New Army Fitness Test

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by Mitch, Jan 13, 2020.

  1. Mitch

    Mitch Lord Mitch of MAP Admin

    Last edited: Jan 13, 2020
  2. Thomas

    Thomas Combat Hapkido/Taekwondo

    On one hand, I like the idea of testing people on being able to perform 'functional' tasks, but I am not sure that I like it as a "new" PT test. I seem to recall one of the reasons for changing it was becuase too many people were failing the old one.

    This new test requires quite a bit more time and lots of props to conduct it. The old one was the number of pushups and situps in 2 minutes and your timed 2 mile run - a test that was easy to administer and fairly simple way to gauge overall fitness. I just don't see the new one as being any better and just being more cumbersome. The precise physical skills for your job should be handled in your unit training, not the uniform PT test. Thankfully I don't have to do them anymore! :)
     
    Mitch and pgsmith like this.
  3. Mushroom

    Mushroom De-powered to come back better than before.

    Pull ups and the 2 mile run would do me over...simply because.
    A) I cant do pull ups.
    B) Mah neeeees

    Uniform PT I kind of see it as the BMI of exercises...you kind of have to keep it as broad as possible for every shape and size and strength and length of people, because we're all built differently.

    Hong Kong Police was something like 20 everything. (Pushups, situps, pull ups etc) and then a mountain run.

    That's the entrance fitness, then there's the annual fitness test which is significantly easier.

    I have read recently though, in the UK that the fitness tests are being lowered even more.
    (attempting to cite source...was in the papers recently - long story short, someone failed and sued the services and won)

    Here's a link to the current requirements...
    The police fitness test | Joining the Police | PoliceOracle.com
     
    Mitch likes this.
  4. Shmook

    Shmook Valued Member

    I left my force 2 years ago, and the push/pull was binned after I joined, so I hasn't been in play for 6 years. The bleep test was only to 5.4 as well. Not sure it that was national, or just my lot.

    We did that first, and then did re qual on cuffing/baton/PAVA techniques, which were also streamlined every year to make them easier...

    The JRFT was a joke, and yearly refreshers were often done with a hangover. Allegedly.

    Edit, apologies for off topic.
     
    Mitch likes this.
  5. Mushroom

    Mushroom De-powered to come back better than before.


    Also 5.4 is alright I guess. Super average. Though I have been told it goes up to 8 depending which department youre in.

    I'll be honest though, even back when I was a 16yr pink lung, full of testosterone, no scar tissue in ligaments snot nosed brat, I wasnt able to go past 10 on the bleep. :p
     
    Shmook likes this.
  6. Shmook

    Shmook Valued Member

    Our ARVs had to get 9-something, can't remember what, and I think landshark owners were 7-something.

    I was the same, couldn't get over 10.4 when young. We had one lad at school, I think we were about 15 at the time, who finished the bleep test. Crazy...
     
  7. SWC Sifu Ben

    SWC Sifu Ben I am the law

    I think given the sedentary nature of the population causing high failure rates, it would make sense to stop testing people and start building their fitness from scratch. Sure it would increase training time, but I think it's the only sensible method at this point. You could teach them anything not requiring a high level of fitness while you gradually increase their level of fitness. You could also have anyone who wants to join up attend classes run in the community by trainers hired by the military, and when they get to a certain level they get to go to basic. The military decreases their rate of injury and dropout, and doesn't have to spend time dealing with the large amount of people who can't pass. Heck, make it government run and the population gets free fitness classes; that's what Physical Education used to be in schools, actual fitness education. When I was in school that had been scrapped and you just ran and played sports. Run those course and just offer people entry into the regular force and reserves. It would also give you a good opportunity to weed out people with mental health issues or dangerously extreme political views.
     
    Smitfire and Mitch like this.
  8. windwalker

    windwalker Member

    There is a physical requirement standard to join the military, that's thought to be the bare minimum for training to meet the military needs.

    [​IMG]

    ARMY PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS & BODY FAT CALCULATOR


    There is also whats called ASVAB Test The ASVAB Test

    testing the mental capacity for learning and present understanding of basic skill sets like math and reading, if one can not pass it they can't join, if they score low on it much of the MOS training is limited .

    No one has to join the military....
    at this point in time.

    Better they are not allowed to join then lower the standards needed to join.
    If the standards are not applicable to the requirements they can be changed....
    Changing them to allow more people in, only presents problems later on...


    The better option for those wanting to join the military is to find out what the standards are and train so that they can meet or exceed them.

    why wait :)
     
    Thomas likes this.
  9. Thomas

    Thomas Combat Hapkido/Taekwondo

    (Nice posts by the way!)

    The ASVAB is pretty cool - I remember taking it many years ago and was impressed by the general feedback it gave on your strengths and weaknesses, and of course, certain jobs have certain minimum scores on the ASVAB, making it much easier for recruiters to give options to potential recruits.

    Currently there's a bit of a debate going on about the Selective Service/Draft system. All men must register between ages 18 and 26 to make a database (Selective Service) that can be turned on by Congress to provide numbers for a draft. Years ago, there was a push to add women to the program and a Supreme Court case shot it down, citing that women were not eligible for combat positions so they did not HAVE to sign up (they were given the option though). Now that all military jobs are open to women, there is a compelling case to expand Selective Service to include them. However, seeing that the military has used the all volunteer approach since Vietnam with no real desire to have a draft, I can see the Selective Service Act disappearing before it gets opened up to men and women as a requirement.

    However, that doesn't change the notion that after so many years of war and so many people deployed (many of them on multiple deployments) that the military is seeing an issue with a bit of troop shortages. With the idea that the general populace is not as fit as previous generations and that fewer people want to join knowing they will be deployed, the military is having a bit of an issue attracting and retaining the numbers they really need.

    So... do you lower the standards to bring in the necessary numbers or make higher standards to ensure fit troops to fight, even if it reduces your pool of recruits? That's why I wonder about this new PT test... is it really more stringent or does it include "outs" to allow for lesser fit troops to stay pending on their job or loopholes in the test. Not having ever taken the new test, I don't know!


    I was fortunate. I joined on a "delayed enlistment", allowing me to get guaranteed training and benefits while being able to finish High School. For the 6 months I was on the delayed entry program, we met a few times and did some fitness prep (as well as basic marching, commands, and such) that really helped me adapt to Basic Training pretty well. The pre-training was really worth it.
     
  10. windwalker

    windwalker Member

    unless I’m mistaken not all jobs are open to women.

    Combat MOS are still closed as they should be.
    There are what are called force multipliers.

    A combination of technology, and training enabling a much smaller forced to have a greater lethality then the larger forces they face.

    units like rangers, SF, delta force, and modern day infantry Troops require a high degree of physicality and intelligence in order to survive and complete the mission.
     
  11. Thomas

    Thomas Combat Hapkido/Taekwondo


    Since 2015, there has been a push to open all jobs to both men and women... I believe they've been phasing them in
    All Combat Roles Now Open to Women, Defense Secretary Says
    All combat jobs open to women in the military
    Women in the United States Army

    Good overview
    Has combat arms gender integration been successful? The Army will let you know in 2020.

    Women have been graduating Ranger School and Infantry as well
    12 Female Soldiers Have Now Graduated Army Ranger School
    For Army Infantry’s 1st Women, Heavy Packs and the Weight of History

    I wonder if opening combat roles in women was also an impetus to trying to design a PT test based on MOS (job) tasks rather than just push-ups/situps/run based on age and gender numbers
     
  12. windwalker

    windwalker Member

    mmm interesting

    In the long run its a mistake, does little to enhance combat effectiveness.
    All studies done to date have shown this to be a bad idea on many levels.

    "In 2015, the Corps’ initial pushback led to the commissioning of a study examining whether gender integration would affect combat readiness. Overall combat readiness was broken down as compromised by: speed and tempo, lethality, unit and individual readiness, survivability, and cohesion. The results of the study were fairly damning, illustrating that in 93 out of 134 tasks tested, all-male groups outperformed gender-integrated groups. "

    The problem with a lot of the current studies is that they tend to ignore the data until they get what they want.
    The older studies are hard to find on the net, imagine that!

    "
    Researchers hooked men and women alike up to a variety of monitors, and found that the top 25th percentile of women overlapped with the bottom 25th percentile of men when it came to anaerobic power, a measure of strength, Marine officials said. Those numbers were expected to a degree given the general size difference between the average man and woman.

    The gender-integrated unit’s assessment also found that 40.5 percent of women participating suffered some form of musculoskeletal injury, while 18.8 percent of men did. Twenty-one women lost time in the unit due to injuries, 19 of whom suffered injuries to their lower extremities. Of those, 16 women were injured while while carrying heavy loads in an organized movement, like a march, the study found."



    Of course some will find counter arguments. The only question that should be asked is what does it improve or add too combat.

    Served in infantry units and support units / Can't see any benefit to having woman in combat arms..
    A lot of the ones pushing this are the officers looking for promotion.

    "n September 2015 the Marine Corps released a study comparing the performance of gender-integrated and male-only infantry units in simulated combat. The all-male teams greatly outperformed the integrated teams, whether on shooting, surmounting obstacles or evacuating casualties. Female Marines were injured at more than six times the rate of men during preliminary training—unsurprising, since men’s higher testosterone levels produce stronger bones and muscles. Even the fittest women (which the study participants were) must work at maximal physical capacity when carrying a 100-pound pack or repeatedly loading heavy shells into a cannon."


    "
    in compiling the study for review by the Chiefs of Staff, British Army officials gathered information from several other countries with gender-integrated armed forces, and carried out tests of physical capabilities in Wales. According to the London Sunday Times, June 24, 2001, the women performed comparatively poorly in physical tasks:

    • In a test requiring soldiers to carry 90 lbs. of artillery shells over measured distances, the male failure rate was 20%. The female failure rate was 70%.
    • In a 12.5-mile route march carrying 60 lbs. of equipment, followed by target practice simulating conditions under fire, men failed in 17% of cases. Women failed in 48%.
    • Females were generally slower in simulated combat exercises involving lengthy "fire and move" situations, in which participants had to sprint from one position to another in full battle dress.

    many countries have conducted studies all tend to confirm what one would expect intuitively.
     
  13. windwalker

    windwalker Member

    All soldiers are expected to be fit enough to be placed any place at the needs of the military.

    Those joining the military are only guaranteed the "training" not that they will be doing that job after it.... need to read the contract...."fine print":)

    Its not just this, its also the height / weight standards

    Why do males get chaptered out of service for being over weight
    when they still meet the same weight requirements as their female counter parts
    doing the same job.


    Army Maximum Body Fat Standards for Men
    Age 17-20 = 20 percent
    Age 21-27 = 22 percent
    Age 28-39 = 24 percent
    Age 40+ = 26 percent


    Army Maximum Body Fat Standards for Women
    Age 17-20 = 30 percent
    Age 21-27 = 32 percent
    Age 28-39 = 34 percent
    Age 40+ = 36 percent


    Should this also be changed?
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2020
  14. Thomas

    Thomas Combat Hapkido/Taekwondo

    I am not interested in debating this and really don't have the background to do so. My military experience was a long time ago (1989-1993) and I did NOT serve in Combat Arms. All of my training and service in Military Intelligence was gender integrated and we never had any gender issues with completing the mission. Combat Arms is a different arena.

    I always hated this. I am a big man (too short for my weight) who always maxxed my PT tests and passed my tape tests. It was annoying to get the same counselling every time for being "fat" when I could out-perform most of the unit physically. So, I guess in a way the concept of a 'job performance' based PT test should appeal to me.

    Thankfully the younger generation is in charge of the military now and they seem to be doing pretty well in dealing with year after year of war... hopefully the choices they make will ensure that our troops will serve as safely as possible while completing the mission.
     
  15. windwalker

    windwalker Member

    thank you for your service.
    the military team has different functions that enable it as a team to accomplish
    the mission. We talk of tooth to tail ....

    "As of 2011, the active-duty military end-strength was 1,459,409 (BLS, 2012). Of these personnel, only 17% are identified as performing combat specialties. This compares to an average of 26% assigned to combat roles in other countries, according to a recent survey of 29 nations (Gebicke & Magid, 2010). Note that these figures do not take into account civilian and contractor personnel, the majority of whom provide support functions."

    The tip of the spear has to be sharp....


    yep,
    had a couple of good soldiers get chaptered out for over weight, not being able to make the PT test and yet
    they would have passed as a female soldier doing the same job...

    Served a while back (1975-1995)
    infantry medic / combat support roles later on.

    Completing the mission can mean many things depending on the mission.
    the role of the infantry

    "The mission of the infantry is to close with the enemy by means of fire and maneuver to defeat or capture him, or to repel his assault by fire, close combat, and counterattack."

    The standards are there to insure those doing mission are able to accomplish the mission and survive.
    Often reading the post it seems like people think they understand the why for the requirements with out
    having had the experience to understand the need for the requirements.....
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2020
  16. hewho

    hewho Valued Member

    At a similar level of training men often have lower body fat percentages than women, shown here Body composition of elite American athletes. - PubMed - NCBI

    Although it's tricky to find a chart from somewhere like the NHS site, most charts you'll see will put healthy fat percentages for women higher than for men. The American Council for Exercise (who I had not heard of before this google session) give this chart, which shows 'essential fat' (the fat required for healthy bodily function) being 5-8% higher
    [​IMG]
     
  17. windwalker

    windwalker Member

    Thought some might find this post interesting from another site

    Women Aren’t the Problem. Standards Are. - Modern War Institute

    Covers many of the questions and issues addressed here

    "
    Some points.

    1.) Standards are important, but enforcing them and being honest about them is even more important. The women who made it through Ranger School were treated differently and saying they weren’t isn’t being honest. The USMC Infantry Officer Course didn’t have anyone pass until the CET and passing all the forced marches were eliminated as part of the requirement to pass.

    So let’s be frank and honest and admit that the women who have made it through were not treated like the males and standards were “changed”, but changed for everyone.

    The author undermines his credibility when you don’t say that as a leader, you’re tuned out automatically. I’ve had not 1, but 3 SOCOM COs repeat the nonsense that “we’re not changing the standards, but we’re reviewing them to make sure they’re gender neutral.” Add those lines to GO Dempsey’s famous line about standards being too high and we have ZERO faith in leadership to do the right thing.

    2.) Frat: Frat is a two way street and it needs to be strictly and unbiasedly enforced.

    3.) Pregnancy: Far too many women take advantage of the system and end up pregnant prior to or in deployment. The Navy alone loses between 9-15% of female crews prior to every deployment due to this.

    4.) Quotas: An ugly secret of the Officer Corps is that there are set a sides for women upon graduation in each branch and there are currently “goals” of 30% for enlisted women enlistments. Quotas need to be ended and just let the chips fall where they may. Current policy is counter-productive to faith in the Chain of Command, confidence in ability of all and patently unfair.

    5.) Injuries: Women are injured at far higher rates than their male counterparts. 2-3x more on ACL/MCL injuries, Ankle Injuries and 1000x more in terms of hip injuries. These need to be taken into account, Manning is and always will be an issue.

    6.) The issue with the female in the village is not something a female in his unit would’ve helped with just because she’s a female. IMHO it’s language and cultural training that would’ve been more helpful in that situation. And you can’t blame yourself for incidents like that in a conflict, you do the best you can.

    Below are links ok injury, pregnancy, standards, physiological differences and other issues related to this topic.

    http://www.thelizlibrary.org/undelete/1110-GregorW.pdf

    http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/utils/getdo...201coll1/id/1228/filename/1229.pdf/mapsto/pdf

    http://8tharmy.korea.army.mil/site/...s-forum/Guide-to-Female-Soldier-Readiness.pdf

    https://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/borde...px?docid=b42d1acd-0b32-4d26-8e22-4a518be998f7

    https://watermark.silverchair.com/milmed-d-10-00041.pdf"
     
  18. windwalker

    windwalker Member

    "Army women are more likely to be disabled than men and are approximately 67% more likely than Army men to receive a physical disability discharge for a musculoskeletal disorder.1

    "The discharge rates for musculoskeletal conditions have been as high as 140 per 10,000 Army women per year, compared with 81 per 10,000 Army men per year.1 Military women tend to suffer a higher incidence of injuries than military men.

    Several studies have identified female gender as a risk factor for injury in Army basic training programs in the United States and around the world.2–10 For example, one study shows the cumulative injury incidence in Basic Combat Training (BCT) was 52% for women versus 26% for men.

    It was 30% for women versus 24% for men in Advanced Individual Training (AIT).11 Other studies showed a similar incidence for training injuries in BCT populations: approximately 50% for women and 25% for men.4"

    https://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/borde...px?docid=b42d1acd-0b32-4d26-8e22-4a518be998f7

    An interesting read for those trying to understand the why some are suggesting the standreads be changed.
     

Share This Page