold timing for bragging rights, i'm sorry to say then that that is just being foolish.

it is only realistic to push yourself if you have had regular trainings and progressive trainings at that. you don't see people jumping straight to running a marathon without training over a period of time.

next, the "running deaths" that occured in the SAF, are well publicized because well, it's the SAF. it wasn't all that long a go when a Colonel collapsed after he completed his routine morning run and subsequently passed away. who is to blame? the serviceman? the SAF?

but yes, we cannot "attribute the concerns expressed over these occurrences to 'sensationalised news' by the press". we can however, attribute it to people like rick who can't look at the bigger picture and who cannot accept other views:

1. how many of the servicemen who have passed away actually knew about whatever condition that they had, that could have caused them to collapse and sadly, pass away after that? people have died of some unknown ailment just watching tv or even in their sleep!

2. how is the SAF's IPPT standards to be modified when clearly, doing so will mean a lower standard of fitness? (2.4km in 11 min 50 min for 18-22 year olds as compared to 5km in 40 minutes?)

3. when fighting a war or battle, having cardiac arrest is the least of your worries when you're fighting for your life where bullets, grenades and even bayonets are the first priority.

4. in a battle, most of us require "a sudden burst of energy" to complete our objectives and missions. 5km in 40 minutes is more applicable if you want to time how long we take to complete say, our 28km or 32km route marches. in order to do so, we need a combination of speed and endurance.

5. i do not know how rick has his ippt taken. but my 18 months in army so far, i've always done my 5 stations before going for my 2.4km run. by then the body has already warmed up sufficiently (again, a sudden burst of energy is required to complete the shuttle run) and negates the need to do further exercises to "warm up

6. how about we ask our would-be enemies to reduce their soldiers' level of fitness? wouldn't that make it easier for us? or at least put us on equal footing should we ever meet in the field of battle?