Army combat fitness test threatens to undermine combat effectiveness

The Army Combat Fitness Test, introduced as a rigorous and comprehensive measure of soldiers’ physical readiness, has sparked significant controversy. This assessment explains why the ACFT, rather than accurately gauging combat preparedness, appears to disadvantage both male and female soldiers. For men, it has inadvertently lowered standards, while for women, it has dramatically increased failure rates compared to the previous Army Physical Fitness Test. These imbalances threaten to undermine the Army’s combat effectiveness

A Flawed Measure of Readiness

The ACFT currently consists of six events designed to assess aspects of a soldier’s physical fitness: the three-repetition maximum deadlift, standing power throw, hand-release push-ups, sprint-drag-carry, plank, and a two-mile run. These events primarily measure strength, power, endurance, and agility. However, the ACFT lacks a component specifically targeting flexibility. Flexibility is crucial for preventing injuries and ensuring overall combat readiness. A 2022 study by Military Medicine highlights that fitness assessments focusing solely on strength may overlook crucial aspects of combat readiness, such as endurance, agility, flexibility, and occupationally specific physical performance.

Also, flexibility-specific training can reduce the risk of musculoskeletal injuries by preventing muscle strains. Improvements in flexibility have been shown to benefit the military by reducing lower extremity overuse injuries from jumping and sprinting activities, especially when exacerbated by uneven terrain and heavy load carriage. The study also highlights the necessity for further research on female physical fitness, emphasizing the importance of considering sex differences, such as hormonal variations and baseline physical fitness levels. While the ACFT’s focus on strength-based tasks may align more closely with male physiology, it might also disadvantage men by not adequately challenging them nor addressing other essential aspects crucial for combat readiness. These disparities not only call into question the efficacy of the ACFT in accurately measuring combat readiness, but also underscore the need for gender-specific assessments.

Background and Context

Historically, both male and female soldiers achieved high pass rates of 90% or higher on the APFT. This trend persisted for male soldiers with the gender-neutral ACFT. According to a RAND Corporation report, pass rates for enlisted men range from 83% to 92%, while male officers have pass rates between 86% to 96%. In stark contrast, female soldiers saw a significant rise in failure rates with enlisted women passing at rates from 41% to 52%, and female officers from 49% to 72%. The unchanged pass rates for men, despite the ACFT being designed as a more challenging test, reveal an unexpected consequence: the standards for men were effectively lowered. The ACFT places significant emphasis on raw strength, which aligns with the natural physiological strengths of men. This focus may create a misleading perception of overall fitness.

Despite recent adjustments to include age and gender scoring, a 2024 study co-authored by a current member of the U.S. military with a PhD in physiology, still found that the ACFT disadvantages women, as they now face significantly higher standards without corresponding adjustments for physiological differences. By examining the data, it becomes evident that there is an imbalance in the application of the new standards. Currently, there are no independently verifiable reports with data on the revised gender- and age-specific ACFT scores for 2023 or 2024. While the APFT had pass rates for women around 85-91%, the ACFT trials showed only about 16% of women passing, resulting in an 84% fail rate. Beyond the scores, these results reinforce the perception that women are not fit for combat, a notion that supports existing biases since combat roles were opened to women in 2015. Limiting women in combat roles through a test that physiologically disadvantages them undermines national security by preventing the military from fully utilizing its strength and capabilities. Creating standards based on brute strength and the resulting lower fitness scores unnecessarily disqualify women. Similarly, introducing unnecessary flexibility requirements for men could also disqualify them from certain roles if implemented. This discrepancy underscores the need for a more equitable assessment that accurately evaluates physical standards for all soldiers without disproportionately disadvantaging any group.

Proposed Solution for a Balanced Approach

A comprehensive fitness test, encompassing endurance, agility, and flexibility domains will enhance the Army’s combat readiness, reduce the risk of musculoskeletal injuries, and benefit all soldiers. Numerous medical studies highlight the need for further research on female physical fitness to ensure the most effective measurements and improve training programs. The military could conduct their own studies focused on females to address this need. Physical fitness tests should be gender-specific to account for physiological differences and provide accurate assessments, while combat tasks — such as marksmanship, grenade throwing, obstacle course navigation, casualty evacuation, weapon assembly, ruck marching, urban operations, patrolling, and navigation — should be evaluated on a gender-neutral basis to assess essential combat skills rather than feats of brute strength.

Conclusion

The current structure of the ACFT disadvantages both male and female soldiers by failing to accurately assess physical fitness levels and not encompassing all standards necessary for effectiveness in combat operations. ACFT advocates and leadership have always said that the test would change over time and be responsive to changes in fitness, Army needs, and feedback from credible research. This is to their advantage – the Army doesn’t want another non-responsive test carved in stone for the next 40 years. This is their chance to make good on that promise.

Maj. Amy Forza, Army Reserve, specializes in Civil Affairs (Airborne) and Military Intelligence, with 20 years of service. Her experience includes commanding a drill sergeant company, training soldiers at Initial Entry Training (IET), and multiple deployments, including to Afghanistan. Currently completing a master’s at the University of Oxford, her article critiques current military fitness assessments. These critiques reflect her personal views and are not representative of the official positions of the U.S. military.