When I attended Basic Training in 1985 you could still see the physical remains of the old Army PT test (run, dodge and jump, the inverted crawl, the horizontal ladder, two mile run in boots). One of the reasons they had moved away from the previous test was that it required apparatus, like the horizontal ladder and set up for the Run Dodge & Jump event. So there would be these little sections of pits and hitching post looking things scattered around. We of course, we’re in a modern Army using a newer 3 event Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) consisting of the Push up, Sit up and 2-mile Run. This test has remained since the early 80s with minor tweaks in expected form as well as more stringent scores.
But over the years, the Army has made several moves to institute a test focused more on functional fitness. Every few years the idea comes up, everyone gets excited and just as soon it’s shelved. The usual reasons are that it is too expensive to implement or that it wouldn’t be “fair” across the force, particularly if different MOSs conducted different tests. This last argument holds particular concern as PT performance has been tied to promotion in one way or another.
In 2011 the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command came to the epiphany “that Soldiers are better prepared if they train how they would fight.” They decided that this extended to physical fitness as well. According to an Army press release, “A five-event Army Physical Readiness Test was developed and proposed to replace the current three-event APFT. The proposed test eliminated situps and included the following: 60-yard shuttle run, one-minute rower, standing long jump, one-minute pushup and 1.5-mile run.
More than 10,000 Soldiers worldwide participated in pilot testing of the APRT. After reviewing the data, TRADOC commissioned an independent panel to validate the proposed five-event APRT.”
It looked like the Army was going to implement the switch to this new test this year. But then, a “panel of fitness experts from the Department of Physical Education at U.S. Military Academy, the U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command, and California State University-Fullerton recommended against moving forward with the proposed five-event APRT and that TRADOC further study the issue.”
Their concern is that this new 5 event test might not properly measure Soldier fitness. Rightly so, “TRADOC has determined that baseline Soldier physical readiness would be most effectively measured if linked to Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills — tasks and drills determined over the last decade of war to be critical while conducting unified land operations.”
In October, yet another study will be conducted. In the interim, “TRADOC is preparing to reestablish the master fitness trainer program. Targeting non-commissioned officers, this program, discontinued in 2001, will eventually provide commanders at all levels certified fitness advisors. A pilot master fitness training course begins Aug. 27, 2012, to ensure that the appropriate steps are taken to restore this previously successful physical fitness asset to all units.”
Ironically, as the Army retains it’s 3-event APFT in use for 3 decades and reinstitutes the Master Fitness Trainer program, TRADOC Command Sergeant Major Daniel A Dailey has the gall to say, “It’s time to break the culture of ‘training to the test’ and focus instead on preparing all Soldiers for the physical challenges of the current and future operating environment.”
We were starting to see a trend where the military looked at its personnel as athletes and with that realization a move toward functional fitness. Hopefully, this decision by the Army to stay with the status quo is a careful step toward greatness but instead, it feels like an attempt to remain stagnant.
In all honesty I think this form of PT test will save lives. It’s just like anything, you do it enough times and it becomes ingrained in your memory and you just react. I mean, are you going to be doing situps in the battlefield? Or running a few miles in your boots and dodging for cover when a shot rings out? I elect for the new Pt test because I know when I was in it felt like I was at The Biggest Loser competition.
When I was in ROTC back in the 90’s the standard PT test was surprisingly difficult to complete. We were ingrained to exceed the max scores and this was also the gateway for other activities and training. The PT test was just that a test of physical endurance not a substitute for other training. The only thing i would have changed would have been to add pullups. The reason is for muscular balance. I fail to see how the new test promotes this. And it still seems that the overall new test is looking to be a substitute for training. The PT test is just a PT test. Develop skills tests for other things. I also find it interesting that the UBRR is not being universally adopted. That would seem to be a more realistic test of the physical needs a soldier would require.
That new PT test, with five events, is just nuts. They might as well adopt LAWFIT from the damn Cops. If anything, they should keep the three events, and make them pull ups, the rower, and a run
I say implement the 5 event test, again it incoporates full range of body mechanics that you may see again in a combat operational setting versus as stated pushup, situps and run. I apply the three areas in my PT regiment for Soldiers but i also incorporate days throughout the week that utilizes full uniform physical fitnees in boots and incorportate alot of pull up/ rope climbs and wall climbs with full kit and casualty play. I concur the 3 event is stagnate.
It’s five events but I could do this easily. Suck it up. Granted, some of these tests really don’t make sense, and it tells me they just had some random yoo-hoo come up with something.
The current PT test is to test general fitness and it does a decent job of that…why we have not taken the nod from our cousins in the Corps, the Canadians or the British and implemented one of the current combat fitness tests I do not understand..
What gets me the most about this on again off again pt test change is the fact that an entirely new army wide program for physical fitness has been designed around preparing soldiers to be more ‘well rounded’ (I think it’s terrible, but hey, whatever.) and then decide that its better left in the hands of the units. Also, the yardstick for measuring progress, the new pt test, has been declared a no go for now, so we train and then are tested on a set of criteria outside the scope of our awful ‘don’t do too many reps and make sure that you don’t get hurt’ program has now.
Why does it have to be one or the other? Let’s take a hint from the Corps and use a three event test to measure endurance, and a more elaborate event to test functional fitness.
That seems to be a disturbing trend. As soon as we adopt something “New” the “Old” must never be spoken of again….
Just because there is a new and better way to do things doesn’t mean the old methods don’t have merit of value. Just because the old methods work fine doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep looking for newer and better methods.
How about we just start passing (maxing) our PT test? Then use the rest of the year to train for combat? If you’re physically fit, as you should be, it shouldn’t be an issue.
Well, according to Army fitness experts, the true test of cardio fitness is a 1.5 mile run. Those of the old guard took issue, and changed it a 2 mile run, claiming it is a gut-check. That was the dumbest thing that I had ever heard of. The current test favors skinny runners. Lets do a ruck-march with 100 lbs, for record. Then we will see who can hang.
Meh, the USMC employs a 3 mile run. Sure plenty of the smaller guys finish first, but a few of my friends and I are bigger, and have finished under 18:00.
if you get a chance, look up on the artofmanliness.com the old PT test from WW2…this was before tennis shoes and the test had two venues, indoor and outdoor. For a troop in Alaska like me, that indoor test is a great idea! Only equipment needed was a pull up bar and running area. Wonder if the army would go back to it.
Every time hear that something needs more study all I can think about is that the entity saying it wants more grant money to study whatever it is. The Army is trying to find a perfect solution that will never come. Hopefully the’ll find something better then what they have, soon.
I’m gonna be the guy in the room to recognize the elephant who’s standing in here with us all. At the end of the day it has to be “fair” because it’s tied to promotion and your NCOER. But let’s face it life is not fair! Is it fair that the female PAC clerk who sucks down coffee and donuts all day and is allowed to do less on her APFT gets the same amount of pay that an 11B who humps a ruck and is chastised and berated for not maxing his APFT? Eleven years of continued combat, it would appear, has taught us nothing. We are still catering to the lowest common denominator, the slow fat kid who can’t walk up that 14,000′ mountain but gets promoted along with everyone else.
The solution in our current “no child left behind” politically correct world is not going to happen. When you enter the US Army you choose your MOS, you understand (unless you were screwed by an POS recruiter) what your job will entail thus I recommend making combat arms specific APFT requirements and non-combat arms APFT requirements. We should be promoting the fighting spirit, promoting winners! Make them maintain a higher standard, the bottom line is we have men that shoot people in the face and we have people behind the scenes that make sure their pay is straight, lets maintain the force and promote (equally within chosen career tracts) based on that known fact.
My background is 20 years combat arms with over 6 years of combat experience.
Yep, you nailed it.
I prefer the idea of having one standard but setting it reasonably high, no reason why anyone with desk bound MOS shouldn’t conform to the same standards as the rest of the Army. The difference should be in how much your PFT counts in your cutting score for promotions, for combat arms your combat score should matter more than say things like keeping your uniform neat, or passing barrack inspections and the reverse should be true for rear echelon/non-deploying troops like band, state-side admin, and other who will almost certainly never have to touch their rifle outside of rifle qual. This will mean, in theory, a fitter Army overall and will make for support troops that will be better able to keep up with their combat arms counterparts.
This further study recommendation needs a closer look. I noticed West Point included (my alma mater) and that got my interest because the standards WERE much higher than the Army’s.
Academy candidates fitness is evaluated with a shuttle run, standing long jump, basketball throw from the kneeling position and pullups. After arriving cadets were required to pass a pretty challenging indoor obstacle course in their later years (IOCT). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoor_Obstacle_Course_Test
PT tests were taken to exacting standards and a score of 213 got you PT summer school before ’97 when it was lowered to the Army standard of 180 (ridiculous).
Seems contradictory that the Academy that uses various tests to evaluate cadets would recommend the Army engage in further study. What gives?
I have my suspicions and it revolves around gender.
Fact of the matter is that a troop who can max the current 3-event APFT (in her/his age group–or making a good showing in the 17-22 YO scale) is in great physical condition. And no, s/he won’t be doing situps on the battlefield, but s/he WILL be executing movements and maneuvers that stress those musculoskeletal components.
In 28 years of service I’ve met ONE troop who “trained to the test” for the PT test. He was the embodiment of the Cold War “Sidewalk Soldier” cliche, and was punished for that thinking with a plumb assignment to a US Embassy. His issues with functional fitness were purely psychological, and his leadership served as an enabler.
As subordinate commands can do across the board, units can can add to (not subtract from) the minimal baseline standard. The slightly goofy TC 3-22.20 actually has a pretty broad range of pre-habilitative functional fitness routines for Leaders who want to train their Soldiers, but are stuck in units that don’t devote the time, talent or vision to good programs or use CRM as an excuse not to train.
One of my best 2 Mile Run times came a couple weeks after completing the Bataan Death March–when I cut my running mileage in half so I’d have more time to ruck. And though I can easily max the Sit-up event, I rarely do them when training because of the toll they take on my back.
Soldiers in marginal physical condition are a symptom of weak leadership (Squad level on up), not an APFT that quickly and sustainably assesses physical conditioning.
As someone in the Strength and Conditioning field, I can say with confidence that the sit-up is not a perfect exercise for a profession as dynamic as one in the military.
From what I can see of the 5 event test, the shuttle run and 1.5 mile run make more sense than the row, standing long jump, and one minute push-up.
The shuttle run and 1.5 mile run can translate well to a foot patrol, mixing both aerobic and anaroebic strength and efficiency.
However, I don’t see how the row directly translates to the Army profession. Nor do I see how push ups do either.
When this test was first proposed, I thought that the standing long jump didn’t make any sense. It’s easy to see why they’re essentially going back to the drawing board. Too many of these events require specific training, which would take away from the goals they are trying to achieve as far as functional fitness is concerned. We want people to focus on engaging with a combat load, not how far they can jump from standing.
Tests like the Corps’ CFT are far more appropriate, and I don’t see how it will cost more, save the time used. Perhaps they should be looking at events like fireman’s carry, ammo drag, etc.
As far as it being “unfair” to others in the Army, that kind of thinking tells me some are afraid of failing because they are weak. That’s ridiculous and unacceptable. You either hit the standard, or you fail-there is no room for error in combat, and military testing should reflect that.
It is too bad the test got shelved, but I am happy to see that it at least appears that it is being worked on actively.
Another thought-the current test is too similar to a test I would administer to a previously sedentary individual-it’s used to pinpoint health conditions, not fitness levels.
What remains is that the NCO must ensure that his/her Soldiers are prepared for combat.
We Tailor our training to ensure it. We train the APFT, AND the battle focused PT. I had tremendous success with this before my deployment with the Stryker BDE in 2005.
I know that is ancient history, but my point is that the Big Army is slow to change, if ever, and it will be up to our smart NCOs to execute the physical training that supports the combat mission. It is also the task of the comissioned officer to support the NCO at the Company and Batallion level.
Now that is the challenge, we have to find a way to do it all.
Think about the evolution of marksmanship, PT training must change to support the mission. Waiting on the Army to do it for you will be a massive mistake.
25 year NCO veteran, combat arms.
The biggest part of the problem is that we haven’t got objective standards; we shouldn’t be doing a test that says “lift your own body weight X number of times”, or “move your own body weight X distance in Y time”.
That’s great as a benchmark for fitness. But, that’s not how things work in the real world, where there isn’t a proportionately lighter combat load for a smaller person, or a magically lightened machine gun for a smaller gunner.
Gender? Could care less. Question is, can you do the job? The APFT does not test this question even remotely. It does not test to an objective standard, like “Can this Soldier repetitively lift seventy pounds over their heads”, or “Can this Soldier hump a ruck ten miles, and then still be able to function as a part of a team on a construction project?”. Personal fitness is all well and good, but if your body isn’t capable of humping 150 pound loads over long distances for days at a time, well… What’s the point of the test, again?
The APFT was and is a cop-out–An easily administered, easily explained, and easily justified answer to the question of whether or not a given individual was physically fit. Unfortunately, the answer it gives is horribly incomplete, and not what we need.
I had a bunch of APFT studs work for me, over the years. Some were able to hack the rest of the job, but a bunch weren’t–Yet, could pass the APFT with flying colors. Try getting the guy who flakes out on the bridge construction site into remedial PT when he can’t hold up his end of the carrying tongs over the course of the day, but can max the APFT. Don’t even start me on the gender-related issues, either.
I agree with some others. There needs to be a standardize combat fitness test and imho this should be implemented in the combat arms units.
Get rid of gender biased scoring because every Soldier is required to do the same job in their MOS regardless. Soon enough women will be eligible for all combat positions and they should be scored accordingly and objectively. Tailoring physical test scoring to meet recruiting and retention goals is absurd.
I will say from personal experience and training Soldiers that before entering the Army I could easily max the APFT 300+ every time even after an hour workout, but I could not ruck, move quickly with body armor, or evacuate a wounded buddy. After a while I became much stronger and in better physical shape with a lower APFT score, but I was overall in “fighting” shape. Likewise I have seen marathon runners destory the APFT but fall out of a light/slow walk with body armor.
The current APFT is fine if you are only going to work stateside in an office, ala TRADOC. It will help keep you marginally healthy and looking good in uniform.
Maybe the Army should move to a TDA and TOE fitness division with 2 different tests.