Army PT Standards

Great Debates
1

Since I’m apparently resuming my Army career shortly, I thought I’d bring up an old issue I never quite got resolved to my satisfaction.

Why do the US Army PT standards vary by age and sex?

Here’s a link which lays out the APFT standards.

Seems to me that standards should be the same across the board. They don’t make allowances for being too fat or too lazy why should they hold you to a lower standard because you are old or female? It just never sat right with me that two soldiers may have the same rank and same job, may both run, do push-ups, and do sit-ups equally well, but one of them could lose his job simply because he’s younger.

At least, if they must, they should vary the standards by MOS and rank, since presumably different job descriptions require different levels of physical fitness.

P.S. I think this is an issue in all branches of the military, I didn’t mean to single out the Army, here.

2

With the disclaimer that I know absolutely nothing about the Army, I have a possible explanation. Might it be that older troops are more valuable due to experience, and thus the Army is willing to keep them even if they don’t meet the physical standards of younger troops?

3

This issue comes up on police and firefighter fitness tests as well. Males and females simply don’t have the same average level of physical capacity. Pick a physical trait and then imagine two normal curves, one for males and one for females. The female curve is going to be shifted greatly to the left of the male curve even though there are some females that are stronger than many males at the leading edge of the curve. If they made the standards equal for both sexes, they would either exclude the vast majority of females or make the test so easy that the males weren’t challenged much at all. A standard without these presumably undesirable results is not possible.

Even in the military, most people’s roles won’t be dependent on that type of raw physical ability. What I think they are trying to accomplish is just making sure all personnel have an appropriate level of physical fitness suitable for their demographic. It is the general idea of physical fitness rather than the absolute number of push-ups someone can do that is important.

4

[QUOTE=Shagnasty]
Even in the military, most people’s roles won’t be dependent on that type of raw physical ability. What I think they are trying to accomplish is just making sure all personnel have an appropriate level of physical fitness suitable for their demographic. It is the general idea of physical fitness rather than the absolute number of push-ups someone can do that is important.
[/QUOTE]

This is exactly what I was thinking. I don’t know what your MOS is (do they still call it MOS?) but I think the different standards are minimum for service. Combat arms and specialty services have their own standards that don’t allow for gender or age differences. A combat infantryman has to be able to do certain things, and if women want to be combat infantrymen they have to measure up. Same goes for airborne, Rangers, Special Forces and so on. It’s true that women have to qualify with weapons in basic training, but they’re not expected to meet combat standards. That’s just a theory, mind you.

I’d be interested to know whether women combat pilots have to meet the same physical tests as their male counterparts, since their bodies would presumably be subjected to the same physical rigors during aerial combat. **Airman Doors, USAF, ** you out there?

5

[QUOTE=Shagnasty]
[…] Even in the military, most people’s roles won’t be dependent on that type of raw physical ability. […]
[/QUOTE]

Now that I think about it, I don’t doubt your explanation is right, at least in the sense that it was probably what they were thinking when they instituted the standards.

But I’m under the impression that the military has something of a personnel shortage these days. Why, if many soldiers can do their jobs just as well without it, have physical fitness standards at all? Does it make sense in the modern military to hold them to admittedly unnecessary standards and then discharge or discipline soldiers who don’t make the cut? It sounds elitist and counterproductive to me.

6

And Sunrazor, I was in for four years and I never heard anything about different standards for combat arms and airborne. I’ll see if I can dig up the regs. But I recall seeing plenty of fat infantrymen. Can’t speak for Special Forces though.

Oh, and I guess we can include weight standards in this discussion. It’s the same deal, varying by sex and age as well as height, which is obvious.

7

[QUOTE=Sunrazor]
…and if women want to be combat infantrymen they have to measure up.
[/quote]
You mean like grow a penis?

I dont know what you mean by “combat standards”, but the rifle marksmanship standards are uniform across the board. There are no variations for sex or age when it comes to marksmanship. The minimum standard is rather low and pathetic, but it’s just as low for a cook as for an infantryman.

8

[QUOTE=DrCube]
And Sunrazor, I was in for four years and I never heard anything about different standards for combat arms and airborne. I’ll see if I can dig up the regs.
[/quote]
There are not seperate PT standards for combat arms.
However, certain volunteer units like Rangers and Special Forces can have their own requirements to stay in the unit itself, but if one fails to meet the standard, they are simply removed from the unit. They are not penalized, flagged, or threatened with discharge. That kind of thing will happen if one fails the minimum Armywide standard, though.

Physical Requirements for Special Forces involves the standard Army PT test, but a person must score at least a 229 (Army minimum is 180), and EVERYONE is graded on the 17-21 age group. PT requirements for Rangers and Ranger School include a minimum number of pull ups and a five mile run.

One thing that should be noted, is that while it becomes easier to PASS a PT test as one gets older, it becomes increasingly difficult to MAX the PT test. The minimums go down, but the max goes up. The idea is that new soldiers are just becoming physically fit. Older soldiers should be beyond the “I need to pass my PT Test” phase and on to the “I need to Max my PT test” phase. Higher ranking NCOs should not be worried about passing their PT tests. They should be concentrating on maxing it and ensuring their new soldiers are passing it.

As far as the MOS standard vs Age/Sex standard… I’ve been saying that for a while now.

9

The Army PT standards vary by age and sex based on the factors that seem consistant throughout a given age and sex.

The APFT chart actually increases in difficulty to a peak at age 27-31. You have to do more sit ups and push ups to max your test, but you are given an additional 20 seconds or so in the 2 mile run. This increase in the physical standard at age 27-31 is partially because of the belief that soldiers in this age range have been in the military longer and are at a stage where their physical fitness is being maintained, not just newly established.

Over time, as the soldier progresses through the ranks the standards drop because of general wear on the body, and also because of a change in roles due to an increase in responsibility that comes with time in service. You should notice one important thing about your immediate superior… he/she is always there before you are, and is always still around when you’re leaving. And the day only gets longer and longer as you go up the chain.

So, until the younger soldier crosses that threshold to a lower PT requirement… I guess he/she will just have to push, run, and sit-up a little harder. That’s the Army way, as far as I was able to determine.

As far as the different requirement between the two sexes…

If you’re male and you can’t look at a woman and tell that she’s built differently, then I don’t know what to tell you. For push-ups, a woman has a different arm and chest muscle architecture that makes it more difficult (On average. Yes, I know there are some females out there who can push the Earth out of a stable orbit!)

And the structure of the hips make running less efficient (On Average. OK.) So no, the standard can’t be the same. The differing requirements exist because everyone should have the ability to take arms for their country, but there has to be some type of standard to assess base line physical fitness.

As far as physical requirements per MOS, that already exists. the physical requirements for, lets say, a pilot is far more rigorous than an infantryman. This is shown by the requirement of a Class One flight physical that is a VERY thorough examination of the pilots physical state with strict limits. But every service member regardless of MOS is a Soldier, Marine, Seaman, or Airman first. Thus the requirement of a base line physical fitness assessment requirement that must be met by all. How many supply sergeants and cooks have been caught in fire fights and ambushes? To imply that they should have a lower physical standard is absurd. All service members are in combat arms. If he/she can’t maintain the requirement maybe someone needs to take a long look in the mirror.

[/Former Chief Warrant Officer DustyButt steps down from soapbox]

10

[QUOTE=Bear_Nenno]
You mean like grow a penis? I dont know what you mean by “combat standards”, but the rifle marksmanship standards are uniform across the board. There are no variations for sex or age when it comes to marksmanship. The minimum standard is rather low and pathetic, but it’s just as low for a cook as for an infantryman.
[/QUOTE]

When I was in the U.S. Army, I was a radio operator (0-5-B) for a combat engineer battalion (9th Engr Bn). I had to pass the Basic Training PT test every six months and qualify with an M-16 and with a .45 sidearm every three months. Friends of mine in the 1/7 Inf Bn and 1/4th Inf Bn had to pass what was then called Combat Arms PT tests every six months – more pushups and situps, shorter times on the overhead ladder and 2-mile run. When I was reassigned to MilCom HQ as a newspaper editor, I had to pass a “modified basic” PT test – a few situps, try to complete the overhead ladder and run a mile in about 12 minutes. Now, this may have been command-determined rather than Army-wide, but when one is in the service, one’s command tends to be the extent of one’s world.

No need to get snotty, Bear. “Measure up” has nothing to do with genitalia, and it’s unfortunate that your mind went to that place straight off.

11

[QUOTE=DustyButt]
[…] This increase in the physical standard at age 27-31 is partially because of the belief that soldiers in this age range have been in the military longer and are at a stage where their physical fitness is being maintained, not just newly established.

Over time, as the soldier progresses through the ranks the standards drop because of general wear on the body, and also because of a change in roles due
to an increase in responsibility that comes with time in service.
[/QUOTE]

Those are great reasons to vary the standards by time in service, but it has nothing to do with age. I saw quite a few old privates and a few young seargants first class.

Again, this conclusion doesn’t follow. I know women are built differently. To lower the standards because of that fact just tells me that the standards are arbitrary and meaningless.

Indeed. So cooks and supply sergeants shouldn’t be held to a lower standard, but women and old people should? All I’m saying is that either some baseline of physical fitness is necessary, in which case everybody should be held to that standard; or it is not necessary, in which case the requirement should be scrapped. Again, my hypothetical: Two soldiers, same rank, same MOS, same height and weight, same time in service; each can do the same number of push-ups and sit-ups in two minutes, both can run two miles in the same time period. Why is it that one of them can be disciplined and possibly discharged simply because he is younger? Or a male for that matter?

Hey, don’t look at me! PT was never a problem for me and still isn’t. I just happen to be against the standards as they are set up right now.

12

Only a slight hijack…

I took a look at those standards and was fairly shocked. My fairly stationary rear end would be able to perform the pushups and situps at the very LEAST. I haven’t tried running two miles since high school cross country and I’m not certain I could continue actually running that long without an attempt at collapse, but I’m sure I could do ten – naw, even twenty – pushups in two minutes and 36 – or 60 or more – situps in that time. I remember exceeding 60 situps in 60 seconds when I was in the seventh grade…

13

[QUOTE=Sunrazor]

No need to get snotty, Bear. “Measure up” has nothing to do with genitalia, and it’s unfortunate that your mind went to that place straight off.
[/QUOTE]

I think Bear_Nenno was make the comment that only men are allowed in combat infantry units.

14

Sunrazor I’ not AirmanDors, but I am Active Duty Air Force. The Air Force PT is graduated for age and gender just like the Army. The special tactics units do have their own PT evaluations that they use. BTW, women cannot be in the special forces units, it’s a DoD regulation.

15

[QUOTE=billyb0b]
Sunrazor I’ not AirmanDors, but I am Active Duty Air Force. The Air Force PT is graduated for age and gender just like the Army. The special tactics units do have their own PT evaluations that they use. BTW, women cannot be in the special forces units, it’s a DoD regulation.
[/QUOTE]
But aren’t there female pilots who fly air combat missions? I could have sworn I saw a television interview with a woman being interviewed about her Air Force dogfight training. My point was that I don’t think female combat pilots get any breaks when it comes to physical standards, but I don’t know whether combat pilots have to meet different physical standards than ground crews. I just assumed they do, but it might be an erroneous assumption.

16

[QUOTE=DrCube]
Those are great reasons to vary the standards by time in service, but it has nothing to do with age. I saw quite a few old privates and a few young seargants first class.
[/QUOTE]

The APFT age grouping is the most efficient way to define a basic baseline for physical fitness. Age is an important factor in physical ability. Your body peaks and declines at different stages in your life. Telling me your rank or time in service won’t tell me your age. However combine this fact with statistics on average enlistment age, and average rank by age, average time in service by age, and you’ll end up with a chart with groupings by age as you see on the APFT chart.

[QUOTE=DrCube]
Again, this conclusion doesn’t follow. I know women are built differently. To lower the standards because of that fact just tells me that the standards are arbitrary and meaningless.
[/QUOTE]

It’s not lowering the standard. It’s establishing a different standard based on the physiological differences between two sexes. Clearly they aren’t arbitrary, because they’ve been established and assigned to each sex.

[QUOTE=DrCube]
Indeed. So cooks and supply sergeants shouldn’t be held to a lower standard, but women and old people should? All I’m saying is that either some baseline of physical fitness is necessary, in which case everybody should be held to that standard…
[/QUOTE]

Please read the above two comments I made. Ok… read them again.

[QUOTE=DrCube]
Again, my hypothetical: Two soldiers, same rank, same MOS, same height and weight, same time in service; each can do the same number of push-ups and sit-ups in two minutes, both can run two miles in the same time period. Why is it that one of them can be disciplined and possibly discharged simply because he is younger? Or a male for that matter?
[/QUOTE]

Didn’t that soldier know the physical standard? Didn’t he/she know how old they were? Are you kidding me? Am I to believe that you want the armed forces to sit down and come up with an APFT formula for each and every individual in the military? You want everyone to have his/her own personal PT requirement?

Another reason that the APFT is grouped this way instead of by rank, TOS, and MOS is so that when PVT Snuffy and his three buddies sit around and look at the APFT chart they won’t **ENDLESSLY ** gripe about the fact that, pilot, CW3 Hardon doesn’t have to do as many push-up, sit-ups, or run as fast.

PVT Snuffy probably won’t take into account that CW3 Hardon and his peers have been in for 10 years, done 20+ fully loaded jumps while enlisted, tore an ACL while fast-roping in 2002, works 12 hour days when he doesn’t have to fly, has a Colonel on has ass about giving 4 brand new LT’s a check ride, and 33 other Pvt. Snuffys to keep alive while he’s flying a helicopter in the dead of night under NVG’s. But for CW3 Hardon that’s the price of business, and the reason that he gets to do 10 less push-ups. Oh, and did I mention that CW3 hardon is the Battalion Safety Officer to boot?

So, like I said, that soldier who’s about to be disciplined needs to look in the mirror before blaming the Army APFT chart for busting his/her PT test. that’s the way the wheel goes round. All the Army wants is for you to meet the standard. If there’s a reason that they can’t, go to sick call and get a profile.

[QUOTE=DrCube]
Hey, don’t look at me! PT was never a problem for me and still isn’t. I just happen to be against the standards as they are set up right now.
[/QUOTE]

I’m sorry if you felt a burning sensation on your skin after reading my post. I wasn’t in anyway looking at you! LOL… I was just making a statement, that’s all.

17

[QUOTE=DustyButt]
The APFT age grouping is the most efficient way to define a basic baseline for physical fitness. Age is an important factor in physical ability. Your body peaks and declines at different stages in your life. Telling me your rank or time in service won’t tell me your age. However combine this fact with statistics on average enlistment age, and average rank by age, average time in service by age, and you’ll end up with a chart with groupings by age as you see on the APFT chart.
[/QUOTE]

But why should the standards be different for two soldiers with the exact same job description and duties? That’s my question. Age shouldn’t play into it. Its as if some factory made their workers under 30 produce widgets with 5% tolerance while allowing workers over 30 to produce widgets with 10% tolerance. It makes no sense. If you want your widgets within 5%, then say so. If you want them within 10%, then why force your younger workers to work harder for no reason?

But it is lowering the standard. I don’t see how you can say it isn’t. When I turned 23, all the sudden I didn’t have to do as many push-ups to pass my PT test, even though I had the exact same duties and job expectations. Nothing changed except the standard, and it got lower. And just because the standards have been established and assigned to each sex doesn’t mean they aren’t arbitrary. Either there is a reason for the standard, in which case sex and age shouldn’t matter; or there is no reason for the standard, and it is just arbitrary.

I’m sorry if you’re not understanding me. I’m saying the exact opposite of what you think. There should either be one standard that applies to everybody, or none. Otherwise it isn’t a standard, its just regulation for regulation’s sake.

At least if the standards are different for different jobs, there is some justification for it. Different jobs can conceivably require different levels of physical exertion. But when somebody who is expected to do the exact same job as you has lower standards, that’s when it starts seeming unfair.

If “all the Army wants you to do is meet the standard”, then why is it different for everybody? Again, I contend that a standard that is different for everybody is no standard at all, and should either be done away with, or legitimately standardized.

18

If you can’t understand why a 58 year old female LTG CANNOT be expected to have the same APFT requirements as an 18 year old male private, I can’t answer your question I guess.

For the record… you didn’t have to do fewer pushups at the age of 23 than a year earlier. You actually have to do more. Check the chart. There are flaws in your logic all over the place that I won’t even address. Please read my prior post again.

19

[QUOTE=Sunrazor]
I’d be interested to know whether women combat pilots have to meet the same physical tests as their male counterparts, since their bodies would presumably be subjected to the same physical rigors during aerial combat. **Airman Doors, USAF, ** you out there?
[/QUOTE]

IIRC, female combat pilots are better than males for at least some physical rigors of combat flying, being on average better able to take the high G forces associated with combat manuevers.

20

[QUOTE=DustyButt]
If you can’t understand why a 58 year old female LTG CANNOT be expected to have the same APFT requirements as an 18 year old male private, I can’t answer your question I guess.

For the record… you didn’t have to do fewer pushups at the age of 23 than a year earlier. You actually have to do more. Check the chart. There are flaws in your logic all over the place that I won’t even address. Please read my prior post again.
[/QUOTE]

The question isn’t why a 58 year old female LTG doesn’t have to meet the same requirements an 18 year old male private. My question is why a 24 year old male private doesn’t have to meet the same standards as an 18 year old private. I understand that a young private an and old general do different jobs. Two privates of the same MOS, though, should be held to the same standards, no? You still haven’t convinced me otherwise.

By the way, I checked the chart. It changed when I turned 22, not 23 like I thought, but at 21 I had to do 42 push-ups to pass the PT test; at 22 I only had to do 40. Not a big difference but a lower standard nonetheless.

In my company, our motto was "One team, one fight, one standard’. I thought it was an okay motto, but it always made me uneasy around PT test time. Seriously, am I the only one here who thinks that double standards are wrong?