Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 62

Thread: PT in the Army

  1. #1
    MilitaryTimes.com Community Editor CommunityEditor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Springfield, Va.
    Posts
    56
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    PT in the Army

    Other services are revamping the requirements and expectations, but what about the Army? Are changes needed? If so, what would you recommend?

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    6
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: PT in the Army

    While the current APFT is not in itself entirely flawed, in my honest opinion it is a little outdated and doesn't focus on the current missions that are seen on a day to day basis.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?

  3. #3
    Sgt Grandpa
    Guest

    Re: PT in the Army

    Quote Originally Posted by jay_ellis04 View Post
    While the current APFT is not in itself entirely flawed, in my honest opinion it is a little outdated and doesn't focus on the current missions that are seen on a day to day basis.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.

  4. #4
    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

    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.

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    6
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: PT in the Army

    Quote Originally Posted by Sgt Grandpa View Post
    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.

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

    Re: PT in the Army

    Quote Originally Posted by Measure Man View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    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
    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.

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    6
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: PT in the Army

    Quote Originally Posted by Measure Man View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    28
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Unhappy Re: PT in the Army

    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.

  10. #10
    Biglew97
    Guest

    Re: PT in the Army

    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...

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
  •