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
Replies
-
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 -
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.
This is just the basic annual PT test. Combat troops are going to be doing all kinds of stuff training wise in their day to day that is going to go well beyond this. I know when I was in the Marines, I did a lot more training wise when I was with tracks than I was in the air wing...definitely held to a higher standard, even if it's not the official test...when I was with tracks, the standard was much higher than just being able to pass the annual PT test.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »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.
My nephew just got out of boot a few weeks ago. No idea where he is now, but he was in good shape when he left, amazing condition when he visited before deploying to wherever he's training at.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »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.
This is just the basic annual PT test. Combat troops are going to be doing all kinds of stuff training wise in their day to day that is going to go well beyond this. I know when I was in the Marines, I did a lot more training wise when I was with tracks than I was in the air wing...definitely held to a higher standard, even if it's not the official test...when I was with tracks, the standard was much higher than just being able to pass the annual PT test.
Missed this before, sorry. True, yes...I am slightly biased when it comes to our troops...slightly..0 -
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/07/09/a-new-army-pt-test-is-on-its-way-this-is-not-a-drill/
"The new test’s work-to-rest ratio is also three times that of the APFT, which was generally broken up in a sit-ups and push-ups portion and a long break before the run. Now, there will be a continuously running clock with a 50-minute limit."
"They had freedom to design the what and how, while creating a regimen that tested multiple domains of fitness ― where the APFT had, to much objection from fitness experts, only measured cardiovascular and muscular endurance.
What they created rounds all of the bases, from endurance to muscular strength, explosive power, speed, agility, flexibility and balance. The events were meant to simulate movements under fire, loading heavy weaponry and dragging casualties to safety, among others."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.
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.
I 100% agree with this. My very initial reaction was that is was of course going to be very skewed towards big, young guys. While I could probably pass the heavy physical demand score, it's going to be a lot harder for me than for a 200lb muscled man. HOWEVER, when you are out there in the field, it doesn't matter what size you are, you are going to be required to pull the same weight as the person next to you, regardless of their size. I'm all for equal opportunity and having one scale for me makes things equal. It may not be equally easy for someone to pass, but everyone that passes will need to perform at an equal standard. If I were in the military, I'd better be able to carry/drag my 200+lb buddy to safety if necessary.3 -
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...
They are still more knowledgeable than someone like me, but still I would suggest that the most knowledgeable people (the experts) develop the qualifications. Who are the experts?0 -
Personal opinion: Go out and do the test. Then judge it.
Here is the details on what you need to do. they even tell you how to train for each part, and how it relates to being in the Army.
https://www.army.mil/acft/
If you are scoring 90+ on every category, and feeling like you aren't really in shape, then maybe it needs to be upped.1 -
mom23mangos wrote: »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.
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.
I 100% agree with this. My very initial reaction was that is was of course going to be very skewed towards big, young guys. While I could probably pass the heavy physical demand score, it's going to be a lot harder for me than for a 200lb muscled man. HOWEVER, when you are out there in the field, it doesn't matter what size you are, you are going to be required to pull the same weight as the person next to you, regardless of their size. I'm all for equal opportunity and having one scale for me makes things equal. It may not be equally easy for someone to pass, but everyone that passes will need to perform at an equal standard. If I were in the military, I'd better be able to carry/drag my 200+lb buddy to safety if necessary.
Interestingly enough, most military guys aren't hugely muscular and/or heavy. The vast majority of training in the military is cardiovascular and endurance in nature. Unless someone is purposely going to the gym, most strength exercise is body weight. If you're in a combat unit, it can actually be hard to keep on weight let alone bulk because you're constantly training and moving.
I was 5'10" and around 150 Lbs soaking wet when I was in and most guys I knew were similar...there were big guys here and there, but most guys were pretty small.1 -
As a cadet, I was 5'11" and 195# So when we went to the field to play Army before I was on active duty, I always carried the M60 (showing my age.)
So being a bit bigger was fun sometimes and a pain most of the time.
I could be one of the last to leave the aircraft and still be one of the first on the ground. Gravity and the same size parachutes for everyone worked that waycwolfman13 wrote: »mom23mangos wrote: »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.
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.
I 100% agree with this. My very initial reaction was that is was of course going to be very skewed towards big, young guys. While I could probably pass the heavy physical demand score, it's going to be a lot harder for me than for a 200lb muscled man. HOWEVER, when you are out there in the field, it doesn't matter what size you are, you are going to be required to pull the same weight as the person next to you, regardless of their size. I'm all for equal opportunity and having one scale for me makes things equal. It may not be equally easy for someone to pass, but everyone that passes will need to perform at an equal standard. If I were in the military, I'd better be able to carry/drag my 200+lb buddy to safety if necessary.
Interestingly enough, most military guys aren't hugely muscular and/or heavy. The vast majority of training in the military is cardiovascular and endurance in nature. Unless someone is purposely going to the gym, most strength exercise is body weight. If you're in a combat unit, it can actually be hard to keep on weight let alone bulk because you're constantly training and moving.
I was 5'10" and around 150 Lbs soaking wet when I was in and most guys I knew were similar...there were big guys here and there, but most guys were pretty small.
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.
Assuming they have the required strength which is what the test looks for and reason it is gender neutral1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 914 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions