Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 62

Thread: PT in the Army

  1. #11
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    6
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: PT in the Army

    Quote Originally Posted by smarg View Post
    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.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Opt out
    Posts
    2,285
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)

    Re: PT in the Army

    Quote Originally Posted by jay_ellis04 View Post
    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?

  3. #13
    Sgt Grandpa
    Guest

    Re: PT in the Army

    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.

  4. #14
    DIAMONDTIM
    Guest

    Re: PT in the Army

    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.

  5. #15
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: PT in the Army

    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....

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    28
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Thumbs up Re: PT in the Army

    Quote Originally Posted by kojack View Post
    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.

  7. #17
    MilitaryTimes.com Community Editor CommunityEditor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Springfield, Va.
    Posts
    56
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: PT in the Army

    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/communi...ion_pt_052608/

  8. #18
    Sgt Grandpa
    Guest

    Re: PT in the Army

    Quote Originally Posted by CommunityEditor View Post
    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/communi...ion_pt_052608/
    FORMER Capt? Did he get the boot for failing a PT test?

  9. #19
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    6
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: PT in the Army

    Quote Originally Posted by CommunityEditor View Post
    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/communi...ion_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.

  10. #20
    majrdad
    Guest

    Re: PT in the Army

    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 :-)

Similar Threads

  1. Unpatrioticness of sports Stars
    By garhkal in forum In the News
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 02-11-2019, 11:21 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •