07-20-2014, 11:24
|
#1
|
|
Asset
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 11
|
Did the SFAS ruck weight change?
QPs,
Has the ruck weight for SFAS been decreased since 1999/2000? I could have sworn that back then we were advised to train with 100lbs (excluding water), as opposed to 45-65lbs that I see recommended now. I've tried to refrain from starting a new thread (posting in general, really) but it's starting to make me question what I thought I knew/remembered.
Again, I apologize in advance if this has been asked, but I was not able to find an answer here or on The Google. My thought is that since this site was created in 2004, there probably weren't very many discussion on SFAS prior to then.
On a side note, this is the longest I've ever stared at the "Submit New Thread" button.
Ask or Cast.
Thanks,
C
|
|
Synsei is offline
|
|
|
07-20-2014, 11:31
|
#2
|
|
Area Commander
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Raeford, NC
Posts: 3,374
|
Did you also stare at the search button and not use it? This question is explained more times than I can count with a couple of simple searches.
PM Sent
__________________
D-3129 Life
"If one day you decide to know yourself...you'll have to choose the warrior path...You'll reach the darkness of your spirit.... Then, if you overcome your fears....You will know who you are."
"De Oppresso Liber"
Last edited by Snaquebite; 07-21-2014 at 05:24.
|
|
Snaquebite is offline
|
|
|
07-20-2014, 12:26
|
#3
|
|
Asset
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 11
|
Thank you.
-C
|
|
Synsei is offline
|
|
|
07-20-2014, 13:57
|
#4
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland
Posts: 24,821
|
I was at SWCS for my second tour starting in 2001 and we never advised candidates to train with that much weight.
It breaks people down and gets them hurt.
TR
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910
De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
|
|
The Reaper is offline
|
|
|
07-21-2014, 04:59
|
#5
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: May 2010
Location: C.S. Colorado
Posts: 2,045
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synsei
QPs,
Has the ruck weight for SFAS been decreased since 1999/2000? I could have sworn that back then we were advised to train with 100lbs (excluding water), as opposed to 45-65lbs that I see recommended now. I've tried to refrain from starting a new thread (posting in general, really) but it's starting to make me question what I thought I knew/remembered.
Again, I apologize in advance if this has been asked, but I was not able to find an answer here or on The Google. My thought is that since this site was created in 2004, there probably weren't very many discussion on SFAS prior to then.
On a side note, this is the longest I've ever stared at the "Submit New Thread" button.
Ask or Cast.
Thanks,
C
|
I went during that time I believe the most I carried was 45 without water and during the STAR it was roughly 85-90 together with the radios MRE's etc....
I did see a recommended train up hand out that had a 5x100lb ruck squats program on it I used, I do not remember ever seeing anything recommending 100lb ruck marches I believe the train up weight most recommended was 55-65lbs.
Last edited by WarriorDiplomat; 07-21-2014 at 05:02.
|
|
WarriorDiplomat is offline
|
|
|
07-21-2014, 05:28
|
#6
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 459
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reaper
..... never advised candidates to train with that much weight.
It breaks people down and gets them hurt.
TR
|
Exactly. Toughen your body not crush it.
__________________
"Excellence is its own punishment..."
|
|
CDRODA396 is offline
|
|
|
07-21-2014, 05:41
|
#7
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Near the flag pole
Posts: 1,168
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synsei
QPs,
I could have sworn that back then we were advised to train with 100lbs (excluding water), as opposed to 45-65lbs that I see recommended now.
Thanks,
C
|
Just curious, but who advised this??
__________________
"It's not my aim, it's these damn crooked bullets,,,"
Verified Tax Payer and Future Sex Symbol
|
|
blue02hd is offline
|
|
|
07-21-2014, 11:51
|
#8
|
|
Asset
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 11
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reaper
I was at SWCS for my second tour starting in 2001 and we never advised candidates to train with that much weight.
It breaks people down and gets them hurt.
TR
|
Got it. Thank you, TR, for the response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarriorDiplomat
I went during that time I believe the most I carried was 45 without water and during the STAR it was roughly 85-90 together with the radios MRE's etc....
I did see a recommended train up hand out that had a 5x100lb ruck squats program on it I used, I do not remember ever seeing anything recommending 100lb ruck marches I believe the train up weight most recommended was 55-65lbs.
|
If I recall, my class was the last one before they started doing the Trek and I thought I remembered thinking that the weight had gone down back then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blue02hd
Just curious, but who advised this??
|
A hand out maybe? I was going over it on the flight from Ft. Hood to Bragg and the guy sitting next to me asked if I had really done all of the training in the material I was reading. Turns out he was SF. I said yes. Then he gave me his number and said "If you get selected, call me. If you don't get selected...don't fuckin' call me." Long story short, I tossed the handout and his number so I can't reference the handout.
My memory is most likely flawed in terms of the ruck weight, but I appreciate all of your responses. I've started training again with a much different mindset than I had as a young soldier.
Thanks again,
-C
Last edited by Synsei; 07-21-2014 at 15:50.
|
|
Synsei is offline
|
|
|
07-21-2014, 14:55
|
#9
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: May 2010
Location: C.S. Colorado
Posts: 2,045
|
They have done STAR since the beginning of SFAS in the 80's. SFAS changes every so often just like all phases but the constant was the STAR land Nav I think you are thinking about team week that went away in the early 2000's replaced by the trek.
The weight has not changed before or since if any the weight of 65 was your packing list weight more if you were a bigger guy, Radio and 6 quarts of water and 3 MRE's
I don't remember carrying 100lbs during SUT either but today students will carry upwards of 110 for patrols which is much heavier than Ranger School.
Last edited by WarriorDiplomat; 07-21-2014 at 15:04.
|
|
WarriorDiplomat is offline
|
|
|
07-21-2014, 15:48
|
#10
|
|
Asset
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 11
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarriorDiplomat
They have done STAR since the beginning of SFAS in the 80's. SFAS changes every so often just like all phases but the constant was the STAR land Nav I think you are thinking about team week that went away in the early 2000's replaced by the trek.
|
Ah yes, I miss-spoke. The Trek is what it was called, not STAR.
|
|
Synsei is offline
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:28.
|
|
|
Linear Mode
