Paragraph 1: Ensuring uglies/fatties don't serve.

Paragraph 2: Ensuring you're self-confident.

Ensuring you're self-confident.

Ensuring you're in the top 20% of your demographic because of reasons other than being fit enough to perform your job duties.

Ensuring you're in the top 20% of your demographic because of reasons other than being fit enough to perform your job duties.

Tell ya what Dibs, if you don't think the military cares abou appearance, why int you grow a neckbeard, dye your hair green, put in a nose ring, and try enlisting.

Why does general health matter? If that mattered then they would ban the cigarette smokers and the dippers and the hard drinkers.

What matters is the ability to do the job. There should be uniform standards regardless of age or gender. If the job requires you to do 20 pushups then everyone needs to be able to do 20 pushups. It makes no sense making the 20 year do 50 and then 40 year olds do 15.

It can make some sense. If you consider that a veteran or a diverse work force are positives (which they probably are) it may make sense to use different physical requirements.

DiB, you are arguing that the fitness standards have nothing to do with the things I said?

Let's look at the very first sentences of the USAF regulation implementing their fitness program (AFI 36-2905):

And yes, they do include waist measurement as part of the PFT for these reasons. And if you exceed the waist measurement, they use BMI. You are being pretty irrational if you think it serves no military purpose for its members to be relatively healthy.

I think national defense will carry on just fine despite the outrage of the men's rights advocates. Yeah, poor men, it's just so hard to catch a break in today's 85%-male military. There's not much point continuing. There's a reason you are considered an abominable poster in every forum you frequent.

And to the poster above (adacan), yes there are many stop smoking campaigns in the military, too.

I think meeting an absolute bare minimum athletic ability is part of it, but that bar is probably a lot lower than most ppl realize. A lot of military work is sitting in front of a computer.

Incidentally, I'm not saying poltical correctness gone wild isn't possibly part of the reason the standards are different, but there's more of it than just that.

Standards should be used to find those that are qualified for the job. That should be the first and only requirement.

Trolly,

Fair point. I think the grenade throwing and push-up requirements are pretty good examples of the two extremes.

There's clearly some distance a person needs to be able to throw a grenade in order to be an effective infantry soldier. Seems like this is where there should be a hard requirement for an infantry soldier regardless of age/gender/whatever.

The number of push-ups a person can do is clearly just a general health/strength type of test without any direct impact on the job. This is where different standards probably do make sense given other trade offs.

Why have general health tests at all? All tests should be performance based. If the test does not measure performance it is not a very useful test.

I would guess grenade throwing has more to do with form than raw upper body strength. Insert "throw like a girl" joke here.

This has already been answered in the thread more than once.

Reread the opening 3 sentences of the AF regulation governing their fitness program again.

This stuff really isn't hard to understand or controversial.

So Ctyri, do you think there is a minimum amount of strength and endurance required to be an effective soldier? Yes or no.

If you're saying that this quoted explanation is primarily the reason why the armed forces have PFTs, then why not expand them?

Why not make sure DMV workers can do 15 push ups or w/e? Make sure postal workers can run 2 miles in 20 minutes?

PFTs are strength and endurance tests which aren't required to ensure absenteeism is minimized or productivity is maximized. They're to ensure soldiers are strong and conditioned enough to be effective at their jobs.

you're talking about uniform requirements for combat soldiers, right?

Not necessarily?

Why not have physical tests for every government job then if it reduces absenteeism? Also how is promoting good health a valid reason for entrance standards? Why not have that in every government job?The only physical standards should be ones directly needed for the job.

Being uniformed military is not just any government job.

The government "owns" you 24/7 and you are supposed to be fit and healthy to do your job under demanding and unpredictable conditions with little notice -- including to locations with austere medical facilities. The ability of uniformed personnel to do their job can be a matter of national security in many cases.

The PFT is just a part of this. Mandatory health checkups, dental exams, flu shots, etc., along with training and unit PT are also part of the equation. Do you think the mailman gets a notice every year for mandatory trip to yhe postal dentist to remain worldwide qualified for duty?

I cant believe you people are taking such exception to the fact that the military promotes fitness through physical standards. Quite an absurd thing to be outraged over.

Cytri, where are you reading that PFTs are designed strictly, or primarily, to promote productivity and decrease absenteeism?! Or to have a good looking army? Or WHATEVER.

This whole tangent is obnoxious and stupid. It's wholly obvious that the primary purpose of PFTs is to ensure soldiers can be at least X strong and in X condition to perform their essential duties. There has been precisely zero supporting evidence to substantiate any of these alternative theories.

It's been explained to you multiple times, you simply refuse to acknowledge the evidence. This is a familiar loop.

Random unsubstantiated **** musings have been flung against the wall, and shockingly nothing stuck.

Purpose of every push up test with minimum requirements: Make sure person has adequate upper body strength.

Purpose of every timed run with minimum requirements: Make sure person is in sufficiently good condition.

Purpose of military PFTs: Reducing absenteeism, increasing productivity, promoting a healthy self concept, and keeping ugly people the **** out.

I think...not?

Lol I am not outraged.

I think that there should be no general physical standards, I think there should be specific standards that directly address what tasks soldier need to perform. The military should test them every month/every other month or whatever to ensure that they are meeting these standards. I fail to see the need for a physical entrance exam, that varies based on age and gender, that in the military's own words is designed to promote general health and lower absenteeism (not to ensure soldiers are able to carry out their duties).

These "random unsubstantiated musings" are straight from the AF fitness manual posted by an active duty member for 20+ years. We do have random unsubstantiated musings in the form of your posts though.

Where were PFTs mentioned in those manual clippings? I'll wait.

Here's a concrete example of multiple standards based on sex and age. In this case from a civilian police department. I'm not sure what the big deal is.

Obviously they're just trying to establish some baseline level of physical fitness for recruits. And an equivalent level of fitness varies depending on sex and age.

The only reason it would make sense to have some universal standard of physical fitness would be if the job is purely physical (i.e., if you can't achieve physical task X, you can't be successful at the job). And even for combat soldiers and marines, this just isn't true.

It would make sense for Special Forces have a universal standard, only because that standard would already be set at a near-superhuman level so there might as well only be one.

Well, all the military services disagree with you. Since they are the ones who are responsible for military readiness and pay 100% of the health care costs for their members, I'm inclined to give their positions more weight than yours.

Also, as should be obvious, "what tasks soldier needs to perform their job" would be an impossible universal standard. The military fitness program is not in lieu of job-specific training or fitness standards. The basic PFT for each Service is a bare minimum. It's not like SEALs pass their annual fitness test, get their teeth checked, answer a few questions about how much fruits and vegetables they eat, sit through a smoking cessation course, and are stamped "good to go" for any and all special forces duty.

As also should be obvious, if you're so stuck on ability to perform their job, then you should agree that being healthy correlates strongly with getting your job done more effectively due to increased productivity, reduced absenteeism, sharper mind and body, etc. Why exactly do you feel the need to separate health from job performance? They are certainly related, especially in a profession that demands one is able to drop what they are doing and perform their wartime job at a moment's notice, possibly under extreme long hours or adverse conditions. Is the dental exam unwarranted? The cholesterol test? Are you really going to stand your ground that general fitness is not relevant to military readiness?

If you really think one uniform standard is a better measure for being able to do this than graded standards based on one's age/sex demographic, you'd find yourself with armed forces with few generals. There's a lot more to military power than the bench pressing ability of 20-something infantrymen.

You should probably ask yourself why you are so invested in arguing that a basic fitness standard is wrong. It puts you in some unsavory company of know-nothings and reactionaries.