Source: Recommended changes to PT test expected soon

Army Times — Mon, 22 Dec 2014 09:31:08 -0500

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/

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Dec 22 at 2014 10:00 AM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Mon, 22 Dec 2014 10:00:27 -0500

Proposed changes have been "on the way" since at least back in 2000...while an SGL at then PLDC, we received an entire slide deck with the proposed changes and it was supposed to be implemented by the end of the FY...still waiting I see.....

Response by CSM David Heidke made Dec 22 at 2014 10:25 AM

CSM David Heidke — Mon, 22 Dec 2014 10:25:09 -0500

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...

Response by SSG Ryan Moore made Dec 22 at 2014 10:28 AM

SSG Ryan Moore — Mon, 22 Dec 2014 10:28:18 -0500

The other issue they need to look at is that not everyone can do every event - case and point, I am unable to run anymore or cannot do the situps. So how is one to grade on events if there are certain items that service members cannot do.. Doesn't seem like a feasible task to force Soldiers to break their profiles... Just my thoughts.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2014 10:28 AM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 22 Dec 2014 10:28:22 -0500

We will have to wait and see I have heard they are going to change the APFT for so many years now, I am just going to wait until it is changed. Because this is about the fifth time I have seen proposed changes to the APFT.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Dec 22 at 2014 10:47 AM

CPT Zachary Brooks — Mon, 22 Dec 2014 10:47:31 -0500

One minute for pushups
One minute for chinups/pullups
1.5 mile run

You get a push, a pull, and a run that is between distance and a sprint. Requires minimal equipment and is a more thorough testing of the muscles in the body. Should reduce lower back injuries too without those stupid sit ups.

Response by LTC Scott O'Neil made Dec 22 at 2014 11:11 AM

LTC Scott O'Neil — Mon, 22 Dec 2014 11:11:48 -0500

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.

Response by SSG Stephen Arnold made Dec 22 at 2014 11:31 AM

SSG Stephen Arnold — Mon, 22 Dec 2014 11:31:34 -0500

Making a change to PT that is relevant to combat skills is commendable.

Any attempt to make it "gender neutral" is contrary to combat readiness. It either measures combat readiness or it does not. Bullets ARE gender neutral, so you had better be fit enough to increase your chances for survival.

Response by LTC Dr Richard Wasserman, LTC (R) made Dec 22 at 2014 11:45 AM

LTC Dr Richard Wasserman, LTC (R) — Mon, 22 Dec 2014 11:45:25 -0500

How much $$ did they waste on the last NEW PT test?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2014 1:05 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 22 Dec 2014 13:05:22 -0500

I remember a few years back hearing something about how the SMA wanted there to be a timed 4 mile run (36:00 was the limit I believe), what ever happened to that? No elaborate training materials required here, and that would certainly help "trim the fat" since we're downsizing and all............

Response by SGT Brian Gibbs made Dec 22 at 2014 1:20 PM

SGT Brian Gibbs — Mon, 22 Dec 2014 13:20:46 -0500

I agree. It needs to be changed. The current APFT, though difficult for some, doesn't truly test your ability to be fit. Pushups on test that you have basic strength and sit ups only destroy your back over time. The run is the only part of the APFT that even remotely provides some type of test of your agility and leg strength. I remember watching a soldier that was 30lbs of weight and still drunk from partying on Thursday night pass an APFT test as a punishment for coming to work still drunk. I remember the look on the 1SG's face when he finished his 2 mile run in under 15 min (puking the whole way).

Response by CW3(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2014 2:06 PM

CW3(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 22 Dec 2014 14:06:13 -0500

Nothing new here. Like someone else said, it's the Army Times fall back story when news is slow.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2014 2:12 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 22 Dec 2014 14:12:34 -0500

I will think of something

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Dec 22 at 2014 3:26 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Mon, 22 Dec 2014 15:26:47 -0500

Are they adding a colonoscopy this time?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2014 5:02 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 22 Dec 2014 17:02:47 -0500

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...

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Dec 22 at 2014 5:14 PM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Mon, 22 Dec 2014 17:14:01 -0500

Will we see a new APFT? Could be a yes, could be a no....here's an answer to support either position:

YES, because: understand the environment, where command is our SMA coming from? He has great street credibility, if he is behind this, I believe it will happen, before the end of 2015!

NO, because: unless the test is "easier" because we've allowed our Initial Entry Soldiers go to the first duty station as long as the Soldier gets 50 points per event!

Response by SPC John Decker made Dec 22 at 2014 6:55 PM

SPC John Decker — Mon, 22 Dec 2014 18:55:24 -0500

The gender neutral thing has to be. You never know what's going to happen on the battlefield. The ammo cans atop a balance beam seems strange. Why the beam? What cost of materials? Most bases, at least in my day, had an obstacle course of some kind. They could use available terrain features and/or other naturally found elements. Why pay for artificial versions of things that would be found on an actual battlefield? Whatever test they come up, they need to make sure that daily PT includes physical activity coordinated to the test.

Response by John Russell made Dec 22 at 2014 8:23 PM

John Russell — Mon, 22 Dec 2014 20:23:22 -0500

Id say leave it the way it is so they dont dock our pay and cut our benefits for the sake of researching and never implementing a new worthless pt test.

Response by SPC(P) Micah Lavigne made Dec 22 at 2014 11:37 PM

SPC(P) Micah Lavigne — Mon, 22 Dec 2014 23:37:55 -0500

The APFT is not broken. Why fix it? When I got injured it was not due to the days of FM 21-20 it I got more from PT than I do in PRT. PRT to me is a joke and it limits the work outs that can be done. every body is different and each has a different work out requirement to pass an APFT. If anything is broke its the gender specific requirements that needs to be balanced out. If a Female Soldier is expected to input the same amount of work as a Male Soldier should the standards for their Physical fitness be the same (down to reps). I say if a program has worked for an x amount of time with no decrease then why change it?

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Dec 22 at 2014 11:44 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Mon, 22 Dec 2014 23:44:52 -0500

I work in an office so therefore I should have to ruck a laptop on my back and tested for speed and accurancy when putting a spreadsheet from scratch. And my skills should be tested in reference to making coffee. Taste testers will be on site.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 23 at 2014 4:14 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Dec 2014 04:14:52 -0500

All this talk about the new possible APFT. I will believe it when I see it. I have been part of some many test groups since I was a cadet and to no avail. I am happy though that the Army is trying to figure out a good way of doing this instead of making a mistake like the ACUs.

Response by PVT Bryan Carver made Dec 23 at 2014 8:16 AM

PVT Bryan Carver — Tue, 23 Dec 2014 08:16:09 -0500

It sounds like something needs to change with a the remarks on RallyPoint. It's 2014 for christ sakes, let's get with the program people. Improvise, adapt, and overcome!

The current APFT is a joke and all most every Soldier who wears the uniform with pride knows it. The problem is how do we fix it. I give cudos to those who are trying to fix. Just don't waste Soldier's time and energy. Look at programs out there now that work and have been proven. HINT, HINT; USMC!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 23 at 2014 11:39 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Dec 2014 23:39:59 -0500

It aint broke, DONT FIX IT!!!!!! We got folks who cant even pass the current PT test

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 24 at 2014 12:23 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Dec 2014 00:23:14 -0500

I'm curious as to what the new standards and events would be. And getting rid of the rating system....? I mean promotion boards have become go or no go. What will we use for a criteria in promotions if we turn all events to go or no go

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 24 at 2014 3:55 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Dec 2014 15:55:58 -0500

I hope they can figure this. I did PRT since 2001 in basic training in Ft. Jackson, SC. During the same year, they told us they were changing the PT Test. People think I joke, but we really conducted the PRT exercises and movement drills. We actually were issued dumbbells of 2, 5, and 8 pounds and did dumbbell drills. The only thing that we did different was the reps were increased, so eventually we did 25 of each exercise (forward lunge, rear lunge, rower, and etc).

In 2005, our unit (1st Med BDE, Fort Hood) conducted PRT and there was more talk of changing the PT Test.

In 2010, I went to OCS and they told us that we were probably taking the last PT Test before it would be changed and conducted PRT.

In 2011, I finished BOLC and was told that the PT Test was going to change soon and conducted PRT.

In 2012, units conducted more PRT in the 82nd to prepare for the upcoming PT Test.

Basically, it has been a really long on-going process. Including the PRT since 2001. When I went to AIT in 2002, I was lost when they said "the neck rotation".

Response by 1SG Pete Marcell made Dec 24 at 2014 4:53 PM

1SG Pete Marcell — Wed, 24 Dec 2014 16:53:44 -0500

This has rumor has been going on since at least the late '80's. Regardless of what test is in place Soldiers will complain (that's what Soldiers do) that the test isn't fair because ___________ . Just leave it alone and enforce the standard...

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 24 at 2014 9:17 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Dec 2014 21:17:23 -0500

I only want the sit-up to change. The rest is good. Adding to it just means it will take longer!!!!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 24 at 2014 11:21 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Dec 2014 23:21:39 -0500

Is this a repeat from 2010? or was that a repeat from 2008?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 24 at 2014 11:51 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Dec 2014 23:51:54 -0500

They should also consider updating the height/weight standards.

Response by CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 25 at 2014 6:36 PM

CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Dec 2014 18:36:42 -0500

If ain't broke don't fix up!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 25 at 2014 7:59 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Dec 2014 19:59:30 -0500

Welp, in that case...the long jump would knock me out.

Response by SFC Walter Mack made Dec 25 at 2014 10:30 PM

SFC Walter Mack — Thu, 25 Dec 2014 22:30:39 -0500

My personal opinion is that we train as we fight. Combat consists of being able to push through enemy contact when you're already tired. So here's two ways to win.

First, we could go to the 1946 PT test. Let's do all five events, with no rest between repetitions and no time between events. I did it in SLC, and did well, but it sucked. This would force Soldiers to get in great shape, develop multiple muscle groups, and have a Total Soldier level of fitness like our grandparents and great grandparents did. In combat, there is no 10 minutes between anaerobic activity. There is no break or rest or specific one muscle group worked when under fire or navigating difficult terrain.

Second, we could keep our current APFT, and stop giving money to colleges that blow smoke up our butt with unrealistic expectations of a whole Army. The current APFT lets leaders know who feels that doing their job as a Soldier is important. Those who score well on an APFT do not suffer on other physical requirements. If it's important to Soldier, then the Soldier will Soldier! More importantly, we are already effectively running up and down mountains in Afghanistan effectively destroying enemy forces the same way we did in past wars. Our Soldiers are performing in war despite any shortcomings of the current APFT, and changing it won't make any significant difference in our combat ability. Stop trying to fix anything that isn't broken, unless we're going to use a system that was already effective in the past. If our current system is proven more effective, then stop it. Just stop it.

Response by SGT Karen Scott made Dec 26 at 2014 12:21 PM

SGT Karen Scott — Fri, 26 Dec 2014 12:21:58 -0500

Did well on PT test. I loved running could run six miles. What floored me is seeing those that smoke cigarette right before they do the PT test. I always wondered how they could smoke right before a PT test. Running to me was a great stress relief, but after getting injured back & neck by violent attacks in the Army at work it was difficult to run PT with injuries. Some males got medical waivers to continue to work in the Army they got to go to finish their career for twenty or more. If they couldn't do the job they were currently in they were placed in a different position. However, there was double standards many female soldiers couldn't get medical waivers due to bias if they were injured they were not allowed to continue their career in the Army, not many females were allowed medical waivers, unless they had someone that was not bias and was advocating for them. In the past men that have lost limbs got to continue to work in the Army. But when it came to women they were forced out and not allowed to re-enlist even if they had an MOS that they could continue their career. Too much bias! These women could have gone on with their careers for twenty or more doing a great job, but due to the bias. Due to corruption, bias and criminal violent actions I was injured, however I could have continued with my career. But in my time the men were too bias that were personally attacking me with extreme bias due to reporting crimes and rapes!!!