Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Proposed Army Fitness Test - Your Thoughts
Theoldguy1
Posts: 2,494 Member
Saw an article about the new fitness test the Army is evaluating. Suppose to be gender and age neutral. Looks like they are going to test "functional" fitenss:
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/08/01/heres-an-early-draft-of-the-armys-new-fitness-test-standards/?fbclid=IwAR3sFWEP2eAGqU9ntUO_7GRQdfN6APYNoJ6kEFfBWWOQyhE0EyJm7df8144
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/08/01/heres-an-early-draft-of-the-armys-new-fitness-test-standards/?fbclid=IwAR3sFWEP2eAGqU9ntUO_7GRQdfN6APYNoJ6kEFfBWWOQyhE0EyJm7df8144
0
Replies
-
Knee jerk reaction is that they may not be the best qualified to develop the assessment. They don't say which demand category they were in. I would rather see a quarter mile soldiers carryThough the field study doesn’t begin for two more months, senior leaders have been trying out the ACFT for months. Sergeant Major of the Army Dan Dailey and Maj. Gen. Malcolm Frost, the head of CIMT, told reporters in July that they had both taken it ― and that they both needed to work on lower body strength for the deadlift.
Initial impression is that doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.1 -
Where's the yomping?
Sometimes soldiers have to travel extended distances to get to the combat in the first place. Not seeing any test of endurance in there.
(Yomp is Royal Marines slang describing a long-distance loaded march carrying full kit.)3 -
-
Where's the yomping?
Sometimes soldiers have to travel extended distances to get to the combat in the first place. Not seeing any test of endurance in there.
(Yomp is Royal Marines slang describing a long-distance loaded march carrying full kit.)
The "endurance" part, the 2 mile timed run is the same as the current test which includes push ups and situps as the other 2 components.0 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Where's the yomping?
Sometimes soldiers have to travel extended distances to get to the combat in the first place. Not seeing any test of endurance in there.
(Yomp is Royal Marines slang describing a long-distance loaded march carrying full kit.)
The "endurance" part, the 2 mile timed run is the same as the current test which includes push ups and situps as the other 2 components.
IMHO 2 miles isn't endurance at all. 18 minutes is hardly challenging either.
I would talk about endurance in terms of hours not minutes.6 -
I don't see why Armies PFT shouldn't at least mimic the Marine Corps PFT. I have to agree with sijomial - that's not much of a 'test'.
This has to be a response to Army not meeting recruitment goals last year. Open the door a little wider.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/us/army-recruiting-shortage.htmlCOLORADO SPRINGS — The Army fell thousands of troops short of its recruiting goals this year, the first time it has done so since the height of the Iraq war 13 years ago.
The shortfall is due in part to a hot job market that has lured away many recruits at a time that President Trump and Congress seek to expand the military, and have raised the number the Army needs to meet.
The Army hoped to bring in about 76,500 new soldiers this year. But with the fiscal year ending this month, it is still 6,500 troops short, even after spending an extra $200 million on bonuses and lowering standards to let in more troops with conduct or health issues.0 -
That test strikes me as still quite biased towards upper-body strength for something that's meant to be gender neutral.0
-
i feel like its more applicable than the long-time run, sit-up, push-up test but not sure if its quite meeting the wicket yet - i would like to see the job/task analysis that came up with these events as being the best represetnative of what needs to be done
i would argue that the Marines do 2 tests - a general PT test and then a combat fitness test - the PT test is semi-annual and then CFT is biyearly (I think) - i'd have to ask one of the Marines i work with
it also doesn't address - what about those army guys who spend 90% of the time behind computers, especially in the new cyber world2 -
I think the baseline isn't to compare it to what a hypothetical test could be, but to the current test, and this seems to almost certainly be an improvement on that. The current test is a 2 mile run, pushups, and sit ups. Sit ups especially are a pretty antiquated measure of fitness. The new test contains more elements that measure compound and functional strength. That is a plus.2
-
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Where's the yomping?
Sometimes soldiers have to travel extended distances to get to the combat in the first place. Not seeing any test of endurance in there.
(Yomp is Royal Marines slang describing a long-distance loaded march carrying full kit.)
The "endurance" part, the 2 mile timed run is the same as the current test which includes push ups and situps as the other 2 components.
IMHO 2 miles isn't endurance at all. 18 minutes is hardly challenging either.
I would talk about endurance in terms of hours not minutes.
I would tend to agree.1 -
-
deannalfisher wrote: »i feel like its more applicable than the long-time run, sit-up, push-up test but not sure if its quite meeting the wicket yet - i would like to see the job/task analysis that came up with these events as being the best represetnative of what needs to be done
i would argue that the Marines do 2 tests - a general PT test and then a combat fitness test - the PT test is semi-annual and then CFT is biyearly (I think) - i'd have to ask one of the Marines i work with
it also doesn't address - what about those army guys who spend 90% of the time behind computers, especially in the new cyber world
The computer guys would have to meet the baseline 60 minimum. Heavy and medium physical demand roles have to have higher scores.1 -
That test strikes me as still quite biased towards upper-body strength for something that's meant to be gender neutral.
Not sure how this is biased. Which gender would you prefer to drag your injured hide to safety? Personally, I'd prefer the one that is 'able' to fulfill the task. Just my opinion.7 -
That test strikes me as still quite biased towards upper-body strength for something that's meant to be gender neutral.
Not sure how this is biased. Which gender would you prefer to drag your injured hide to safety? Personally, I'd prefer the one that is 'able' to fulfill the task. Just my opinion.
"The one that is 'able' to fulfill the task" doesn't make sense here because the ability (and lack of ability) to pull an injured person to safety can and does exist in more than one gender.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »That test strikes me as still quite biased towards upper-body strength for something that's meant to be gender neutral.
Not sure how this is biased. Which gender would you prefer to drag your injured hide to safety? Personally, I'd prefer the one that is 'able' to fulfill the task. Just my opinion.
"The one that is 'able' to fulfill the task" doesn't make sense here because the ability (and lack of ability) to pull an injured person to safety can and does exist in more than one gender.
You're kinda making my point here...6 -
I don't know where the upper body strength comes much into play other than the push ups. Dragging a sled and carrying kettle bells is much more legs/core work than it is upper body. Leg tucks are another strong core movement. I guess the argument could be made for power throw, but when done right uses legs as well.0
-
janejellyroll wrote: »That test strikes me as still quite biased towards upper-body strength for something that's meant to be gender neutral.
Not sure how this is biased. Which gender would you prefer to drag your injured hide to safety? Personally, I'd prefer the one that is 'able' to fulfill the task. Just my opinion.
"The one that is 'able' to fulfill the task" doesn't make sense here because the ability (and lack of ability) to pull an injured person to safety can and does exist in more than one gender.
You're kinda making my point here...
I apologize, I misunderstood what you were arguing. I thought you were asserting that there was only one gender that was capable of doing this. I think we're in agreement that it's the ability to pull someone to safety that matters.1 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »i feel like its more applicable than the long-time run, sit-up, push-up test but not sure if its quite meeting the wicket yet - i would like to see the job/task analysis that came up with these events as being the best represetnative of what needs to be done
i would argue that the Marines do 2 tests - a general PT test and then a combat fitness test - the PT test is semi-annual and then CFT is biyearly (I think) - i'd have to ask one of the Marines i work with
it also doesn't address - what about those army guys who spend 90% of the time behind computers, especially in the new cyber world
The computer guys would have to meet the baseline 60 minimum. Heavy and medium physical demand roles have to have higher scores.
i have a fundamental disagreement with that in general - in that (and maybe because it was on a TV show) - but my ability to do my job isn't necessarily tied to a specific level of personal fitness or the ability to pass a test - some of the best computer programers i know would probably fail a normal PT test because that isn't their baliwick and if they are literally going to be sitting behind a computer 90% of the time - does it make sense that there should even be that minimal level required? (i mean, i'm talking folks that haven't deployed in their entire careers)
and FWIW - i'm military and see this across the service spectrum - i find PT tests to be a joke (I passed mine after barely recovering from bronchitis - yet a 20yo male service member couldn't) and yet i'm told even cycle i'm fat and need to lose weight...1 -
deannalfisher wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »i feel like its more applicable than the long-time run, sit-up, push-up test but not sure if its quite meeting the wicket yet - i would like to see the job/task analysis that came up with these events as being the best represetnative of what needs to be done
i would argue that the Marines do 2 tests - a general PT test and then a combat fitness test - the PT test is semi-annual and then CFT is biyearly (I think) - i'd have to ask one of the Marines i work with
it also doesn't address - what about those army guys who spend 90% of the time behind computers, especially in the new cyber world
The computer guys would have to meet the baseline 60 minimum. Heavy and medium physical demand roles have to have higher scores.
i have a fundamental disagreement with that in general - in that (and maybe because it was on a TV show) - but my ability to do my job isn't necessarily tied to a specific level of personal fitness or the ability to pass a test - some of the best computer programers i know would probably fail a normal PT test because that isn't their baliwick and if they are literally going to be sitting behind a computer 90% of the time - does it make sense that there should even be that minimal level required? (i mean, i'm talking folks that haven't deployed in their entire careers)
and FWIW - i'm military and see this across the service spectrum - i find PT tests to be a joke (I passed mine after barely recovering from bronchitis - yet a 20yo male service member couldn't) and yet i'm told even cycle i'm fat and need to lose weight...
I haven't been in the military, so please feel free to correct . . . but isn't the intention that everyone should be at least *capable* of deployment even if they haven't been deployed? Or is that just a false assumption on my part?1 -
Well, they made the run easier. I think at 100% used to be around 11 minutes. I remember when 100% on the run was something like 13:02 or 13:04. My fat *kitten* could still run 2 miles in 13 flat give or take a second. Ticked off my tac-officers when I'd score a 300 after they told me I needed to lose 20# I'd always pass tape tests, just a big upper body with short legs.
Since it's been 20+ years since I got out of the Army, I'm not sure how qualified I am to comment. However, this seems more suited to measuring actual movements you might need in a combat or combat support role.
I was Signal Corps, Airborne (so we had to do pull ups as well) and I don't think the pushups and situps where a good measure of all around strength.
Certainly no pulling or testing of ones grip.
I do like the idea of it being age and gender neutral as your role on the field of battle doesn't care if you are male or female, young or old, you need to be able to do your job.
I also like the idea that the standard for Infantry or Artillery would be higher than say the Medical branch.
It seems a fair bit of thought has gone into this. Functional fitness vs being able to do three things that may only marginally relate to your wartime mission.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »i feel like its more applicable than the long-time run, sit-up, push-up test but not sure if its quite meeting the wicket yet - i would like to see the job/task analysis that came up with these events as being the best represetnative of what needs to be done
i would argue that the Marines do 2 tests - a general PT test and then a combat fitness test - the PT test is semi-annual and then CFT is biyearly (I think) - i'd have to ask one of the Marines i work with
it also doesn't address - what about those army guys who spend 90% of the time behind computers, especially in the new cyber world
The computer guys would have to meet the baseline 60 minimum. Heavy and medium physical demand roles have to have higher scores.
i have a fundamental disagreement with that in general - in that (and maybe because it was on a TV show) - but my ability to do my job isn't necessarily tied to a specific level of personal fitness or the ability to pass a test - some of the best computer programers i know would probably fail a normal PT test because that isn't their baliwick and if they are literally going to be sitting behind a computer 90% of the time - does it make sense that there should even be that minimal level required? (i mean, i'm talking folks that haven't deployed in their entire careers)
and FWIW - i'm military and see this across the service spectrum - i find PT tests to be a joke (I passed mine after barely recovering from bronchitis - yet a 20yo male service member couldn't) and yet i'm told even cycle i'm fat and need to lose weight...
I haven't been in the military, so please feel free to correct . . . but isn't the intention that everyone should be at least *capable* of deployment even if they haven't been deployed? Or is that just a false assumption on my part?
theoretically yes - always deployable - but deployable can mean a wide variety of things...i have ppl who "deploy" to a location to do computer stuff - deployment legally just refers to the legal authority that forces are moved under1 -
tbright1965 wrote: »Well, they made the run easier. I think at 100% used to be around 11 minutes. I remember when 100% on the run was something like 13:02 or 13:04. My fat *kitten* could still run 2 miles in 13 flat give or take a second. Ticked off my tac-officers when I'd score a 300 after they told me I needed to lose 20# I'd always pass tape tests, just a big upper body with short legs.
I read in an article on it that they made the run time longer because now it is done last after the other 4 tests so people will be more fatigued when attempting it.
1 -
deannalfisher wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »i feel like its more applicable than the long-time run, sit-up, push-up test but not sure if its quite meeting the wicket yet - i would like to see the job/task analysis that came up with these events as being the best represetnative of what needs to be done
i would argue that the Marines do 2 tests - a general PT test and then a combat fitness test - the PT test is semi-annual and then CFT is biyearly (I think) - i'd have to ask one of the Marines i work with
it also doesn't address - what about those army guys who spend 90% of the time behind computers, especially in the new cyber world
The computer guys would have to meet the baseline 60 minimum. Heavy and medium physical demand roles have to have higher scores.
i have a fundamental disagreement with that in general - in that (and maybe because it was on a TV show) - but my ability to do my job isn't necessarily tied to a specific level of personal fitness or the ability to pass a test - some of the best computer programers i know would probably fail a normal PT test because that isn't their baliwick and if they are literally going to be sitting behind a computer 90% of the time - does it make sense that there should even be that minimal level required? (i mean, i'm talking folks that haven't deployed in their entire careers)
and FWIW - i'm military and see this across the service spectrum - i find PT tests to be a joke (I passed mine after barely recovering from bronchitis - yet a 20yo male service member couldn't) and yet i'm told even cycle i'm fat and need to lose weight...
I haven't been in the military, so please feel free to correct . . . but isn't the intention that everyone should be at least *capable* of deployment even if they haven't been deployed? Or is that just a false assumption on my part?
theoretically yes - always deployable - but deployable can mean a wide variety of things...i have ppl who "deploy" to a location to do computer stuff - deployment legally just refers to the legal authority that forces are moved under
Thanks, that makes sense.0 -
tbright1965 wrote: »Well, they made the run easier. I think at 100% used to be around 11 minutes. I remember when 100% on the run was something like 13:02 or 13:04. My fat *kitten* could still run 2 miles in 13 flat give or take a second. Ticked off my tac-officers when I'd score a 300 after they told me I needed to lose 20# I'd always pass tape tests, just a big upper body with short legs.
I read in an article on it that they made the run time longer because now it is done last after the other 4 tests so people will be more fatigued when attempting it.
It was done after the PU and SU in the current APFT. However, that makes sense since the test is longer.
I'm still not going to max it in my 50s and after having survived cancer....
I'd have to bike away from danger these days. I might run 1 mile in 13:00 these days. I'm happy if I can complete a 5k in under 40 minutes
0 -
I know what deadlifts are and I know what a 2-mile run is... I don't know what the rest entails. Because of my health issues, I couldn't join anyway - regardless of how many points I could get on this. Yes, I could Google it, but don't really care enough to spend the time. If the experts think these are the needed qualifications, then who am I to argue?0
-
The Hand Release Push Up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfnMuP5JgIw 0 -
A description of the new test:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEWPCPgXH9U 2 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »I know what deadlifts are and I know what a 2-mile run is... I don't know what the rest entails. Because of my health issues, I couldn't join anyway - regardless of how many points I could get on this. Yes, I could Google it, but don't really care enough to spend the time. If the experts think these are the needed qualifications, then who am I to argue?
because at least in my experience the ppl making the tests aren't actually experts...if you ask why do you do X as an assessment they can't tell you...i still laugh at the fact that to be in the Navy (you know, surrounded by water) - the minimal swim qualification is like 5min float and then a 50yd swim, after jumping off a diving board (and then you have to demonstrate that you can make a floatation device out of your pants)...yet they make me run 1.5miles when the longest ship is less than that in distance...0 -
deannalfisher wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »I know what deadlifts are and I know what a 2-mile run is... I don't know what the rest entails. Because of my health issues, I couldn't join anyway - regardless of how many points I could get on this. Yes, I could Google it, but don't really care enough to spend the time. If the experts think these are the needed qualifications, then who am I to argue?
because at least in my experience the ppl making the tests aren't actually experts...if you ask why do you do X as an assessment they can't tell you...i still laugh at the fact that to be in the Navy (you know, surrounded by water) - the minimal swim qualification is like 5min float and then a 50yd swim, after jumping off a diving board (and then you have to demonstrate that you can make a floatation device out of your pants)...yet they make me run 1.5miles when the longest ship is less than that in distance...
The bold, and the fact that lives can literally depend on a recruit being more fit than not...
Couple that with the fact that standards aren't being lowered because less rigorous is acceptable. They're being lowered to allow less fit people to pass because the army didn't meet their recruitment goals.
That's probably fine for rear echelon peeps, but combat troops ought to meet a higher standard imo.0 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Where's the yomping?
Sometimes soldiers have to travel extended distances to get to the combat in the first place. Not seeing any test of endurance in there.
(Yomp is Royal Marines slang describing a long-distance loaded march carrying full kit.)
The "endurance" part, the 2 mile timed run is the same as the current test which includes push ups and situps as the other 2 components.
IMHO 2 miles isn't endurance at all. 18 minutes is hardly challenging either.
I would talk about endurance in terms of hours not minutes.
When I was in the Marines, the PT test was a 3 mile run, pull-ups, and sit-ups. We did a lot of rucking in boot camp, it was just not something that was "tested" per sei...but you do plenty of it. At the end of boot, we had a long ruck that, as I recall, was about 4 or 5 hours with full gear and included a large hill called Mt. Mother *kitten*. If you didn't make it, you dropped back to the class behind you. At that point in the game though, you're pretty damned fit and it wasn't that hard.
Rucking wasn't something that was tested annually though like the PT test and it's not really applicable to a lot of specialties.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions