New Army Fitness test @2020

Cookie_ said:
The test has become a charged issue within the Army as it pits the service’s effort to establish gender-blind standards and improve soldier readiness against fears it could pose an additional challenge to retaining skilled troops and compound obstacles for underrepresented populations within the force. Critics say it could have a disproportionate impact on women, who make up 15 percent of the Army but occupy few leadership positions.
Click to expand...
I don’t want to spearhead into shit talking this before I ask: am I reading this correctly that the primary focus of not wanting this is so women can have an equal chance, by lowering the standard of fitness? Because it states “underrepresented” and then quotes women as “15%” like the ACFT is “sexist” against the ratio of women, 1/10 soldiers.
 
Juggrnaut said:
I don’t want to spearhead into shit talking this before I ask: am I reading this correctly that the primary focus of not wanting this is so women can have an equal chance, by lowering the standard of fitness? Because it states “underrepresented” and then quotes women as “15%” like the ACFT is “sexist” against the ratio of women, 1/10 soldiers.
Click to expand...
It's similar to the older "female in combat arms" arguement. Higher level positions are often held by those in combat arms branches, served in SOF units, or those who were able to attend certain schools (Ranger comes to mind).

The arguement was that, by preventing women from doing any of those things, you were in effect decreasing the opportunities for them to reach those positions.

The arguement about the ACFT is related to the lack of women involved in the creation of the program, and the implementation of the standards.

Also of concern is the lack of age considerations.

Basically, the army is trying a "3 sizes fit all approach" and they have concerns about that.
 
Cookie_ said:
It's similar to the older "female in combat arms" arguement. Higher level positions are often held by those in combat arms branches, served in SOF units, or those who were able to attend certain schools (Ranger comes to mind).

The arguement was that, by preventing women from doing any of those things, you were in effect decreasing the opportunities for them to reach those positions.

The arguement about the ACFT is related to the lack of women involved in the creation of the program, and the implementation of the standards.

Also of concern is the lack of age considerations.

Basically, the army is trying a "3 sizes fit all approach" and they have concerns about that.
Click to expand...
Ok. Doesn't this present a problem either way though? I thought the idea was to put together the best training regiment to produce the best soldier. Wouldn’t allowing women to be a driving force in what the test consists of create a less effective test simply based on biology?

From my time in the forest service, yes there are some women who are savages on crews, I had a couple on mine; even then they were leagues behind us (this was also on a specialty crew specific for training and task book completion). But there were also a few who shouldn’t be there, since the fitness level was lowered for them. So many times we were waiting for them to catch up hiking, take breaks constantly because they can’t work and eventually get removed from the crew to a support role or fired.

On a normal crew, they wouldn’t even be allowed to join if they didn’t pass the crew test and prove they could work on the same level as the rest of us. I’ve seen almost every crew from California to Montana, been around the best of the best in both the shot and smokejumper community, women don’t exist. I think there’s a reason for that and it’s not because they aren’t getting equal opportunity. Just my .02
 
I took a full ACFT for the first time this morning. In accordance with Department of the Army guidance, it was diagnostic—because we’re not allowed to do any for-record ACFT tests yet. My thoughts:

The ACFT has been out for a long time and I’m familiar with all of the events, but with the exception of the deadlift (because I like deadlift), I didn’t train for it at all. And I haven’t done deadlift in about two months due to a nagging knee injury. My prep for the ACFT mainly consisted of stretching, hydrating, and being smart about what I ate the couple of days before.

For those of you who don’t know, I’m not exactly a physical stud and never have been. In fact, I’m very average. I’m also on the older end of the Army spectrum (~50). Since this was a diagnostic and I don’t want my temporary med profile to become permanent, I didn’t exert as much as I normally would at one of these things.

So a very average old guy with no preparatory training and who wasn’t trying very hard took the ACFT and still scored 70-80% or more in every event in his first time doing it. The test simply isn’t that hard…

…to pass. To max it? Yeah that’s a whole different story. I’m not sure I’m going to be able to work up to 340# deadlift in the couple of years I have left in the Army, and I’m definitely not going to be able to turn in a 13:30 two mile, especially at the end of all of the other crap you’ve got to do in the ACFT before you even get to the start line. So my assessment is that it’s easy to pass, but hard to max.

I thought the sprint-drag-carry event was a smoker, but it only lasts like 2 minutes. The hand release pushups are weird but I thought they were easier than conventional pushups because it felt like I got a bit of rest on every rep with my body flat on the ground and my arms going out and back. It definitely slowed me down on reps, which I kind of think was the point.

The ball throw is fun, but I’m still not really sure what action that mimics. I’ve been in the Army 25 years and have never needed to throw a ten-pound round object backwards over my head for distance.

I got a little over-exuberant on the leg tucks and my hands slipped off after three. No big deal, you only have to do one to pass. That’s right, ONE. I’m pretty sure I can work up to 10-15, not sure I’ll be able to hit the max of 20. For purposes of comparison, I was doing 10-20 reps over my max on situps under the old PT test. The leg tuck doesn’t really feel like it tests the same muscles and endurance as the leg tucks now do.

I can understand why a lot of people are failing the leg tuck, it actually takes a lot of upper body strength to do the reps. If this is going to be a problem for people, I think we’d be better off going back to situps: two minutes, 0-100 and each rep is one point.

I still think the Army made a mistake in going away from the simple three-event PT test that requires no equipment and requires an individual to move only his or her own body weight. The cost, storage required, setup, and difficulty in both training up for and scaling up the ACFT for large units is a self-inflicted wound for not much gain.

When the Army made the decision to gender-integrate all career fields, they could no longer discriminate against men with the PT test scoring. Everyone now has to be the same. I’m fine with the gender integration and with putting everyone on the same standards regardless of age/gender. But I’m unconvinced that he ACFT in its current form will do better for the Army, and do better by its soldiers, than the old PT test, especially if a significant portion of the force can’t even pass it.
 
Juggrnaut said:
Ok. Doesn't this present a problem either way though? I thought the idea was to put together the best training regiment to produce the best soldier. Wouldn’t allowing women to be a driving force in what the test consists of create a less effective test simply based on biology?

From my time in the forest service, yes there are some women who are savages on crews, I had a couple on mine; even then they were leagues behind us (this was also on a specialty crew specific for training and task book completion). But there were also a few who shouldn’t be there, since the fitness level was lowered for them. So many times we were waiting for them to catch up hiking, take breaks constantly because they can’t work and eventually get removed from the crew to a support role or fired.

On a normal crew, they wouldn’t even be allowed to join if they didn’t pass the crew test and prove they could work on the same level as the rest of us. I’ve seen almost every crew from California to Montana, been around the best of the best in both the shot and smokejumper community, women don’t exist. I think there’s a reason for that and it’s not because they aren’t getting equal opportunity. Just my .02
Click to expand...

There is a big problem with the army that is not discussed much. Because we are so massive personnel wise, our general quality of troop is not going to be as high as you'd think. We need to balance actually getting people in the door and them being able to stay versus making the standards so high we lose members with seniority or specialities.

For example, a CID agent(detective) and combat photographer needs to score 60%; cooks, combat medics, and band members all have to score a 65%; and truck drivers need to score 70%.

Can you see why some there is some discrepancy over how these scores were chosen for each MOS? Had in age/injuries sustained over a career and you start seeing reductions in force at the upper levels, which is no good.

Also of note is the exercise that really hurts females (leg tucks) requires a good deal if upper body strength, which females generally lack compared to males. We replaced an abdominal equalizer (situps) with one that disfavored one gender, right after already assessing upper body strength.


Another big thing that @Marauder06 hit on perfectly is lack of training. Quite simply, the army is dogshit when it comes to PT for most of the force. I can't tell you how many times I showed up for the day and was told "Hey cookie, so and so is at sick call, so you lead muscular endurance/strength/speed PT today."
Units very rarely train on the pull-up bars, and if they do it's rare to have someone who actually knows what they're doing leading it.

Changes to the ACFT I'd like to see that my improve it:
------------------------
Bring back age categories for the run and sprint.

These seem to be the two events that have the biggest connection with age.

------------------------
Create weight categories or % for the deadlift. A 120# female pulling 200# should not be worth 70% when my 195# self also scores the same for that weight.

I remember something from a few years ago that said the "average Ranger" was 5'9 and 175#, so let's just use that at a basis.

That would make the max deadlift 10# less than double bodyweight, the 70% score 25# (14%bw) heavier, the 65% basically bw, and the 60% 30# (20%bw) lighter.

So a "BW% scoring sheet" might look like:

100- 2xbw
70- 1.25xbw
65- 1.125xbw
60- 1xbw

No reason not to conduct a height and weight before the PT test, put that on the cards, and then use a formula to calculate the scores.

Would it take a bit longer? Yes, but it's a much clearer picture of strength.
------------------------
Replace the leg tuck with either hanging knee raises (if the army cares about grip strength) or rowers (if they care about upper/lower ab strength).
Mara already provided scoring for rowers: 1 per rep.
Hanging knee raises I would double the scale, ie minimum 2/6/10 max 40.
 
Cookie_ said:
There is a big problem with the army that is not discussed much. Because we are so massive personnel wise, our general quality of troop is not going to be as high as you'd think. We need to balance actually getting people in the door and them being able to stay versus making the standards so high we lose members with seniority or specialities.

For example, a CID agent(detective) and combat photographer needs to score 60%; cooks, combat medics, and band members all have to score a 65%; and truck drivers need to score 70%.

Can you see why some there is some discrepancy over how these scores were chosen for each MOS? Had in age/injuries sustained over a career and you start seeing reductions in force at the upper levels, which is no good.

Also of note is the exercise that really hurts females (leg tucks) requires a good deal if upper body strength, which females generally lack compared to males. We replaced an abdominal equalizer (situps) with one that disfavored one gender, right after already assessing upper body strength.


Another big thing that @Marauder06 hit on perfectly is lack of training. Quite simply, the army is dogshit when it comes to PT for most of the force. I can't tell you how many times I showed up for the day and was told "Hey cookie, so and so is at sick call, so you lead muscular endurance/strength/speed PT today."
Units very rarely train on the pull-up bars, and if they do it's rare to have someone who actually knows what they're doing leading it.

Changes to the ACFT I'd like to see that my improve it:
------------------------
Bring back age categories for the run and sprint.

These seem to be the two events that have the biggest connection with age.

------------------------
Create weight categories or % for the deadlift. A 120# female pulling 200# should not be worth 70% when my 195# self also scores the same for that weight.

I remember something from a few years ago that said the "average Ranger" was 5'9 and 175#, so let's just use that at a basis.

That would make the max deadlift 10# less than double bodyweight, the 70% score 25# (14%bw) heavier, the 65% basically bw, and the 60% 30# (20%bw) lighter.

So a "BW% scoring sheet" might look like:

100- 2xbw
70- 1.25xbw
65- 1.125xbw
60- 1xbw

No reason not to conduct a height and weight before the PT test, put that on the cards, and then use a formula to calculate the scores.

Would it take a bit longer? Yes, but it's a much clearer picture of strength.
------------------------
Replace the leg tuck with either hanging knee raises (if the army cares about grip strength) or rowers (if they care about upper/lower ab strength).
Mara already provided scoring for rowers: 1 per rep.
Hanging knee raises I would double the scale, ie minimum 2/6/10 max 40.
Click to expand...
Every competition has weight classes so that would be sensible. I was also unaware they removed the age ratios. Maybe it’s my ignorance to large scale testing, but isn’t the point of the tests that only the most fit pass with perfect scores? Or am I misunderstanding what you’re referring to?
 
Juggrnaut said:
Every competition has weight classes so that would be sensible. I was also unaware they removed the age ratios. Maybe it’s my ignorance to large scale testing, but isn’t the point of the tests that only the most fit pass with perfect scores? Or am I misunderstanding what you’re referring to?
Click to expand...

Perfect scores should be difficult, absolutely. As it stands, I think only a handful of people have gotten max scores so far. The wider thing is that the scores required to get into a MOS are weird for some of them.

I'm a cook; I can tell you that I probably don't require a higher level of fitness to do my job than a CID agent or combat cameraman. A truck driver probably doesn't need to have the same standards that infantry/combat engineers do.
 
Cookie_ said:
Perfect scores should be difficult, absolutely. As it stands, I think only a handful of people have gotten max scores so far. The wider thing is that the scores required to get into a MOS are weird for some of them.

I'm a cook; I can tell you that I probably don't require a higher level of fitness to do my job than a CID agent or combat cameraman. A truck driver probably doesn't need to have the same standards that infantry/combat engineers do.
Click to expand...
I see, for sure there needs to be levels of entry. I thought they had placed those with the low, medium, heavy (not sure if those are the terms) levels required per mos. Like, infantry/SF being “heavy”. Seems though maybe those are too wide/vague, as you said, across each domain or not specific enough.
 
GOTWA said:
What is OSHA's combat lift requirement(s) for carrying a wounded Soldier, while under fire, to a CCP?

All I see is that people wanted equality, they got it, and now they don't want it anymore because it's not fair.
Click to expand...
To piggy back here, I’m confused why not just make a standard test for the Army, since that’s what the issue is, but make combat mos specific testing. So you take the ACFT or whatever to graduate basic, but you have to do the *insert infantry/combat test* to get into/pass AIT for example. Make the AIT test 1 standard, regardless of age/gender to pass. This way you still get the flow of new recruits into other mos’s, but your combat guys are held to a higher standard. This way you know EVERY soldier in combat is at the same level. This is what we do for hotshot crews and smoke jumping, you don’t get entry on a crew based on academy pt scores. Could be dumb, just my .02
 
Juggrnaut said:
To piggy back here, I’m confused why not just make a standard test for the Army, since that’s what the issue is, but make combat mos specific testing. So you take the ACFT or whatever to graduate basic, but you have to do the *insert infantry/combat test* to get into/pass AIT for example. Make the AIT test 1 standard, regardless of age/gender to pass. This way you still get the flow of new recruits into other mos’s, but your combat guys are held to a higher standard. This way you know EVERY soldier in combat is at the same level. This is what we do for hotshot crews and smoke jumping, you don’t get entry on a crew based on academy pt scores. Could be dumb, just my .02
Click to expand...
If you're deployed to a combat zone, do you think it not be fitting for EVERYONE to be above standard, or even an equal one? What happens if Iran hits a hangar in Iraq and someone just happens to be in there next time? Do you wait for the combat folks to run in? What if you're on an installation in Kabul and a tractor trailer filled with explosives hits the walls and takes out that side of the compound where the cooks are chopping up breakfast? What if you catch a mortar or rocket in the chowhall? What if you're the 95lb female that doesn't get injured and others are counting on you to act? What if you catch an insider attack while stationed at Fort Hood and the guy drops 43 bodies and you're a 120lb female medic in a class graduating some medical training next door?

Marines are riflemen first, why don't we as Soldiers have the same mindset?
 
Last edited:
GOTWA said:
If you're deployed to a combat zone, do you think it not be fitting for EVERYONE to be above standard, or even an equal one? What happens if Iran hits a hangar in Iraq and someone just happens to be in there next time? Do you wait for the combat folks to run in? What if you're on an installation in Kabul and a tractor trailer filled with explosives hits the walls and takes out that side of the compound where the cooks are chopping up breakfast? What if you catch a mortar or rocket in the chowhall? What if you're the 95lb female that doesn't get injured and others are counting on you to act? What if you catch an insider attack while stationed at Fort Hood and the guy drops 43 bodies and you're a 120lb female medic in a class graduating some medical training next door?

Marines are rifleman first, why don't we as Soldiers have the same mindset?
Click to expand...
Personally yes, I touched on that earlier. I can’t pretend to know the needs/motives of the Army though, and in a sense the thought process @Cookie_ shared about mos’s being widely different gives some credence to separate tests even if I don’t fully agree.
 
GOTWA said:
If you're deployed to a combat zone, do you think it not be fitting for EVERYONE to be above standard, or even an equal one? What happens if Iran hits a hangar in Iraq and someone just happens to be in there next time? Do you wait for the combat folks to run in? What if you're on an installation in Kabul and a tractor trailer filled with explosives hits the walls and takes out that side of the compound where the cooks are chopping up breakfast? What if you catch a mortar or rocket in the chowhall? What if you're the 95lb female that doesn't get injured and others are counting on you to act? What if you catch an insider attack while stationed at Fort Hood and the guy drops 43 bodies and you're a 120lb female medic in a class graduating some medical training next door?

Marines are riflemen first, why don't we as Soldiers have the same mindset?
Click to expand...

"Marines are riflemen first" is a great slogan, but I'm not so sure the average admin clerk or motor-T guy/gal is able to just start doing some infantrymen shit at the drop of the hat (no disrespect to any of the devil dogs on here.)

I would absolutely love it if every single soldier(and marine/airman/salior) was fully able to transition into an "infantry" role at the drop of the hat, but we have enough difficulty as it is getting people trained up on level 10 soldier skills like land nav and operating a M2 machine gun

The army can either increase its requirements and lose personnel, or find the best "minimum" to maintain current size and functionality; it can't do both.

ETA: Why is it always only PT where we talk about combat and standards? Why not say everyone needs to speak a second langauge, shoot expert, and have an associates degree to stay in the military?

Is it because we think those things arent as important as PT, or because we realize that we wouldn't be able to maintain the force manning with those standards?
 
As a guy 20 years removed from this fight...

Why couldn't the Army make something more comprehensive, but without the equipment overhead? Keep the old test (more or less) and add events that are easier to equip?
-Push ups,
- Sit ups
- Run (1 - 2 miles, see why below)
- 50m sprint
- Some type of weighted "body" drag
- Pull ups

You need weighted sleds and pull up bars, the latter of which almost everywhere and are built with little money or time if needed. Units aren't shelling out for a ton of equipment. Due to the sprint and the drag events, you could decrease the run distance as needed. You could make it a two day affair with a ruck the following morning and call it good. You've now hit upon a number of more combat relevant tasks with minimal equipment
Cookie_ said:
There is a big problem with the army that is not discussed much. Because we are so massive personnel wise, our general quality of troop is not going to be as high as you'd think. We need to balance actually getting people in the door and them being able to stay versus making the standards so high we lose members with seniority or specialities.
Click to expand...
This is what drives our lackluster IMO training for Officers and NCO's. OCS should be more of an assessment and selection process or maybe more akin to the relationship between primary flight and flight school than what it is now. Army training is designed for a draft that will never happen and should be seriously revamped.
 
AWP said:
Why couldn't the Army make something more comprehensive, but without the equipment overhead? Keep the old test (more or less) and add events that are easier to equip?
-Push ups,
- Sit ups
- Run (1 - 2 miles, see why below)
- 50m sprint
- Some type of weighted "body" drag
- Pull ups
Click to expand...
This is kinda what we do in the fire world. Body drags/fireman carry for distance, pack test, hose lay/carry. This is on top of the typical PFT of run 1.5 miles, pushups, sit ups, pull-ups max. A lot of crews require hike tests, even work capacity tests like digging line.

I’ve always wondered why events weren’t more “combat” focused. So many things from say, strongman/CrossFit competitions that have limited equipment requirements that mimic carrying weight in arms, carrying wounded, running with weight, sprints with weight to drop and pick up something else. I would think something more along a circuit would benefit people the most. Most of these could be competed with sandbags.
 
I feel like this is one of the things the Marine Corps got right. PFT and CFT. Theres a a few case studies I've read for both SEAL training and for the statistical predictors of passing BRC, and both attribute a 3 mile run time being pretty related to success in those pipelines, pullups are a good upper body endurance test, and now we're moving to planks vs. Crunches. No equipment besides pullup bars which are all over base anyway.

Then we have the CFT. A half mile sprint in boots and trousers, ammo can lifts overhead, and the maneuver under fire. All of these require not a whole lot of equipment. The maneuver under fire is a little odd to work on your own but you can pretty much max it if you do some kind of V02 max training like shuttle runs.

In order to be "Marine Corps" fit, all I need is an ammo can, a pullup bar, and the ground. Not to mention the HITT program we've implemented which has a variety of explosive lifts and Crossfit like workouts to work on strength and work capacity. Throw in a weekly hike and your unit's MCIWS to lead some swim PT youve got a pretty rounded out fit Marine.

On paper, that is. We've still got our fatbodies and guys who get adsepped because of BCP still. But you'd be hard pressed to find a grunt who isn't "combat fit".
 
I no longer have a dog in the fight, but could probably argue this issue several ways...when I was an SF Engineer Sergeant, my rucksack weighed what it weighed...I had a packing list including MOS specific gear, my share of the AN/GRA 109, dry socks, ammo, chow, etc...didn't matter that I weighed in at 140#, that was what I had to carry...if I weighed 200#, my packing list wouldn't have changed...to me, that's an argument for a single standard. A 120# female should be able to carry weight specific to her MOS, the same as the 200# guy...

When I was a detachment commander, my team sergeant was "Tiny", a Son Tay raider...one of the reasons he was selected for the raid, was someone was needed to carry a cutting torch to cut locks in the prison..."Tiny" weighed in at 275# before breakfast...of the Raiders I knew, he was probably the only one that could have effectively carried that weight under the conditions they faced...we were a mountain team and while on a climb in the Italian Alps, we encountered a very difficult pitch, with the safest way up through a chimney in the rock wall...I was the smallest guy on the team and Tiny told me "it's times like these that I'm glad we keep you around"...I was able to negotiate the chimney and lower a rope ladder for the rest of the guys...so I can argue that a one-size fits all approach to physical capability is wrong headed...

If someone made me king for a day, I'd revert to the three event test, but put a greater emphasis on MOS related fitness requirements, whether it's through efficiency reports or course completion standards...something like that...
 

Similar threads

B
Older Civilian w/Army SF Aspirations Introduction
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
Buff Commander
B
Ooh-Rah
1st Recon...2019 fittest unit in the Corps
Replies
6
Views
1K
Teufel
Teufel
X
Introduction
Replies
7
Views
630
AlexSmir
A
M
My heartfelt introduction
Replies
8
Views
1K
mixedfilipino
M
ozarknatural1836
Introduction and First Post - ozarknatural1836
Replies
5
Views
1K
LimaPanther
LimaPanther
Back
Top