Posted on Mar 25, 2022
How do you feel about the army reducing physical fitness standards for females and older soldiers?
6.65K
124
52
17
17
0
“Following a three year review the Army has scrapped plans to use the same physical fitness test for all soldiers, choosing instead to have reduced standards to allow all women and older soldiers to pass.” Announced March 23, 2022.
Physical Training
Fitness
Morale
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 22
1
1
0
How is the new scoring standards in regards to age and gender any different than the prior PT test standards? Have we not allowed for gender and age considerations prior? To think that there is no change to physical abilities as one ages; or between genders is ridiculous. I believe a 6 category PT test exceeds the 3 category of prior. So I would say the standards have not gotten reduced. Just my opinion though, I could be wrong.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
LTC Ray Buenteo - I think what they mean is set the standard to something that is obtainable so they have a chance at passing. Kind of like giving out 40 rounds but allowing a go with only 23 hits. But I think I understand what you are talking about. I can tell you, having done the APFT and now doing the ACFT; if you think you are gonna go out there an get a go without training you are mistaken. Like I said I work out, regularly, and I am only just barely breaking the 500 score line. I have seen several fail, because they fail to maintain personal standards.
(1)
(0)
SFC Kelly Fuerhoff
I work out twice a day - and I'm pushing 40 and on permanent profile for the run. Honestly I'm probably going to see if I can get two more of the events modified because of consistent issues from injuries.
When I took the diag I actually did better than I thought. I failed a few events but was really close to the minimum at prior to what just came out. If I had taken it without working out at all - I don't think I'd have done what I did.
It's definitely not like the APFT where you can basically just show up for it and pass without trying. Even with these standards. It's six events - even if you have a modified ACFT. It's still a lot of work that gets put into it.
When I took the diag I actually did better than I thought. I failed a few events but was really close to the minimum at prior to what just came out. If I had taken it without working out at all - I don't think I'd have done what I did.
It's definitely not like the APFT where you can basically just show up for it and pass without trying. Even with these standards. It's six events - even if you have a modified ACFT. It's still a lot of work that gets put into it.
(1)
(0)
SFC Kelly Fuerhoff
This adds into the fact neither unit I've been in the last 3 1/2 years has done ACFT prep during PT time. Very little actually. So anything I do for the ACFT I do it on my own time. During quarantine and telework - I worked out twice a day too on top of being a single parent. With no help.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
LTC Ray Buenteo sir the way the test was presented it seemed as if it could change again once more information and data is collected. I can't remember where I read that at but if true, the standards may become more difficult. I would also advise that a PT test is only twice a year amd it test general fitness. We have 363 other days in the year where we can train to meet and exceed the physical demands needed for combat MOS's.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Not trying to make light of the situation here, but being physically fit in the military is not just to look good in uniform, it is essential in being able to carry your weight and be a working part of the combat unit. My belief is that all should remain as physically fit as possible, so they can carry their load. Thank you.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Where were all these so called experts in 1981. I guess no one cared about our welfare. Hey by the way it did us good. Lowering the standard brings less qualified people in my opinion. I thought when someone joined the military they were to adapt to the standards not the other way around
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Look, first of all no thought was given to the logistical nightmare of having the Reserve and Guard units not located on an installation administer this test. Second, the original ACFT was really geared towards 17-38 year old active component Soldiers who are young and have access to train 27/7. Reserve and Guard Soldiers are citizen Soldiers serving up to 60 years old who have civilian jobs and families outside of the military. These changes needed to happen and are for the better.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I'm not picking on anyone when I say this---but---This is the UNITED STATES ARMY---The same army that will eventually be called upon to defend the American People---If you want a free ride without the required physical standards---Join the SALVATION ARMY
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
This question really boils down to what you think the test is designed to do. Is it designed to test how many pushups someone can do? Or is it designed to determine their level of fitness? Studies showed that your performance on the test did not correlate to your performance in combat, which was the original logic behind having a set standard for everyone. The previous test was specifically to determine how healthy You Are by Fitness. One thing people need to understand is that I as a male if I do 100 pushups in a female does 100 push-ups, she is in significantly better shape than I am.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The big problem is today's society has a "one rule for all" mentality. Guess what, it never works. Most older people can't do what they did at 25 years of age. Men can't do things women do; on the flip side women can't do what men can. It's call biological make-up. This is another political correctness program. Today's leadership need a plexiotomy in hopes of seeing the big picture this have missed.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
If the Army would listen to me, we can fix all of this. Grading standards based on 5 digit MOS.
18 year old male 11B1O has the same standard as a 40 year old female 11B1O. Because we expect them to do the same job. But we do NOT expect the same from an 11B4O, AND DEFINITELY not the same from a 88M4O. (And yes, I would guess that the standard goes UP from 10 level to 20 level in most MOSs). And each MOS is also allowed to disallow some permanent profiles. You can no longer run? No combat arms for you. You cannot lift more than 35 pounds ever again? No combat arms or combat service support (those folks do some serious lifting and never get credit for it). You have no depth perception? No 88M for you. Etc.
If you choose to come into the Army at 35, you better be ready to run with the pups. If you are a female in a "male" MOS (yes, I know there are no male MOSs, that's why it is in quotes), then best be prepared to meet that standard. And if you are an old, broke male, who can't hack it in the Infantry (or Cavalry, or FST, or combat medic, etc.), that's fine... welcome to Intel/Logistics/Signal/etc.
Standard by MOS just makes so much more sense. And not just broad categories like ACFT tried to do at one point - this should be part of the Critical Task Review Board that every MOS conducts periodically. What does each MOS actually NEED to function in their individual and collective tasks at each skill level? As an example, when I was working JSTARS, we had an really big antenna, that, in its big shipping container (the "coffin"), weighed 280 pounds. The Army decided this was a 7-Soldier lift. The problem with this is that a JSTARS squad, by MTOE, was 6 Soldiers. An organic JSTARS squad could not move all of their own equipment. So that MOS would have a requirement to lift and carry 50 pounds for skill levels 10 - 30, because that is who would be carrying the antenna. And thusly, a fully staffed organic JSTARS squad would be capable of moving all of their own equipment. 40 levels weren't part of the JSTARS squad, they were positioned at higher echelons, so their requirement could drop down. (JSTARS is no longer its own MOS, so this example is moot. But it demonstrates the point.)
And then, to solve the "promotion points" problem of sexual discrimination, the test is a simple pass/fail. Either you meet the standard or not, just like Body Composition. No "bonus points" for being Chris Hemsworth in an 88M unit.
18 year old male 11B1O has the same standard as a 40 year old female 11B1O. Because we expect them to do the same job. But we do NOT expect the same from an 11B4O, AND DEFINITELY not the same from a 88M4O. (And yes, I would guess that the standard goes UP from 10 level to 20 level in most MOSs). And each MOS is also allowed to disallow some permanent profiles. You can no longer run? No combat arms for you. You cannot lift more than 35 pounds ever again? No combat arms or combat service support (those folks do some serious lifting and never get credit for it). You have no depth perception? No 88M for you. Etc.
If you choose to come into the Army at 35, you better be ready to run with the pups. If you are a female in a "male" MOS (yes, I know there are no male MOSs, that's why it is in quotes), then best be prepared to meet that standard. And if you are an old, broke male, who can't hack it in the Infantry (or Cavalry, or FST, or combat medic, etc.), that's fine... welcome to Intel/Logistics/Signal/etc.
Standard by MOS just makes so much more sense. And not just broad categories like ACFT tried to do at one point - this should be part of the Critical Task Review Board that every MOS conducts periodically. What does each MOS actually NEED to function in their individual and collective tasks at each skill level? As an example, when I was working JSTARS, we had an really big antenna, that, in its big shipping container (the "coffin"), weighed 280 pounds. The Army decided this was a 7-Soldier lift. The problem with this is that a JSTARS squad, by MTOE, was 6 Soldiers. An organic JSTARS squad could not move all of their own equipment. So that MOS would have a requirement to lift and carry 50 pounds for skill levels 10 - 30, because that is who would be carrying the antenna. And thusly, a fully staffed organic JSTARS squad would be capable of moving all of their own equipment. 40 levels weren't part of the JSTARS squad, they were positioned at higher echelons, so their requirement could drop down. (JSTARS is no longer its own MOS, so this example is moot. But it demonstrates the point.)
And then, to solve the "promotion points" problem of sexual discrimination, the test is a simple pass/fail. Either you meet the standard or not, just like Body Composition. No "bonus points" for being Chris Hemsworth in an 88M unit.
(0)
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
The ACFT was originally "Tiered" by the physical demands of that MOS, not the first time they tried that concept. The problem has always been that they want to open those physically demanding MOS's to females at the same time. Failure rate, let alone passing at the original "Heavy" level, for females has been almost 40%, while it was 7% for males as of 2021. However, almost 80% of female Officers at least passed the ACFT, so at least some of the issue is how to train females up to the standard.
That still doesn't get around the much higher injury rate of female soldiers in the heavy MOS's, 1.5 to 2.5X higher by AMEDD documents. Training helps, but that doesn't go away.
Now I would support a pass/fail for whatever test since rating that scoring has always been subjective. I had a Rater give me a Meets Expectations for a 297 APFT score. I would like to keep the tiered system simply because the demands of some of the MOS 's require a better physical ability.
https://phc.amedd.army.mil/PHC%20Resource%20Library/MiltaryWomenInjuryPrevention_FS_12-021-0319_Final.pdf
That still doesn't get around the much higher injury rate of female soldiers in the heavy MOS's, 1.5 to 2.5X higher by AMEDD documents. Training helps, but that doesn't go away.
Now I would support a pass/fail for whatever test since rating that scoring has always been subjective. I had a Rater give me a Meets Expectations for a 297 APFT score. I would like to keep the tiered system simply because the demands of some of the MOS 's require a better physical ability.
https://phc.amedd.army.mil/PHC%20Resource%20Library/MiltaryWomenInjuryPrevention_FS_12-021-0319_Final.pdf
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
CPT Lawrence Cable - Sir,
I have two major problems with the tiered system the ACFT tried to implement.
First, the tiered system is too broad. Infantry and Armor both have a heavy requirement. But I want my Infantry personnel to be pretty fast, moderately strong, and have a ton of endurance. I don't care how fast or slow my Armor personnel are, they need to have moderate endurance and a lot of strength. Both heavy loads, but different types.
Second, they used three digit MOS instead of five. In almost every MOS the physical demand for a 30 level is SLIGHTLY lower than that of a 10 or 20 level, and the requirements for 40 levels and up are even lower. The same is true on the Officer side. I expect Infantry Captains and higher to be able to do a foot patrol through Baghdad. But I don't expect them to be doing it day after day after day like a Lieutenant. And I certainly don't expect the field grades to be doing the 17 hour foot patrols that the Lieutenants and occasionally the Captains do from time to time. (And we all know that the only physical demands for Warrants involve high levels of caffeine tolerance due to the never ending cup of coffee, and the ability to camouflage like an octopus so they can never be found unless they want to be found.)
As far as the female fail rate, I am not concerned. Part of the problem with the female fail rate is that the ACFT is new. They were not prepared for the specifics of the test. The other part of the problem is unrealistic expectations - from both sides. A female (or a male) who BARELY passed the APFT could still join the Infantry - no one could tell them "no". Everyone who is rational realizes this is a bad idea. The physical demands of that job exceed "minimum standard." When the ACFT was rolled out, all of a sudden, you could NOT be an Infantry Soldier with the "minimum standard" of fitness. And now a marginal (but passing) Soldier is a failing Soldier. This was true in the moderate tier MOSs too, but to a lesser extent. And even in the low tier MOSs, those who were doing the bare minimum continued to do the bare minimum - and the ACFT is not a bare minimum test. So, from the Soldier side, too many Soldiers expected that their minimum standard would never change, and were unready/unwilling/unable to adapt to the new standard. From the Army side, they created a new standard and expected that no one - or very few - would have a problem adapting to the new standard. Either way, it is something that will fix itself over time. Either females will get with the program and meet the new standard; or they will realize that the heavy requirement MOSs actually REQUIRE a higher level of fitness, and avoid those MOSs unless they are REALLY ready to join them; or the Army will realize the standard is too high and reduce the demand. My hope is that if the latter is the answer, the Army ALSO looks at MOS tasks and skills and adjusts those accordingly.
Regarding injury rates, I see this as a (somewhat dark and gruesome) feature, rather than a bug. To clarify, I am not saying injuries or good, or we should be TRYING to have injuries. But, if these data are properly collected and analyzed, it gives us a LOT of information. We can then adjust training standards and/or focus. (For instance, how about some gosh darned flexibility and mobility training during PT. NEVER had this as an aspect of any physical fitness program I was in, despite it being a component of fitness. Every time I tried to put it on my PT plan as a PSG, for more than a once-in-a-blue-moon thing, I was routinely shot down.) Or we can look at the tasks themselves and see if there is a better way to do things. Soldiers getting injured is a bad thing. But, if we collect, collate, and analyze the data, we can see marked improvement in the way we do business as a result of those injuries.
I have two major problems with the tiered system the ACFT tried to implement.
First, the tiered system is too broad. Infantry and Armor both have a heavy requirement. But I want my Infantry personnel to be pretty fast, moderately strong, and have a ton of endurance. I don't care how fast or slow my Armor personnel are, they need to have moderate endurance and a lot of strength. Both heavy loads, but different types.
Second, they used three digit MOS instead of five. In almost every MOS the physical demand for a 30 level is SLIGHTLY lower than that of a 10 or 20 level, and the requirements for 40 levels and up are even lower. The same is true on the Officer side. I expect Infantry Captains and higher to be able to do a foot patrol through Baghdad. But I don't expect them to be doing it day after day after day like a Lieutenant. And I certainly don't expect the field grades to be doing the 17 hour foot patrols that the Lieutenants and occasionally the Captains do from time to time. (And we all know that the only physical demands for Warrants involve high levels of caffeine tolerance due to the never ending cup of coffee, and the ability to camouflage like an octopus so they can never be found unless they want to be found.)
As far as the female fail rate, I am not concerned. Part of the problem with the female fail rate is that the ACFT is new. They were not prepared for the specifics of the test. The other part of the problem is unrealistic expectations - from both sides. A female (or a male) who BARELY passed the APFT could still join the Infantry - no one could tell them "no". Everyone who is rational realizes this is a bad idea. The physical demands of that job exceed "minimum standard." When the ACFT was rolled out, all of a sudden, you could NOT be an Infantry Soldier with the "minimum standard" of fitness. And now a marginal (but passing) Soldier is a failing Soldier. This was true in the moderate tier MOSs too, but to a lesser extent. And even in the low tier MOSs, those who were doing the bare minimum continued to do the bare minimum - and the ACFT is not a bare minimum test. So, from the Soldier side, too many Soldiers expected that their minimum standard would never change, and were unready/unwilling/unable to adapt to the new standard. From the Army side, they created a new standard and expected that no one - or very few - would have a problem adapting to the new standard. Either way, it is something that will fix itself over time. Either females will get with the program and meet the new standard; or they will realize that the heavy requirement MOSs actually REQUIRE a higher level of fitness, and avoid those MOSs unless they are REALLY ready to join them; or the Army will realize the standard is too high and reduce the demand. My hope is that if the latter is the answer, the Army ALSO looks at MOS tasks and skills and adjusts those accordingly.
Regarding injury rates, I see this as a (somewhat dark and gruesome) feature, rather than a bug. To clarify, I am not saying injuries or good, or we should be TRYING to have injuries. But, if these data are properly collected and analyzed, it gives us a LOT of information. We can then adjust training standards and/or focus. (For instance, how about some gosh darned flexibility and mobility training during PT. NEVER had this as an aspect of any physical fitness program I was in, despite it being a component of fitness. Every time I tried to put it on my PT plan as a PSG, for more than a once-in-a-blue-moon thing, I was routinely shot down.) Or we can look at the tasks themselves and see if there is a better way to do things. Soldiers getting injured is a bad thing. But, if we collect, collate, and analyze the data, we can see marked improvement in the way we do business as a result of those injuries.
(0)
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
SFC Casey O'Mally - I think we disagree on what it takes to be a grunt a bit. During my enlisted time, I carried a M47 Dragon, did a M60 gunner for a time also. I was scoring over 90 points an event on the APFT and I will tell you, fast with a combat load isn't happening. I doubt that I could have ran a mile carrying my basic load plus the tube and sight and it certainly wouldn't have been fast. We didn't wear body armor, I can't see anyone being fast with the present load.
I would say that the most realistic PT test for an 11B would be a time confidence course followed by a 5 mile timed ruck march. If you really wanted reality, see if they could qualify with their weapon at the end of the ruck march.
I would say that the most realistic PT test for an 11B would be a time confidence course followed by a 5 mile timed ruck march. If you really wanted reality, see if they could qualify with their weapon at the end of the ruck march.
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
CPT Lawrence Cable - Sir,
I agree. Which is why the thing I put above all is endurance. But I still want speed after kicking down the door or, if we ever get back to conventional warfare, executing squad attack.
In the way way back, I was the Platoon RTO. My PL had gone to college on a full ride track scholarship. I was NEVER going to keep up with him. Especially when I had a radio on my back, but he didn't. But I'll be damned if I didn't try like hell.
No, we aren't going to ask our infantry to do a 12-mile jog (or airborne shuffle) to the firefight. But once they are at the firefight, they better be able to move with a purpose.
While I didn't specify it above, I am also looking more at sprint speed than 2-mile run speed. 3-5 second rush, building to building movement, drag a wounded battle buddy to cover type speed.
I agree. Which is why the thing I put above all is endurance. But I still want speed after kicking down the door or, if we ever get back to conventional warfare, executing squad attack.
In the way way back, I was the Platoon RTO. My PL had gone to college on a full ride track scholarship. I was NEVER going to keep up with him. Especially when I had a radio on my back, but he didn't. But I'll be damned if I didn't try like hell.
No, we aren't going to ask our infantry to do a 12-mile jog (or airborne shuffle) to the firefight. But once they are at the firefight, they better be able to move with a purpose.
While I didn't specify it above, I am also looking more at sprint speed than 2-mile run speed. 3-5 second rush, building to building movement, drag a wounded battle buddy to cover type speed.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google