Why does the army run 2 miles on a PT test?

It's called readiness. Meaning the ability to cope with unforeseen situations. Stamina, endurance, fitness etc.

Two Miles? What the Hell, we ran five every day in Infantry.

We used to run 2 miles every morning when I was in basic in '77, sometimes we'd do 3 times that amount.

As stated before, it is an inexpensive and equipment free way to assess physical fitness for duty.

The training for the run produces at least a minimal cardiovascular fitness level that does correlate to performance in the combat and support situations !

The Marine Corps still runs 3 miles. Be grateful you don't have to be tested for that distance.

Only time I ran that far was inn the Army. I used to run 12 to 15 Miles a day long time ago.

Because they do not want to run 3 miles like the Corps.

Lots of good comments both pro & con.

My admittedly anecdotal experience includes seeing folks that aced a PT test or did well with rote exercises and runs; but, couldn't ruck worth a darn and or would drop out (stress card out/whatever they call it now) of this or that because they weren't in "overall" shape i.e., an optimal mix of upper and lower body strength, speed and endurance. All needed (but not at the expense of the other) in order to (ultimately) be prepared to survive harm's way. For sure over the years PT training techniques have evolved/improved; however, I am steering clear of whats best vis-a-vis current performance standards (sic) and testing, profile exemptions & alternatives notwithstanding. At the end of the day, my take was a simple one. Regardless whether the PT program du jour actually added to my fitness, I worked out by whatever means necessary with the goal of being in sufficiently good physical (and mental) shape to be able to go:

As far as my feet will carry me...

There are countless compelling (and with emphasis added) "stories" (true/false/embellished/fake and otherwise) by friends and foes alike (as well as Hollywood/Bollywood/others) all of which suggest that being physically fit = common sense. With the caveat being an underage/overage/overweight/anorexic/male/female/gender-not-declared/handicapped/short-of breath/deaf dumb and blind pinball player (with apologies to the Who) can outwit/outsmart/outgun anyone that isn't --mentally-- fit.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG2Xi18ArxA

I was once chased through the woods by a large angry critter. Don't know how far I ran but I know it saved my butt being in great shape.

If you run, you'll just die tired......

This is legitimately a good question. Below are two links which are useful in regards to your discussion. The main reason why a distance run was introduced into military physical fitness tests was due to the works of Dr. Kenneth Cooper. He developed a test, Cooper Test (very original), to evaluate a person's aerobic fitness. The original test required a person to run as far as possible within 12 minutes. These results correlate to a person's VO2 max. With the number of soldiers that would need to complete this portion, it would be very difficult to organize and track each individual's result. Instead, we use a fixed distance that would be approximately the same cardiovascular load as the original Cooper test. Why the Army picked 2 miles, the Air Force and Navy 1.5 miles, and the Marine Corp 3 miles is something I could not find.

I would also like to add that running is a great way to condition your cardiovascular system. Your heart is just a muscle and needs to be worked like the rest of your body. Moreover, weight bearing exercise, like running, promotes bone and joint health. Running also decreases your risk of cardiovascular events, such as stroke and heart attack, and can prolong your life. Apart from the obvious physical benefits, running is an excellent practice for mental strength and grit. Train as you fight.

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/combat-studies-institute/csi-books/APRT_WhitfieldEast.pdf

I forgot to add that I run the 2 miles on average 13:08 so I am not lazy or can't do it, I just see it as that I will never run that far in my civilian life/

I'm guessing its circular reasoning - if you're able to run 2 miles in required time -> there's a good chance you will comply with body mass index standards -> if you're able to run 2 miles in required time. Same logic applies to the other exercises in the PT test.

For Victor units, it should be 5. That way, you can out manuver the enemy (flanking) without waiting for your mommie to do it for you.
There is one thing you can try. If you have been PTing a few days with running, as the Sgt. walks in an tells everyone to fall out, just tell that nasty old bastard you are a lover, not a fighter. He will understand and allow you to sleep. Becasue he is one too. Trust me. It works every time.
Over

Because:
“THE 2-MILE RUN MEASURES YOUR AEROBIC FITNESS AND ENDURANCE OF THE LEG MUSCLES. "

Nobody really expects to have to run 2 miles during a specific contact event (but not out of the realm of impossibility). But protracted duration of movement, patrolling, reacting to contact does take a physical toll and your aerobic fitness comes into play. This is why a speed walk and fixed gear bicycle events are alternatives for those who qualify. You are still testing your aerobic fitness and leg muscles

In the Marines it was 3 miles. When I went to the Army it was 2 miles. Either way my question is why do they have an individual run? When I first joined the Corps we had the PRT (Physical Readiness Test) Today they have the PFT (Physical Fitness Test) This is just my opinion, but I liked the Physical Readiness better for many reasons. I will stick to the main reason . . . It was a group event just like it would be in combat. We did everything in full combat gear. We carried people. We climbed ropes, We jumped ditches. When it came to the run, we ran in formation in our boots, uniform, rifle, and canteen belt. Oh yes, we also wore our steel pot. It was unit/team orientated. Then one day it changed and it became an individual event. I do not believe in a point system for passing. You either pass as a unit or fail as a unit. In combat everyone sticks together. You don't run 3 miles to a battle with the younger men getting there first and the 1st Sgt getting there 5 minutes later.

Then I joined the Army National Guard and it was the same thing except we ran 2 miles. Never made sense to me. Remember in Band of Brothers when they ran?
They did it in formation. I think all the physical activities should be that way. No score. You complete the task within a certain time frame or you fail. There is nothing wrong with helping one another. We do it all the time. Today it is Private Jones. Tomorrow it might be Sgt Smith.

I remember outstanding NCOs that were short and stocky and could hike all day long. Then they said run and now they were being called physically unfit.

I think physical fitness should fit soldiering skills and based on a couple of exercises and a run. IMO

WOW that would have been great to run those set miles in the Marine Corp we had to run to a track 1 mile always 3 miles the some did in 17 minutes most were 22-24 minutes then of course a mile back.However every morning

Personally I loved the 2 mile run, it does measure ones abilities of cardiovascular endurance, and lends the soldier the possibility to out pace their pursuer in a combat evasion scenario. I does not however measure their ability of muscular strength endurance. Dealt with this many times during my enlistment, as a larger sized troop, I would be taped frequently because my scaled weight was always above military regulation. My only saving grace was the fact I could max push ups, sit ups and run an a faster time than the 100 percentile for the two mile run for max PT points. As stated below by "SFC Johnston," many people in my unit who looked fit could not even carry their ruck sac on a road march without putting in the back of the Deuce for fall outs.

Isn't the idea though that one should be in good shape. I remember one time we had missed our reandevouz by a few hundred yards, and everyone in our squad just picked up our equipment and ran. The sgt. in charge knew that all his troops could do it because we had all passed the base line physical fitness test, so it wans't two miles, but all that running and excercise sure paid off.

Young soldiers are funny The Army used to run 1 mile and have 5 other events so things change

Except the Air Force has better facilities.

you go to combat and your vehicle gets shoot up, the nearest help is 2 and a half miles away, and the enemy is bearing down on you. What are you going to do? Are you going to sit there and get shoot and killed or are you going to try and get to help? That's why you run!

Ground forces learned during WW1 - WW2 and other conflicts that the best way to bring soldiers home was to make sure that they were in good physical shape. Combat readiness is the goal along with soldiers returning home. Long foot marches led to some issues and we learned from the past that some health issues could be prevented by a well thought out PT program. The Air Force is a service that is not on the ground and mostly supports the Marines and Army. Being on the ground in different terrain and environments means being physically fit and mentally prepared. The better shape you are in, the better mentally and physically prepared you are. So that 2 miles might just prepare you to save a life of someone or yourself.

Based on the comments I've read it appears to me that some of U's haven't been in combat. This is the "New Army" that I hate; nothing but a bunch of baby whiners. Why this, why that, how come, what's the point. I learned from my BC Drill Sgt Conway (VN Vet) never to ask why, but, do as you're told and that my friends is the reason why I'm still alive. NOT TO PUT DOWN those 58,479 who didn't come back from Nam and Y'all should be thankful and pay RESPECT to them because they paid the highest price for us to enjoy our Freedom of Speech and Expression and quit your whining. The more you sweat running the 2 miles, the less you'll bleed in combat.

Very simple: running 2 miles (or more) on a regular basis increases both your cardio fitness and your endurance. Specifically, it helps you put in continuous 18+ hour days, while conducting operations.
While stationed in Germany in the mid-80s, in garrison, my unit ran 5 to 8 miles per day (in formation), 5 days a week.
One result of that running program was a level of fitness and endurance that allowed working 18 to 22+ hours a day for the duration of those 2 or 3 week long FTXs.
Does running 2 miles have any direct correlation to something you might do in combat? Probably not. But, it does give you the cardio fitness and endurance to effectively conduct lengthy, physically-intense operations with relatively little sleep/rest.
And that, when you cut out all of the BS, is the entire purpose of the PT program: combat effectiveness....

I hated that Sh-t! But it kept my pulse rate low for that slow trigger pull. One Shot One Kill. Hoorah

2.5 if you choose to walk fast//one foot on ground at all times //no jogging
.

evidently you were never in combat

Yes its called Combat DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Ladies and Gentlemen it is about overall conditioning. I never in 22yrs. actually done any event from PT for as many reps. cycles or distance that we trained for. I is all about overall conditioning both mental and Physical, When I first got in we done the inverted crawl it was a part of the PT Test once it was no longer in the PT Test I never done it again.

I never comment on here, but I just want to say I have really enjoyed this thread. SPC Plight - Read everything SFC Johnston said. He used to work for me and he was smarter than me then, and he's a heck of a lot smarter than me now. That was a clear explanation as to why we tested the way we did, and why we are transitioning to something else. To everyone who calmly and rationally explained that the 2 mi run isn't measuring your ability to "run 2 miles in combat" - thank you. You get it. I am 51 years old. No profiles, been running for pleasure and for the Army for almost 30 years. I'm not fast. I'm a grinder, but I like to run. On the civilian side - I have worked in Cardiovascular Disease Prevention for 25 years so I really like what Michelle Napper had to say - very clear and lucid. Read her stuff too. The myth that running hurts you more than it helps was always - at best - a urban legend spread by non-runners. If you can run - run. Its good for you, physically, mentally and you need to tax yourself to improve. If you cant - then don't, but don't try to talk us runners out of the benefits over walking. If walking was that much better for you, there wouldn't be runners. We're not stupid, we're just faster and we like to breathe harder. I want Soldiers who meet standards. Who can dig deep. Who can gut tough stuff out. I don't want excuses or profiles or waivers. There are THOUSANDS of Soldiers on walking profiles right now trying to figure out how to get back into running and overcome their profile, or planning their exit strategy for the Army - and rightfully so. The ACFT has some Soldiers scared - and rightfully so. But these things are standards so you meet or exceed them - not find ways around them. Never once have I been lit on fire but I still make sure my gloves have NOMEX in them. Not once have I lost an eye but I still wear eye-pro. Not one have I been attacked with nerve agent, but I still make sure I know how to put a mask on. "Not once did I"...."not once did I..." "not once did I...".etc etc. As leaders we field the "not once did I...so why do we...?" questions from our subordinate Soldiers all the time. Constantly. So we owe them the right answers. We don't let personal bias get in the way. We aren't supposed to say "I'm a walker to running is stupid to assess fitness" anymore than we are supposed to say "well that's just the way we've always done it." Or the dreaded: "There have been no SIGACTS on this route for weeks so we don't need to do the brief or PCC/PCI...everyone just load up..." No. We teach. We explain. Purpose, Direction and Motivation. And we back it up. I'm encouraged by some of the responses on here and discouraged by others. PT always gets people opinionated and fired up! It makes for a good read. It is a great thread to demonstrate how Army leaders are not of one-mind on things like they used to be way, WAY back in the day. Other things I liked in this thread: Someone threw some Loggy-shade. Nice. =) And finally - someone threw out "Jackwagon". I used to love calling people Jackwagon. thx for that. =)