The ACFT, which emphasizes brute strength, appears to reinforce traditional gender stereotypes rather than accurately assess soldiers’ combat capabilities. This shift, introduced after women were allowed into combat roles, disproportionately disadvantages female soldiers while lowering the bar for men.

The Department of Defense (DoD) seems to be undermining Congressional mandates to integrate women into combat arms, setting fitness benchmarks that hinder both equality and readiness.

The decision to shift focus to raw strength under the ACFT comes at a politically charged moment in the military’s long struggle with gender roles. While the test was initially presented as a gender-neutral assessment, its implementation suggests a deliberate move to preserve male dominance in the military’s most elite ranks.

The study’s findings highlight how the ACFT’s standards fail to reflect the broad range of competencies necessary for effective combat, including teamwork, decision-making, and tasks that properly measure flexibility, agility, and endurance.

About the Study

This study is part of my graduate research while pursuing a master’s degree at the University of Oxford.

Having served in both Civil Affairs (Airborne) and Military Intelligence, I conducted this research with a focus on military readiness and gender equality in combat roles. With 21 years of military service, including leadership roles such as commanding a company of drill sergeants and deployments to Afghanistan and Qatar in support of combat operations, I drew on my experiences to critically examine the ACFT and its broader implications.

For this study, I used a mixed-method approach that included an extensive text analysis of Army combat manuals, interviews with senior officers, and a detailed survey of over 400 soldiers’ fitness test scores.

This allowed me to explore both the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of the ACFT’s impact, providing a comprehensive view of how fitness standards affect gender equality in the Army.

My research seeks to answer whether the ACFT’s design truly aligns with the physical demands of modern combat and whether it helps or hinders the integration of women into combat arms roles.

Disconnect Between Standards and Combat Readiness

Through text analysis of Army combat manuals, the study uncovers a clear disconnect between the ACFT’s focus on brute strength and the more nuanced skills required for battlefield success.

Through text analysis tools, researchers can systematically examine and quantify patterns within large amounts of information, offering insights into how these manuals prioritize various capabilities.

Army combat manuals prioritize capabilities that extend far beyond sheer physical power, raising questions about why the ACFT neglects these critical aspects. By elevating raw strength as the primary marker of fitness, the ACFT subtly redefines what it means to be combat-ready in a way that perpetuates gender inequality.

The most alarming revelation comes from data showing that the ACFT has significantly lowered fitness standards for men.

Under the previous Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT), far fewer men qualified as “highly fit.” Now, men are passing and maintain elite categories under the ACFT at unprecedented rates. For instance, in initial trials at Fort Sill, nearly every male soldier passed the ACFT, while 61 percent had previously failed the APFT.

The data points to an uncomfortable reality: the ACFT is less challenging for male physiology, giving men an unnecessary advantage under the guise of gender neutrality.

Survey data further illustrates this imbalance. Even after gender-normed scoring, men still outperformed women by 3.29 percent, despite the survey including a significant number of exceptionally fit women.

This finding underscores the deep flaws in the ACFT’s design, which continues to act as a barrier to women’s advancement in the military. The survey’s analysis of individual events, such as the shift from sit-ups to planks and the introduction of the hand-release push-up, raises serious questions about why the Army chose exercises that seem to disproportionately disadvantage women’s physiology.

The findings from the Baseline Soldier Physical Readiness Requirements Study (BSPRRS), which were used as the reasoning for including the plank and now discontinued leg tuck in the ACFT, contradict broader medical literature that traditionally uses sit-ups to assess core strength.

The hand-release push-up, which a RAND report found to have weaker validity in assessing upper body strength compared to traditional push-ups, requires repeated impact on female breast tissue, leading to unnecessary discomfort and potential performance challenges for women.

Similarly, the RAND study notes that while sit-ups have traditionally been used to measure core endurance, there is limited evidence supporting the plank exercise in this context, particularly in relation to military tasks. The report highlights the need for further analysis to validate the plank’s effectiveness.

The shift from sit-ups to the plank exercise disproportionately affects female soldiers. Sit-ups, by allowing women to leverage their typically stronger lower body muscles and wider base, result in closer scoring parity between genders whereas the plank requires greater shoulder stability and upper body strength.

This disparity in event selection raises serious concerns because it directly limits women’s opportunities for promotions, access to advanced military schools, and competitive positions within the Army.

As the largest branch of the US military, the Army’s adoption of this fitness test sets a precedent that could be closely followed by other service branches, potentially magnifying the impact on gender equity across the military.

Challenging Gender Norms in Combat Roles

The findings also challenge the necessity of requiring women to meet the same physical strength standards as men. The study argues that women can perform combat roles effectively without needing to match men’s strength. These insights call for an urgent reevaluation of the ACFT to ensure it aligns with the actual demands of combat and provides a fair assessment for all soldiers, regardless of gender.

What’s at stake here goes beyond fitness standards. The ACFT represents a battleground in the military’s ongoing debate over gender equality.

By implementing a test designed to favor male soldiers, the Army reinforces outdated gender norms at a time when the country is pushing for greater inclusivity in its armed forces. Congressional mandates aimed at promoting gender equity in the military are at odds with the direction the Army has taken with the ACFT, and the political fallout could be significant.

As pressure mounts on the military to address the ethical, legal, and practical implications of the ACFT, this study’s conclusions could drive sweeping reforms. By calling for gender-specific physical fitness tests alongside gender-neutral combat task assessments according to occupational specialty, the report advocates for a more equitable approach to physical readiness in the Army.

In a military environment where inclusivity and effectiveness are paramount, the ACFT needs to be rethought entirely to ensure that all soldiers are judged fairly and according to the real demands of modern warfare.

This battle over fitness standards isn’t just about physical capabilities — it’s a reflection of the Army’s deeper struggle to redefine its identity in a more diverse and inclusive future. The outcome of this struggle will determine whether the Army truly stands for equality or remains mired in outdated traditions that reinforce gender inequality.

Major Amy Forza, US Army Reserve, specializes in Civil Affairs (Airborne) and Military Intelligence. With 21 years of military service, she has served both as an enlisted soldier and a commissioned officer. She has held various leadership roles, including company command and multiple deployments in support of combat operations.

Amy has commanded a unit training Army Drill Sergeants and initial entry training soldiers. She served as an Intelligence and Operations Officer in Afghanistan and Qatar and has cultivated a deep understanding of the nuances of military training and fitness assessments.

Currently, she is pursuing a master’s degree at the University of Oxford.

Her article presents findings from her dissertation, which includes text analysis and survey data on the ACFT, highlighting the need for revisions to better align the test with the diverse operational demands of modern military engagements.

The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of The Defense Post.

The Defense Post aims to publish a wide range of high-quality opinion and analysis from a diverse array of people – do you want to send us yours? Click here to submit an op-ed.

The post The Army’s Fitness Test: A Political Battlefield Over Gender Equality appeared first on The Defense Post.

However, recent insights into the test’s structure suggest it might not be fully aligned with America’s national security needs.

As we evolve in our understanding of what makes a soldier combat-ready, it is crucial to address the current gaps in the ACFT to ensure we are using the full potential of our diverse force.

Reassessing Fitness to Match Modern Combat Needs

The ACFT was designed to provide a comprehensive measure of a soldier’s combat readiness, incorporating various physical tasks meant to simulate battlefield activities. While well-intentioned, this design has inadvertently overlooked key aspects of physical fitness, such as flexibility, which can be critical in modern warfare scenarios.

This modification reflects past adjustments in military fitness testing, like when the US Navy revised its flexibility standards to accommodate differences in performance among service members, notably improving fairness for males who were disproportionately disadvantaged by the original sit-reach test standards.

While flexibility continues to be a critical component of fitness assessments, it remains underrepresented in the current ACFT standards. Elements like flexibility enhance injury prevention, range of motion, and recovery speed.

The Problem With Overemphasis on Strength

The current ACFT focuses heavily on strength-based tasks, which favor male physiology but overlook other crucial skills like agility and flexibility — areas where female soldiers often excel.

This imbalance not only narrows the definition of fitness but potentially sidelines talents that are vital for the diverse operational demands of contemporary military engagements.

Moreover, the exceedingly high pass rates among male soldiers suggest the test may not effectively challenge all aspects of fitness. This raises concerns about the test’s ability to truly measure combat readiness.

The transition to a gender-neutral test was meant to create fairness. Instead, it highlighted inherent physiological differences that disadvantage women in tests focused heavily on raw strength.

This isn’t merely a matter of passing and failing. The current fitness standards affect career trajectories and operational effectiveness. If our tests disproportionately favor one gender, it raises questions about whether we are truly assessing the full spectrum of our army’s capabilities.

Moreover, adhering to these standards may perpetuate outdated gender stereotypes, implying that women are less capable in combat roles due to inherent differences in strength.

Aligning Fitness Testing With National Security Interests

National security is best served when the military can fully leverage the capabilities of all its members. Previously, the gender-neutral fitness test did not account for significant physiological differences between males and females.

Research, including studies by RAND and other medical investigations, has demonstrated that males and females benefit and from tailored training approaches due to their unique physiology. Therefore, fitness tests should be gender-specific to accurately assess fitness levels across the board.

Ensuring that fitness assessments measure a broad spectrum of physical skills — including those that might traditionally be seen as female strengths, such as flexibility — is essential. Such a balanced approach not only enhances unit readiness but also promotes a more inclusive military culture.

Recommendations for Moving Forward

Broaden the scope of the ACFT: Introduce events that assess flexibility and agility to provide a more comprehensive evaluation of a soldier’s combat fitness.

Separate fitness testing from combat task assessment: Recognize the unique physiological needs based on gender-specific differences and establish fitness tests that are distinct from combat task assessments to ensure effective training strategies.

Regular review and adaptation: Continue refining the ACFT by utilizing empirical data and feedback from all ranks, ensuring it aligns with the evolving demands of warfare and personnel.

Conclusion

As the US Army continues to refine its standards, it is imperative we view the ACFT not just as a measure of strength but as a tool for assessing and cultivating the diverse skills needed in today’s military operations.

Women have always possessed the capability to excel in combat operations, but the societal transition away from discriminatory practices is a gradual process that requires recognition that past biases should no longer influence current policies.

The lifting of the combat ban on women in 2015 was a significant step towards acknowledging women’s capabilities. However, the rollout of the ACFT either inadvertently or deliberately reinforced existing biases concerning women’s combat capabilities.

Combat training and readiness include a broad spectrum of skills such as tactical proficiency, mental resilience, and agility, rather than feats of heavy lifting primarily emphasized by the ACFT.

Combat effectiveness should be assessed separately from fitness standards to help ensure an impartial and comprehensive evaluation of all soldiers. Specifically, women need not match men in strength to excel in combat scenarios.

Instead, the focus should be on ensuring that soldiers, irrespective of gender, meet gender-specific fitness standards tailored to their physiological differences and are effective when conducting combat tasks.

Combat tasks are inherently gender-neutral and should be assessed separately from an individual’s physical fitness. By doing so, we ensure that our force is not only physically prepared but also strategically optimized for the complex challenges of modern warfare, enhancing our national security.

Major Amy Forza, US Army Reserve, specializes in Civil Affairs (Airborne) and Military Intelligence. With 20 years of military service, she has served both as an enlisted soldier and a commissioned officer. She has held various leadership roles, including company command and multiple combat deployments.

Amy has commanded a unit training Army Drill Sergeants and served as an Intelligence and Operations Officer in Afghanistan and Qatar, has cultivated a deep understanding of the nuances in military training and fitness assessments.

Currently, she is pursuing a master’s degree at the University of Oxford.

Her article critiques the current approach to these assessments, highlighting the need for revisions to better reflect the diverse operational demands of modern military engagements and to enhance overall national security.

The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of The Defense Post.

The Defense Post aims to publish a wide range of high-quality opinion and analysis from a diverse array of people – do you want to send us yours? Click here to submit an op-ed.

The post Rethinking Combat Fitness: Is the ACFT Aligned With Modern Warfare Needs? appeared first on The Defense Post.