Army approves reduced physical fitness standards for women, older soldiers
By: Ellen Mitchell (TheHill)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Following a three-year review, the Army has scrapped plans to use the same physical fitness test for all soldiers, choosing instead to have some reduced standards to allow women and older soldiers to pass, the service announced Wednesday.
The decision follows a RAND-led study that found men were more easily passing the new, more difficult Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) compared to women and older soldiers, who were "failing at noticeably higher rates." That six-event test developed in 2019 was an expansion from the three events — pushups, situps and a run — soldiers had done prior.
"This test is an essential part of maintaining the readiness of the Army as we transform into the Army of 2030," Army Secretary Christine Wormuth said in a statement announcing the changes. "The revisions to the ACFT are based on data and analysis, including an independent assessment required by Congress. We will continue to assess our implementation of the test to ensure it is fair and achieves our goal of strengthening the Army's fitness culture."
The Army first changed its fitness test to include dead lifts, power throws, pushups, planks, a run and a sprint-drag-carry event, as well as a leg tuck that was eventually eliminated.
Service leaders hoped the newer test — the first such change in more than 40 years — would better replicate tasks needed for combat while reducing the risk of injuries.
But the new fitness curriculum was quickly criticized after it became clear women, older male soldiers and National Guard and Reserve troops had difficulty passing it.
About 44 percent of women failed the test from October 2020 to April 2021, compared to about 7 percent of men, Military.com found at the time.
"ACFT scores collected during the diagnostic period show some groups failing at noticeably higher rates," the RAND study states. "The biggest impacts are observed for women, but we also see differences in pass rates across components, with the U.S. Army Reserve and the Army National Guard lagging behind the Regular Army, and across military occupational specialties."
RAND also found the test did not accurately predict job performance and was better used to assess physical fitness. That distinction is important as a low fitness score can affect a soldier's ability to be promoted.
Wormuth herself had expressed concern about whether the test was affecting the retention of women in the ranks.
"I also have concerns obviously about the implications of the test for our ability to continue to retain women, which we obviously want to do," Wormuth said at her nomination hearing in May.
The revised test uses new scoring scales and updated test events, which will allow women and older male soldiers to do slightly less in some of the events and still pass, such as in the deadlift, where they will pick up less weight. Women and older men also get slightly longer to complete the run.
The maximum score for each test event is 100 points, and soldiers must get at least 60 points on each event to pass. If a soldier fails, they will be able to retake the test after several months but will be discharged from the Army if they fail twice.
With the changes, the Army will join the other military services, which also have tiered event requirements based on gender and age for their tests.
The new standards will only be applied to the regular fitness test given to all soldiers annually and will not change the tests troops need to take to qualifying for certain Army jobs such as combat positions or specialties.
The new plan will also be under a trial period, with active-duty soldiers to begin taking the test in April but not penalized if they fail. The test will then officially take effect in October, to be taken twice a year.
National Guard and Reserve soldiers, meanwhile, will have until April 2023 to take the test without penalties, and will take the test once a year.
Tags
Who is online
261 visitors
That didn't take long did it?
So what was the purpose of all this nonsense?
Barrack, what say you?
Ok then, now you can join.
Wait!!!! I thought the whole point was to treat men and women equally? You mean that, in fact, they don't perform the same?
On the age side of it, that only makes sense. After 20 years on Jump Status with the 82d Airborne and multiple deployment's I don't perform the same way I did in 1991 when I first enlisted.
It looks like military readiness & strength will have to take second place to woke emotions.
That's what is being done by these degenerates.
It has. Working on an Active Duty installation it's become very obvious the standards are dropping faster than a fat kid on a seesaw.
I guess we can take some consolation in the fact that for a substantial length of time, the US military was among the best in the world.
Now their focus is renaming roads and providing safe spaces.
Exactly! Having myself served from 1973 to 1993, I remember the DACOWITS (Defense Advisory Committee On Women In The Service). It is a organization that has done some good things over the years, but sadly they have had some big foulups over the years as well. The Tailhook scandal was one of them. The Tailhook showed that changes in the Navy and Marine aviation community needed made and there were guilty individuals but unfortunately it also resulted in a huge witch hunt generated by women making false claims against men they had grudges against resulting in a lot of careers of innocent people being ruined and some members on the committee aided and abetted that. In my time, DACOWITS screamed to the heavens for equality even when it was unfair and they knew it. Even though not mentioned in the article, I cannot help but feel they had a hand in said physical fitness standards.
That actually goes on?
Oh yes, it did and still does I am sure. The powers that be just keep a tighter lid on it. I even had them come after me. A young female sailor did not care for the evaluations I gave her and reported me saying I was being prejudiced and unfair because she was female. Fortunately I was able to defend myself in that her service record had previous performance evaluation by others before me that were in fact harsher than mine. She finally admitted that she was just angry with me. The only punishment she received for submitting a false accusation was to be transferred to another duty station in another state. She otherwise got off Scott free and unfortunately became somebody else's problem child.
What you are describing is real life. Unfortunately, another reason to keep a record of past infractions. It's sad the way things granted as protections get used.
So physical fitness is now not a part of combat readiness? I can understand for the desk jockeys, supply clerks, and upper brass. But for for front line troops and support isn't physical fitness kind of a big deal?
I know if has been about 30 years since I goofed off around on a Ranger base with a few of my enlisted friends; but one thing you could never call even the weakest among them was unfit. I was in above average shape (working at a tool and die manufacturer the summer before); and after a few days of doing their training I couldn't move. Couldn't follow orders worth a damn either; so it is a good thing I never served.
The bottom line is the military is supposed to be dedicated to the defense of the US.
They started playing with the physical fitness program around 2015 / 2016. They introduced this clusterfuck version of "cross fit" and things went downhill from there.
It's embarrassing to see what the Special Operations Forces (Ranger / Green Beret) have fallen to. Yes there are still some that are in shape. For a growing number that shape is round.
Meal Team Six of the Gravy Seals huh? Really?
Special Forces have different skills and physical requirements than drone operators, military intelligence officers, file clerks and mess hall workers. Don't they? Can the indignation..
Feel free to go to Fort Bragg, NC and take a close look around. I'm sure I might be able to work something out with a friend in 1st SFG or USAJFKSWCS for a short time and see the training first hand.
it's cute you think I'm going to just capitulate just because you told me to do something.
"Meal Team Six of the Gravy Seals huh?"
Always interesting to see denigration of a elite military force by someone who probably has never served or been around those warriors. I had the fortune early in my military career to spend some time with USMC Force Recon units. Now those gents were some pretty awesome individuals as well.
In addition no one in the Navy, or the other services start out going directly into any special ops forces right out of basic training. The general rule is spend at least one 4 to 6 year tour in a particular field before they can even apply. I knew Navy personnel that were Boiler Technicians, Heavy Equipment Construction Machine operators, Navy Hospital Corpsmen, and even a Postal Clerk. The Navy wanted their applicants well rounded in different fields.
That is surely a squirrelly take on my plainly sarcastic response to Jeremy's description of how unfit those currently in uniform are in comment 3.2. Care to explain your false indignation considering the actual context?
Or, am I free game for all potshots from you?
Feel free to knock yourself out. Makes no difference to me. And I don't owe you any explanations. I'm done with you. You have a good day now.
That doesn't make any sense in context either.
I have a better idea, create three physical fitness qualification levels (A,B,C) for everyone and give each job a minimum fitness qualification level. That way if you don't meet the fitness qualification level for a position you don't qualify. There are many jobs in the military that don't require top fitness levels but for those that do we can't have weak links, and it should be fair for all sexes and ages.
Are you saying that (B) & (C) would not be trained for combat duty?
I think they're all get some training but while not everyone can carry a hundred pound pack over rough ground for hours those that can't can probably still crew a tank. I just think admitting and dealing with limitations is better than pretending they don't exist.
Why would I want them in a tank?
The basic premise is people in the Army and Marines are all given the same training in basic training applicable to their service and have to meet the same physical standards of each service. Before anything else and no matter what advanced training they receive after basic they are still considered basic rifle men and women before anything else, and still have to be able to function as such.
Can't do that. Afghanistan and Iraq / Syria are being fought differently. There are no front lines requiring one piece to be more combat ready than any other group. I ran convoy operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as an 88M. In order to meet mission, everybody in my unit was assigned a "gun truck" to operate. We drove over 500,000,000 miles as a company. These Human Resources, CBRNE, Supply Clerks, Cooks and Truck Drivers (88M) had more time out on patrols and pulling the trigger on their weapons than most infantry at the time. Occasionally we would pass an M1 or M2 on route Tampa (Iraq Highway 1). Not once did we see an Infantry dismounted patrol. We had Infantry escorts ONCE as we went through Mosul during a major offensive. We very rarely had Artillery coverage to help us when shit went sideways. The best we could hope for were AH-64's. It was just us out there running supplies all over the country.
I’m not sure it makes sense to worry about everyone in the military qualifying to the same standard. There are many jobs to be done in the military and they all require different things to be accomplished at the best level. People expected to take part in physical combat need to be prepared for that, but there are plenty of jobs that are more reliant on technical skills, experience, or education, and that might have nothing to do with how many pushups a person can do.
Seems to me that what we have seen of the performance from regular people in Ukraine to thwart an invasion of their homeland, fitness is not as important as a willingness and patriotic desire to defend that which you honor and believe in.
No surprise recruiting is down so they've got to find ways to retain more people