Do you believe the new battle-focused Army Physical Readiness Training program, TC 3-22.20, that replaces FM 21-20, meets the intent of achieving Army physical fitness standards as well as better prepares Soldiers for combat?
Read more Physical Readiness Training standards take shape, http://www.army.mil/-news/2010/10/01/46031-physical-readiness-training-standards-take-shape/
8 Comments on "New Army Physical Readiness Training program, TC-3-22.20"
In the last twenty years, I have seen many changes take place in the Army. I have seen multiple changes to AR 670-1, Wear and Appearance of Army Uniform and Insignia. I have also witnessed the controversial times as the Army went from the patrol cap to beret and back to the patrol cap as the standard headgear. Despite multiple efforts and attempts that have been made, the one thing that I have not seen change throughout my career is the Army Physical Fitness Test.
The current three-event APFT has been around since I enlisted in the Army in 1992. TRADOC has been looking and came very close to changing the APFT in 2012, but had to put it on hold until further evaluation was done. In efforts to improve physical fitness, TRADOC is now preparing to reestablish the master fitness trainer program which was discontinued in 2001. A pilot program was scheduled to begin 27 August 2012. The program was going to be targeting noncommissioned officers, who would then be responsible for developing a fitness training program in the unit and providing commanders at all levels certified fitness advisers. In efforts to change physical fitness in the Army, the manuals have changed multiple times as FM 7-22, Army Physical Readiness Training dated October 2012 superseded TC 3-22.20, dated 20 August 2010, which superseded FM 21-20. Despite those changes the APFT has not been changed.
I am anxious to see what will be the next iteration of the Army Physical Fitness Test. I may not be around to see that change happened while I’m still on active duty, but would like to see it happen sometime soon. I think that a positive change would be to develop a fitness test consisting of events which will evaluate all Soldiers in the physical challenges of the current and future operating environment. As the Army transitions towards allowing women to serve in combat roles, it would probably also make sense to just have the new APFT standards changed to be the same across the board.
MAJ Gabriel Campuzano
ILE Student
Class:13-001
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
Over the last decade mission requirements have caused the Army to adapt how we have traditionally fought to fit the current operational environment. Soldiers have been introduced to challenging environments that include climate and altitude variations; both of which affects an individual in different ways physiologically. An individual mission could incorporate a routine security patrol, a key leader engagement, and a hasty direct action mission. This operational requirement, coupled with the environmental factors, requires improved individual endurance and agility. That is a long way of stating that the recent retooling of the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) will assist in the overall improvement of the force physically.
With that said, there are some challenges with the current changes that will pose problems for units as they administer the test. Firstly, the previous version of the APFT (i.e. push-ups, sit-ups, and 2-mile run) allowed leaders the flexibility to administer the test at any time regardless of location or resources available. The changed version, however, now requires leaders to have access to a rowing machine; which severely limits a leader’s flexibility. Why not keep the sit-up events in lieu of the rowing event? Secondly, the sit-up event provides an assessment of an individual’s abdominal strength and endurance which aids core stability and back support. This event has been eliminated from the APFT and replaced by both the rowing event and standing long jump. Is a test of explosiveness and power in one’s legs (long jump) more important than an event that tests core stability and back support? Similar to the FBI’s test, the current version of the APFT should reflect an untimed event requiring the individual to conduct as many repetitions as possible. Lastly, correct form while conducting the push-up event has always presented problems. By decreasing the time for the event to one minute this issue will become more prevalent. Individuals will forego correct form in an effort to achieve as many repetitions as possible. An untimed push-up event which requires an individual to conduct as many push-ups as he/she can would provide a better assessment of the individual’s upper body muscular endurance compared to a revised one-minute event.
The restructuring of the APFT was needed and will benefit the overall physical readiness of the force. The new challenges for leaders in administering the APFT will limit their overall flexibility, but will introduce new events that will continue to challenge Soldiers to excel. As is the case with all change in the Army we will adapt and overcome.
TC 3-22.20 demonstrates the Army’s commitment to positive change – but in addition to updating its antiquated approach to physical fitness, I suggest expanding such efforts to include revamping the Army Weight Control Program, as well. As a young officer attending the Aviation Captain Career Course 10 years ago, I wrote an article highlighting the shortcomings of the program and it is frustrating to recognize that these issues still persist today. At its core, the weight control standards as defined in AR 600-9 are sound, but the administration and enforcement of the program is completely ineffective. Specifically, the use of the “tape test” as an objective and authoritative measurement of body fat percentage is unfounded – especially when untrained and inherently biased personnel administer the program. Research has shown the accuracy of a proper “tape test” can vary by up to 4% body fat, yet the Army still relies on this data alone to definitively initiate adverse personnel actions.
I recommend that the Army adopt a three-tiered evaluation system in which the height/weight tables and “tape test” serve only as initial screening criteria. Failure to meet both of these simple, sequential metrics would trigger the need for an official evaluation by healthcare personnel involving hydrostatic (underwater) testing to determine the most accurate estimate of an individual’s body fat percentage. Only upon failure of this third test would personnel undergo adverse actions that could lead to separation from the military. This methodology would help eliminate much of the subjectivity that pervades unit level weight control programs.
With the inevitable upcoming budgetary constraints in military spending, the Army’s weight control program will likely serve as a preliminary discriminator in making challenging personnel reductions – the importance of such decisions demands an accurate assessment process and the Army Weight Control program is currently insufficient in this regard.
MAJ Steve Suhr
ILE Student
Class 12-01
January 14, 2011 2:39 PM Ryan Cagle said:
I agree with the concepts in TC 3-22.20, but it is just a new manual not new ideas. It is billed as a great divergence from the way PT programs have been planned and executed, but it appears that the TC only repackages concepts based in FM 21-20. The TC splits up the phases of the physical readiness training into three (3) categories: initial conditioning, toughening and sustaining. Outside denigration to the physical readiness of a Soldier such as deployment or injury is taken into account in a recondition phase with the purpose of restoring the physical fitness levels of a Soldier. The medical platoon leader is dictated as the reconditioning program officer. TC 3-22.20 and FM 21-20 both advocate utilizing the unit’s METL as a developmental tool for the physical training program and including alternate or cross training exercises such as foot marching, running, swimming, jumping, vaulting, climbing, crawling, lifting and load carrying to compliment the program. A notable addition is denoting the exercises that can be utilized for corrective training and limiting the repetitions to five (5). The training circular does provide a prescribed manner in which to conduct the exercises based on the phase in which the Soldier or unit is currently conditioned. It also takes into account the cycle of the ARFORGEN. The prescribed training calendar is a source of concern in my opinion. There is not much sustained running on the calendars and sustained running is replaced with speed running. Sustained running burns more calories and helps Soldiers stay within the Army height and weight standards. In my opinion this change will create more Soldiers on the overweight program in units. The TC also does not change the APFT. Historically, the APFT is a metric utilized to define success in a unit and if the Army desires to change the way physical readiness is viewed the APFT needs to be the catalyst. The lack of sustained running will cause issues for the run portion of the APFT and this tends to be a Soldier’s weakness on the APFT. The TC also does not appear to account for the inability of an individual to physiologically maintain a sustained physical capability for an indefinite time. This is why athletes periodize their training to peak at certain times of the year or for certain planned events. In conclusion, I feel that the change in the physical training requirements will be detrimental to unit physical fitness.
January 18, 2011 6:59 PM MAJ Matt Swingholm said:
I believe the Army was in need of an update to the physical readiness doctrine and that the new Army Physical Readiness Training program will reduce injuries overall. I have only had the opportunity to participate in PRT on two occasions and found that it took approximately 1.5 hours and had more of a warm-up period compared to the old days of leaving straight from accountability formation on a 6-mile run. I also found the two workouts physically demanding, productive and morale building for the Soldiers.
Items of interest from my perspective at this point include individual PRT programs and whatever will become the new APFT test. Rumors I’ve heard about the test sound like it will consist of combat-related tasks such as dragging a battle buddy a certain distance, running with IBA on and crawling over obstacles with IBA on. As much as I find that very useful in a battlefield environment, how do you train on that if you are on an individual PRT training schedule? That was the beauty of the old physical training program! Since the APFT was an individual’s responsibility, it was up to each individual to train on his/her own personal time if they wanted to excel on the APFT. I could conduct all three events on my own without any outside support or equipment needed. If I have to be tested on dragging someone 50 yards, how do I train for that?
Another issue I foresee is conducting the APFT. Currently, it is fairly easy to conduct an APFT for a large amount of people in a short time frame. If the new PRTFT consists of battle buddy drills, crawling over low-walls, and performing tasks with your IBA on, how much logistics will be required to accomplish this and will it become an all-day event? Will each installation have to construct a field with obstacles specifically for the PRTFT and will each individual have to be issued an IBA (PROFIS Soldiers)?
I am a fan of the old PT doctrine and don’t think it’s responsible for our current obesity problems as much as numerous deployments take away from organized PT programs. However, I am still an advocate for integrating new science and technology into our sports and training in order to reduce injuries.
In conclusion, I am curious to see if the new PRT program actually reduces injuries, curtails obesity problems, and produces good scores on the current APFT. The new doctrine does seem to provide a great level of overall body fitness and will help prepare Soldiers for combat. However, due to the length of the deployments, the fitness levels of the Soldiers will still continue to deteriorate during deployments.
MAJ M.T. Swingholm
ILE Student
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
January 27, 2011 5:21 PM marian.feist said:
Physical fitness is an individual responsibility. Pride in yourself, the way you look, and your overall health makes everyone want to become and continue to be physically fit so they can be combat ready at all times.
Army physical fitness is a balance between being combat ready, physically fit and treating your body with respect – knowing your limits to avoid injury. Every individual is made differently and doing any sort of physical activity without consideration for how your body can handle it, resorts in possible injury. Any injury has long-term effects and has a negative impact on Army combat readiness.
As a past Basic Training commander for 2 years, I witnessed a trend of Soldier’s entering the Army heavier and with unhealthy eating habits. The Army waivered weight limits for a time, making it the drill sergeants and commander’s responsibility to make sure the Soldiers lose weight and eat healthy. Due to the ongoing conflicts the U.S. is involved in, the Army is in the process of making changes to the physical fitness test. There are many advantages and disadvantages to every exercise we do in the Army, however, any sort of physical activity or exercise that gets you up and moving, is beneficial to your health. Make physical fitness a way of life, not just to pass the physical fitness test. A few exercises I believe, that could better prepare and help a soldier to become combat ready are the following:
Doing pushups, pull-ups or the hang, shows a soldiers ability to pull him or herself over an obstacle or carry a battle buddy. Doing a six-minute shuttle run along a set distance is more combat related than a two-mile run. A one mile run with raised standards for time or a sprint/speed walk combination emulates combat situations. Potential injury and lower back problems typically result from doing setups. A better exercise for the abdominal region are crunches, however, isometrics are more appropriate, because they strengthen the muscles without giving undue stress on the joint.
The major question becomes on how to maximize the positive effects of exercise while at the same time reducing the negative effects of ineffective exercises in order to maximize military combat readiness. The physical fitness test is not the only measure of fitness. I believe leaders at all levels should stress exercise in order to stay combat ready and the many health benefits associated with fitness.
MAJ M. Feist
ILE Student
January 28, 2011 4:47 PM palaciosia said:
Before I comment specifically about the new battle-focused Army Physical Readiness Training program, TC 3-22.20, that replaces FM 21-20, meeting the intent of achieving Army physical fitness standards as well as better preparing Soldiers for combat I think it’s important to mention how this TC falls in line with the overall trend we are seeing in our American culture.
10 years ago, did you ever imagine walking into a fast food restaurant and seeing how many calories are being placed in your body? After movies like “Super Size Me”, numerous documentaries on obesity, and T.V. reality shows about weight loss — our American culture and lifestyle had been trending toward getting us all healthier through awareness, nutrition and exercise.
Some popular programs on the market such as P90X, Insanity, Zumba and even Wii have attracted a lot of our younger generation who as LTG Hertling points out have “grown up with energy drinks and soda while playing video games on the couch”. I look at this TC to be in line with the trend we’re seeing in society. Before I arrived here to ILE, I was able to join some of the companies in the BDE for PT who incorporated P90X and Insanity workouts in their program. The enlisted Soldiers I spoke with afterwards were very pleased with the new concepts they learned in these programs. Additionally, they expressed wanting to see the Army incorporate these types of stretches and exercises sometime down the road.
As a former Company Commander in Recruiting, I witness firsthand the many weight struggles our young men and women faced. To mitigate this, my recruiters conducted nutritional classes as well as having them use intense cardio programs to improve their physical fitness. We knew it was not enough to conduct push-ups, sit-ups and run for two miles. I believe this TC falls in line with the programs that our younger generation can relate to and will greatly assist recruiters in developing their Future Soldier setting physical fitness programs. This is a total team effort from the recruiter, to the Drill Sergeant to the first line supervisor. I look forward to conducting PT in my next unit seeing TC 3-22.20 in action.
MAJ Ivan A. Palacios
ILE Student
February 8, 2011 9:35 AM william.shoemate said:
TC 3-22.20 is moving in the right direction for providing alternate methods. Although leaders continue to search for answers to advanced physical readiness, physical readiness goes beyond your schedule training block. Providing more opportunities through equipment and programs will further develop unit readiness outside scheduled training.
New methods of training, similar to TC 3-22.20, provide Soldiers and leaders diversity in planning a personnel training program. Garrison and senior leadership must look at revamping facilites that provide for continued training oportunities. Indoor gyms should include faciilites for improving the physical demands associated with the current operational envoirnment. Furthermore, gyms should provide professional instruction in today’s advanced training methods like cross-fit and Ross Training (rosstraining.com). A modest example is the cross-fit facilites at Fort Leavenworth.
MAJ Will Shoemate
CGSC-ILE
Class 11-01
SG 18C
March 31, 2011 7:25 PM ArmyDoc said:
“Every Soldier an Athlete” and Comprehensive Soldier Fitness
On 23 March 2011, BG Richard Longo, DCG, Initial Military Training, TRADOC; addressed the ILE class at Ft. Belvoir. One of his points was that the Army will treat “every Soldier as an Athlete” and policy changes were being made in this direction. This was not the first time I have heard this mantra, but it is the first time I have heard it from a flag officer who has tied it with changes in Army policy.
Although I respect the changes that he is making in this direction (assigning physical therapists to BCT’s, personal trainers to BN’s), my assertion is that throwing money and manpower at the problem will result, at worst, in failure to improve the health of the force, and at best, waste tremendous resources and money, unless we first adopt and encourage a cultural change in the Army which which will involve making some tough decisions to set the proper conditions for such. I feel that senior Army leadership is not addressing these issues:
BLUF: My assertion is that the Army, although it coins mantras such as,
“Soldier as an Athlete” does not set the conditions for building athletes by not facilitating, and in some cases, discouraging an active lifestyle.
To elaborate, I recommend we study the following areas to promote a more active, and athletic lifestyle. I base my thoughts on what athletes focus on in their daily life to promote their own health and fitness. Doing this will truly facilitate the “Every Soldier an Athlete” mantra:
Army Posts are not facilitative for daily activity: They, being small self-contained micro-metropolises, can easily become models for integrating walking and bicycling into daily activities and commuting for its residents by providing pedestrian and bike paths, but this does not appear to be a priority over building more roads and encouragingeven more auto traffic. The necessity to commute even short distances due to a lack of sidewalks, and safe pathways contributes to sedentary lifestyles among Soldiers and their families. Urban research from Europe has demonstrated improved health and decreased pedestrian and cyclist injuries in civilian communities where such facilities have been constructed. The presence of such facilities sets conditions for integrating active living into the daily culture of Soldiers’ and their families’ lives. Soldiers and families living on post, given the proper infrastructure could very well thrive without requiring a vehicle for daily needs, but sadly I don’t know of any major post in CONUS where this is possible today.
Draconian rules on post for runners– mandatory reflective belts and orange vests, bans on headphones, mandatory PT uniforms (which is a terrible uniform for running)- all serve to discourage runners. No state in the union has enacted such rules for its citizens, yet garrison CSM’s feel that Soldiers are not able to protect themselves as well as other citizens. I believe that this is partly a result of a risk averse mentality among our senior leaders who fail to see the second and third order effects of their enactments. The facts are that runners are far less likely than the elderly and children to sustain an injury as a pedestrian according to the NHTSA. In addition, speed of the vehicle and alcohol level of both the pedestrian and driver is a significant risk factor for pedestrian injury. Being a runner has not been shown to be a risk factor, yet CSM’s continue to enforce rules which are not evidence based. There were approx 4500 pedestrian deaths in the US in 2008. For every one pedestrian death, there were about 100 deaths associated with obesity and smoking- that’s over 1000 people per day (over 400,000 annually). Maybe smokers and obese Soldiers should be wearing reflective belts to identify those at most risk of premature death.
Poor food choices- PX hubs serve as anchors for food courts which are convenient places for Soldiers to dine, however they almost exclusively serve processed high caloric density foods (fast foods). Fresh fruit, vegetables, and locally grown are not available in most locations or are overpriced compared to cheaper and unhealthy alternatives. Even in DFAC’s, fruit and salads are more expensive than cheaper alternatives like a burger and fries. What do you think the average Soldier is going to pick for himself? What do you think the dependent wife of an E-4 is going to feed her kids and herself when money is tight?
The Army PT uniform– cotton is a poor shirt material for high intensity events such as distance running, nor do the design of the shorts lend themselves to such. Serious athletes need serious, not cheap, gear.
Unmask PT scores on ORB’s. Right now the statement is that the Army doesn’t care unless you don’t make the minimum. Reward ultra-athletes such as Iron-man Triathlon finishers, marathon competitors among the ranks by allowing such to be a bullet on the ORB or being able to compete in such in lieu of the APFT (anyone who can complete an Iron man can rock the APFT in their sleep– quite frankly having to take it is a nuisance).
Aggressively promote tobacco cessation, and ultimately forbid cigarette smoking in the Army.
I’m a marathon runner and triathlete. I know of NOBODY who is serious in these sports who smoke, so it surprised me that MG Longo spoke of Soldiers as athletes but still did not discourage tobacco sales to Soldiers on post. In 2008, Sec Gates commissioned
a panel to study smoking and found that it is a significant contributor to morbidity, meaning that it results in a statistically significant increase in lost work days, illness, and is a risk factor for overuse injury and increased time for rehabilitation. The commission found cigarette smoking to be a force detractor and recommended from an economic and readiness standpoint to move towards a tobacco frees Army. These recommendations were ignored.
In summary, the Army needs to change its culture from the top down to actually shift policy and resources towards treating and encouraging an athletic lifestyle, and not merely throw money and talent at the problem in the form of more physical therapists and personal trainers. Until that happens, the Army will reap minimal benefits in its attempt to improve the health of the force.
Also, I’m also willing to put my money where my mouth is regarding smoking– I challenge any active duty Army smoker who has smoked more than a pack a day for the last 5 years (and allow me to lab test them to verify this) to be able to beat me on any run greater than 2 miles. I’m willing to do this to counter those that will assert that smoking does not hinder physical performance despite a mountain of randomized controlled clinical studies which prove that it does.
Amit Bhavsar MD
MAJ, MC, FS
ILE class 001-29A, Fort Belvoir
April 12, 2011 10:03 PM roderick.pittman said:
The current APFT goal is to test a soldier’s conditioning not combat effectiveness; yes it is rare that a soldier will have to run 2 miles but if he or she can run two miles in shorts, t-shirt, and running shoes, they should be able to run 100 meters in all of their battle gear in order to get to safety. The cost of this new test: due to some soldier’s inability to pass the test they would be kicked out of the army, more equipment / facilities would be required, additional times will be needed to conduct the test, and injuries will be caused from a soldier falling off a beam. If a unit has an effective APFT program then being ready for combat will not be an issue.
I think that they are headed in the right direction but going about all wrong. I say keep the existing test, maybe modifying the events to keep it simple enough that no additional equipment is need. The new test can be used as a readiness guide for a unit to determine their readiness level for deployment by averaging scores across the unit.
MAJ Roderick Pittman
CGSC-ILE
Class 11-01
SG 12A
April 13, 2011 9:01 PM MAJ Yanson Cox said:
The Army’s new physical training program is taking the Army in the right direction when it comes to our soldier’s physical fitness. In the past units just focused on pushups, sit-ups and long distance running, and this new program will help in refocusing an unit’s PT program.
There seems to be quite a few officers who do not want to change our PT program, but I know from experience our old PT program falls short in preparing a soldier’s body for combat. The Army has needed to change; the Marine Corps changed their PT program years ago.
Units will have to overcome certain problems as this new PT program is implemented. The top issue will most certainly be the dependency on equipment. As long as the equipment is small, then this becomes a non-issue. Many more issues will come up, but none should be a show stopper.
This is not the end all, be all of PT programs, but it is a move in the right direction.
MAJ Yanson Cox
CGSC-ILE
Class 11-01
SG 18A
January 13, 2011 11:26 AM MAJ James Morgan said:
I feel that this is a move in the right direction. Too many injuries can occur as a result of trying to get back to a 5 mile run at a 40 min pace to soon after block leave. I can remember back in 2003-2004 working as the HHC Commander at OCS. Part of the job was working with the recycled OCS students with the mission of getting them back into training. More often than not they ended up in the HHC hold barracks due to physical injuries that started in basic training. We started working with the master fitness instructors on Fort Benning who were using a program similar to new army physical readiness training program. Every OCS student that used the program was successfully returned to training. You could see the difference in the time it took individuals to recover as opposed to before we were using these physical training concepts. I do agree with MAJ Hughes that there is no magic FM to fix our physical readiness issues. Units will still need to make some adjustments to fit their particular missions. I’ll admit that I do a lot of running for PT just because of the future 2 mile run, but at the same time I incorporate a lot of other fitness routines for the sake of overall fitness. Perhaps if the Army does adopt a new Army PT test that fits the move to holistic fitness we can focus more on fitness and less on PT test events.
MAJ Morgan
January 12, 2011 9:10 PM Jeff Lakner said:
I think the new physical readiness training program meets the intent of achieving physical fitness standards as well as prepare for combat. Physical fitness in the Army has become an institutional way of life and has helped build teamwork, espirit de corps and improved overall performance and health of the Soldier. FM 21-20 did a good job of bridging the gap during the 1980s and in the 1990s on how to implement an organizational wide physical fitness plan, but as technology and research in physical fitness has progressed, FM 21-20 techniques had grown old.
While I do see the utility in evaluating the cardiovascular endurance of the 2 mile run on the APFT, the push-up and sit-up events may not be as applicable to preparing Soldiers for combat as other exercises incorporated in the new TC 3-22.20. New techniques in muscle conditioning, such as P90X and Cross-Fit, are more effective in conditioning the body for the intense rigors of shooting, moving and communicating. From what I have seen, the new TC 3-22.20 ties PT to Warrior Tasks and incorporates core training, agility exercises, weight machine training, as well as different endurance workouts. The TC does a good job of describing how to implement a total fitness program by including examples of monthly PT schedules as well as describes how to incorporate PT as part of the ARFORGEN cycle. The new TC also provides techniques on obstacle negotiation as well as obstacle sketches to develop an obstacle course at your location. Overall, at first glance, the new TC provides a welcomed number of approved exercises to keep pace with civilian physical fitness techniques and change the rhythm from focusing on doing sit-ups, push-ups and running 2 miles.
Major Jeff Lakner
January 12, 2011 3:29 PM RJ Hughes said:
My initial assessment of TC 3-22.20 is that it is a great improvement from FM 21-20 regarding physical training and preparing our Soldiers for combat. It is a much more holistic approach to fitness and is grounded in sound research and training methodology. One of the most important things we must realize; however, is that there is no magic FM, ST or even TC that will fix the physical preparedness level of the military. While these types of documents are excellent guides for leaders, the most important aspect of physical training is changing the mentality of the Soldiers and having them view fitness as a way of life vice just an hour or hour and a half out of their busy days. Additionally, no matter what guidance or new manual that is published, there will always be those Soldiers and their leaders that only concern themselves with preparing for the APFT given that it still has significant weight on evaluation reports.
I applaud the military for finally making some significant changes to the training protocols, but I must admit that I have been incorporating these concepts and ideas in the physical training of every unit I have been in for the past 10 years. And throughout my military career, the most significant factor impacting the physical fitness of the individual Soldier is their mindset or view on fitness. I was blessed to have very innovative and intelligent NCOs who utilized training regimens very similar to those in the new TC, but the limiting factor of Soldier fitness was always their inability to embrace fitness as a key part of both their professional and personal lives.
I agree with LTG Hertling’s comments in the article “Physical Readiness Training standards take shape” that obesity and poor physical conditioning of entry-level personnel is a national problem. Unfortunately, lower levels of physical fitness have become the norm in our society. In my opinion, the training protocols or manuals are irrelevant as fitness training is ever evolving. What is relevant is active leadership striving to reverse the attitude of our Soldiers to fully capitalize on fitness gains and ensure our force is fit to fight.
MAJ R.J. Hughes
ILE Student
Class:11-001
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
January 12, 2011 12:59 AM Major Ben Smith said:
As an Air Force officer, my knowledge of the differences between FM 21-20 and TC 3-22.20 is limited to my review of both regulations, but this blog question was interesting to me as my next assignment will more than likely be a squadron command thus unit fitness becomes my responsibility. Looking at how the Army has adapted their approach to fitness seemed like a good starting point for developing my personal thoughts on how to best implement a fitness training program.
My opinion is that physical fitness, for too long, has been a secondary consideration when preparing a unit or individuals for deployment. This may be because in the past, if an Airman could do their job they were deemed fit to deploy as most AF units would deploy to an air base far outside of any significant threat zone due to our ability to launch and fly aircraft from hundreds of miles away from the fight and still remain effective. While some of this remains today, the AF has also seen a significant increase over the past nine years in the number of Airman being placed in combat environments in which the need for physical fitness is paramount to their safety and ability to ensure successful mission completion.
After reading Vince Little’s article “Physical Readiness Training Standards Take Shape,” my initial thought was that the Army’s new approach to fitness would be a good addition to the Air Force fitness program, which currently is focused on life-long fitness, but relies on the standardized to test to assess fitness. The new approach is a positive step to realizing a physically fit force ready for combat because it just makes sense to train skills that will be required for combat versus the run, sit-up, and push-up mentality. Remembering back to my days as a collegiate athlete, my coaches would always stress the importance of “practicing like you compete” to achieve maximum results when it counted. This theme is consistent in nearly all other military training environments, so why should fitness have a different training standard? The closer you can set conditions to the real thing the better which is the Army’s intent with TC 3-22.20. The goal is to take lessons learned from nearly a decade of constant combat and bring fitness training closer in line with those tasks expected of soldiers when deployed. This combat-task focus seemingly is a significant departure from FM 21-20 based on SSG Andrus’ comments in the article in which he states that “we were all about doing PT just to pass the test, rather than train as we fight.” A more in-depth look at FM 21-20 leads me to believe that additional fitness training concepts were already addressed as it included such things as: circuit training, obstacle course, cardio, muscular endurance, and road marches, but the reality, which SSG Andrus alludes to, is the Army Physical Fitness Test is the graded event so that essentially became the training standard. The difference between the two boils down to the emphasis placed on training combat-related tasks versus overall general fitness tasks.
Other than the fact that the Army Physical Fitness Test, under TC 3-22.20, remains the sole standard for Army fitness, I think the train-like-you-fight approach to fitness will significantly improve soldier readiness. As long as commanders and unit leaders can implement/enforce the program while effectively balancing the other training requirements associated with successful preparation for combat operations. If they are not balanced properly then this approach will default to the Army Physical Fitness Test standards.