# New Army Fitness test @2020



## Kraut783 (Jul 9, 2018)

WTH is going on with the Army...longer training...better PT test, changes that make sense.....a little scary 

“The more physically challenging your MOS, the more you’ll be required to do at the minimum levels,” said Michael McGurk, director of research and analysis at CIMT."

A new Army PT test is on its way. This is not a drill.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jul 9, 2018)

The way it should be. You are training soldiers for that thing called "war".


----------



## Topkick (Jul 9, 2018)

Kraut783 said:


> WTH is going on with the Army...longer training...better PT test, changes that make sense.....a little scary
> 
> “The more physically challenging your MOS, the more you’ll be required to do at the minimum levels,” said Michael McGurk, director of research and analysis at CIMT."
> 
> A new Army PT test is on its way. This is not a drill.


,
I like it. The old standards barely measured a soldiers ability to accomplish his mission. But, with these new standards, I don't see the attrition rate suddenly improving. Get the banana suits back out!


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 9, 2018)

Eh, I always felt the let's change the PT test thing every two years was bloody annoying.  In fact I think this one is just as stupid as some of the others.  What I wanted was two separate tests like they do in the Marine Corps: PFT, CFT.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jul 9, 2018)

All this and The Army keeps the worlds worst way of measuring fat %.  I think this newer PT TEST is a step in the right direction, I just wonder if the Army will mess this up like everything else.


----------



## GOTWA (Mar 18, 2019)

Has anyone taken the new ACFT yet?  If anyone is actually interested in hearing my thoughts on it, I can go ahead and make a new thread.


----------



## Cookie_ (Mar 18, 2019)

GOTWA said:


> Has anyone taken the new ACFT yet?  If anyone is actually interested in hearing my thoughts on it, I can go ahead and make a new thread.


My unit did a familarization of events at our drill before last. Other than that, I with my brother over Christmas break using that scoring table that was released.

ETA: My constant PT failures managed to pass most of the events, even at the "rigorous" level. It's easy to pass, but will be hard to max out. I do like the fact that its gender/age neutral (for now) though.


----------



## GOTWA (Mar 18, 2019)

Cookie_ said:


> My unit did a familarization of events at our drill before last. Other than that, I with my brother over Christmas break using that scoring table that was released.
> 
> ETA: My constant PT failures managed to pass most of the events, even at the "rigorous" level. It's easy to pass, but will be hard to max out. I do like the fact that its gender/age neutral (for now) though.



I took it yesterday for our 1st diagnostic and I have to say, I'm a fan of the new events.  It will be nearly impossible to max out.  I'm also glad it's on a neutral scale.  It was ran efficiently, it's more competitive, especially in the 5x50m shuttles, and the run kicked my ass.  I have some things to work on, but overall I averaged an 81%.


----------



## Viper1 (Mar 19, 2019)

GOTWA said:


> Has anyone taken the new ACFT yet?  If anyone is actually interested in hearing my thoughts on it, I can go ahead and make a new thread.



I took it today. The concerns about soldier injuries are warranted but unnecessary. Proper form and conduct of the test will limit any chance of injury. 

Events are good, multifunctional. 

HQDA is gathering data to see if there will be MOS or unit minimum standards. I’m a fan of the unit standard eg SFG and 75th.


----------



## Cookie_ (Mar 19, 2019)

I hope to God it stays unit standards and not MOS. I already don't like the guys in my FSC who pass bare minimum but then ask when they can go do cool guy shit with the team guys; I don't want it to be even easier for them.

What guidance did you guys get regarding the new push-ups event and leg tuck? That was still up in the air (as far as I know) when my unit did a familarization.

IE:

Push-ups: hands lifted up towards shoulders or arms extended out to the side

Leg tucks: flexed arms or dead hang


----------



## Ball N' Chain (Mar 19, 2019)

Cookie_ said:


> What guidance did you guys get regarding the new push-ups event and leg tuck? That was still up in the air (as far as I know) when my unit did a familarization.
> 
> IE:
> 
> ...



We also did a familiarization. The guidance we received was thumb inline with inside of the shoulder blade for the push ups, but they only had us pull our hands off the ground and move right back into the pushup, no arms out to the side.

The leg tuck we went from dead hang, pull arms to a 90 degree angle whilst simultaneously bringing the knees up to meet with the elbows. Struggle city with those!

I am curious to see if schools will be adopting this PT test as the entrance standard.


----------



## Viper1 (Mar 19, 2019)

Cookie_ said:


> I hope to God it stays unit standards and not MOS. I already don't like the guys in my FSC who pass bare minimum but then ask when they can go do cool guy shit with the team guys; I don't want it to be even easier for them.
> 
> What guidance did you guys get regarding the new push-ups event and leg tuck? That was still up in the air (as far as I know) when my unit did a familarization.
> 
> ...


Dead hang at bottom but I bent my arms on the way up

Hands lifted, whichever way soldier feels comfortable, just have to be back in same place underneath shoulders


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Mar 19, 2019)

I found a few things on the search thru Al Gore's main frame hoping to figure out 2 things:

1) What voodoo is this Hand Release Push-up (HRP)?

*ACFT OVERVIEW WITH VIDEOS*

2) How to Max this New Witchcraft?

*POSSIBLE LEAKED TEST STANDARDS*

If anyone has a better link or a "LEGIT" Score Card please let me know.


----------



## GOTWA (Mar 19, 2019)

Viper1 said:


> I took it today. The concerns about soldier injuries are warranted but unnecessary. Proper form and conduct of the test will limit any chance of injury.
> 
> Events are good, multifunctional.
> 
> HQDA is gathering data to see if there will be MOS or unit minimum standards. I’m a fan of the unit standard eg SFG and 75th.



I'm not sure if it's our unit requirement or THE requirement, but everyone will go through some level of military fitness instructor training before they can grade the ACFT.  It will definitely provide a more uniform standard as well as some knowledge to step in as a safety if a tester has bad form. 



Cookie_ said:


> I hope to God it stays unit standards and not MOS. I already don't like the guys in my FSC who pass bare minimum but then ask when they can go do cool guy shit with the team guys; I don't want it to be even easier for them.
> 
> What guidance did you guys get regarding the new push-ups event and leg tuck? That was still up in the air (as far as I know) when my unit did a familarization.
> 
> ...



Push up for us was index finger in line with shoulder blades, anything further out did not count.  We were instructed to lift up in place, but during our AAR, we were told we'd have the option to swing our arms out.  I'd probably stick with in place release.  I'm not a fan of having a max booth width distance between my feet, but it is what it is.  Dead hang during the LTK and before you dismount your last rep must have a controlled movement downward with a hold. 

Has anyone witnessed a max score for the medicine ball throw? I only hit 10.6 and I consider myself mildly strong and extremely athletic.


----------



## Bunsickle (Mar 20, 2019)

I maxed the deadlift and leg lifts, the P/U’s I did half of what I normally do regular, hurt like hell on my shoulders, the sprint drag carry almost kicked my ass. The run I ended up 2 minutes longer then my normal run. The event took way long too get us through it. Made the black. I noticed the taller lanky dudes where averaging farther throws with the ball vs the short guys, mechanical advantage with long arms. I don’t know, I think those pushups should go back to the normal. Also I see that maxing all events is darn near impossible unless your a super athlete, and who’s going to have time to do those events every other day in a normal gym? I guess I need to invest in a drag sled now.


----------



## x SF med (Mar 20, 2019)

Some of the other, more mature and more experienced members here can tell you about the old 5 event pt test...  which isn't much different than the new test.  Horizontal ladder instead of leg ups, and shuttle run instead of the sled drag.



Topkick said:


> Get the banana suits back out!


  Like this guy


----------



## Hungry_Dog (Mar 20, 2019)

This new test seems geared towards explosiveness; interesting change, on the surface it seems more practical. Wonder how long it will be until we see push-jerks in it ; /


----------



## Cookie_ (Mar 21, 2019)

GOTWA said:


> I'm not sure if it's our unit requirement or THE requirement, but everyone will go through some level of military fitness instructor training before they can grade the ACFT.  It will definitely provide a more uniform standard as well as some knowledge to step in as a safety if a tester has bad form.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Having everyone do training with the MFT before being allowed to grade is an excellent idea. Really, just a few hours to focus on deadlift/power throw will help cut back on possible injuries.
We had one guy get a 14.2 M throw; he's the resident competitive powerlifter.



Bunsickle said:


> I maxed the deadlift and leg lifts, the P/U’s I did half of what I normally do regular, hurt like hell on my shoulders, the sprint drag carry almost kicked my ass. The run I ended up 2 minutes longer then my normal run. The event took way long too get us through it. Made the black. I noticed the taller lanky dudes where averaging farther throws with the ball vs the short guys, mechanical advantage with long arms. I don’t know, I think those pushups should go back to the normal. Also I see that maxing all events is darn near impossible unless your a super athlete, and who’s going to have time to do those events every other day in a normal gym? I guess I need to invest in a drag sled now.



The new pushup takes some getting used to, I also saw my numbers cut in half the first time. I didn't realize the simple act of lifting your hands engages your back a ton as well; I threw more rows into my workouts and managed to get back to a normal number.


----------



## GOTWA (Mar 21, 2019)

Cookie_ said:


> Having everyone do training with the MFT before being allowed to grade is an excellent idea. Really, just a few hours to focus on deadlift/power throw will help cut back on possible injuries.
> We had one guy get a 14.2 M throw; he's the resident competitive powerlifter.
> 
> 
> ...


It's definitely hard to deviate from the standard when you're forced to go all the way down, lift, then all the way up, with a boot width between your feet and hands no further out than the shoulders. All in all, I believe there's a more uniform standard. No more discretion between what really counts as a rep.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 30, 2020)

So the Army is postponing the new physical fitness tests because of the Chinese coronavirus.

I'm just sayin', if they want to postpone it another... three years and two months--for no particular reason--that's be FINE with me.

ACFT rollout suspended until further notice over COVID-19 concerns

All ACFT diagnostic tests, which the entire force was supposed to take before it officially rolled out in the fall, are also suspended. The timeline for when the new test will officially arrive has not yet been issued.


----------



## Kaldak (Mar 30, 2020)

You take fitness tests at your rank?


----------



## Steve1839 (Mar 30, 2020)

x SF med said:


> Some of the other, more mature and more experienced members here can tell you about the old 5 event pt test...  which isn't much different than the new test.  Horizontal ladder instead of leg ups, and shuttle run instead of the sled drag.


The events were the inverted (perverted) crawl, the run, dodge and jump (stumble), the bent leg sit-up, the horizontal ladder and the two-mile run...in my dad's day, the grenade throw (replaced by the horizontal ladder) and the low crawl (replaced by the perverted crawl) were events...around 1981, the five-event PT test was replaced by the three-event test as a way to eliminate maintaining/constructing facilities...some of the horizontal ladders were in pretty bad shape and the run, dodge and jump courses were falling apart...


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 30, 2020)

Kaldak said:


> You take fitness tests at your rank?



Well, I mean I have to think about the poor junior enlisted soldier that I have take the test on my behalf.  It's not all about me, bro.  ;)


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 30, 2020)

Kaldak said:


> You take fitness tests at your age?


Fixed that for you!


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 30, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> So the Army is postponing the new physical fitness tests because of the Chinese coronavirus.
> 
> I'm just sayin', if they want to postpone it another... three years and two months--for no particular reason--that's be FINE with me.
> 
> ...


My opinion remains the same...I have no idea why we're changing over to this and not just adding a CFT in addition.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 31, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> So the Army is postponing the new physical fitness tests because of the Chinese coronavirus.
> 
> I'm just sayin', if they want to postpone it another... three years and two months--for no particular reason--that's be FINE with me.
> 
> ...


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 31, 2020)

I like the meme but the ACFT has nothing to do with Army readiness because it’s not even in place yet.  And I’ve felt plenty “ready” after 25 years and seven deployments without once having to throw a medicine back backwards over my head.  The ACFT is stupid and unnecessary.  it’s the “ACU” of physical fitness: it briefs well but it replaces, at great expense and annoyance of the force, something that was working perfectly well.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 31, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> I like the meme but the ACFT has nothing to do with Army readiness because it’s not even in place yet.


LOL

If the rule was that memes had to 'accurately reflect'....there would be no memes!


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 31, 2020)

Ooh-Rah said:


> LOL
> 
> If the rule was that memes had to 'accurately reflect'....there would be no memes!



All of my memes are 100% factual.  All of them.  All the time.  ;)


----------



## digrar (Apr 1, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> All of my memes are 100% factual.  All of them.  All the time.  ;)


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 1, 2020)

digrar said:


>



And all of my case studies are completed in a timely manner.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Apr 1, 2020)

Ooh-Rah said:


> View attachment 32903


@Marauder06 I gotchu fam.


----------



## GOTWA (Apr 1, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> I like the meme but the ACFT has nothing to do with Army readiness because it’s not even in place yet.  And I’ve felt plenty “ready” after 25 years and seven deployments without once having to throw a medicine back backwards over my head.  The ACFT is stupid and unnecessary.  it’s the “ACU” of physical fitness: it briefs well but it replaces, at great expense and annoyance of the force, something that was working perfectly well.



That one leg tuck is still haunting you...


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Apr 1, 2020)

GOTWA said:


> That one leg tuck is still haunting you...



It's the deadlift for me...who in the world needs to lift 180 lbs 3 times......?  Thats like 30 12 packs.


----------



## 0699 (Apr 1, 2020)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> It's the deadlift for me...who in the world needs to lift 180 lbs 3 times......?  Thats like 30 12 packs.


You need to be deadlifting at least 210 x3.


----------



## LibraryLady (Apr 1, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> And all of my case studies are completed in a timely manner.


You have an amazing interesting reality, sir. Too bad you're the only one to inhabit it.

LL


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 1, 2020)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> It's the deadlift for me...who in the world needs to lift 180 lbs 3 times......?  Thats like 30 12 packs.



I actually kind of like the dead lift.


----------



## Viper1 (Apr 1, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> I actually kind of like the dead lift.


Agree. Mimics the movement lifting a stretcher.

I also agree on the foolishness of the backwards medicine ball throw. Two thumbs down


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Sep 25, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> I actually kind of like the dead lift.



HAHA!!!  Lost in the internets.  It was a joke Sir!

I found the 14 part playlist linked from the ARMY Site on the ACFT very fun to watch:
How to grade/review testing

The Hand Release Pushup takes some serious getting use to.  Agree on earlier posts, its works things in your back that only scientists know exist.

The 3 RM Deadlift is and will always be my KRYPTONITE!!!!   #skinnylegs4life


----------



## Cookie_ (Oct 21, 2020)

Senators urge Pentagon to Suspend Implementation of ACFT



Spoiler: Full Story



Senators urge Pentagon to suspend implementation of Army’s new fitness test
By
Missy Ryan
Oct. 20, 2020 at 9:00 p.m. MDT
Democratic senators appealed Tuesday for support of a legislative proposal that would suspend implementation of the Army’s new fitness test, arguing that the high-profile initiative to improve physical readiness is based on faulty data and could undermine the goal of creating a diverse force.
In an Oct. 20 letter to the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Armed Services committees, Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) called the rollout of the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) “premature” and said the exam could damage some soldiers’ professional prospects.
“We have considerable concerns regarding the negative impact [the test] may already be having on so many careers,” they said in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post. “It is imperative that we pause implementation until all questions and concerns are answered. Soldiers’ careers depend on it and the continued lethality of our force requires it.”
The senators asked the committee leaders to ensure that a measure that would suspend rollout of the test until an independent study can be conducted is included in the final version of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act. The provision appeared in the Senate-passed version of the bill, but not in the House version. Lawmakers are expected to convene to reconcile the two versions of the bill after the Nov. 3 elections.
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.
Army data shows that 18 months after small cohorts of soldiers started taking the test on a provisional basis, women continue to fail at dramatically higher rates than men. In the second quarter of 2020, 54 percent of women failed the test, compared with 7 percent of men.
The stark gender gap comes as Pentagon leaders express an urgent desire to rectify the military’s legacy of racial and gender inequity, issues that have long dogged the force but were given new prominence when race-related unrest gripped the nation this summer.
The test consists of six events, including a dead lift, weighted ball throw and, most problematic for women who have taken it to date, a “leg tuck,” in which soldiers lift themselves up from a pullup bar using their arm, core and leg muscles.
The test has different requirements for different career fields, but critics say that even the least demanding standards could remain out of reach for some. They also say that consistently lower scores for female soldiers, who are typically lighter than men and thus must lift weights that are heavier relative to their body weight, could hold women back.
A spokeswoman for the Army said the service would use data collected in coming months to make any necessary adjustments. “The ACFT marks a change in our Army’s fitness culture and will result in a healthier, stronger and more physically resilient force,” she said in a statement.
While Army leaders have said the test won’t affect evaluations until 2022 at the earliest, it is expected to eventually affect enlisted personnel’s promotion potential and, more indirectly, officers’ careers.
Army officials say the test is a product of years of research and is designed to better prepare troops for conditions they would encounter in combat. It places a higher emphasis on muscular strength than the previous Army fitness test, which was adjusted for age and gender and included push-ups, sit-ups and a two-mile run.
Officials have also said troops can do an alternative to the leg tuck, a two-minute plank, while the test is being finalized.
But some soldiers have privately voiced fears that the test could make it even harder for the Army to secure personnel for high-
demand fields like cyber and say the exercises aren’t relevant for certain troops, including medical professionals and lawyers.
In their letter, Gillibrand and Blumenthal questioned the data used to develop the test, saying not enough women were included in the early testing groups, among other problems.
“The study that the Army has used to make its claims that the [ACFT] is 80 percent predictive used a mere 16 women, all volunteers, with an average age of 23,” the senators wrote, referring to the test’s ambition to match fitness events to success in performing common military tasks.
As envisioned in the Senate bill, the proposed study would examine how the test will affect recruitment and retention in certain military career fields and whether it would negatively impact soldiers in locations where adequate training for the six-event test is not possible.



Posting from my phone, so forgive me if the formatting is weird.


----------



## Juggrnaut (Oct 21, 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.


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.


----------



## Cookie_ (Oct 21, 2020)

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.


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.


----------



## Juggrnaut (Oct 21, 2020)

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.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 21, 2020)

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.


----------



## Cookie_ (Oct 21, 2020)

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



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.


----------



## Juggrnaut (Oct 21, 2020)

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%.
> 
> ...


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?


----------



## Cookie_ (Oct 21, 2020)

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?



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.


----------



## Juggrnaut (Oct 21, 2020)

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.


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.


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 21, 2020)




----------



## GOTWA (Oct 21, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> View attachment 36378


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.


----------



## Juggrnaut (Oct 21, 2020)

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.


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


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 21, 2020)

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.



I hope they don't have to carry me, I'm 280# naked.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 21, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> I hope they don't have to carry me, I'm 280# naked.


As a dude that tends to carry other dudes as a part of my job, the carry you just described is one of my least favorite.


----------



## GOTWA (Oct 21, 2020)

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


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?


----------



## Juggrnaut (Oct 21, 2020)

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?


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.


----------



## Cookie_ (Oct 21, 2020)

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?



"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?


----------



## AWP (Oct 21, 2020)

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.


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.


----------



## Juggrnaut (Oct 21, 2020)

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)
> ...


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.


----------



## CupCake (Oct 22, 2020)

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".


----------



## Steve1839 (Oct 22, 2020)

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...


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 22, 2020)

Back when Jesus was a private in the 1980s, before the adoption of the APFT.  Army Fitness standards were specific by MOS.  There was something like 20 events for the fitness test that were then grouped by what MOS you had.  For the most part there were three basic events across MOSs.  

On this same sheet it had prescribed events for a CFT. 

I know the fat guys in the unit always said the Tape Test wasn't accurate and they always said the two mile run wasn't a good test of their fitness because they lifted (they didn't). I've heard every excuse from sunrise to sundown on why the APFT was a bad test. Literally in the manual it talks about "general fitness" not combat fitness. The APFT was about you taking care of yourself. 

Why in the world the Army just didn't follow the Marine Corps and layer on a CFT I'll never know. Clearly someone at HQ thought they needed an MSM for their ORB before a promotion board. 

Will the ACFT actually change fitness culture in units?  I like that brigades are investing in the s&c tools, but none of that matters if your Soldiers don't get released early enough to go use that shit, or if you put afternoon PT in your company training plan.  More often than not you have soldiers play tiddly winks in the COF for hours on end because Commanders and First Sergeants have to validate their time.


----------



## Steve1839 (Oct 22, 2020)

ThunderHorse said:


> Back when Jesus was a private in the 1980s, before the adoption of the APFT.  Army Fitness standards were specific by MOS.  There was something like 20 events for the fitness test that were then grouped by what MOS you had.  For the most part there were three basic events across MOSs.



For reference...

History of United States Army physical fitness and physical readiness testing. - Free Online Library


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 11, 2022)

Damn, 18 months later and the Army still isn't committing to making this test for record. Lol.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 11, 2022)

ThunderHorse said:


> Damn, 18 months later and the Army still isn't committing to making this test for record. Lol.


"Two weeks to flatten the scoring?"


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 30, 2022)

> *No ACFT information or ACFT data (including diagnostic ACFT test results) will be entered on an evaluation report having an evaluation “Thru Date” prior to 01 October 2022*



Until OCTOBER?  What is this, like two YEARS that we haven't been doing for-record PT tests because the ACFT is so dorked up and politically controversial?

The ACFT really is the "ACU" of Army fitness.  Just ditch it and go back to the old one with some minor mods, just like we did with the BDU-->OCP.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 30, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> ...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...



That's so you can throw all the bullshit down the chain of command.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 30, 2022)

Gunz said:


> That's so you can throw all the bullshit down the chain of command.



Throw bullshit down the chain of command?  Moi???   Bro... I'm (self)Important, I'm not going to go through the effort of throwing stuff, that sounds like work.  I have people for things like that.


----------



## Dimethylamine (Apr 5, 2022)

We couldn't do ONE leg tuck, huh??  Now I have to do a 3 minute plank.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 5, 2022)

Dimethylamine said:


> We couldn't do ONE leg tuck, huh??  Now I have to do a 3 minute plank.









#DD214


----------

