The Army Combat Fitness Test — an Op/Ed

There’s been a LOT of hand wringing in the Army of late as concerns the implementation of the new Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) and its replacement of the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) as the official measure of a Soldier’s physical performance. You can be forgiven for not noticing, but I suspect the issue will gain wider audience as its opponents have started to emphasize that test yields results that differ significantly by gender. However, before we circle the wagons and fight the good fight against gender inequality, we need to consider the following: the test itself is a better measure of fitness than the APFT; the minimum standards are incredibly low; it’s unrealistic to expect men and women to score comparably across their respective populations. Despite the controversy surrounding its introduction, the ACFT is a necessary, if imperfect, change for the Army.

It’s useful to start with a discussion of the APFT for those that are not familiar with it. It’s two minutes of push-ups, two minutes of sit-ups and a two mile run. If you’re plugged into the business world at all, you’ve undoubtedly heard the phrase “What gets measured, gets managed.” In this case, units and leaders train to and around the APFT. This is not universally or historically the case — when time allows, many units conduct challenging, realistic physical training that builds functional fitness. In a sense, you could say that the Operational Tempo of the Global War on Terror changed the way many units built and maintained fitness and shifted units to a focus on APFT performance. That’s understandable. A Soldier must pass the APFT or be punitively separated from the service; a Soldier must pass the APFT to attend official schools and receive awards; a Soldier’s APFT performance is noted on their evaluations. In a time constrained environment, units must prioritize performance of this critical test.

Why is that a problem? Why change the APFT? The Army’s collective realization was that the organizational focus on the APFT was producing sub-optimal results; it was leaving Soldiers less capable than desired and at a greater risk for injury. The ACFT is as much a forcing function as it is a measure of performance. Completing the ACFT requires a much more well rounded and balanced training plan that incorporates strength training. The APFT’s main advantage was/is that it is incredibly simple to administer and requires nearly no equipment. Some variation of the APFT (such as the Ranger PFT or Sapper PFT) will likely persist in many Army schools for that reason. The grading of APFT events tends to feature a lot of latitude based on the grader — the standard may be clear, but often its performance is not, or Soldiers are credited for performance that does not meet the standard. The ACFT is equipment intensive and more challenging administratively by a large margin. However, Soldiers’ performance on the test is far less ambiguous. One of the few legitimate complaints with respect ot the ACFT can be found here. A number of units are still waiting for ACFT testing equipment and training equipment. The Army has provided a number of training strategies for units that wish to train for the ACFT with equipment that they likely already possess. However, the Army really should provide a much more holistic, integrated, organizationally driven solution for the roll out of a new test that has proven contentious from Day 1.

The ACFT itself is comprised of six events and three different standards depending on the Soldier’s Military Occupational Specialty (MOS). Only the two mile run remains unchanged from the APFT. The push-ups have now morphed into hand-release-push-ups (HRP). These are more challenging, but easy to grade. The minimum standard is 10 HRP and the combat MOS standard is 30 HRP. The sit-ups have morphed into the far more demanding Leg Tuck (LTK). The minimum standard is 1 (!) LTK and the combat MOS standard is 5 LTK. The wholly new events are the three rep Max Dead Lift (MDL), the Sprint-Drag-Carry (SDC) and the Standing Power Throw (SPT). The MDL is done with a hex bar , the minimum standard is 140 lbs and the combat MOS standard is 200 lbs (about the weight of the author with gear). The SPT is executed with a 10 lb medicine ball. It must be throw backwards, overhear at least 4.5 meters to meet the minimum standard or 8 meters for a combat MOS. The SDC is a 5x50 meter relay that requires Soldiers to alternately sprint, drag a 90lb sled, move laterally, carry two 40 lb kettle bells and sprint. The par times are 3:00 minimum and 2:10 for a combat MOS. You can dig into the ACFT here. All of these events are claimed to measure 80% of a Soldiers physical capability and they all relate to tasks Soldiers might be expected to perform in combat. There really is no question that the ACFT is a far better measure of fitness and performance than the APFT.

To the crux of it — why are women failing to ACFT at a significantly greater rate than men? The answer has two parts. First, and most importantly, this represents a significant, massive leadership failure. The ACFT events and test format were published months prior to execution of the test. As noted earlier, and seen above, the minimum standards are incredibly low (laughably so, in fact). Any minimally trained Soldier should pass the ACFT. While physical fitness is certainly a personal responsibility, every leader in the Army has a duty to assess the fitness and ability of their Soldiers and train them accordingly. ACFT failures, particularly in large numbers, are a scathing indictment of the failing Soldiers’ leadership. Second, a contributing factor, the Army has asked so little of women physically that a fitness level commiserate with a passing APFT score does not translate to a passing ACFT score. That leadership failure and unhelpful institutional posture are the reason that men and women are failing the ACFT at unacceptable rates and women at a significantly greater rate.

Ultimately, it’s unrealistic to expect men and women to achieve a similar score/performance distribution. Though it’s not popular to acknowledge, there are some obvious and significant differences between the genders physically. Things like lean mass and overall strength impact ACFT performance much more so then the APFT with its body weight only focus. Further, a quick look at the scoring table for the ACFT reveals that it is universal — there are no handicaps or different standards for age or gender. The ACFT is a measure of combat fitness and all ages and genders are measured against the same standard. In comparison, the APFT is a measure of personal fitness measured against the Soldier’s assumed potential based on age and gender. The normal distribution of performance by both men and women on a multi-event test that assesses strength and power is likely to reflect the physical differences between men and women — and that’s OK.

Why am I OK with a test that is more difficult, in a general sense, for women? Because the Army is a combat focused organization — we kill people and we break their stuff to win, decisively, in ground combat. The people we fight don’t pass out handicaps for age or gender. They don’t hate you less if you’re smaller, or weaker. At the end of the day, the ACFT isn’t that hard. As of this writing (27 November 2019) a 40 year old with stage three Kidney disease has achieved the maximum possible score. The minimums are so low it’s hard to understand how anyone could fail after putting forth even minimal effort to train for it. I believe, firmly, that if you cannot pass the ACFT’s minimum standard you do not have a place in a professional, all volunteer Army. If that’s where you want to be and you want to serve in a combat MOS, train for it. Earn it. Be the team member that can carry the M240 Machinegun up the side of a mountain and drag me off the objective when I get hit. We’re not a jobs program; we aspire to be the most lethal ground combat force that has ever, and will ever, exist on planet Earth. The ACFT isn’t perfect, but it’s a step in the right direction and will make the Army more lethal and survivable.