FITNESS SHOULD BE COMBAT-ORIENTED

[McD]

I thought this was pretty interesting. We have had some pretty good discussion about the APFT in the Army and the failure of meeting the push-up standard (remember the 41). This info. backs up my assertion that scoring 300 on the APFT in no way correlates into being fit/ready for combat.

While we work daily to max the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT), our runs, push-ups and sit-ups betray us when we put our LBE, rucksack, helmet and weapon on.

The reality is that the APFT is a SPORTS-oriented test not a combat-oriented test of physical fitness.

What cha think?
http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/apft.htm

[Grumble and Grunt]

Ranger McD,

What kind of test would reflect combat athleticism?

What else should young DEPs and soldiers be doing to prepare for combat fitness besides trying to perfect the APFT? More rucking and weight lifting?

This link describes some new program:
http://www.tradoc.army.mil/pao/TNSarchi ... 026204.htm

I also recall reading something about a medicine ball being used in PT, much like the Army did 100 years or so ago, has anyone experienced this?

Thank you.

[McD]

The most important part to remember right now is the APFT is the standard and you will have to pass that. Nothing wrong with a little rucking and weight training. I think the point being made in the article is that there is more to training a soldier for the rigors of combat than having him train by running 3miles in sneakers and shorts. We always hummped a good amount of weight... at least I thought so until we did a deployment for a live fire and had to carry our regular stuff plus a full load. Big difference!

[Old Philly Guy]

These articles are right on the mark. Being able to run (ie good cardio endurance) is important, but being strong and able to maintin the same cardio fitness is more important. I'd rather have a guy who can shuffle along at a 7:30 pace, but then carry 125lbs all day and all night, then a guy who runs marathons, but can't even carry his share.

[Kilted Heathen]

The Brits have a test called "fleet foot".
It doesn't key at all on upper body strength.
They only care how fast they get from one point to another and be ready to fight.

[Dud]

I've always wondered about this myself. While I have not seen combat yet, I've questioned how the APFT truly relates to combat. I am not a particularly strong runner, and would have a great deal of difficulty ever maxing or exceeding the run, but I'm probably one of two guys in my platoon who can pick up and carry anybody in the company by myself any decent distance. And while I exceed the pushup standards, I am still about 25 behind a sergeant of mine, but benchpress 125 pounds more than he does. It seems to me that while running is important, sprinting recovery and quickness would be equally so. I personally would like to see more battle-focused PT instead of the monotonous runs or endless pushups and situps and include some weight training. We have a brand new gym, fully equipped with weights that we can NEVER use in the morning because its filled with pogues who go in there to walk on the treadmill for 15 minutes and proceed to clusterfuck the area, or grab a weight machine, do a couple of reps and then shoot the shit. Frustrating as hell. We've talked to our sergeants about having more buddy carry runs, IMT, combatives, BMS, things of that nature and using that as a guideline of combat fitness, but so far nothing has come of it. I think that balancing endurance with exercises designed to build base strength also adds a bit of spice to the PT, instead of the repetitive nature that we seem to fall into.

Got off track there for a second. Overall though, it seems as though the APFT is bulit primarily for seeing who can move their own weight around as efficiently as possible, and nothing else. While thats probably a good indicator of personal fitness, it may not accurately represent combat effectiveness when considering the extra weight carried in combat or having to run with your bleeding buddy on your back. Just my 2 cents, for whatever thats worth.

Dud

[Spartan]

RIP has many strength and agility tests which are oriented more towards combat fitness as opposed to what would be reflected by a standard APFT.

[Ranger2]

You have to have some basis of measurement. Probably any test you come up with will not measure everything needed. If you were in hand to hand combat with an enemy, strength and endurance would both be important. I was bigger than most Rangers and in some things we did it helped, in others in didn't. When we were doing hand to hand I could kick the shit out of most Rangers, but in running it was a different story. I thought it was an advantage most of the time but you dropped like a log on jumps. I was 6'1" 220, could bench 325 and run a 13 minute 2 mile.

I would think the average Ranger is about 5'10" and 175 but the active Rangers could tell us better.

Ranger2

[Joseph PrettyDeepWater]

Ranger Ranger 2 wrote:

I would think the average Ranger is about 5'10" and 175 but the active Rangers could tell us better.

In Russ Bryants book " To be a US Army Ranger" He says "With an average age of 24, these men generally score 275 out of 300 on the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT). The average Ranger is 69 inches tall and weighs in at 174 pounds."



~Joseph

[Kilted Heathen]

Ranger Ranger 2 wrote:

I would think the average Ranger is about 5'10" and 175 but the active Rangers could tell us better.

In Russ Bryants book " To be a US Army Ranger" He says "With an average age of 24, these men generally score 275 out of 300 on the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT). The average Ranger is 69 inches tall and weighs in at 174 pounds."



~Joseph

Really?
Shut the fuck up.

[Silverback]

I second the STFU