Army's fitness training fails the combat test. Why is the Army using standards based on information from the '80s and '90s?

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 23:12:57 -0400

How do you feel about this report? I thought it would be interesting to see your viewpoints.
The Army is in an era when it is shrinking and needs its troops to truly meet the requirements of the best Soldiers.The Army will need both the best physically and mentally trained Soldiers. The question is: Why doesn't Army use the most current resources to make sure Soldiers are truly physically prepared for the battlefield?

Why is the Army using physical fitness testing standards based on information from the '80s and '90s? Why is the Army using a body fat assessment that has no scientific justification on telling if a Soldier is actually overweight?

Check out this article from Army Times:

Commentary: Army's fitness training fails the combat test

http://www.armytimes.com/story/opinion/2015/08/10/commentary-armys-fitness-training-fails-combat-test/31283677/

Commentary: Army's fitness training fails the combat test

The Army is in preparing for an era when it is shrinking will shrink in size and needs its troops to truly meet the requirements of the best Soldiers. The Army will need both the best physically and mentally trained Soldiers.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 10 at 2015 11:14 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 23:14:44 -0400

The Army needs to realizes the advancements in PT and go with something that works in this day and age!

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Aug 10 at 2015 11:35 PM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 23:35:35 -0400

We need to modernize fitness testing and nutrition

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Aug 11 at 2015 7:18 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:18:43 -0400

Because Physical Fitness is a Health issue, and Combat is an Objective Task, which is only indirectly related to Health. You can be horribly unhealthy and still survive in Combat, and perfectly Fit and not survive.

As for Body Fat measurements, the "most true" answer is because it is the easiest and "most fair" method that can be administered with the least amount of training, and least amount of screw-ups. It's hard to screw up a weight/height calculation. It's hard to mess up measuring someone's waist & neck. Accuracy is not the primary concern, it's "consistency."

Most people who "fail" are legitimate failures. Again, I say MOST. Not all. But most. Yes, there are exceptions, and they are unfortunate. But the major issue is not that we need a better system, it's that we need to de-link our Health measurement tool from our Combat & Leadership assessment tools. Someone's weight is not indicative of their leadership capabilities, nor their combat prowess.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Aug 11 at 2015 8:35 AM

COL Charles Williams — Tue, 11 Aug 2015 08:35:24 -0400

SGT Private RallyPoint Member Makes sense. I never liked the tape for that very reason. Sit-ups have caused countless injuries. This troops suggestions make sense. The Army is currently looking at new tests. I believe we need a basic Soldiers fitness standard - weight and fitness, and then MOS specific standards for physical fitness job by job.

Response by SGT Kristin Wiley made Aug 11 at 2015 9:35 AM

SGT Kristin Wiley — Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:35:35 -0400

The average weight of a male is really 200lbs? Maybe for the general population, but I don't feel like that's the average for the military population. I think this article is spot with what's wrong with the body fat measurements and PRT. We need to increase stamina and energy in combat so we can outlast the enemy and give our troops the best chance of getting out safely. PRT is a joke, and I would really love to have a conversation with whoever came up with it to understand what they were thinking.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Aug 13 at 2015 1:12 PM

COL Ted Mc — Thu, 13 Aug 2015 13:12:30 -0400

SGT Private RallyPoint Member - Sergeant; What is needed is [a] endurance (under adverse conditions), [b] high burst output, [c] upper/lower body strength parity, and [d] agility.

I totally agree with the statement "If a Soldier has to run two miles on the battlefield, something went terribly wrong and the leadership made a decision that probably got everyone killed." and have never been in an operational situation where the ability to do 50 pull-ups has been necessary.

I suspect that "[a] endurance" and "[c] upper/lower body strength parity" could be achieved by routine, full-load, road work (NOT "runs"). I also suspect that "[b] high burst output" could be achieved by training for almost any of the "combat function ability" programs yet put out (being evil and devious, I'd "schedule" them at random times and random places - i.e. walking in to the Orderly Room and announcing "This room has just been bombed and you, you, and you, have to extract him, him, and her 50 yards down the road NOW.") That might also achieve "[d] agility" but there I'll leave it to your imagination (you can include mandatory "Twister" sessions if you want, but I also approve of making the "Confidence Course" more "interesting" and having people undertake it more frequently).

PS - During the Falklands War the Brits found that those soldiers who had been the best performers on "the runs" also were amongst the first to get burned out when required to produce continued exertion on a steady basis (especially if they had to do so for much longer than "the runs" usually lasted while those who had higher proportions of body fat were able to perform - effectively - for much longer.