Like JR I can't see that there was any problem given the living conditions at that time (minimal heating, cross country runs in the rain .........). It was merely a nuisance.J.R. wrote:As a 'Before', I can't really say !
I don't ever remember having a problem doing PT.
I consider that Neil Simms was partially right in "with his modern ideas of physical education was shocked at how PT was conducted, and made no attempt to defend it. He gave a talk to the House Captains' Meeting in which he said in barely disguised terms that many of the exercises were harmful and that a highly concentrated daily 10-minute session was not productive" (quote from Michael Scuffil.)
In my day monitors running PT didn't know why they were doing PT (apart from being ordered to do it) , didn't know how exercises should be done, didn't know what they were trying to achieve and didn't know how to do whatever they were supposed to be doing. Therefore there were risks of injury unknown to the monitors and if exercises were not done properly then they would achieve little if anything. At that time there were rugby, athletics, fives, cross country runs, gym, swimming, punishment miles and PO Paths (other houses may vary) and other exercises good for the body so PT was unnecessary at that time.
Now that such exercise seems to be less than compulsory at CH then something is needed to take its place. I also have to wonder if the results of the Bristol survey that OBs survive longer (on average) were affected by the necessary high degree of fitness enforced at CH.
For a survey limited to OBs of either sex and any age, how many still exercise regularly in a deliberate manner (ie, running, walking, going to fitness centres, do exercises at home on a regular basis etc)?