Posted on Sep 23, 2014
Is the new APFT a step forward or a case of fixing something that wasn't broken?
2.59K
16
17
0
0
0
APFT
Training
Responses: 7
3
3
0
The concept of the proposed new APFT is something that has been in the making for a long time now. Is our current test broken? I don't think so, but I do think that it does need to be re-looked at to determine if the APFT does measure those skills that are required of today's Soldiers. Strength, muscle and cardio endurance are tested by the current APFT. Some of the suggestions for the new APFT test other things like core strength, agility, etc. They are more "battlefield" focused and measuring those skills definitely has merit. I guess we'll see what happens when the dust settles and changes are implemented. Until then, it's push-ups, sit-ups, and the good old 2 mile run...
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
A new APFT has been on the way since 2001 or so when I was an SGL at PLDC and we had the information packet presented to us to get familiar with it, 13 years later and it looks like Big Army still cannot come to a consensus of whether or not the current needs to be changed! Since I retired last year all I have to say is ya'll have fun waiting on a new test!!
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I think there needs to be a new pt test for sure. Being in shape to pass the APFT does not mean you are in good shape.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
LTC Hillary Luton
The concept behind the possibility of a new APFT is that our current APFT really doesn't train Soldiers for combat. How often do you go out in the desert and run 2 miles non-stop towards your enemy? And besides, sit-ups are one of the worst exercises you can do for your neck and back, let alone the fact you get a better ab workout from doing pushups. The think tanks looking at the APFT are trying to develop the types of exercises that would mimic potential activities in combat. They are still studying possibilities; however, I've noticed more PT programs including these types of exercises.
(2)
(0)
SGT Richard H.
LTC Hillary Luton I don't disagree that some of these could be good additions, ma'am, but I also don't think that distance endurance should be taken out of the picture. If anything, I'd be all for increasing the run distance, even if that means stretching the scoring out to a higher per-mile time average.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google