The other day I ran across the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT), which is a test that all soldiers in the Army, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard have to pass twice a year. The APFT is made up of three components (pushups, situps, and running) and performance standards vary by sex, age, and enlistment status (new recruits vs. active duty).
Here’s how it works:
The test sequence is the push-up, sit-up, and 2-mile run (or alternate, aerobic event). The order of events cannot be changed. There are no exceptions to this sequence. Soldiers are allowed no less than 10 minutes, but ideally no more than 20 minutes, to recover between each event. Under no circumstances is the APFT valid if a soldier cannot begin and end all three events in two hours or less.
Performance on pushups and situps are both based on the maximum number of reps that you can pump out in two minutes, whereas the 2 mile run is simply a timed event. Your performance in each area then gets converted into a score, with a minimum score of 50 on each event required to graduate basic training, and a minimum score of 60 per event required for active duty personnel.
Standards for a guy like me
Here’s what a 37 year old guy like me would have to pass the test…
Pushups: 24 for basic training, 34 for active duty (chart)
Situps: 29 for basic training, 38 for active duty (chart)
2 Mile Run: 19:30 for basic training, 18:18 for active duty (chart)
Hmmm… Looks like I’d be able to serve. These aren’t exactly high standards.
Height and weight requirements for new recruits
In addition to the above fitness requirements, they also have weight restrictions based on your height, as well as percentage body fat requirements for all new recruits. In this case, the requirements differ slightly for those that have or have not previously served in the armed forces.
In my case (6′5″ with no prior service) I’m limited a max of 236 pounds, which is right about where I am. As far as % body fat goes, my limit is 28%. Again, not exactly high standards.
July 18th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Why should there be high standards? It costs the soldier more than it costs the government if they aren’t in good shape in combat.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:51 am
*scurries off to see what the standards are for a 39 yo woman*
July 18th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
The stands are a bit lower than you’d expect though, Blaine. Compare it to the US Marines.
Source: Wikipedia
Okay, the minimum here isn’t really as high as you’d expect either, but knowing how competitive the USMC is one imagines that nobody logs a minimum.
That may be the case for the Army, too, of course.
I must admit I’d have thought the minimums would be a lot more severe for both of these. Blaine is right in what he says, but you just assume military folk are always on the cutting edge of fitness. I guess, like everything else, it’s just some of them.
July 18th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
It’s not really in the government’s best interest to kick a lot of soldiers out. They invest a lot of money training them. The somewhat easy standards don’t surprise me.
July 19th, 2008 at 5:00 am
Whooohooo…if I was American I would qualify.
August 4th, 2008 at 9:01 am
When I was in the Marines (12+ years ago) and you were doing anywhere close to the minimum, you would be on a remedial physical training program. That was on a logistics base where most of the marines worked at a desk or in a warehouse. I would imagine the Army is the same. The minimum doesn’t mean it’s ok. It just means they aren’t going to start working on your discharge papers yet.
November 15th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
These may seem like low standards but remember, not everyone is going to be 11B (Infantryman), some are going to desk jobs and not straight to the front lines.