Posted on Jun 26, 2017
As a Master Fitness Trainer, and dealing with Unit level PT goals, do you believe that PRT is affective?
26.8K
53
42
3
3
0
Over the years, I have heard many different viewpoints about PRT. Having gone through the course, I learned many things and most of all learned how to properly do PRT. Trying to change the stigma of PRT has been a difficult one and it takes a lot of patience when trying to teach PRT correctly. With all this being done, I still hear a lot of people saying PRT is ineffective and should be gone.
PRT (Army)
Physical Training
AR 600-9
Fitness
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 15
0
0
0
I haven't done much in PRT past the initial or refresher level since I've been in the Reserves my entire career (14 years). I can say that the effectiveness of PRT for me was increasing my discipline for formality of positions and just having to tough through all the motions. It becomes exhausting. The physical aspect of PRT I would say helped me get in better shape, but in BCT I believe having everything to do every day greatly helped my conditioning, PT and now PRT itself has become a chore and boring.
If we did away with PRT and had something without all the forceful positions and transitions, I believe that alone would help the idea of doing it.
I like the MRTs when we had them leading our PRT we had more knowledge coming through to us on positioning of performing the exercise, various approved alternatives and such, but it was still not enough to keep the group of us feeling like anything was actually done for improving our conditioning. We still went to the gym and played sports to get our exercise.
If we did away with PRT and had something without all the forceful positions and transitions, I believe that alone would help the idea of doing it.
I like the MRTs when we had them leading our PRT we had more knowledge coming through to us on positioning of performing the exercise, various approved alternatives and such, but it was still not enough to keep the group of us feeling like anything was actually done for improving our conditioning. We still went to the gym and played sports to get our exercise.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
I went through Ft, Benning in ‘07, I believe PRT was just starting to be implemented then. It can yield some impressive results.
However; combining D&C and a PT program...is just annoying. Salute the flag, get into extended rectangular formation and do the workouts; without the “starting position move” “position of attention move”. That nonsense makes what could be a good PT session turn into complete drudgery.
However; combining D&C and a PT program...is just annoying. Salute the flag, get into extended rectangular formation and do the workouts; without the “starting position move” “position of attention move”. That nonsense makes what could be a good PT session turn into complete drudgery.
0
0
0
when I enlisted In 2010 I believe PRT was just in its infancy it worked well then I firmly agree with its use
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
PRT sucks, PERIOD! If it was so good, why is the average Division I athlete or even professional athlete in better shape than the average soldier? My middle school gym class was harder than Army PT. I'm sure the majority of soldiers think PRT is a joke, looks stupid & is not effective was well. There's a reason Special Operations & other major organizations outside of the Army have not adopted it. I will never buy into that crap, it does nothing but promote injury & decreases one's current level of fitness.
My childhood basketball coach was a strength & conditioning coach for both Division I & Professional athletes & does not back PRT. He says it was "poorly constructed and isn't effective in taking people to the next level." I will believe him over any NCO because he has the proof to back up his expertise. Whoever came up with PRT obviously has no experience working with elite athletes.
My childhood basketball coach was a strength & conditioning coach for both Division I & Professional athletes & does not back PRT. He says it was "poorly constructed and isn't effective in taking people to the next level." I will believe him over any NCO because he has the proof to back up his expertise. Whoever came up with PRT obviously has no experience working with elite athletes.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
While you are certainly entitled to an opinion you have not supported your argument with anything but anecdotal evidence. Of course "average soldiers" cannot hold a candle to Division 1 athletes. The Army standard is 60 points in each event for a reason. If everyone was required to have the fitness level of a top level athlete we would have a very small army. How many Special Operations units have you been a part of that you know their fitness regimen? Have you ever even done any PRT besides the beginner stuff done in BCT? What are the credentials of your proclaimed fitness guru? I'm not saying PRT is the best fitness tool there is but it is without a doubt a great fit for our large and very diverse force. You making blanket statements about a Physical Fitness program (which by the way is required by the Army) of which many of us have first hand knowledge of its effectiveness is not adding any value to the discussion.
(0)
(0)
WO1 (Join to see)
Unfortunately, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. PRT was a pilot program in many BCTs before it implemented Army-wide and there is plenty of data that showed that injuries decrease among trainees. Do not get me wrong, I hate the PRT program but it is my duty to conduct it and conduct it properly. I recommend that you go over the FM 7-22 and educate yourself especially if are thinking about becoming an NCO (or commissioned). If you think that PRT promote injuries is because you or the people conducting are not doing their homework and learn what the field manual has to say.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
WO1 (Join to see) - I respect your opinion, but you have no idea what I do or do not know. Obviously, you have no idea what level of education I have received when it comes to the science of exercise. Does your rank and the training you've received throughout your military career qualify you to know what you're talking about? I have read FM 7-22 & I will do it because the Army says so. While I have read some of the studies, I think some of the studies are flawed.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SFC (Join to see) - To be honest, I am fairly new to the Army, but every Special Operations individual I have encountered don't use it. And yes, I have done beyond the basics of PRT since leaving basic training, and from my perspective, they are ineffective. Maybe it's my unit, but I get to value out of morning PT, other than feeling like I just warmed up before a game. And while I know you are more versed in the Army than I ever will be, but I will never agree with the way the Army does physical fitness. A one-size fits all approach to physical fitness does not work because of one's fitness level is unique. However, I do see your point and I do respect your opinion. I personally have not seen it be effective, which is why I have a negative bias toward the way the Army does PT as a whole.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
SGT Sean Goodrow great article. It speaks to the problems noticed. NCO's receive very little training experience before being thrown in front of a group of Soldiers to lead in excercise.
(0)
(0)
SGT Steve Hines-Saich B.S. M.S. Cybersecurity
I lead PRT during my time in service. It was taught to me in ALC. I getting at a deeper problem...lack of training...before NCOs are forced to stand in front of a formation. The process could be be improved.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SGT Steve Hines-Saich B.S. M.S. Cybersecurity - You're not wrong saying that NCOs need more training, but the problem lies with leadership...not with the PRT program itself.
(1)
(0)
SGT Steve Hines-Saich B.S. M.S. Cybersecurity
SFC (Join to see)
Right you are I don't think it would hurt to create a course other than MFT to educate all NCOs in overall fitness and excercise.
Right you are I don't think it would hurt to create a course other than MFT to educate all NCOs in overall fitness and excercise.
(0)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
1SG (Join to see) - "SFC Jeremy Brandon 16 h
SGT Steve Hines-Saich - You're not wrong saying that NCOs need more training, but the problem lies with leadership...not with the PRT program itself."
Sorry, but no, I disagree.. If a program, or POI is so made so complex, so convoluted that only a sincere and significant training program will allow for a successful TRAINED person ready to teach/coach/mentor the POI AND no such train the trainer program is written and implemented WITH the new POI, then the POI itself is a failure.
The Standard for training in the US Army is not to throw a book at somebody and read it and be ready to train your Sm next week.. We don't do that for anything from an M4 to a M1A2SEP, not for an RT1523 or a TACSAT..so why did they do it for PRT?
PRT is a failure because the service failed to make a plan and implement it to TRAIN the trainers.
PRT is very complicated with many small nuisances that are required to not just implement, but to understand. PRT train the trainer can not be done in a single 1 hour NCODP.
he implantation plan as I remember it was to train the existing force though building some in hour SME, to then train the current force, and then train PRT at the three levels of service schools..
The service school training may be working, but I can say for sure the SME train the trainer program did not.
SGT Steve Hines-Saich - You're not wrong saying that NCOs need more training, but the problem lies with leadership...not with the PRT program itself."
Sorry, but no, I disagree.. If a program, or POI is so made so complex, so convoluted that only a sincere and significant training program will allow for a successful TRAINED person ready to teach/coach/mentor the POI AND no such train the trainer program is written and implemented WITH the new POI, then the POI itself is a failure.
The Standard for training in the US Army is not to throw a book at somebody and read it and be ready to train your Sm next week.. We don't do that for anything from an M4 to a M1A2SEP, not for an RT1523 or a TACSAT..so why did they do it for PRT?
PRT is a failure because the service failed to make a plan and implement it to TRAIN the trainers.
PRT is very complicated with many small nuisances that are required to not just implement, but to understand. PRT train the trainer can not be done in a single 1 hour NCODP.
he implantation plan as I remember it was to train the existing force though building some in hour SME, to then train the current force, and then train PRT at the three levels of service schools..
The service school training may be working, but I can say for sure the SME train the trainer program did not.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google