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

Options
Theoldguy1
Theoldguy1 Posts: 2,463 Member
edited February 2019 in Debate Club
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

3kp5q67hjod6.png


«13

Replies

  • Phirrgus
    Phirrgus Posts: 1,894 Member
    Options
    Though 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.
    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 carry ;)

    Initial impression is that doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Options
    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.)
  • JBanx256
    JBanx256 Posts: 1,473 Member
    Options
    sijomial 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.)

    we call it a ruck
  • Theoldguy1
    Theoldguy1 Posts: 2,463 Member
    edited February 2019
    Options
    sijomial 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.
  • Phirrgus
    Phirrgus Posts: 1,894 Member
    Options
    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.html
    COLORADO 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.
  • ceiswyn
    ceiswyn Posts: 2,256 Member
    Options
    That test strikes me as still quite biased towards upper-body strength for something that's meant to be gender neutral.
  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    Options
    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
  • MikePTY
    MikePTY Posts: 3,814 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Theoldguy1
    Theoldguy1 Posts: 2,463 Member
    edited February 2019
    Options
    sijomial wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    sijomial 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.
  • Theoldguy1
    Theoldguy1 Posts: 2,463 Member
    Options
    ceiswyn wrote: »
    That test strikes me as still quite biased towards upper-body strength for something that's meant to be gender neutral.

    I think the idea is it doesn't make any difference if one has mommy or daddy parts when it comes the strength required for various functions.
  • Theoldguy1
    Theoldguy1 Posts: 2,463 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Cassandraw3
    Cassandraw3 Posts: 1,214 Member
    Options
    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.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    h7463 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    h7463 wrote: »
    ceiswyn 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.
  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    Options
    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...
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    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?
  • tbright1965
    tbright1965 Posts: 852 Member
    Options
    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.

Categories