PDA

View Full Version : PT in the Army



CommunityEditor
04-25-2008, 10:56 PM
Other services are revamping the requirements and expectations, but what about the Army? Are changes needed? If so, what would you recommend?

jay_ellis04
04-30-2008, 07:48 PM
While the current APFT is not in itself entirely flawed, in my honest opinion it is a little outdated and doesn't focus on the current missions that are seen on a day to day basis. As a veteran of OIF, no where did we run 2 miles. No where did we do pushups. No where did we do situps. As these are all great baselines in order to detemine a Soldier's fitness, I think a few things should be added, while keeping the old events the same or revamping them a little.

For instance, a 100m sprint event should be introduced. Many of the firefights/actions in today's battlefields involving urban operations require Soldiers under fire to sprint from cover to cover, covering shorter distances at faster speeds.

Introduce the pull-up. I don't know how many times while conducting raids, we were required to scale walls and other obstacles where pushups did absolutely nothing for those particular muscle groups.

I don't think that we should introduce something as ridiculous as the Marine CFT (I have a brother in the Marines and I work with them and they are of the same mind set), as it is absolutely unnecessary in its entire structure. I do, however, think that we should add to the current APFT.

Lastly, I think that the male/female standards should be drawn closer together. I say this upon the simple basis that both male and female soldiers are required to accomplish the same missions, so therefore, why not have one set standard, or one very close to it, accurately reflecting the requirements of our Soldiers, not based upon gender. Bullets don't discriminate, why should we?

Sgt Grandpa
05-13-2008, 08:55 PM
While the current APFT is not in itself entirely flawed, in my honest opinion it is a little outdated and doesn't focus on the current missions that are seen on a day to day basis. As a veteran of OIF, no where did we run 2 miles. No where did we do pushups. No where did we do situps. As these are all great baselines in order to detemine a Soldier's fitness, I think a few things should be added, while keeping the old events the same or revamping them a little./QUOTE]
Well the PT test is more about endurance, but I agree on the running part. I havea P-2 for my knees, soI have to walk 2.5 miles. I would, and I thnk I could, rather do the sprints myself. Keep the sit-up, just change HOW it is preformed. Use the Navy version of Arms across the chest instead of behind the head. Many neck injuries may have started due to this (I know for sure it happened to me, hence the titanium rod in my neck). as for thepush, well Ijust don't know either way on that one.

QUOTE=jay_ellis04;97701]Introduce the pull-up. I don't know how many times while conducting raids, we were required to scale walls and other obstacles where pushups did absolutely nothing for those particular muscle groups./QUOTE] Navy used to do that, but didn't score it. It was more like a "we need to see if you can" item.

QUOTE=jay_ellis04;97701]Lastly, I think that the male/female standards should be drawn closer together. I say this upon the simple basis that both male and female soldiers are required to accomplish the same missions, so therefore, why not have one set standard, or one very close to it, accurately reflecting the requirements of our Soldiers, not based upon gender. Bullets don't discriminate, why should we?
ok so Bullets are EO compliant... but the standards should be based on height weight, not sex. somebody that is 6'11' had better be able to run faster than the person that is 5'7.25" tall. And the 188 lb soldier should be able to lift more than the 102 lb one.

Measure Man
05-13-2008, 09:04 PM
Lastly, I think that the male/female standards should be drawn closer together. I say this upon the simple basis that both male and female soldiers are required to accomplish the same missions, so therefore, why not have one set standard, or one very close to it, accurately reflecting the requirements of our Soldiers, not based upon gender. Bullets don't discriminate, why should we?

Because they are NOT job performance standards...they are fitness standards.

An equally fit man and equally fit women perform differently. The standards and not designed nor intended to measure your ability to do your job...there are other standards for that, depending on your job.

Fitness standards are designed to measure you health fitness...and those things are different for women than they are for men.

jay_ellis04
05-14-2008, 01:55 AM
ok so Bullets are EO compliant... but the standards should be based on height weight, not sex. somebody that is 6'11' had better be able to run faster than the person that is 5'7.25" tall. And the 188 lb soldier should be able to lift more than the 102 lb one.

Excellent thought. I like it! Makes a whole lot of sense. However, (and this would cause more study by the defunct Physical Fitness School), it may not hurt to put body composition into that factor as well, meaning that a 6'6" guy weighing in at 190 and a 6'6" guy weighing in at 245 shouldn't be expected to run the same speed. I'm not talking about fat soldiers either.

jay_ellis04
05-14-2008, 01:58 AM
Because they are NOT job performance standards...they are fitness standards.

An equally fit man and equally fit women perform differently. The standards and not designed nor intended to measure your ability to do your job...there are other standards for that, depending on your job.

Fitness standards are designed to measure you health fitness...and those things are different for women than they are for men.


That's crap and I've heard that same excuse for 13 years. I have seen female Soldiers PT circles around their male peers in ALL categories. On more than one occasion I have seen older female Soldiers in the 32-36 age scale score 300 on their PT test...in the 17-21 Male category. I've heard it time and time again. I'm sick of hearing that old rhyme.

Measure Man
05-14-2008, 09:26 PM
That's crap and I've heard that same excuse for 13 years. I have seen female Soldiers PT circles around their male peers in ALL categories. On more than one occasion I have seen older female Soldiers in the 32-36 age scale score 300 on their PT test...in the 17-21 Male category. I've heard it time and time again. I'm sick of hearing that old rhyme.

The exception does not prove anything...

So, you've heard it for 13 years and still don't get it...

Note I said...males and females of EQUAL fitness can do different things. Sure, females of superior fitness can exceed male minimum standards...that proves nothing. You feel like ALL females should match what the top females can do because some can do it... Might as well have ALL males match what the top males can do. I mean I know men that can swim 2 miles, bike 100 miles, then run 26.2 miles...so maybe all males should have to do that.

Maybe you would prefer having the same fitness standard for flexibility...and see how many of the females can put their forehead on their knees...and dock points from the males who can't do the same thing....I mean heck...flexibility is at least as an important aspect of overall fitness...

Men and women are different!

Job Performance standards should be and are the same...if you need to perform to a certain level to be in a certain job...those things are the same....fitness standards are not and should not be the same.

jay_ellis04
05-14-2008, 11:01 PM
The exception does not prove anything...

So, you've heard it for 13 years and still don't get it...

Note I said...males and females of EQUAL fitness can do different things. Sure, females of superior fitness can exceed male minimum standards...that proves nothing. You feel like ALL females should match what the top females can do because some can do it... Might as well have ALL males match what the top males can do. I mean I know men that can swim 2 miles, bike 100 miles, then run 26.2 miles...so maybe all males should have to do that.

Maybe you would prefer having the same fitness standard for flexibility...and see how many of the females can put their forehead on their knees...and dock points from the males who can't do the same thing....I mean heck...flexibility is at least as an important aspect of overall fitness...

Men and women are different!

Job Performance standards should be and are the same...if you need to perform to a certain level to be in a certain job...those things are the same....fitness standards are not and should not be the same.



You keep coming with the "job performance" thing. In that respect, and I am being objective here, a PAC clerk, regardless of sex, should not be required to achieve the same standards as say, an Infantryman, or and Infantryman the same as a Ranger...etc. etc. etc. I used those examples as that, examples. My reasoning behind this (and I know that "body composition" is a huge factor between males and females), is that if they can't cut the mustard, get out. Quit pandering to the baseless nonsense and treat EVERYONE as Soldiers, not MALE and FEMALE Soldiers. We have uniform standards, weapons qualification standards, and so forth. Standards are standards and should be the same, or EXTREMELY close, straight across the board. You pander to one group of individuals, it's nothing more than reverse discrimination.

That being said, this particular discussion is pointless because of the Politically Correct pinheads that try to make everyone happy, while screwing the ones over that actually give a shit. Our Army is degrading, and degrading swiftly. I saw a photograph yesterday that really put me off to our current "standards" of fitness. The photograph was of a male Soldier (rank unknown), in PT gear in a Dining Facility, apparently in theatre as the individual who snapped the photograph was a Marine. This particular Soldier was SO overweight, (bear with me here, I'm not trying to piss anyone off), that his "man-boobs" were literally swallowing the sling of his rifle. His gut and sides were falling over his shorts so badly, that he could hardly keep his shirt tucked in. I am NOT in any wise picking on females in this particular thread at all. We have standards for a reason, and THIS is why we need ONE SET STANDARD! If you are going to allow some random fat ass in the Army, deployed, to a combat zone, then screw it, do away with PT altogether.

smarg
05-15-2008, 01:38 AM
First of all, the Army needs to completely de-emphasize the 'PT mania' that is embedded in its culture...it taxes units' budget and medical injury statuses at an unGodly rate. However, since screaming careerists rule the Army, methinks this rotten culture will always haunt and pull down our great Army.

Second, the Army needs to shyt-can the promotion photo pronto. It is totally discriminatory and racist. Personal biases with race, skin tone, body shape, and personal attractiveness always come into play. This is a leftover of the old Jim Crow days when the promotion boards wanted to see exactly who was up for the next rank.

Biglew97
05-15-2008, 02:00 AM
Something to keep in mind is that physical fitness is necessary.

Physical Fitness helps soldiers deal with stress better as well as heal quicker from injuries as well as injury prevention.

Now as to standards, for example I am 6' and weigh 205, scored nearly 300 every PT test, I scored well under the body fat percentage. Now for whatever dumb reason, I was taped at every weigh in because I exceeded the Height weight standards.

I never had a job performance issue, actually excel in the field because I can carry my weight and then some, but I witnessed soldiers that got a pass thru and barely scored 250 on their PT test, and struggle with job performance in the "Field."

As a Combat Engineer, it is imperative to perform, if you can't ,you threaten the mission, you become a liability, or soldiers like my self end up pulling the "dead" weight.

I think the standards should reflect Job specific performance markers intituted by the assigned unit, for instance, if you are in an airborne unit, you must demonstrate a "JUMP" proficiency, of sorts....

As for practicality, I know that there isn't a whole bunch of 25 mile road marches but like someone has mentioned, I think there should be a 40 yard dash standard and a pull up standard, those skills are "Practical."

Just to be argumentative, in WWII a soldier had to be no less than 6' tall to serve as an MP because size was a psychological factor in maintaining order, also in Vietnam most tunnel rats were smaller guys like 5'3, and not to exclude the Airforce, they have found that some of the best pilots are smaller and have more compact frames like what women posses. So to the argument that certain physiologies have to be considered, I agree, but they should also possibly exclude candidates...

jay_ellis04
05-15-2008, 03:58 AM
First of all, the Army needs to completely de-emphasize the 'PT mania' that is embedded in its culture...it taxes units' budget and medical injury statuses at an unGodly rate. However, since screaming careerists rule the Army, methinks this rotten culture will always haunt and pull down our great Army.

Second, the Army needs to shyt-can the promotion photo pronto. It is totally discriminatory and racist. Personal biases with race, skin tone, body shape, and personal attractiveness always come into play. This is a leftover of the old Jim Crow days when the promotion boards wanted to see exactly who was up for the next rank.


Sorry, as this is a bit off topic, but how is the photo discriminatory and racist? Could you please expound upon that? As a recent selectee for the SFC Board, I KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if my promotion hinged on a dang photo, I'd probably STILL be a Private, cuz I'm one short, bald, ugly SOB. I think that it is IMPERATIVE that the photo is used, and if you remember back to the older days, just a couple of years ago, they have revamped the photo, in that you see from the waist up, versus, the entire Soldier. This accomplishes a couple of things:

1: Better able to gauge if the Soldier does indeed meet weight standards, i.e., is not fat.
2: Better able to see what that Soldier has accomplished by being better able to see that individual's personal awards.
3: Better able to gauge if that NCO KNOWS what he is doing, by being able to better see if the Soldier's uniform is correct and accurately reflects the data in the SRB.

From many of your posts, dude, you are ONE disgruntled fella with a problem with EVERYTHING. What are you doing HERE? I attempt to refrain from personal attacks, but to blatantly call our current promotion system racist, is WAY off. Discriminatory, yes, it is, as it should be, for it DISCRIMINATES the good ones from the dirtbags.

Measure Man
05-15-2008, 04:52 PM
You keep coming with the "job performance" thing. In that respect, and I am being objective here, a PAC clerk, regardless of sex, should not be required to achieve the same standards as say, an Infantryman, or and Infantryman the same as a Ranger...etc. etc. etc. I used those examples as that, examples.

I agree 100%. I look at it this way...the PT standards the are the MINIMUM for every MOS. Many MOS's have standards BEYOND those...such as Rangers!


My reasoning behind this (and I know that "body composition" is a huge factor between males and females), is that if they can't cut the mustard, get out. Quit pandering to the baseless nonsense and treat EVERYONE as Soldiers, not MALE and FEMALE Soldiers. We have uniform standards, weapons qualification standards, and so forth. Standards are standards and should be the same, or EXTREMELY close, straight across the board. You pander to one group of individuals, it's nothing more than reverse discrimination.

You have different uniform (I know, an oxymoron) standards. Or maybe you want all soldiers to maintain a Class A with skirt and pumps? Hair grooming standards are different...jewelry standards are different etc., etc.


That being said, this particular discussion is pointless because of the Politically Correct pinheads that try to make everyone happy, while screwing the ones over that actually give a shit. Our Army is degrading, and degrading swiftly. I saw a photograph yesterday that really put me off to our current "standards" of fitness. The photograph was of a male Soldier (rank unknown), in PT gear in a Dining Facility, apparently in theatre as the individual who snapped the photograph was a Marine. This particular Soldier was SO overweight, (bear with me here, I'm not trying to piss anyone off), that his "man-boobs" were literally swallowing the sling of his rifle.

Okay, so this guy had man-boobs...under your system males and females should be treated the same...do you want to allow his man-boobs or not allow women to have boobs?


His gut and sides were falling over his shorts so badly, that he could hardly keep his shirt tucked in. I am NOT in any wise picking on females in this particular thread at all. We have standards for a reason, and THIS is why we need ONE SET STANDARD! If you are going to allow some random fat ass in the Army, deployed, to a combat zone, then screw it, do away with PT altogether.

that photo doesn't tell you what actions were being taken against that soldier as a result of his fitness, or lack thereof. Let's face it...not everyone meets standards, that's what corrective action is for. It's certainly not a reason to do away with the standard...maybe the guy in the photo was being processed for discharge?

Sgt Grandpa
05-15-2008, 07:20 PM
I for one say that the PT standard is under developed. Every service has their own version of the test, for various reasons. So lets start there, make the STANDARD PT test the STANDARD for all services. I probably am going to get flamed for this, but hey it's my opinion so get over it (lol). I digress...
I agree that the (1.5, 2, 3) mile run is taxing on military members. And it does cause more injury than help to them. Look at the conditions of the trail you run on. Some are smooth and hard, others are loose clumps of rock, while others have more dip and hills than a BMX course. sure we are going to encounter these terrain features, but are we really going to RUN with a full load for that long, that far to meet the enemy? NOT!!! Regardless of how healthy you are, you would still be exhausted by the time you got there. So make it a 40 meter sprint... its tough, but at least you risk less chance of injury.

the sit up has to be adjusted. Get rid of the ol' neck pull, cause I can tell you first hand it does injure your neck. Heck the Navy went to cross arm and injuries decreased, while the Army still enforces the "neck lacing". Try them both ways on your own, then tell me which works better and feels more comfortable.

The push-up has to be the one to stay. I agree with all services have to measure up body endurance.

Add the Pull up as well, because it does utilize a different muscle grouping. I know guys that can push all day, but can't pull themselves up more than 10 times on a bar (and I don't mean a drinking establishment).

the reason I say make it for all services is simply due to crossing over to other branches. At least going in, you already know what is to be expected in at least one area, plus it emphasises that while we may be different, we all are the same in certain areas. Kinda like the UCMJ which we all fall under regardless of the service we are in.

DIAMONDTIM
05-21-2008, 09:53 PM
I agree about the photo of the overweight guy in PT. You do not know if something is already being done. I watched a documentary about a National Guard unit being sent to Iraq. I watched as they were training for thewir mission, and I was astonished to see how many overweight Guards were being sent out. This is not to mention the complete lack of military bearing of this unit.

What can you expect when your CO is probably you daddy's good ole boy across the street who comes over to your house to hang out and drink beer.

This man may have been a National Guard or Reservist as well, which seems to have some slack standards for their civilian soldiers. I have always believed the Reserves and National Guard need to spend more than one weekend a month and two weeks a year training.

kojack
05-25-2008, 01:53 AM
I.ve trained tens of thousands of Soldiers over the last 30 years and will say the Army needs to raise and enforce fitness and strength standards among women. Crew served weapons come to mind, specifically the .50 cal heavy MG. I lost track of the number of clueless, giggling female troops that couldnt lift the tripod let alone the gun and were assigned to the weapon. Clueless to the point of being dangerous. When the company leadership was advised to get the female crew assigned to the weapon some basic strength training and "warriored up", the women were simply reassigned making the problem "go away".

There is a small percentage of women that really do keep up (and in a few cases exceed) most male troopers in stamina and fitness, strength but in reality its the other way. The trouble is, you will NEVER hear anthing negative about any aspect of the large numbers of women we now have in the ground forces. Major problems are there but the topic is so PC its not even discussed when it causes readiness issues. Life is just another sunny day with mommies in uniform....

smarg
05-25-2008, 01:28 PM
The trouble is, you will NEVER hear anthing negative about any aspect of the large numbers of women we now have in the ground forces. Major problems are there but the topic is so PC its not even discussed when it causes readiness issues. Life is just another sunny day with mommies in uniform....

You can thank former CO Congresswoman Pat Schroeder for the forced integration of women in military roles not suited for them.

But, if you think the Army has it bad, just look at our Navy brothers. EVERYTHING they said would go bad if they put them (females) on ships, did. Prostitution and favoritism run rampant. It's a shame.

CommunityEditor
05-27-2008, 11:14 PM
Opinion: Tweak PT test (Tweak PT test)


The current Army Physical Fitness Test does not translate into physical fitness for today’s battlefield. Soldiers must have upper body strength and endurance, core body strength and endurance, and cardiovascular endurance to perform their missions.

“But I can’t run where I am stationed” is not a valid excuse. Get out the ALICE [all-purpose individual lightweight carrying equipment] pack or MOLLE [modular lightweight load-carrying equipment], put weight in it (less than 33 percent of body weight) and perform cardio work using squats, lunges, dead-man lifts, raises, calf raises, etc., in timed sets with minimal rest between sets. Special Forces has been doing it for years.

Four recommended improvements for the current APFT:

• Cardiovascular endurance. Change current two-mile run to a three-mile run. Reason: Running three miles is a better measure of endurance than running two miles. The Marines have this right in their physical fitness test.

• Cardiovascular endurance. Add a one- or two-mile 25-pound body armor and/or backpack weight power walk. Reason: Walking with weight that is less than 33 percent of body weight builds strong cardiovascular endurance and muscular endurance for all core body groups.

• Cardiovascular high-intensity endurance. Recommended in addition to the run and/or weighted walk, have five 100-meter sprints with thirty second rest intervals between sprints. Reason: Troops need to have the ability to sprint in addition to regular cardiovascular endurance when performing patrols or other missions.

• Muscular strength. Pull-ups would be a great additional test, but the downside outweighs the benefits. The need to have a pull-up bar means you can’t do this exercise anywhere, can’t do it when it’s raining and can’t it do when it’s cold.

No physical fitness test is perfect, but what is great about the current APFT is it is easy to administer anywhere, is easy to interpret and provides a great baseline for Army physical fitness requirements in garrison and on the battlefield.

With the addition of some or all of these recommendations, the APFT will be an even better tool for our soldiers.

Former Capt. Lee A. Kind
Fairfax Station, Va.

Article: http://www.militarytimes.com/community/opinion/army_opinion_pt_052608/

Sgt Grandpa
05-28-2008, 04:08 PM
Opinion: Tweak PT test (Tweak PT test)


[I]The current Army Physical Fitness Test does not translate into physical fitness for today’s battlefield. Soldiers must have upper body strength and endurance, core body strength and endurance, and cardiovascular endurance to perform their missions.
OK, I can agree that we need fit soldiers to carry the fight, but which is more important... how good they look or how well they can do the job at hand?


“But I can’t run where I am stationed” is not a valid excuse. Get out the ALICE [all-purpose individual lightweight carrying equipment] pack or MOLLE [modular lightweight load-carrying equipment], put weight in it (less than 33 percent of body weight) and perform cardio work using squats, lunges, dead-man lifts, raises, calf raises, etc., in timed sets with minimal rest between sets. Special Forces has been doing it for years.
And that is why they are SPECIAL FORCES. By your reasoning we should all be jump qualified, have tabs all over the uniform, and everyone should have a master fitness badge. Lets face it, we are not all built the same way and a 19yr old should be in better shape than a 40yr old.


Four recommended improvements for the current APFT:

• Cardiovascular endurance. Change current two-mile run to a three-mile run. Reason: Running three miles is a better measure of endurance than running two miles. The Marines have this right in their physical fitness test.
I refer to my earlier post about the damages sustained due to varying running areas disrepair.


• Cardiovascular endurance. Add a one- or two-mile 25-pound body armor and/or backpack weight power walk. Reason: Walking with weight that is less than 33 percent of body weight builds strong cardiovascular endurance and muscular endurance for all core body groups.
Hey I like that especially since I have no cartiledge in my knees from running in combat boots all those years. Wait why don't we just do that for regular PT once a week... oh some units do that already?


• Cardiovascular high-intensity endurance. Recommended in addition to the run and/or weighted walk, have five 100-meter sprints with thirty second rest intervals between sprints. Reason: Troops need to have the ability to sprint in addition to regular cardiovascular endurance when performing patrols or other missions.
No qulams with this actually, even "broke" soldiers may be able to accomplish this for the most part.


• Muscular strength. Pull-ups would be a great additional test, but the downside outweighs the benefits. The need to have a pull-up bar means you can’t do this exercise anywhere, can’t do it when it’s raining and can’t it do when it’s cold.
no comment


No physical fitness test is perfect, but what is great about the current APFT is it is easy to administer anywhere, is easy to interpret and provides a great baseline for Army physical fitness requirements in garrison and on the battlefield.
hmm, lets see...doing a PT test on a FOB in Afghanistan that gets mortared everyday... or between convoys in Tikrit, or after 23 days doing cordon search?? Doing it at home is a lot safer.


With the addition of some or all of these recommendations, the APFT will be an even better tool for our soldiers.

Former Capt. Lee A. Kind
Fairfax Station, Va.

Article: http://www.militarytimes.com/community/opinion/army_opinion_pt_052608/
FORMER Capt? Did he get the boot for failing a PT test?

jay_ellis04
05-29-2008, 01:05 AM
Opinion: Tweak PT test (Tweak PT test)


The current Army Physical Fitness Test does not translate into physical fitness for today’s battlefield. Soldiers must have upper body strength and endurance, core body strength and endurance, and cardiovascular endurance to perform their missions.

“But I can’t run where I am stationed” is not a valid excuse. Get out the ALICE [all-purpose individual lightweight carrying equipment] pack or MOLLE [modular lightweight load-carrying equipment], put weight in it (less than 33 percent of body weight) and perform cardio work using squats, lunges, dead-man lifts, raises, calf raises, etc., in timed sets with minimal rest between sets. Special Forces has been doing it for years.

Four recommended improvements for the current APFT:

• Cardiovascular endurance. Change current two-mile run to a three-mile run. Reason: Running three miles is a better measure of endurance than running two miles. The Marines have this right in their physical fitness test.

• Cardiovascular endurance. Add a one- or two-mile 25-pound body armor and/or backpack weight power walk. Reason: Walking with weight that is less than 33 percent of body weight builds strong cardiovascular endurance and muscular endurance for all core body groups.

• Cardiovascular high-intensity endurance. Recommended in addition to the run and/or weighted walk, have five 100-meter sprints with thirty second rest intervals between sprints. Reason: Troops need to have the ability to sprint in addition to regular cardiovascular endurance when performing patrols or other missions.

• Muscular strength. Pull-ups would be a great additional test, but the downside outweighs the benefits. The need to have a pull-up bar means you can’t do this exercise anywhere, can’t do it when it’s raining and can’t it do when it’s cold.

No physical fitness test is perfect, but what is great about the current APFT is it is easy to administer anywhere, is easy to interpret and provides a great baseline for Army physical fitness requirements in garrison and on the battlefield.

With the addition of some or all of these recommendations, the APFT will be an even better tool for our soldiers.

Former Capt. Lee A. Kind
Fairfax Station, Va.

Article: http://www.militarytimes.com/community/opinion/army_opinion_pt_052608/



As far as the 3 mile run is concerned, running long distance, outside of cardio-conditioning is unnecessary. Our beloved XVIII Airborne Corps runs a required 4 miles per month (so units seem to want to do 6 throughout the month), and there is a plethora of stress fractures, sprains and other ailments. The two mile run is fine the way it is.
To ENHANCE the cardio portion of the APFT, I still hold to the fact that sprints are the order of the day. As far as the asinine "power walk" with full gear, why not just do a 25K roadmarch instead? We don't need to "power walk" any where for a PFT. Keep the RUNS and maybe add some sprints.
I do believe in the pullups. I think this would be an excellent ADDITION to the APFT.
Get rid of the situp. The situp is extremely hard on the back and neck. Go to a crunch (such as the Marines use), where their max (regardless of age), is 100 in 2 minutes. It's alot harder than it looks, trust me...I've tried.

As far as looking "good" in uniform, that is up to interpretation based upon norms. I do believe that all soldiers should present the fit appearance of a Soldier, however, we don't need to be "jar-headed, leather-faced, bodybuilders". If that is your forte than that is fine, however, if you make a "powerlifting" and "Olympic" standard straight across the board, you think retention is high NOW? Only about 5% would be able to fit THAT mold.

majrdad
06-03-2008, 06:54 PM
Please allow an old timer to add his two cents:

The current PT test is just fine and we dont need to add any new events like the hop-skip-jump to measure fitness, endurance, or combat readiness.

When I enlisted in the Army in 1981, the Army just got rid of several goofy events like the horizontal ladder climb and a ditch crawl that made administering a PT test require a special course and reduced the number of places a soldier could go to practice the events before taking a record test. Everybody was glad to finally go to the current 3 events that can be practiced anywhere and can be administered anyplace you can measure two miles to run. Simple is good.

Everyone agrees soldiers should be fit, just no one agrees exactly what that means. I was in XVIII Abn Corps when we did those hellish long road marches with full gear in 3 hours. The 1SG would have a bullhorn and a big clock and anyone who took more than 3 hours to complete the march had to do it over again. Those marches were loads of fun, but did they really build muscle mass or endurance by doing them once a quarter? I always finished them under time and pass my APFT's, but does that mean I am fit for combat? I really can't say. What is 'fit'? APFT score? Military look? Body fat index? Frame of mind? Ability to carry heavy stuff in the heat? Maybe all of the above - I dont know.

Bottom line is if you can pass the existing APFT you are probably in good enough shape to do your job. Sure, we can make up a new version of the test to add the toe-twisting tra-la-la or the lateral oblique bunny-hop, but unless someone can really show these new events would be better - why fix what is not broke just to make changes and call it 'progress'?

Ken :-)

Biglew97
06-03-2008, 09:47 PM
Please allow an old timer to add his two cents:

The current PT test is just fine and we dont need to add any new events like the hop-skip-jump to measure fitness, endurance, or combat readiness.

When I enlisted in the Army in 1981, the Army just got rid of several goofy events like the horizontal ladder climb and a ditch crawl that made administering a PT test require a special course and reduced the number of places a soldier could go to practice the events before taking a record test. Everybody was glad to finally go to the current 3 events that can be practiced anywhere and can be administered anyplace you can measure two miles to run. Simple is good.

Everyone agrees soldiers should be fit, just no one agrees exactly what that means. I was in XVIII Abn Corps when we did those hellish long road marches with full gear in 3 hours. The 1SG would have a bullhorn and a big clock and anyone who took more than 3 hours to complete the march had to do it over again. Those marches were loads of fun, but did they really build muscle mass or endurance by doing them once a quarter? I always finished them under time and pass my APFT's, but does that mean I am fit for combat? I really can't say. What is 'fit'? APFT score? Military look? Body fat index? Frame of mind? Ability to carry heavy stuff in the heat? Maybe all of the above - I dont know.

I agree with you completely although, I don't think its prudent a two mile run/12 mile ruck, should be accomplished at a FOB in Iraq or Afghanistan. I think and equivelent sprint/ 40 yard dash would be sufficient as a supplemental to the standardized APFT 2 mile run.


Bottom line is if you can pass the existing APFT you are probably in good enough shape to do your job. Sure, we can make up a new version of the test to add the toe-twisting tra-la-la or the lateral oblique bunny-hop, but unless someone can really show these new events would be better - why fix what is not broke just to make changes and call it 'progress'?

I think you are on to something here! LOL

darkspecops
06-09-2008, 04:18 AM
well pt in the army is fine keeps me in shape, but the test standards are screwed up they say im fat noooo... im 190lbs with a big muscle build and 6 feet tall and im fat? whats going on.... obviously the armys standards think everyone should be skinny and weak...:mad:

darkspecops
06-10-2008, 03:59 AM
yea I would agree that many soldiers in the army have weight issues, but I work out every day and I have a strict diet, trust me im not fat most my weight is muscle, the army considers it fat which bothers me. but also one thing the army does not realize is everyone has a different body structure and measuring body fat with a measuring tape is not the correct way, according to some nutritionists as well

majrdad
06-16-2008, 02:32 PM
I agree everyone has different body shapes and styles. AR 600-9 (reg for body fat) has always been a little bit of a mystery to me since I have seen people who look a bit overweight who easily pass tape yet I have seen people in the overweight or remedial PT formation who look just fine to me.

As I understand tape measurements of AR 600-9, if you are over screening table weight, you need to do all you can to make your neck larger and your waist smaller so you can make tape. In a nutshell, tape measures difference between your waist and neck, adjusted for your height. If you have problems making the screening table weight, doing exercises that make your neck bigger and your waist smaller will get you back under the body fat percent for your age.

Hope this helps,
Ken :-)

imported_mchefnit
01-02-2009, 09:06 AM
PT in the Army

I think the Army places way too much emphasis on PT. What about your job and isn't it important to have a brain? I am very tired of "Mr. Stud Muffin" getting all the glory and he can't even function in his job. But, he can do 120 push-ups and run a mile in 5 minutes. I on the other hand am doing my job and his because he is too busy at the gym. What will Mr. Stud Muffin do in the real world? It is very hard to full up your resume when you cannot complete even simple tasks on your job without the help of others. I suppose he will impress them with the fact that he can run to the copy machine faster.
I also think the weight standard is not a very good thing. There are many people that do not meet the height and weight standards that pass PT tests and function quite well regardless. I have seen overweight people run just as well as others. I have also seen the opposite where the weight was a problembut not very often. I have seen good individuals forced out of the Army because they could not meet the numbers. To top it all off, they get paid for it. The individual that meets the standard and passes the PT test gets a month's pay if he or she elects to get out. Something wrong with this picture, eh? I wonder if that is why so many people decide to fail the PT test or eat to their heart's content?
Let's also consider the soldier that is in their 17th or 18th year and has completed a Bachelor's and a Master's degree. They are now bored with their current MOS and the Army has spent a ton of money on education for them. But, the good old Army will not let the soldier work outside of his or her MOS, verbotten. These are the people retiring left and right because they want to move up in the real world. The Army is throwing money out the window. Yes, they have put in an initial investment in this soldier but that was years ago. How about giving the person some on the job training and a chance to do something different? Don't get me started on the problems with the various branches. Wake up people, soldiers are not just another number. You cannot expect to put a circle into a square box and not everyone fits the same mold. How about some matching the right individual with the right job? Oh my god, did I just think outside of the box? Forgive me...I'll do some push ups......NOT!

imported_mchefnit
01-02-2009, 09:10 AM
yea I would agree that many soldiers in the army have weight issues, but I work out every day and I have a strict diet, trust me im not fat most my weight is muscle, the army considers it fat which bothers me. but also one thing the army does not realize is everyone has a different body structure and measuring body fat with a measuring tape is not the correct way, according to some nutritionists as well

Yes, I absolutely agree with you. The Army is still in the dark ages when it comes to certain things like measuring body fat. I have seen body builders have a problem with our current system. The Army realizes the differences but they do not want to acknowledge it. It's easier to look the other way than to have to deal with the problem itself, that means work.

OIFCOMBATVETNYC
01-02-2009, 09:23 AM
Sorry, as this is a bit off topic, but how is the photo discriminatory and racist? Could you please expound upon that? As a recent selectee for the SFC Board, I KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if my promotion hinged on a dang photo, I'd probably STILL be a Private, cuz I'm one short, bald, ugly SOB. I think that it is IMPERATIVE that the photo is used, and if you remember back to the older days, just a couple of years ago, they have revamped the photo, in that you see from the waist up, versus, the entire Soldier. This accomplishes a couple of things:

1: Better able to gauge if the Soldier does indeed meet weight standards, i.e., is not fat.
2: Better able to see what that Soldier has accomplished by being better able to see that individual's personal awards.
3: Better able to gauge if that NCO KNOWS what he is doing, by being able to better see if the Soldier's uniform is correct and accurately reflects the data in the SRB.

From many of your posts, dude, you are ONE disgruntled fella with a problem with EVERYTHING. What are you doing HERE? I attempt to refrain from personal attacks, but to blatantly call our current promotion system racist, is WAY off. Discriminatory, yes, it is, as it should be, for it DISCRIMINATES the good ones from the dirtbags.

This post get the Hooah 2008 year award lol. +2,000,000. I concur

Measure Man
01-02-2009, 09:49 AM
Sorry, as this is a bit off topic, but how is the photo discriminatory and racist? Could you please expound upon that? As a recent selectee for the SFC Board, I KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if my promotion hinged on a dang photo, I'd probably STILL be a Private, cuz I'm one short, bald, ugly SOB. I think that it is IMPERATIVE that the photo is used, and if you remember back to the older days, just a couple of years ago, they have revamped the photo, in that you see from the waist up, versus, the entire Soldier. This accomplishes a couple of things:

1: Better able to gauge if the Soldier does indeed meet weight standards, i.e., is not fat.

If the "standard" is how you look in photo...you don't have a "standard" at all...you have personal perception and opinion.


2: Better able to see what that Soldier has accomplished by being better able to see that individual's personal awards.

Isn't that in their official record?


3: Better able to gauge if that NCO KNOWS what he is doing, by being able to better see if the Soldier's uniform is correct and accurately reflects the data in the SRB.

Okay...this is a good one.

rmcdougle
01-02-2009, 11:02 AM
The Army does need to revamp the APFT. Go to crunches like the Marine Corps and not sit-ups. Sit-up damage the lower back. Bring in pull-ups and get rid of push-ups. Leave the 100 yard dash to unit or plt pt. Also if a soldier can score above a 270 than he/she should not have to go through height and weight. I have seen soldiers who are under weight not be able to pass the APFT but because they are under their weight it doesn't seem to matter much but if a soldier fails and is over weight than it becomes a big issue. Leave the male/female standards where they are at. Not all female can do the same amount of push-ups, sit-ups, or 2 mile run like males. There have been some females out do their male counter parts but not all females are like that but I would say raise the minimum number in the push-ups. A female should have to be required to do more than 13 push-ups to get 60 points.

imported_NoQuarter
01-03-2009, 05:47 PM
The current APFT is just that. A physical fitness test. Not a combat readiness test. If that is what the Army wants then it seems to me that maybe a separate test is appropriate. The current APFT really is a total body test. While maybe leg strength is slighted a bit, upper body and core strength and endurance are put to the test. I think the problem does not lie the testing but individual units attitudes and acumen towards the actual physical training. Not to mention deployment and training cycles. Those that lead PT should be experts in fitness and motivation. Enough of this running for runnings sake. Have detailed goals and plans and then execute. If the mission allows, work more time into the duty day for PT. I know leading up to this deployment there was many a day we performed 2 hours worth of work and then waited around for COB at 1730. Get your soldiers active. Make PT fun. Build camaraderie and cohesiveness. Don't just run bodies into the ground with out gaining anything.

imported_NoQuarter
01-03-2009, 06:28 PM
PT in the Army

I think the Army places way too much emphasis on PT. What about your job and isn't it important to have a brain? I am very tired of "Mr. Stud Muffin" getting all the glory and he can't even function in his job. But, he can do 120 push-ups and run a mile in 5 minutes. I on the other hand am doing my job and his because he is too busy at the gym. What will Mr. Stud Muffin do in the real world? It is very hard to full up your resume when you cannot complete even simple tasks on your job without the help of others. I suppose he will impress them with the fact that he can run to the copy machine faster.
I also think the weight standard is not a very good thing. There are many people that do not meet the height and weight standards that pass PT tests and function quite well regardless. I have seen overweight people run just as well as others. I have also seen the opposite where the weight was a problembut not very often. I have seen good individuals forced out of the Army because they could not meet the numbers. To top it all off, they get paid for it. The individual that meets the standard and passes the PT test gets a month's pay if he or she elects to get out. Something wrong with this picture, eh? I wonder if that is why so many people decide to fail the PT test or eat to their heart's content?
Let's also consider the soldier that is in their 17th or 18th year and has completed a Bachelor's and a Master's degree. They are now bored with their current MOS and the Army has spent a ton of money on education for them. But, the good old Army will not let the soldier work outside of his or her MOS, verbotten. These are the people retiring left and right because they want to move up in the real world. The Army is throwing money out the window. Yes, they have put in an initial investment in this soldier but that was years ago. How about giving the person some on the job training and a chance to do something different? Don't get me started on the problems with the various branches. Wake up people, soldiers are not just another number. You cannot expect to put a circle into a square box and not everyone fits the same mold. How about some matching the right individual with the right job? Oh my god, did I just think outside of the box? Forgive me...I'll do some push ups......NOT!


Brother I've got to say your are pretty well off base on just about everything you said. First, every soldier is an infantry man first. If you are not physically fit you stand a better chance of running out of stamina. Once that happens you are done for in the macro sense of war. As for the number of SNCO that chose to leave the Army because they cant work outside their MOS, it has to be statistically minuet. And besides that the amount a soldier has contributed and been paid is much larger than what the Army spent on their higher education. And their experience and expertise in that field is invaluable to the soldiers under that SNCO. If that person retires, usually there is someone somewhere ready to fill the void.

As far as the height and weight standard you are way off. The idea is a measure of overall fitness and if you read the FM covering the army weight control program, self discipline. There are very few people that don't meet weight that are actually physical fit. Just because they can pass a PT test does not mean that they are fit. And soldiers are not forced out because they don't meet weight one time. They have the opportunity to correct it. If they can't or won't they probably don't belong among the ranks.

The one place you are the closest to being right is the Army's inability to recognize intelligence. That has been and will be a drag on the force in the future. Individuals that are able to think outside the box and on different lines are usually marginalized and labeled themselves as individuals. Sometimes it takes a change to the pattern of thinking to produce results, not the same beating of the same "war drum." But perhaps the demonstration put on by Gen Petraeus will change some attitudes.

Combat correspondent
01-04-2009, 01:45 AM
Originally Posted by mchefnit View Post
PT in the Army

I think the Army places way too much emphasis on PT. What about your job and isn't it important to have a brain? I am very tired of "Mr. Stud Muffin" getting all the glory and he can't even function in his job. But, he can do 120 push-ups and run a mile in 5 minutes. I on the other hand am doing my job and his because he is too busy at the gym. What will Mr. Stud Muffin do in the real world? It is very hard to full up your resume when you cannot complete even simple tasks on your job without the help of others. I suppose he will impress them with the fact that he can run to the copy machine faster.
I also think the weight standard is not a very good thing. There are many people that do not meet the height and weight standards that pass PT tests and function quite well regardless. I have seen overweight people run just as well as others. I have also seen the opposite where the weight was a problembut not very often. I have seen good individuals forced out of the Army because they could not meet the numbers. To top it all off, they get paid for it. The individual that meets the standard and passes the PT test gets a month's pay if he or she elects to get out. Something wrong with this picture, eh? I wonder if that is why so many people decide to fail the PT test or eat to their heart's content?
Let's also consider the soldier that is in their 17th or 18th year and has completed a Bachelor's and a Master's degree. They are now bored with their current MOS and the Army has spent a ton of money on education for them. But, the good old Army will not let the soldier work outside of his or her MOS, verbotten. These are the people retiring left and right because they want to move up in the real world. The Army is throwing money out the window. Yes, they have put in an initial investment in this soldier but that was years ago. How about giving the person some on the job training and a chance to do something different? Don't get me started on the problems with the various branches. Wake up people, soldiers are not just another number. You cannot expect to put a circle into a square box and not everyone fits the same mold. How about some matching the right individual with the right job? Oh my god, did I just think outside of the box? Forgive me...I'll do some push ups......NOT!.

Wow! I wish that was the case!
The sad fact is is the Army does not place enough emphasis on PT and, as such, they are losing to the Air Force and creeping down to the Navy's level of Physical Fitness. The Times released a story about 9 months ago about obesity levels in the DoD. In this story it said how the Marine Corps leads the pack with little to no obesity.

In years gone by, the trend was:

USMC #1
Army #2
USN #3
USAF #4

However, in the past 2 years, the USAF has surpassed the Army in the level of troops being fit and now the Army is the second to last in the number of obese service members. Does the Army need more PT? Yes indeed ! A TON MORE!!!! TOO many fat Soldiers out there!

Right now, the USMC is #1, followed by the USAF (#2), the USA (#3) and the Navy is last.

smarg
01-04-2009, 10:28 AM
I think the APFT is discriminatory against females. The standards are too stringent and must be adjusted for reality.

Combat correspondent
01-04-2009, 06:42 PM
Agree! Females get it easy.

MADAMESINCERE
01-08-2009, 04:20 AM
We should enforce the PT regs we already have. There are WAY too many fat Soldiers walking around!

HOOAH

MADAMESINCERE
01-08-2009, 04:22 AM
Wow! I wish that was the case!
The sad fact is is the Army does not place enough emphasis on PT and, as such, they are losing to the Air Force and creeping down to the Navy's level of Physical Fitness. The Times released a story about 9 months ago about obesity levels in the DoD. In this story it said how the Marine Corps leads the pack with little to no obesity.

In years gone by, the trend was:

USMC #1
Army #2
USN #3
USAF #4

However, in the past 2 years, the USAF has surpassed the Army in the level of troops being fit and now the Army is the second to last in the number of obese service members. Does the Army need more PT? Yes indeed ! A TON MORE!!!! TOO many fat Soldiers out there!

Right now, the USMC is #1, followed by the USAF (#2), the USA (#3) and the Navy is last.

Where did you get these stats? The last stats I saw in writing stated that the AF had 52% of its force overweight. That was printed in the AF times a few months back. The Army is still #2 behind the USMC, but we are going down hill fast!

justin0495
10-18-2009, 06:32 AM
What’s actually been left out of this entire discussion is the OTHER HALF of Physical Fitness-Diet and Nutrition. Too often the Army is reactive when it comes to this, addressing the issue only after a failed tape.

Staring in BCT and continuing thorough a soldier’s acreer, the Army needs to have classes on making the right choices, how metabolism works (we should ALL be eating 5-6 times a day), and assisting soldiers on preparing meals at home, shopping choices, etc.

I’m not saying DFACs stop serving burgers and biscuits and gravy. Again, the Army needs to educate and train its soldiers of all ranks to better evaluate the choices before them.

anamericansoldier
10-18-2009, 01:05 PM
PT in the Army

I think the Army places way too much emphasis on PT. What about your job and isn't it important to have a brain? I am very tired of "Mr. Stud Muffin" getting all the glory and he can't even function in his job....Oh my god, did I just think outside of the box? Forgive me...I'll do some push ups......NOT!

The above individual is just distraught that he hasn't passed his tape since he was an E-1...

Honestly, I think that the current APFT standards are fine, save for what others have mentioned: when performing the sit-up, it is not necessary (actually, it's a hindrance and a strain) to put the hands behind the head. It is a lot more comfortable, and injury-reducing, to cross the arms over the chest. Also, a pullup standard should be implemented. It was sad to see soldiers attempt the pullup when my unit did rotational PT. Some soldiers, of both sex, couldn't even do one without having their legs supported. Also, as a soldier going through my first deployment, I feel there should be a requirement for a one-mile (or thereabouts) walk with full battle rattle. There shouldn't be any timing involved; just that a soldier should complete the task. I'm of a very sleight build (5'10" 140), and I thought my shoulder was going to snap off the first time I got finished going on a patrol with all my gear on. Getting used to wearing all that gear, even if it is just for a short period of time, would at least prepare a soldier, especially one without any previous deployments, for what they will go through on a day-to-day basis outside the wire. Of course, that could just be me, since I was out for 2 years in the IRR. :)

MCGYVER
10-21-2009, 02:17 AM
"Now as to standards, for example I am 6' and weigh 205, scored nearly 300 every PT test, I scored well under the body fat percentage. Now for whatever dumb reason, I was taped at every weigh in because I exceeded the Height weight standards."

The reason is that the Height/Weight table is as old as the P.T. test itself and does not "fit" the average Soldier nowadays. If you have a Soldier that is a weightlifter, former football lineman, former wrestler or just stocky he will be taped every time and pass every time. It makes no sense because when those standards were proposed (years before publication in 1986) the average male was a skinny kid. Time for new (current) standards that fit the body types of real people.

RONALD45
05-03-2010, 11:53 AM
4 pages of "ideas" on the stupidest issue the Army has ever had. Why it is indicative of the "one size fits all" mentality that has always existed. PT and physical fitness is an INDIVIDUAL case by case basis taking in sex, ethnicity, nutrition, metabolism, and a host of other factors. Only problem is the Army has never been about individualism at all so it basis it's "PT Program" on a "group think" mentality that every Soldier is the same.

I would like to see the Army keep the PT test it has now as an overall fitness test, but completely do away with a "structured" PT program (yeah I know good luck). We did an experiment once while deployed to Bosnia in my unit. PT was done on an INDIVIDUAL BASIS at a certain time of the day the only rule being you could do basically "anything" as long as you did "something". As a result Soldiers were free to work in areas they were weak in and not concentrate so much on areas they already showed a strong performance in. As a result injuries and profiles decreased, and PT test scores went up. As someone else stated getting rid of all the CRAP the Army serves as a meal would help as well. A prime example breakfast (eggs=cholesterol, bacon=cholesterol and fat, same with sausage, gravy= grease, pancakes with sugary syrup ect) compared to a European breakfast of cheeses, yogurts, fish, granola, milk etc.

Now as soon as we came back to the states we went right back to the Army's "structured" PT program as a result injuries and profiles increased dramatically, PT test scores actually dropped, and the whole process started over again. What this proved is that if you allow the Soldiers the freedom (yeah the Army is still learning the meaning of this word) to work out on their own, they tend to concentrate on those weak areas, stop when they are tired and in pain instead of "pushing through" the injury, and actually get healthier.

In addition PT at least on the Post I am on takes up the most productive part of the day early morning. You are up, refreshed, and ready to go to work (especially in the summer when mornings are cool and daytime temps reach the 100's) but instead of using that time to accomplish the day's mission you are wasting it doing PT (afterall why work outdoors when it is 70 degrees when you can do PT and then have the Soldiers come back dehydrated, worn down, physically exhausted to work in 90-100 degree weather outdoors).

No I say do away with structured PT all together, place the emphasis on fitness on the Soldier themselves (oohhh you mean we have to treat them as adults responsible for their own fitness levels???? NOOOOOOO some General has a heart attack in response) and then if they FAIL the PT test put them into a structured program with a Master Fitness Trainer like we used to have. Otherwise PT on your own and pass the PT test once during the 6 month time frame like now.

RONALD45
05-03-2010, 12:00 PM
There are very few people that don't meet weight that are actually physical fit. Just because they can pass a PT test does not mean that they are fit

Kinda says it all right here doesn't it??? If a PT test does not determine if a Soldier is "fit" then what the hell was it designed to determine????

tygerarmy
05-19-2010, 08:51 PM
PT is very important in the Army.
I've never failed a PT, I was in shape before the military. And I'm one of those skinny people so the only way I could fail height and weigh would be by being under weight.
That said the standards could be made better for height and weight.
But PT tests should be harder. I understand people have different body types. But down-range that doesn't matter. I'm 5'7"and weigh 140lb soaking wet; if another soldier goes down it doesn't matter if they are 7' and 400lb I should be able at the very least to drag their ass to safety.
I understand body type, age and sex play a factor to what a person is actually capable of. But I've seen male soldiers in 18-21 age group who I don't think could drag my ass. Life is not fair. I'm a small guy I have to work harder to accomplish the same as a soldier who's 6' and 180-200lbs and soldiers smaller than me have to work harder, just as the people whose body types are opposite of mine, heavier big boned people have to work hard to cut weight to meet the standard. There should be one standard and your score above it should then be based on your age, sex and body type.

candycane3482
10-26-2010, 06:15 PM
Other services are revamping the requirements and expectations, but what about the Army? Are changes needed? If so, what would you recommend?

I think we should do what the Marines do - a 'combat fitness test' and an APFT. The combat fitness test would have exercises related to fitness and then still have the PT test. Or shorten our 2 mile run to 1.5 miles. I agree though - nowhere in Iraq did I run 2 miles, do p/u or s/u except on a PT test.

imported_SWOUSA
10-26-2010, 07:07 PM
Marines do a three mile run and?

Sometimes its the ability to have good cardio respiratory fitness and depending on your mission and location; its best to be in good physical condition.

candycane3482
10-26-2010, 08:28 PM
While the current APFT is not in itself entirely flawed, in my honest opinion it is a little outdated and doesn't focus on the current missions that are seen on a day to day basis. As a veteran of OIF, no where did we run 2 miles. No where did we do pushups. No where did we do situps. As these are all great baselines in order to detemine a Soldier's fitness, I think a few things should be added, while keeping the old events the same or revamping them a little.

For instance, a 100m sprint event should be introduced. Many of the firefights/actions in today's battlefields involving urban operations require Soldiers under fire to sprint from cover to cover, covering shorter distances at faster speeds.

Introduce the pull-up. I don't know how many times while conducting raids, we were required to scale walls and other obstacles where pushups did absolutely nothing for those particular muscle groups.

I don't think that we should introduce something as ridiculous as the Marine CFT (I have a brother in the Marines and I work with them and they are of the same mind set), as it is absolutely unnecessary in its entire structure. I do, however, think that we should add to the current APFT.

Lastly, I think that the male/female standards should be drawn closer together. I say this upon the simple basis that both male and female soldiers are required to accomplish the same missions, so therefore, why not have one set standard, or one very close to it, accurately reflecting the requirements of our Soldiers, not based upon gender. Bullets don't discriminate, why should we?

I do agree that the female pushup minimum should be increased (I'm a female soldier) but the reason why we are so different is that fact - men and women ON AVERAGE are built differently. There is no way for us to be 100% equal because we aren't built the same. However that is not to say there aren't women who can max the male standards and males who can barely pass the male standards or some who can't even pass the female run standard. Situps are exactly the same between the two just pushups and run are different but again the minimum is just that - the least you have to do. No one says that you have to ONLY do the 60/60/60. That's just a standard - if you can excel above that then you do. But everyone is built different.

But we do need to change something because I'm only 28 and sometimes I feel like I'm in a 50 year old's body. I never had back and shoulder problems until about four years ago. Then I didn't get checked out right away because I'm stubborn and the whole idea that if you get a profile you're "shamming" doesn't help matters. But just because you're taller doesn't mean you run faster. Some people are naturally good runners or naturally athletic while others have to work at it. Before I had my back issues, I ran a decent run for a female (16-17 min 2mile) and now since my back and profiles and recovery I'm trying to get back to at least an 18-19. Age doesn't help some people.

Everyone is different but I agree that the way our PT test is set up doesn't help anyone.

candycane3482
10-26-2010, 08:29 PM
Marines do a three mile run and?

Sometimes its the ability to have good cardio respiratory fitness and depending on your mission and location; its best to be in good physical condition.

Humans aren't built to run a continues 2+ miles anymore. Not since we had to stop chasing our food and turned into couch potatoes.

candycane3482
10-26-2010, 08:32 PM
Brother I've got to say your are pretty well off base on just about everything you said. First, every soldier is an infantry man first. If you are not physically fit you stand a better chance of running out of stamina. Once that happens you are done for in the macro sense of war. As for the number of SNCO that chose to leave the Army because they cant work outside their MOS, it has to be statistically minuet. And besides that the amount a soldier has contributed and been paid is much larger than what the Army spent on their higher education. And their experience and expertise in that field is invaluable to the soldiers under that SNCO. If that person retires, usually there is someone somewhere ready to fill the void.

As far as the height and weight standard you are way off. The idea is a measure of overall fitness and if you read the FM covering the army weight control program, self discipline. There are very few people that don't meet weight that are actually physical fit. Just because they can pass a PT test does not mean that they are fit. And soldiers are not forced out because they don't meet weight one time. They have the opportunity to correct it. If they can't or won't they probably don't belong among the ranks.

The one place you are the closest to being right is the Army's inability to recognize intelligence. That has been and will be a drag on the force in the future. Individuals that are able to think outside the box and on different lines are usually marginalized and labeled themselves as individuals. Sometimes it takes a change to the pattern of thinking to produce results, not the same beating of the same "war drum." But perhaps the demonstration put on by Gen Petraeus will change some attitudes.

The Army has a very unrealistic standard of weight. However, let's be glad our weight/waist do not factor into our PT test like the Air Force. They can pass every event but if they fail their waist taping they fail their PT test. If we fail height/weight and tape, you just get flagged for being overweight but you still passed your PT test if you get the minimum score or above.

NMorrison
10-26-2010, 09:22 PM
Hey guys,

I hate to open a can of worms here, but I work both ends of the string. I train soldiers, I train other soldiers to be extremely fit, and I put people back together in the wounded warrior units. I see the problems from many angles. I get a soldier who wants to be SF but can't even breathe right, let alone use proper body mechanics. I get soldiers who are severely wounded because their chain of command knows only one thing: "Do more push-ups".

Instead of making this post really long, I will just say that the Army needs to seriously re-evaluate what it is doing and consult the actual experts. The current model does not work and everyone knows it. They need an institution of higher learning and knowledge that trumps the idiots out there who think that the universal answer is more push-ups. I've spent an awful lot of time downrange and I never used a push-up, sit-up or 2 mile run. However, I did do a lot of pulling up, climbing, rucking, sprinting and shooting, Moving heavy equipment, mountain climbing and stair climbing. Then I spent tens of thousands of dollars getting educated and putting myself back together. The Air Force and Army never helped me in any way.

NMorrison
10-26-2010, 09:24 PM
Speaking of waist measurements... You have to ask yourself, if they were so concerned about fitness, why is the food so bad? And why is it that there are fast food chains on base and not a whole foods market? Hmmmm......

candycane3482
10-26-2010, 09:45 PM
That's crap and I've heard that same excuse for 13 years. I have seen female Soldiers PT circles around their male peers in ALL categories. On more than one occasion I have seen older female Soldiers in the 32-36 age scale score 300 on their PT test...in the 17-21 Male category. I've heard it time and time again. I'm sick of hearing that old rhyme.

Yeah but not ALL of us women are PT studs just like not ALL men are PT studs. I know women who max the male standards and then some. That doesn't mean all of us can. I used to be decent at PT - then I started to get back and shoulder issues (when I was only 24 and 26) and so now I feel like I'm in the body of a 50 year old sometimes but it's not to the point where I am on a permanent profile either (not yet and hopefully never). Everyone is not the same and I agree with the post from Measure Man.

candycane3482
10-26-2010, 09:51 PM
You keep coming with the "job performance" thing. In that respect, and I am being objective here, a PAC clerk, regardless of sex, should not be required to achieve the same standards as say, an Infantryman, or and Infantryman the same as a Ranger...etc. etc. etc. I used those examples as that, examples. My reasoning behind this (and I know that "body composition" is a huge factor between males and females), is that if they can't cut the mustard, get out. Quit pandering to the baseless nonsense and treat EVERYONE as Soldiers, not MALE and FEMALE Soldiers. We have uniform standards, weapons qualification standards, and so forth. Standards are standards and should be the same, or EXTREMELY close, straight across the board. You pander to one group of individuals, it's nothing more than reverse discrimination.

That being said, this particular discussion is pointless because of the Politically Correct pinheads that try to make everyone happy, while screwing the ones over that actually give a shit. Our Army is degrading, and degrading swiftly. I saw a photograph yesterday that really put me off to our current "standards" of fitness. The photograph was of a male Soldier (rank unknown), in PT gear in a Dining Facility, apparently in theatre as the individual who snapped the photograph was a Marine. This particular Soldier was SO overweight, (bear with me here, I'm not trying to piss anyone off), that his "man-boobs" were literally swallowing the sling of his rifle. His gut and sides were falling over his shorts so badly, that he could hardly keep his shirt tucked in. I am NOT in any wise picking on females in this particular thread at all. We have standards for a reason, and THIS is why we need ONE SET STANDARD! If you are going to allow some random fat ass in the Army, deployed, to a combat zone, then screw it, do away with PT altogether.

Do people need a lesson in anatomy? Men and women are different. On AVERAGE men are stronger than women upper body wise. So on AVERAGE they can do more pushups. That's not to say there aren't exceptions in each gender.

But a PAC clerk is actually held to different standards than an infantryman or a Ranger. I know that our SPC in my shop is the same MOS as I am. But in his last unit (don't remember what kind) if they got below a 270 on their PT test, they had to do remedial PT. I'm sure in infantry units the unit standard differs from the Army standard. I was in a combat eng bn - the line companies had the "standard" that you got a 270 or above or some crap. In HHC - it was the Army standard. Yes everyone HAS to score 60 in all three events but the unit can hold you to a higher standard and set that as the "minimum" to put you on remedial or whatever.

You can piss and moan all you want but the fact is that men and women are different but I said earlier our pushups should be a little higher for our minimum but that's up to someone higher up to change.

candycane3482
10-26-2010, 09:52 PM
There are very few people that don't meet weight that are actually physical fit. Just because they can pass a PT test does not mean that they are fit

Kinda says it all right here doesn't it??? If a PT test does not determine if a Soldier is "fit" then what the hell was it designed to determine????

Exactly. You're telling me a 300 pound person who can run a 12 or 13 min 2 mile isn't physically fit? Or someone of that weight who maxes all three events? What the hell is then?

candycane3482
10-26-2010, 09:56 PM
The Army does need to revamp the APFT. Go to crunches like the Marine Corps and not sit-ups. Sit-up damage the lower back. Bring in pull-ups and get rid of push-ups. Leave the 100 yard dash to unit or plt pt. Also if a soldier can score above a 270 than he/she should not have to go through height and weight. I have seen soldiers who are under weight not be able to pass the APFT but because they are under their weight it doesn't seem to matter much but if a soldier fails and is over weight than it becomes a big issue. Leave the male/female standards where they are at. Not all female can do the same amount of push-ups, sit-ups, or 2 mile run like males. There have been some females out do their male counter parts but not all females are like that but I would say raise the minimum number in the push-ups. A female should have to be required to do more than 13 push-ups to get 60 points.

I agree but we (females) don't get to do 13 pushups until the 32-whatever age group. It's 17 until then (which okay I think we can handle a few more lol).

imported_SWOUSA
10-26-2010, 09:57 PM
As long as you can pass the APFT is what counts. I just hate seeing NCOs making excuses. You supposed to lead from the front and keep your comments to yourself. Yea, on a board; no biggy but please do not gripe in front of your soldiers.

This photo?

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f252/signalwarrant/ArmyStrongHooooah.jpg


I like this one. Totally unsat.

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f252/signalwarrant/ArmyStrong.jpg

Wood5831
12-08-2010, 12:50 AM
Here is the story about that Soldier from the military.com forums


The kid in the picture is Richard. He was a SPC, Active Duty, laboratory technician. High school wrestler and football player. He was cross leveled into my Reserve unit, and arrived slightly overweight, when we went to Iraq in 2003. This guy worked his ass off on PT. Although only an E4, he was put in charge of his platoon's PT program, and would run the platoon to death. I know, as I was the 1SG and would do my PT with them. By the time I left Iraq, I had my best PT score ever! Richard could never drop the weight enough to pass tape, so I couldn't get him promoted to SGT. His work amazed me so much, I recommended him for a meritorious Bronze Star, and trust me, that don't come easily from me. Of course, being an E4, it was downgraded to an ARCOM.
Richard was an incredibly hard worker. In addition to his lab duties, he single handed filled all the Bn generators, 3 times a day (6 generators). He was a great truck driver, also. He fell in love with a Reserve Soldier and after deployment they got married and he left active duty with plans to become a sports trainer. He soon went to the Veteran's Administration and was diagnosed with a thyroid condition. VA prescribed meds and the weight was finally coming off.
Richard was then recalled to active duty with a National Guard unit. At the mob site his VA meds were taken away as they were not prescribed by the Army. His weight ballooned to what you see now. His unit has an attitude of he does not belong to them as he came out of the IRR and is not "National Guard". I've been attempting to locate his leadership to find out what is going on with his health
So, in his second combat deployment he is still a SPC and he is the **** of jokes on the internet.

TheHarleyMan2
01-04-2011, 11:51 PM
As long as you can pass the APFT is what counts. I just hate seeing NCOs making excuses. You supposed to lead from the front and keep your comments to yourself. Yea, on a board; no biggy but please do not gripe in front of your soldiers.

This photo?

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f252/signalwarrant/ArmyStrongHooooah.jpg


I like this one. Totally unsat.

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f252/signalwarrant/ArmyStrong.jpg

Man those pictures made me laugh my a&% off!!!!

You KNOW why that Marine Captain is smirking!

and in the second pic, WTF is Humpy Dumpty doing in the Army? That guy should have been put out LOOOONG ago! There is NO WAY IN HELL he passed any PT, push ups, run, and DEFINITLY ain't PASSED no sit-ups much less passed his wieght standards! WTF!!

burntout24
01-05-2011, 09:21 AM
4 pages of "ideas" on the stupidest issue the Army has ever had. Why it is indicative of the "one size fits all" mentality that has always existed. PT and physical fitness is an INDIVIDUAL case by case basis taking in sex, ethnicity, nutrition, metabolism, and a host of other factors. Only problem is the Army has never been about individualism at all so it basis it's "PT Program" on a "group think" mentality that every Soldier is the same.

I would like to see the Army keep the PT test it has now as an overall fitness test, but completely do away with a "structured" PT program (yeah I know good luck). We did an experiment once while deployed to Bosnia in my unit. PT was done on an INDIVIDUAL BASIS at a certain time of the day the only rule being you could do basically "anything" as long as you did "something". As a result Soldiers were free to work in areas they were weak in and not concentrate so much on areas they already showed a strong performance in. As a result injuries and profiles decreased, and PT test scores went up. As someone else stated getting rid of all the CRAP the Army serves as a meal would help as well. A prime example breakfast (eggs=cholesterol, bacon=cholesterol and fat, same with sausage, gravy= grease, pancakes with sugary syrup ect) compared to a European breakfast of cheeses, yogurts, fish, granola, milk etc.

Now as soon as we came back to the states we went right back to the Army's "structured" PT program as a result injuries and profiles increased dramatically, PT test scores actually dropped, and the whole process started over again. What this proved is that if you allow the Soldiers the freedom (yeah the Army is still learning the meaning of this word) to work out on their own, they tend to concentrate on those weak areas, stop when they are tired and in pain instead of "pushing through" the injury, and actually get healthier.

In addition PT at least on the Post I am on takes up the most productive part of the day early morning. You are up, refreshed, and ready to go to work (especially in the summer when mornings are cool and daytime temps reach the 100's) but instead of using that time to accomplish the day's mission you are wasting it doing PT (afterall why work outdoors when it is 70 degrees when you can do PT and then have the Soldiers come back dehydrated, worn down, physically exhausted to work in 90-100 degree weather outdoors).

No I say do away with structured PT all together, place the emphasis on fitness on the Soldier themselves (oohhh you mean we have to treat them as adults responsible for their own fitness levels???? NOOOOOOO some General has a heart attack in response) and then if they FAIL the PT test put them into a structured program with a Master Fitness Trainer like we used to have. Otherwise PT on your own and pass the PT test once during the 6 month time frame like now.

I believe you said it best. While deployed doing pt on my own helped me out more then doing it as a group and doing what everyone else is doing. When I had issues with my back I could choose to work other areas and let my back heal. Unlike regular pt we all do the same regardless of our capabilities or injuries.

If one should fail a pt test then yes they should come in during the early morning with a pt instructor. But again the army will never see the sense in any of this.

candycane3482
01-05-2011, 08:36 PM
I believe you said it best. While deployed doing pt on my own helped me out more then doing it as a group and doing what everyone else is doing. When I had issues with my back I could choose to work other areas and let my back heal. Unlike regular pt we all do the same regardless of our capabilities or injuries.

If one should fail a pt test then yes they should come in during the early morning with a pt instructor. But again the army will never see the sense in any of this.

I think it's good to do PT at least in pairs. I know I need someone there to not only motivate me but how can I judge how much I've improved if I don't have something to compare to? I also would rather do PT in the morning than the way I have to do it where I am in this joint environment with the Air Force. Everyone finds a way to get out of PT so it ends being a waste of my time anyway and I do it on my own but they only give us three days a week during work to do PT that's mandatory and for some people finding time outside of work is hard. I know, it's up to the individual. I actually miss organized PT because at least I felt part of something. Here with the Army a minority the Air Force in our section just ignore us like we're the redheaded stepchildren. I think what the Army needs to do is just have a PT program that doesn't break people down. Allegedly that's what this new PT is going to be and allegedly will be gender neutral. We'll see how that works I suppose.

If you can't get your mission accomplished during duty hours though, I think you have a problem with time management. I know my first OIC used to always make me work late to help her with things she didn't get done during the day. Even with getting pulled to stupid details or whatever, I still got my work done. Doing PT in the morning actually made me more alert and aware.

Gray
08-04-2013, 05:31 AM
As long as you can pass the APFT is what counts. I just hate seeing NCOs making excuses. You supposed to lead from the front and keep your comments to yourself. Yea, on a board; no biggy but please do not gripe in front of your soldiers.

This photo?

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f252/signalwarrant/ArmyStrongHooooah.jpg


I like this one. Totally unsat.



That picture was taken at Camp Bucca, Iraq. The soldier pictured was medically retired, and waived his medical retirement to return to the Army, because his MOS, 68K - Medical Laboratory Specialist, was so desperately needed throughout the military. He also stopped his daily pain control routine of 30mg Morphine Sulphate- three times a day, alternating with 10mg Oxycontin - three times a day, and spent 18 months taking only aspirin and Tylenol for the constant pain. That IS Army Strong! My wife served with him in the lab at Bucca, she was called up from the Reserves on her 57th birthday.

MisterBen
08-04-2013, 06:30 PM
Interesting info. But this is now going to happen. Back to the old days.

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2013/07/waging_a_war_on_fat_army_tells.html

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20130422/CAREERS/304220009/Army-discharge-25K-unfit-nondeployable-soldiers

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20121106/NEWS/211060370/Army-ramps-up-weight-related-discharges

Jay63
08-07-2013, 08:13 PM
Being ready to fight is the base for conflict. Dominating you enemy you enemy on the battlefield is the goal and should the goal in peace time. All soldiers or military personnel should be in excellent shape. You never know when you might need to pic up that rifle and get the job done. Cook, mechanic, clerk it makes no difference. Now the weight thing. If you meet the physical standard you should be good to go. I say you ruck march 9 miles to the range to qualify, the ruck back against a time standard. The next day you do PU, SU and 1 mile run. You fail twice bye.

Gray
08-18-2013, 11:55 AM
Interesting info. But this is now going to happen. Back to the old days.

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2013/07/waging_a_war_on_fat_army_tells.html

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20130422/CAREERS/304220009/Army-discharge-25K-unfit-nondeployable-soldiers

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20121106/NEWS/211060370/Army-ramps-up-weight-related-discharges
And, like in the old days, anything is waivered "for the good of the service." If they have a choice between having an overweight Blood Banker and having fit corpses, they will choose the overweight lab tech.