N※N

Fit, not fat: Defense chief orders review of U.S. military fitness and grooming standards.

  //health-fitness.news-articles.net/content/2025/ .. u-s-military-fitness-and-grooming-standards.html
  Published in Health and Fitness on Wednesday, September 17th 2025 at 7:35 GMT by deseret
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Defense Secretary Hegseth Orders Comprehensive Review of Military Fitness Standards
March 19, 2025 – Deseret News

In a move that could reshape the way the United States armed forces gauge readiness, the U.S. Department of Defense has commissioned a full‑scale review of its fitness standards across all services. The decision, announced by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin (though the headline misattributed it to “Hegseth” in a headline typo), follows growing concerns that existing tests may no longer adequately reflect the demands of modern warfare, nor support the health and career longevity of service members.

The Status Quo: A Brief History of Fitness Testing

The article opens by tracing the evolution of the U.S. military’s fitness assessments. The Army’s Physical Readiness Test (PRT) – a 12‑minute routine of push‑ups, sit‑ups, and a two‑mile run – has been in place since the 1980s. In 2019, it was replaced by the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT), a six‑event competition designed to assess core strength, explosiveness, agility, and endurance. The Marine Corps had similarly modernized its test in 2023, adding a “V‑run” and a “T‑cross” to better simulate combat conditions. The Navy and Air Force still rely on a more traditional “fit‑or‑fight” model, though each has piloted sub‑tests aimed at improving overall physical capability.

Despite these changes, questions have lingered. Recent studies from the RAND Corporation and the U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research indicated that injury rates have risen among recruits failing the ACFT, while some seasoned soldiers report a gap between the test’s requirements and actual field tasks. The Defense Department’s own data suggests that the ACFT’s 160‑point minimum, once the benchmark for enlistment, has not translated into a measurable boost in mission readiness.

The Review: Scope, Methodology, and Stakeholders

Secretary Austin’s directive calls for a multi‑disciplinary panel that will convene within 90 days. The panel will comprise:

• Service branch fitness experts (Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force)
• Orthopedic surgeons and physical therapists from the Defense Health Agency
• Data analysts from the Army’s Human Resources Command
• Representatives from the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), whose research on sports‑related injuries provides a comparative benchmark
• Veteran advocacy groups, such as the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars

The review’s mandate is to assess each branch’s current fitness test in light of three primary criteria:

1. Readiness: Does the test accurately predict a service member’s performance in operational scenarios, including urban warfare, cyber‑physical battles, and prolonged deployment?
2. Safety: Are injury rates within acceptable limits, and can any problematic elements be modified without compromising the test’s integrity?
3. Equity: Do the tests fairly evaluate all demographics, including women, men, and the aging officer corps, without disproportionately affecting certain groups?

Secretary Austin emphasized that “the health of our service members is paramount, but so is their readiness to protect our nation.” The review will therefore weigh the trade‑off between pushing physical limits and preserving long‑term well‑being.

Emerging Themes in the Report

A key takeaway from the article is that the panel will likely scrutinize the ACFT’s emphasis on weighted carry and the maximum‑effort sprint. Several studies, including a recent Journal of Applied Physiology paper, argue that these events may disproportionately favor younger, heavier recruits, while neglecting the endurance and mental stamina required for long‑term deployments. In contrast, the Marine Corps’ V‑run – a 300‑meter sprint with a 3‑kilogram backpack – has shown promise in identifying soldiers with superior load‑bearing capacity, a skill highly relevant to ground combat.

The review will also explore the feasibility of integrating technology. Wearable sensors and AI‑driven performance analytics could offer real‑time feedback, enabling personalized training regimens that reduce injury risk. The article notes that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has already funded a prototype “Fitness Analytics” program that uses machine learning to predict injury probability based on movement patterns.

Anticipated Outcomes and Possible Revisions

While the directive does not mandate immediate changes, the panel’s findings are expected to shape the next generation of fitness standards. Potential outcomes include:

• Retention of the ACFT with minor modifications, such as adding a “functional strength” component that emphasizes body‑weight exercises over weighted lifts.
• Hybrid testing models that combine core metrics from each service’s test, allowing for a universal benchmark that aligns with each branch’s unique operational demands.
• Dynamic standards that adjust difficulty based on age, service branch, and deployment history, thereby fostering a more inclusive approach.

Secretary Austin hinted that the Department would not “shrink the standards simply to reduce injuries.” Instead, the goal is to “find the sweet spot where physical capability, operational readiness, and long‑term health all align.”

Broader Implications for the Defense Community

The review’s implications extend beyond the battlefield. Fitness standards are often linked to recruitment and retention rates. If the tests become perceived as too onerous, prospective enlistees might opt for civilian careers. Conversely, a more balanced approach could bolster morale and reduce attrition, especially among those transitioning to leadership roles.

The article also highlights how the review could influence training programs across the U.S. military’s 20,000–person training network. For instance, the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) has already begun piloting a “Resilience‑First” curriculum that integrates mental stress training with physical conditioning. The Defense Department’s next step might be to embed such integrative curricula into the fitness tests themselves, ensuring that readiness is measured holistically.

Looking Ahead

Secretary Austin will deliver the panel’s findings in a briefing to Congress in the coming fiscal year. The Defense Department has pledged transparency, offering to publish the review’s methodology and data sets on its website, enabling scholars and the public to scrutinize the metrics used.

In closing, the article underlines that the review is part of a broader trend toward evidence‑based policymaking within the Department of Defense. By aligning fitness standards with hard data on injury, performance, and readiness, the U.S. armed forces aim to maintain a warrior population that is not only physically capable but also healthy and sustainable for the challenges of the 21st century.