Posted on Dec 22, 2014
Source: Recommended changes to PT test expected soon
27.6K
176
116
6
6
0
From: Army Times
The Army continues to study potential changes to the 30-year-old Army Physical Fitness test, and senior leaders could be briefed on recommended changes as soon as late summer or early fall, a senior Army official told Army Times.
Training and Doctrine Command, which is spearheading this effort, is looking at the requirements for a new PT test and whether the service is measuring the right things, said the official, who spoke on background.
The Army is looking to overhaul the APFT so that it's relevant to soldiers' jobs using gender-neutral standards.
Part of that effort is a study by the Army Center for Initial Military Training called the Baseline Soldier Physical Readiness Requirements Study that's focused on warrior tasks, battle drills and common soldier tasks. The aim of the study is to determine what it takes physically to perform the tasks troops do every day.
The Army also is conducting an experiment involving 500 soldiers of both genders to study how they perform combat tasks. That research is expected to influence the creation of a physical aptitude test, or a series of tests, that could drastically alter how soldiers are assigned jobs.
The current APFT was adopted in the 1980s as a simple snapshot of overall fitness, one that could be taken with a minimum of training and no equipment, so it could be administered in any environment.
Over the years, there have been several efforts to overhaul the test, notably an elaborate 2012 plan that was announced, only to die on the vine because it was not validated scientifically.
The 2012 revamp plan included a hard-core combat readiness test and a general five-event test that included max pushups in one minute, a 60-yard shuttle run, one-minute rower, long jump and 1.5-mile run.
That scrapped effort was meant to provide a better predictor of successful physical performance on the battlefield and like the previous test, to provide it without equipment or extensive training.
The idea for the test — which included a 400-meter run with weapon; an obstacle course with low hurdles, high crawls and over-under obstacles; a 40-yard casualty drag; a 40-yard run with ammo cans atop a balance beam; point, aim and move drills; a 100-yard ammo can shuttle sprint; and a 100-yard agility sprint — was thrown out due to the cost of materials.
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/2014/12/22/pt-test-changes-army/20632617/
The Army continues to study potential changes to the 30-year-old Army Physical Fitness test, and senior leaders could be briefed on recommended changes as soon as late summer or early fall, a senior Army official told Army Times.
Training and Doctrine Command, which is spearheading this effort, is looking at the requirements for a new PT test and whether the service is measuring the right things, said the official, who spoke on background.
The Army is looking to overhaul the APFT so that it's relevant to soldiers' jobs using gender-neutral standards.
Part of that effort is a study by the Army Center for Initial Military Training called the Baseline Soldier Physical Readiness Requirements Study that's focused on warrior tasks, battle drills and common soldier tasks. The aim of the study is to determine what it takes physically to perform the tasks troops do every day.
The Army also is conducting an experiment involving 500 soldiers of both genders to study how they perform combat tasks. That research is expected to influence the creation of a physical aptitude test, or a series of tests, that could drastically alter how soldiers are assigned jobs.
The current APFT was adopted in the 1980s as a simple snapshot of overall fitness, one that could be taken with a minimum of training and no equipment, so it could be administered in any environment.
Over the years, there have been several efforts to overhaul the test, notably an elaborate 2012 plan that was announced, only to die on the vine because it was not validated scientifically.
The 2012 revamp plan included a hard-core combat readiness test and a general five-event test that included max pushups in one minute, a 60-yard shuttle run, one-minute rower, long jump and 1.5-mile run.
That scrapped effort was meant to provide a better predictor of successful physical performance on the battlefield and like the previous test, to provide it without equipment or extensive training.
The idea for the test — which included a 400-meter run with weapon; an obstacle course with low hurdles, high crawls and over-under obstacles; a 40-yard casualty drag; a 40-yard run with ammo cans atop a balance beam; point, aim and move drills; a 100-yard ammo can shuttle sprint; and a 100-yard agility sprint — was thrown out due to the cost of materials.
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/2014/12/22/pt-test-changes-army/20632617/
APFT
Fitness
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 32
25
25
0
Sounds like the good idea fairy trying to fix what isn't broken. What is aggravating the most about this is that they propose cuts to Service Members and Retiree benefits and pay, but yet we have the money to waste On a "study" to fix what is not broken. The current APFT measures a Soldier's endurance and strength just fine. Each event tests the strength of every muscle group used in day to day operations. Quit trying to fix what has proven to work. Just because it is old, does not mean it is broke or ineffective. If that was the case, the M2 would have been taken out of service decades ago...
(25)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I understand your point 1SG and I agree to a certain point. However, it's not necessarily expected that you can run two miles straight, but actually maintain the endurance for an extended amount of time in a combat zone. The APFT is meant to evaluate endurance as well as strength. Although I agree with you that the chances of having to run two miles in a combat zone are slim to none, I do believe it is important that a Soldier can maintain that level of endurance. I'm looking at it from different points of view. Not only from the physical readiness perspective, but also the training and integration perspective as well. As a Drill Sergeant, I am required to integrate and prepare IET Soldiers into the Army with a minimal amount of time and a maximum amount of training. Drill Sergeants and Trainers are spread thin the way it is with training schedules and required classes and certifications. To revamp a system that is simple and cost effective for an extended multiple event fitness test is a waste of time, money, and resources that could be better used to train the Soldier for a combat environment. You know as well as I do that if they made changes to the current APFT, it would not be to simplify it but to complicate it.
(3)
(0)
SSG Genaro Negrete
Due to it's simplicity, I would venture to say that the current APFT isn't really the problem. The issue is that, with any testing environment, everyone trains for the test, not the real world. (I realize that's a blanket statement, but stay with me here)
There is so much of our careers linked to the APFT score, that we will do everything we can to make sure we can max out push ups, sit ups, and a two mile run. That leaves precious little time to develop true speed, strength, agility, and endurance.
The simplicity with which the current APFT can be administered to soldiers is the key. It doesn't matter if your team leader wants to do a diagnostic or if the battalion is holding the event. It's simple and straight forward.
Why not, instead of trying to reinvent this test, we focus on teaching team leaders about functional fitness. Not a master fitness trainer, those slots are few and far between in units. Add a module for personal fitness training in WLC. No matter the PT plan, the Army relies on the team leader to institute the training directly to the soldier. Maybe even incentivise this skill by giving promotion points for being certified as a personal fitness trainer (be it crossfit level 1, or something like that).
The tools are there for all soldiers to pick up on, we just need to make the knowledge base more solid.
There is so much of our careers linked to the APFT score, that we will do everything we can to make sure we can max out push ups, sit ups, and a two mile run. That leaves precious little time to develop true speed, strength, agility, and endurance.
The simplicity with which the current APFT can be administered to soldiers is the key. It doesn't matter if your team leader wants to do a diagnostic or if the battalion is holding the event. It's simple and straight forward.
Why not, instead of trying to reinvent this test, we focus on teaching team leaders about functional fitness. Not a master fitness trainer, those slots are few and far between in units. Add a module for personal fitness training in WLC. No matter the PT plan, the Army relies on the team leader to institute the training directly to the soldier. Maybe even incentivise this skill by giving promotion points for being certified as a personal fitness trainer (be it crossfit level 1, or something like that).
The tools are there for all soldiers to pick up on, we just need to make the knowledge base more solid.
(2)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
Those who commented before me are correct. The APFT was created because it can be done anywhere without equipment. But I wouldn't say running 2 miles is irrelevant because you've only done 25m sprints. - (IMT'd). It's about anaerobic endurance. We in the 75th Ranger Regiment created a new PT test about 6 years ago and we briefed the COS on it last year. He is integrating part of it into the new APFT. We run a 5 miler as part of the test. We don't do 5 miles of running in a gun fight but need the terminal endurance to get to the target (sometimes in mountainous terrain), conduct the raid, and have enough energy for a follow-on mission, CASEVAC, and a foot movement to exfil. If all you did was sprints to replicate the IMT portion, you would definitely fail.
(0)
(0)
9
9
0
Here is my 2 cents for all it is worth. The Army has been thinking about changing the PT test for a long time know, Medical evidence that sit-ups cause damage to the neck and spine, the run can aggravate knee and joint conditions. What is The Army really trying to evaluate. Not everyone is going to be 5 foot 11in and 175 lbs and can run like a gazelle or have a 6 pack abs or can lift their own weight. Different MOS require different skills and different body types. Infantry lean mean running machines, Tankers and Gun Bunnies need to be shorter, thicker and require lots of upper body strength to fix track and lift rounds.
No one test will be able to evaluate the perfect specimen or every soldiers strength and endurance. Quick evaluations can be assessed using push-ups, crunches, pull-ups, an endurance run, and a speed and agility test like the shuttle run. Not everyone is a endurance runner or a weight lifter or a sprinter.
Since when will 1 hour of a few exercises and a 2 to 3 mile run for 5 days a week make a person a world class athlete. TRADOC and the Sergeants Majors of the Army (Because it is NCO business to ensure soldiers are trained and ready and officers jobs to ensure the force is capable of meeting the requirements and expectations of this countries leadership) come up with an evaluation methods to assess soldiers in endurance, core stability and strength not use it to kick soldiers who are capable of performing their mission out of The Army. It is an assessment tool not a tool to weed out those who do not conform to an ideal body type or be a world class athlete. To be a world class athlete takes hours of training a day and years of dedication and a lifetime to perfect.
No one test will be able to evaluate the perfect specimen or every soldiers strength and endurance. Quick evaluations can be assessed using push-ups, crunches, pull-ups, an endurance run, and a speed and agility test like the shuttle run. Not everyone is a endurance runner or a weight lifter or a sprinter.
Since when will 1 hour of a few exercises and a 2 to 3 mile run for 5 days a week make a person a world class athlete. TRADOC and the Sergeants Majors of the Army (Because it is NCO business to ensure soldiers are trained and ready and officers jobs to ensure the force is capable of meeting the requirements and expectations of this countries leadership) come up with an evaluation methods to assess soldiers in endurance, core stability and strength not use it to kick soldiers who are capable of performing their mission out of The Army. It is an assessment tool not a tool to weed out those who do not conform to an ideal body type or be a world class athlete. To be a world class athlete takes hours of training a day and years of dedication and a lifetime to perfect.
(9)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
Well said, especially about the damage being done to bodies over the length of a career in the name of "fitness."
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
LTC Scott O'Neil You say "Medical evidence that sit-ups cause damage to the neck and spine, ... " which is quite correct. A much better exercise for toning/developing the abs is the "Sit-back" (with its ability to increase from minimal to maximum effort/resistance rather than starting out with a position that requires 100% effort and never actually increases);
and "... the run can aggravate knee and joint conditions." which is also quite correct (as well as being a totally unrealistic exercise for combat conditions [When was the last time you saw someone - voluntarily - running a mile in PT gear and runners to get into combat?]);
then you ask "What is The Army really trying to evaluate." and the cynic's answer to that is "The ability of members of the US military to count and write numbers in the correct boxes on a pre-printed form".
As the Falklands Campaign showed "runners" have a much lower ability to endure the stresses of long term combat operations than "humpers" do. "Runners" simply don't have the body mass reserves of those whose training has concentrated on long duration, weight bearing, based exercises.
I'm only being slightly facetious when I say "Bring back the 'March and Shoot'." (my personal preference is the "Map March and Shoot").
[HINT TO Jr.Os - Please do not attempt a "Map March and Shoot" without a whole lot of thought. They take a lot of pre-planning and logistical forethought. Not only that, but your troops will grumble (LOUDLY) about how difficult their training is whenever they are within hearing range of troops from other Platoons/Companies and make the troops who aren't actually being trained up to a standard which gives them a better chance of survival unhappy.] [PS - Please remember, that if you are actually foolish enough to do a "Map March and Shoot" you will have to recruit judges and/or safety staff from another Platoon/Company because YOU (and your Platoon/Company HQ staff) are going to be amongst of the participants.]
On the other hand, counting push-ups, sit-ups, and pull-ups is SOOOOO much simpler - and it doesn't require a lot of planning or logistics to do "properly".
and "... the run can aggravate knee and joint conditions." which is also quite correct (as well as being a totally unrealistic exercise for combat conditions [When was the last time you saw someone - voluntarily - running a mile in PT gear and runners to get into combat?]);
then you ask "What is The Army really trying to evaluate." and the cynic's answer to that is "The ability of members of the US military to count and write numbers in the correct boxes on a pre-printed form".
As the Falklands Campaign showed "runners" have a much lower ability to endure the stresses of long term combat operations than "humpers" do. "Runners" simply don't have the body mass reserves of those whose training has concentrated on long duration, weight bearing, based exercises.
I'm only being slightly facetious when I say "Bring back the 'March and Shoot'." (my personal preference is the "Map March and Shoot").
[HINT TO Jr.Os - Please do not attempt a "Map March and Shoot" without a whole lot of thought. They take a lot of pre-planning and logistical forethought. Not only that, but your troops will grumble (LOUDLY) about how difficult their training is whenever they are within hearing range of troops from other Platoons/Companies and make the troops who aren't actually being trained up to a standard which gives them a better chance of survival unhappy.] [PS - Please remember, that if you are actually foolish enough to do a "Map March and Shoot" you will have to recruit judges and/or safety staff from another Platoon/Company because YOU (and your Platoon/Company HQ staff) are going to be amongst of the participants.]
On the other hand, counting push-ups, sit-ups, and pull-ups is SOOOOO much simpler - and it doesn't require a lot of planning or logistics to do "properly".
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
The real question is do we want good test takers or athletes who can perform combat duties sufficiently. Regiment hired strength coaches several years ago and lowered their knee injuries by 60%. As an alum of the ACL surgery, that is very appealing.
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
I've heard this for 15 years. I'll believe it when it happens.
Our last SMA wanted a 12 mile road march and a 4 mile run for time...
Our last SMA wanted a 12 mile road march and a 4 mile run for time...
(8)
(0)
CSM David Heidke
MAJ Michael Scharff, I wrote several responses to your post and deleted them all... Bottom line, I disagree with your assertion, and the inference that I'm lazy.
A leader will always think of the impact he or she has on their Soldiers on "Monday morning" especially when he has to send them home.
I realize that may not be part of the curriculum at ROTC or OCS, but it is in the NCOES.
I don't think I would enjoy working for an officer who didn't care if he broke me on a weekend without a really good reason.
A leader will always think of the impact he or she has on their Soldiers on "Monday morning" especially when he has to send them home.
I realize that may not be part of the curriculum at ROTC or OCS, but it is in the NCOES.
I don't think I would enjoy working for an officer who didn't care if he broke me on a weekend without a really good reason.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Michael Scharff
CSM David Heidke, First, I notice that you just don’t disagree with me… you seem to have an issue with all officers based on your disparaging remarks about leadership and empathy training officers receive: “I realize that may not be part of the curriculum at ROTC or OCS, but it is in the NCOES”. I can only assume that in your opinion the 82d Airborne Division and other divisions that have a similar standard are broken and apparently the NCOs in those divisions don't go through NCOES or care about there soldiers as much as you do. While I was stationed at Bragg, I don't think a 12 mile road march "broke" anyone - especially so that they couldn't work the next day. In fact, we did it early in the morning and then went about our normal training during the rest of the day. The main point I was trying to make was that the Army should have a standard that is related to the level of physical fitness needed on the battlefield and it shouldn't matter which part of the army you are in, nor should it matter your age or gender - just that there should be a standard. Do you have an issue with going to the range even though that takes most, if not all of the day? Assuming we develop that standard, and it is a valid test of physical fitness and endurance required, then we should not let time constraints in the reserves dictate what that standard is or how big a part of a day it takes up. Because we owe it to our soldiers to make sure they are trained to win on the battlefield (this includes physical fitness). Not sure I needed OCS or ROTC to learn that... I assumed your original statement about your soldiers being "broken" on Monday morning was just hyperbole, but now I'm beginning to wonder. So... assuming that it was not... and assuming that a 12 mile road march is a better standard (I’m not saying that it is, but for a second let's assume that it is), and your soldiers are truly so broken the day after they do it... I would argue that those soldiers are not prepared and that is a leadership issue regardless of the training received. Again, my point was that time constraints should not be an issue and if we have a valid test that measures appropriate physical performance that it should be conducted… and if your soldiers are truly “broken” by the administration of this test, then they probably are not prepared as they should be. I think a better argument would have been that the road march is not a valid test of they fitness needed on the battlefield not that your soldiers would be so broken they couldn’t go to work the next day if they did it… I also don’t think disparaging all officers and their training is beneficial if you disagree with me!
(0)
(0)
CSM David Heidke
MAJ Michael Scharff, not all officers. I actually have high regard for most.
But when an officer speaks as an expert on all from a position where he/she has no idea of the other position, such as time constraints, I have an issue.
But you're right... Why not take the standard of the 82nd Airborne, which are fine standards, as the new standard of the Army? Why stop there? For we can both agree that the 82nd Airborne is not the pinnacle of Army achievement, right? Why not require that the Reserve components spend the same amount of time in the field that an infantry unit? Why not require all leaders to go through Ranger school? Why not adopt the standards of the most elite schools for everyone? Well, we know why don't we. Because we all do different jobs, we don't all need to be that. We are not all Infantry, or Airborne, or Drill Sergeants. Some are cooks, or truck drivers, or typists. And some have civilian jobs, and don't have the luxury of 24/7 military facilities at our disposal, being excused from their lives if they injure themselves doing PT.
So, dish it up, let's require us all to do the same thing! Oh, wait a minute... We aren't all active duty.
So, I do have some distain for leadership who have no idea, or compassion for those of us who need to make time (yep, that word again), when they give the Reserve Components the unending requirements that you give us. Because all the Operation Orders that you write will take away from he training that isn't in an Operation Order, which is pretty much the training that helps us do our jobs.
But hey, we'll be able to walk 12 miles with a pack, Sir. But they won't know how to pull security in a convoy, or call for fire, or send a nine line MEDEVAC request, or drive a truck, or build a bridge. Because some full time guy decided we needed ACU Velcro training, after all, we all have the time... right?
Time constraints are real, whether you choose to acknowledge them or not.
But when an officer speaks as an expert on all from a position where he/she has no idea of the other position, such as time constraints, I have an issue.
But you're right... Why not take the standard of the 82nd Airborne, which are fine standards, as the new standard of the Army? Why stop there? For we can both agree that the 82nd Airborne is not the pinnacle of Army achievement, right? Why not require that the Reserve components spend the same amount of time in the field that an infantry unit? Why not require all leaders to go through Ranger school? Why not adopt the standards of the most elite schools for everyone? Well, we know why don't we. Because we all do different jobs, we don't all need to be that. We are not all Infantry, or Airborne, or Drill Sergeants. Some are cooks, or truck drivers, or typists. And some have civilian jobs, and don't have the luxury of 24/7 military facilities at our disposal, being excused from their lives if they injure themselves doing PT.
So, dish it up, let's require us all to do the same thing! Oh, wait a minute... We aren't all active duty.
So, I do have some distain for leadership who have no idea, or compassion for those of us who need to make time (yep, that word again), when they give the Reserve Components the unending requirements that you give us. Because all the Operation Orders that you write will take away from he training that isn't in an Operation Order, which is pretty much the training that helps us do our jobs.
But hey, we'll be able to walk 12 miles with a pack, Sir. But they won't know how to pull security in a convoy, or call for fire, or send a nine line MEDEVAC request, or drive a truck, or build a bridge. Because some full time guy decided we needed ACU Velcro training, after all, we all have the time... right?
Time constraints are real, whether you choose to acknowledge them or not.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Michael Scharff
I never said that all soldiers should meet the requirements of elite schools or units... just that there should be a minimum standard for everyone - like qualifying with a weapon... that should be a requirement regardless of active duty status... if that minimum standard (whatever that is) means some current soldiers can't make that standard, we should fix that, not lower a standard.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google