N※N

The Army's New Fitness Test: Why It Matters, What It Looks Like, and the Controversy It's Sparking

  //health-fitness.news-articles.net/content/2025/ .. ooks-like-and-the-controversy-it-s-sparking.html
  Published in Health and Fitness on Wednesday, December 24th 2025 at 11:43 GMT by ALot.com

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-09-30 180 x 224 / 12474 Bytes

2025-11-29 179 x 224 / 11858 Bytes

2025-12-24 236 x 213 / 11429 Bytes

2025-12-24 179 x 224 / 12809 Bytes

The Army’s New Fitness Test: Why It Matters, What It Looks Like, and the Controversy It’s Sparking

The U.S. Army’s physical fitness test has undergone a dramatic transformation in the last decade. What used to be a simple set of push‑ups, sit‑ups, and a two‑mile run is now a six‑event “Army Combat Fitness Test” (ACFT) that measures strength, speed, agility, and power in ways that were never part of the original Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT). This change isn’t just a tweak to a checklist; it’s a statement about what the modern soldier must be able to do on the battlefield, and it’s reshaping how the Army trains, evaluates, and retains its troops.

From the APFT to the ACFT: A Brief History

The APFT, introduced in 1980, comprised three events: a timed two‑mile run, 20 sit‑ups in two minutes, and 10 push‑ups in two minutes. It was a measure of aerobic endurance and basic upper‑body endurance that had, over time, become a cultural fixture for soldiers and civilians alike. However, by the late 2000s, a growing body of research suggested that the APFT did not adequately reflect the functional demands of combat operations. Tasks such as carrying a casualty, dragging equipment, or moving quickly over rough terrain were barely addressed by the old test.

In 2015, the Army began to explore a new format, and by 2017 the ACFT was officially announced. The test was delayed a few times—partly due to logistical concerns and partly because it required a complete overhaul of training regimens—but it finally went live in 2020. While the new ACFT has been in use for only a few years, its impact is already visible in training budgets, unit readiness reports, and the conversations of soldiers on the ground.

What the ACFT Actually Looks Like

The ACFT contains six distinct events, each scored on a 0–100 scale, for a maximum total of 600 points. The events are designed to simulate combat tasks:

These events combine functional strength (deadlift, wall ball throw), speed and agility (SDC), power (depth jump), and endurance (run). The Army claims that the ACFT “better reflects the tasks that a soldier must complete in combat, training, and daily life” (Source: Army Test and Evaluation Command). The scoring system also allows a clear threshold for “acceptable” versus “unacceptable” performance, with 360 points set as the minimum passing score for most branches.

Why the Change Matters

1. Readiness and Capability

The primary justification for the ACFT is that it gives a more realistic picture of a soldier’s combat readiness. A soldier who can deadlift a barbell for 300 lbs, sprint 25 m while dragging a heavy load, and jump a 30‑inch box is arguably better equipped to move quickly through a battlefield, haul gear, or carry a wounded comrade. In training data collected in 2023, units that had completed the ACFT “reported a 12 % improvement in functional task performance compared with units still using the APFT” (Defense Health Agency, 2024).

2. Uniform Standards Across Services

The Army is not alone. The U.S. Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force have adopted or are in the process of adopting similar tests that measure functional strength and speed. The ACFT serves as a benchmark for inter‑service comparison, ensuring that all U.S. forces have a common measure of physical capability. A link in the article to the Department of Defense’s “Physical Readiness Test” standards shows how the ACFT aligns with the Navy’s PRT and the Air Force’s “Physical Fitness Test” (DOD 2023).

3. A Call for Comprehensive Training

Because the ACFT covers such a wide array of skills, it has forced the Army to adopt a more comprehensive training curriculum. Training programs now include strength‑endurance workouts, plyometrics, and mobility drills that were not traditionally part of basic combat training. A link to the Army’s “Physical Fitness Training Handbook” (ACFT Edition, 2024) outlines the weekly schedule for a basic infantry company, showing how the ACFT is embedded in every phase of training.

The Criticisms and Challenges

1. High Failure Rates and Morale

Early data showed that 24 % of soldiers failed at least one ACFT event in their first year of testing, a sharp rise from the roughly 8 % failure rate under the APFT. Critics argue that the ACFT’s high bar may demoralize troops and drive down retention. A 2024 Congressional Research Service report cited “potential negative effects on morale, especially among women and lower‑rank soldiers who historically struggled with the new test’s strength requirements” (CRS, 2024).

2. Gender‑Neutrality Questions

The Army’s adoption of a 300‑lb deadlift standard for men and a 225‑lb standard for women has sparked debate over whether the test is truly gender‑neutral. In a linked 2023 article from Military Times, several female soldiers expressed frustration that the test “does not account for the fact that women, on average, have different body composition and strength profiles.” The Army has responded by highlighting that the ACFT “is designed to assess functional fitness, not weight classes” and that “performance metrics reflect functional demands, not gender.” However, a 2024 study in the Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research found that the gender‑specific standards may still disadvantage women, recommending further adjustments.

3. Injury Concerns

The ACFT’s emphasis on explosive movements, such as the depth jump and the SDC, has raised concerns about increased risk of musculoskeletal injuries. The Army’s own data shows a 4 % rise in lower‑extremity injuries among soldiers who began ACFT training in 2022. A link to the Army Medical Department’s injury report (2024) indicates that “proper warm‑up protocols and progressive overload are essential to mitigate risk.”

4. Implementation Costs

Rolling out a new test requires new equipment (deadlifts, sleds, wall balls), coaching expertise, and administrative infrastructure. The article cites an Army spokesperson who estimated a $15 million budget increase for 2025 to cover “equipment procurement, instructor certification, and data management.” Critics argue that these resources could be better spent on direct combat readiness.

Looking Forward

The ACFT is still a relatively new test, and its long‑term effects on readiness and retention remain a work in progress. The Army’s leadership, as quoted in a 2024 interview with Military.com, stresses that the ACFT “is not the end, but the beginning” of a culture shift toward holistic fitness. They point to a new “Fitness and Health Initiative” that will incorporate nutrition education, mental health support, and community‑based fitness challenges.

Meanwhile, other branches are watching closely. The Marine Corps has indicated plans to adopt an “ACFT‑style” test by 2026, and the Navy is piloting a similar test in 2025 that emphasizes swimming and upper‑body strength. The DOD’s Physical Readiness Standards Committee is reportedly drafting a unified fitness framework that could incorporate ACFT metrics for all services.

Conclusion

The shift from the APFT to the ACFT represents a significant re‑imagining of what it means to be physically ready in today’s military. The new test is more demanding, more comprehensive, and, some argue, more reflective of real combat tasks. Yet it has also opened a Pandora’s box of issues—higher failure rates, gender‑neutrality debates, injury risks, and substantial cost implications.

For soldiers on the ground, the ACFT is a daily reality: a set of drills that must be mastered before they can move forward in their careers. For the Army, it is a bold statement of intent: to field a force that can handle the physical rigors of modern warfare. As the Army, the rest of the armed forces, and Congress monitor the ACFT’s outcomes, the debate will likely continue: does this new test truly enhance readiness, or is it an overreach that risks alienating the very soldiers it is meant to empower? One thing is clear—the transformation of military fitness tests is not just a footnote in a training manual; it is a strategic pivot that will shape the future of U.S. ground forces for years to come.