The new Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) is a major improvement over the old Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT). The new test and the changes that it will drive—ranging from Army institutional beliefs to everyday physical fitness practices—will lead to a force more fit, resilient, healthy, and ready for the rigors of soldering. The next challenge will be implementing a new Army fitness culture to get the most out of the ACFT. Fortunately, there is a ready resource for those challenges: the world of CrossFit.
The most fundamental difference between the ACFT and APFT is that the new test incorporates years of advancements and understanding in the fields of exercise science, physiology, sports medicine, and injury prevention. These advancements are also reflected in the evolution of CrossFit, and the similarities between the science, theories, and even movements associated with the ACFT and CrossFit are inescapable.
CrossFit is a form of functional fitness that started over twenty years ago. It is also a community that has constantly evolved and has grown to over fifteen thousand brick-and-mortar gym affiliates. Since its inception, CrossFit’s effective training techniques have been learned at both the CrossFit headquarters level and in affiliate gyms, backed up by both empirical and academic evidence. Over time, as better training methods have developed, the training has grown more effective and has helped a wide population of people with varied fitness levels, training backgrounds, and capabilities.
Given the shared body of sport science that both the Army and the CrossFit community have incorporated, there are natural aspects of the CrossFit methodology that the Army could adopt to further advance the ACFT and, more importantly, contribute to a long overdue overhaul of soldier fitness culture.
Varied Training Strategies
The challenge with any Army fitness test is that soldiers will overtrain for the specific movements required by the test. This was one of the flaws of the APFT. Daily physical training sessions routinely consisted of only doing the exercises (push-ups, sit-ups, and running) that were on the test. The Army must directly address ways to prevent soldiers from doing the same with the movements in the ACFT.
CrossFit, like the Army, has tests—maximum deadlift, Olympic lifts, and squat and pressing movements, just to name a few. CrossFit also has tests for things ranging from aerobic capacity and endurance to vertical jump and maximum jump-rope repetitions.
CrossFit is founded on a constantly varied workout strategy with a focus on providing an effective training stimulus each exercise session and being able to recover from the training, which produces measurable gains in fitness. That means when you go to a CrossFit class, the daily workouts are almost always different. They vary but include the fundamental movements and key fitness components necessary to build cardiovascular endurance, stamina, strength, flexibility, power, speed, coordination, agility, and balance.
Put simply, improving performance in any movement is not just about repeatedly doing that movement. Boosting performance in those exercises involves improving all the muscles and systems the test exercise is assessing—be it core stability, aerobic capacity, power, balance, muscular strength, agility, and so forth.
Centralized Programming
In the Army, individual leaders design physical fitness sessions and schedules. These leaders rely on doctrine as well as their personal education, training, and experiences. In a single company, each platoon’s physical training may vary greatly depending on the unit guidance.
CrossFit is centrally programmed. In most affiliates, each class throughout the day will follow the exact same warm-up, workout, and cooldown. This daily program is usually designed by a senior trainer relying on key programming methods built around general physical preparedness, which trainers learn in their certifications. There are also websites where CrossFit affiliates can pull daily, weekly, and monthly workout programs.
For the Army, when everyone in a group does the same workout, it reduces requirements on individual leaders and allows them to focus on running the exercise session. Doing the same, scalable workout also enables the intended stimulus of the day to be achieved by the most fit and most unfit athletes, and everyone in between. Coaching is key to getting this point across, but the workout itself can also help keep everyone oriented on the same intended stimulus. Each unit likely won’t have an experienced coach to lead the way effectively, so the programming has to be an important component of building a reinforced and consistent fitness culture across the Army.
A Multilayered Daily Competition Scheme
Walk into most CrossFit gyms and you will find a giant whiteboard with the single workout that all classes for the day will do, along with the scores of everyone that has come before you. You’re also likely to see a gym records board with a long list of tests and workouts and top performers for each.
Intensity is key to improving performance, and modulating intensity is key to fitness gains. Some days the intended stimulus is high intensity, while on others it’s moderate or low. But when you are competing against your peers, or for records, you’re likely to push yourself harder than usual, which will increase the quality of all training efforts and produce better results.
Competition is a vital component of fitness success. In a CrossFit gym, you compete against your own past performance, against the numbers on the board, against the clock, and against others in the exercise session with you. Incorporating this into the Army by purposely organizing and managing healthy competition can drastically increase individual and team performance.
Put a whiteboard up in a platoon or company AO. Conduct daily competitions and measure them while allowing individuals and teams to strive for excellence. For unit records, have a simple, standing rule that the soldier needs a judge, and encourage all unit members to pursue those records. The ACFT might only run every six months, which allows for very little performance-enhancing competition. By contrast, integrating regular competition into the periods between ACFT iterations will enhance sustained fitness outcomes.
Certified Instructors
Trained and certified instructors are the center of gravity for CrossFit. Having an experienced coach and a low instructor-to-student ratio is ideal in any fitness setting. It takes time to develop the skills to lead a group effectively. Coaches or instructors should be able to logistically set everyone up to train effectively and safely. They must explain the movements and techniques involved, give each individual an option scaled to his or her fitness level, and enforce those options so there aren’t unnecessary injuries. This can also be done with a large group effectively, but doing so requires an experienced coach with the right knowledge and communication abilities. CrossFit relies on a challenging, tiered instructor training and certification program.
The Army relies on small-unit leaders with varying amounts of experience and professional military education for fitness instruction. In the past, the Army emphasized the completion of courses like the Master Fitness Trainer Course, but even that seeks to place certified trainers at the company level so they could advise in the overall unit fitness programing. With the new fitness test, the Army relied on ACFT Mobile Training Teams just to instruct on the new movements and how to give the test.
With the shift to the new fitness test, the Army should look toward the CrossFit instructor certification programs as examples of detailed but rapid schooling and certification for those leading daily unit fitness sessions. A new Army fitness culture requires even the lowest leader to be able to scale and monitor workouts for all soldiers’ individual capabilities and performance goals.
To be sure, the Army does not need to become the world’s biggest CrossFit affiliate. But there are lessons and practices that the CrossFit community has learned and refined that could be easily integrated into the Army’s new fitness culture. Doing so would improve the path the Army has already embarked on by introducing the ACFT, building a stronger, better, and more physically fit Army.
John Spencer is the chair of urban warfare studies with the Modern War Institute at West Point. A former Ranger instructor, he held the ranks of private to sergeant first class and lieutenant to major while serving in Ranger, airborne, light, and mechanized infantry units during his twenty-five years as an infantryman. He looks forward to connecting via Twitter: @SpencerGuard.
Robby Boutwell is a US Air Force veteran. He has been a CrossFit coach for over ten years. He has earned CrossFit Level 1 and Level 2 certificates and Certified CrossFit Trainer. He is the owner and senior coach of CrossFit Falcon View gym in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
The views expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official position of the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense.
Image credit: Spc. Trenton Fouche, US Army
First and foremost, kudos to Major Spenser and Mr. Boutwell for writing a well-intentioned article. Updating physical-fitness training and standards within a standing, professional Army is undeniably a good thing. If techniques developed for CrossFit prove to be useful, fine.
Yet problems remain. The prevailing attitude within the establishment, that Big Army Soldiers must be at triathlon-champion levels of fitness to be effective in combat, is counterproductive at best. And to realistically prepare for the possibility of the next world war, “Varied Training Strategies” should include physical training and standards for conscripts pushed into combat within weeks of induction. Unfortunately, such considerations seem to be entirely absent within the Army, at the worst possible time.
Worse still, the horrendously flawed roll-out of the ACFT casts a dark shadow over these kinds of initiatives. Lip service paid to uniform combat standards has tied such principles into knots. The ACFT program “testing” methodologies to date could and should serve as the basis for a remake of “The Pentagon Wars.” And the intellectual courage necessary to identify elementary requirements remains absent. For only one example, what weight should EVERY infantry Soldier be able to carry in his/her rucksack for an extended time?
But all this is one symptom of the top-level problem: the Army cannot manage change. The most urgently needed remake of “The Pentagon Wars” is one addressing the profound dysfunction in attempts to field IFV systems SINCE the Bradley. Unlike the original picture, which was classified as a comedy, that sequel could only be seen as a tragedy. The same with UCP and blue ASU uniforms, which can only be seen as failures, even if their costs were/are disingenuously charged to Soldiers’ clothing allowances. The same with FVL, with prototype aircraft flying while comprehensive requirements aren’t expected to be defined until FY 2023.
So while articles such as these appear, and have some merit, I encourage the MWI to publish papers addressing the critical need for management of change. Those are needed most urgently.
Great article by two seasoned veterans. Initial thoughts:
1) The army DOES in fact need to become the worlds biggest pool of crossfit trainers. They dont need to become an affiliate, but the Army does need to send every person they can to the Crossfit Level 1 certification seminar. There is simply no substitute for learning foundational movements, basic energy systems, basic nutrition, training guidelines, and most importantly programming. The Army keeps trying to recreate or contract out a version of the Crossfit Level 1 cert…and failing. One example: The Army hired NCSA to teach a few soldiers per company to be a Tactical Strength and Conditioning Coach (TSAC). That course, in my opinion, was hot garbage. They wasted many days teaching the following (from their website https://www.nsca.com/certification/tsac-f/tactical-strength-and-conditioning-facilitator-exam-description/)
1. Exercise Sciences
2. Nutrition
3. Exercise Technique
4. Program Design
5. Organization and Administration
6. Testing, Assessment, and Evaluation
7. Wellness Intervention
In reality the class spent four 8-hour days learning very little. Wellness intervention? Organization and Administration? These are fluff sections meant to take up time. The programming chapter of their textbook is at the very end, is five pages long, and basically says "programming is complicated, so leave it up to someone else". My soldiers who attended said they never got to that lesson, thus they never learned how to set up a week-long workout schedule. 4/5 never took the exam either, they were told to "study for a month and get a hold of the NCSA when they were ready"…few did. This NSCA contracted course was offered to many battalions like mine, I assess the results were similar across the many formations.
The Army has already cracked the nut on letting civilian companies teach soldiers fitness, they need to go full-monty and just use Crossfit. I can't think of a good reason why they dont. Crossfit has allowed certified soldiers to open Crossfit gyms on military bases for free! The Crossfit executives love the military. The workouts and instruction videos are online, free, and easy to use. The ACFT exercises also mimic common crossfit exercises! The ease of transition is so obvious that I think there might be some sort of sabateur high up in the army "fitness community" who has an alternate agenda. I dont if this is true, but it would make sense.
In case you think Im a conspiracy theorist (from https://keepfitnesslegal.crossfit.com/2015/03/24/crossfits-case-against-the-nsca-the-facts/?_ga=2.80916447.914798075.1613430824-1619111007.1610574840)
"In 2013, the National Strength and Conditioning Association’s journal published a study on a 10-week challenge at a CrossFit affiliate.
The study claimed 11 participants did not complete the challenge and return for follow-up testing. According to the study, two participants cited time constraints and nine participants, 16 percent of the total, cited “overuse or injury” as their reason for failing to complete the study. The authors also called into question “the risk-benefit ratio for such extreme training programs,” even cautioning that the measured improvements from CrossFit training “may not be worth the risk of injury and lost training time.”
This injury figure was subsequently reported by mainstream media and was cited in other supposedly scientific studies. It has been repeatedly used as the basis of attacks against CrossFit Inc. and our affiliates. Yet it was completely false."
The NSCA was sued, and lost, and had to pay nearly $4 million in damages (and retract their study!) (https://www.crossfit.com/battles/major-victory-for-crossfit-judge-orders-terminating-and-massive-monetary-sanctions-against-the-nsca)
Now, the Army hired the NSCA to teach our soldiers how to be trainers. This was a poor decision, but it happened before the verdict on that case was announced. I forgive the Army for this, but they need to course-correct and just go to Crossfit and find a solution to make soldiers better trainers.
2) Crossfit values PROGRAMMING over TESTING, this needs to be indoctrinated into the Army fitness culture who currently hold the opposite view. It's not magic, it's just good programming. As long as a test is held in the highest position of importance then soldiers will continue to program poorly to pass a test.
There is a lot of value in Crossfit, and it has been extremely successful in creating a fitness culture in the civilian world. There is a lot to be learned from this model.
Similarly, military first aid learned a great deal from the world of civilian medicine.
Yet, we were correct to let go of those “Really Big Boobs” in favor of TC3 and methods that applied effective principle to the nuances of a tactical situation.
To simply assume that adopting Crossfit into military culture comes with potential concerns – the great variance in program design from one box to another, legitimate concerns over injury rates and/or exhausting soldiers to the point where their (also physically demanding) tactical training suffers, general imbalances between the needs of the job as opposed to a hobby (not necessarily mission-directed), the continued problem that those who don’t initially perform well will be turned off – rather than inspired – by the competitive nature of the training (look at the limited success of MACP), etc.
That doesn’t mean we should jettison the whole idea. We should adapt it to our specific needs.
Rather than retread old ground, perhaps a better place to start is to look at Mountain Tactical Institute ( https://mtntactical.com/ ) and the work and success they’ve already had studying, adapting, and (very successfully) implementing cutting-edge exercise science (with a clear Crossfit influence) to the military realm.
*I subscribe to MTI’s plans and find great value in their studies and methodology, but am otherwise unaffiliated with them
*To simply assume the direct adoption of Crossfit into military culture….
Having been a tank company CO, and a CF Level 1 coach, (2 things separated by 25 years), I have often considered how I would run my company PT knowing what I know now. I confess, at an isolated company level, it would be damn near impossible to do. Easier if a BN CO set the expectations for the whole unit, but now comes the hard part: Programming, which is, of course, the Jedi science of CF. The diff between a good gym and a great gym is effective programming. I did none of it at our gym but our owner , (a CF genius whose programming produced CF Games-Top 10 athletes, btw,) did that himself. Programming is pert near a full time job for someone that must have the ability, education and inclination to devote themselves to the clients.
The principle of functional fitness is perfectly met in the military. The technique of doing so seems quite challenging to me.
Great topic as the current the ACFT has grown into a mess. I've been a competitive powerlifter during most of my 25 year military career and at some point turned to coaching both that and Strongman at the pro level. I opened a gym in that direction and we're adding a CrossFit component this summer. My wife competes in CrossFit at a high level so I have been around it for awhile now.
Its obvious that something has to change with the current poor state of Army fitness but my questions are this.
1) Equipment – How will the Army buy or afford to buy equipment? Would each BN level org establish a "box". You'd need a large set of equipment…..barbells/weights/boxes/platforms/ a rig? Companies like Rogue can barely keep up with the COVID rush for equipment.
2) Training – If I'm a BN or Company CDR I'm not leveling my fitness program in the hands of a 1 week certification. The trainers are going to have to be though out. I don't see contractors but who knows.
3) Rehab/Prehab – my biggest issues – If you're not prepared to treat your folks like athletes then this whole thing is a non starter. They need nutrition help, how to stretch, how to breath, …real sleep….time to rest and learning the ability to train through pain, train around injuries and when to back off.
I can see Infantry and Armor units buying into some of this but unless the Army is prepared to shift its whole mindset on PT, I don't know where that leaves the debate. I was able to train some of the smaller units I led, as I saw fit. But the conventional Army doesn't adapt as well…especially by people who may be able to run for miles but have no basic athleticism to pull off Oly lifting or do more then a handful of pull ups. I would love the Army to try it in OSUT and see what happens. There is so much to this topic that I didn't touch on but very interesting.
My brief comments:
A "one size fits all" solution may or may not be the answer to physical fitness readiness. Different specialties, duty positions, and organizational missions may demand different levels of physical fitness and individual readiness. The sheer size of the Army has generally precluded significant investment in the resourcing of supporting infrastructure and associated leader physical fitness trainer identification, assessment, and training. Except for small specialized Army organizations who have a great premium placed on individual physical fitness and mobility, I am not sure the investment would be worth the cost, as opposed to putting those resources elsewhere. Maybe that is why the legacy APFT has been used for so long as it required little resourcing for continued implementation across the entire Army.
One other significant factor in considering the authors' proposal is the fact that about 52% of our personnel force structure is in the Reserve Components (ARNG & USAR). Soldiers in those components are required to train on their own between monthly battle assemblies, and scant time is available for not only training during the battle assembly (drill) weekends, but also during annual training events and exercises, where collective training in most cases should take priority. Any proposed solution to improving physical readiness in our Soldier population needs to incorporate aspects that will work and achieve success in the Reserve Components.
I think we can all agree that what we want are soldiers who are fit and strong enough to fight. I get the point that testing for particular exercises creates perverse incentives and does not necessarily produce fighters. So why not test them on fighting? Why not teach them MMA or some version of that, put them in the cage once or twice a year and grade them pass/fail on how well they do? Let them figure out what exercise program will lead to success in martial combat.
We want soldiers who are strong and fit enough to do more than engage in non-lethal, unarmed combat, although unarmed combatives Is another training regimen. But no matter where you are, there's a great deal of lifting and carrying in different forms, which demands some level of strength and endurance training.
The idea that these tasks are related to combat is ridiculous. I have never once thrown a large object over my back in combat or in combat training. If the sled drag is supposed to simulate combat we are in violation of international law regarding child soldiers. My gear alone weighed 45lbs so that only leaves 45 lbs for soldier weight. Not many of those. Even being kind and saying gear doesnt count, how many 90lb soldiers are there?
The entire ACFT is an indictment of Combat Arms leaders failure to read implement FM 7-22:
1-7. Physical readiness training is the commanders program.
1-9. Noncommissioned officers serve as the primary trainers for enlisted Soldiers, crews, and small teams.
Noncommissioned officers must conduct standards-based, performance-oriented, mission- and METL-focused
PRT.
1-12. All Army training is based on the principle Train as you will fight; therefore, the primary focus of PRT
goes far beyond preparation for the APFT.
So if physical fitness is bad because everyone is just training for the APFT, thats a LEADER problem. Fix the leaders. When was the last time a Battalion Commander was relieved because his unit had terrible fitness? When was the last time a CSM got relieved because an NCO showed up for NCOES out of shape? Yeah, never is the answer to both. Why is the Army so soft on Infantry leaders who cant even lead PT? And yes, this is a Combat Arms problem. Yes everyone has to be prepared to fight but dragging ammo cans and climbing walls is not the norm for non-Combat Arms. Ill go further , its an Infantry problem. Tankers need to toss a 46lb round into the block, pull off the b-plate and break track. Thats why as an Armor platoon leader my tankers did a ton of upper body work – road wheel PT, Sabot round press, etc. Why did we do that? because the PT manual told me to structure PT to my mission. How hard is that? Apparently too hard for the Infantry.
Whats even worse about all of this it how much it highlights the lack of accountability for bad commanders. Chapter 5 of 7-22 includes an entire year of PT laid out in a training schedule that only needs to be cut and pasted into a the unit specific training schedule format. The Army is changing its entire PT test because Combat Arms leaders cant read, comply, cut and paste. That is sad. 7-22 is full of excellent information. Does anyone read it? Apparently no one at the Infantry PCC.
1-3. AR 350-1 applies to all Soldiers, functional branches, units, and operating agencies.
-Physical readiness is the ability to meet the physical demands of any combat or duty position,
accomplish the mission, and continue to fight and win.
-Physical readiness training provides the physical component that contributes to tactical and technical
competence, and forms the physical foundation for all training. Commanders and supervisors must
establish PRT programs consistent with the requirements in AR 350-1, with their unit missions, and
with this field manual (FM). Soldiers must meet the physical fitness standards set forth in AR 350-1
and in the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) provided in Appendix A.
-AR 350-1 specifies that physical fitness training is one of the Armys mandatory training
requirements.
So apparently following 350-1 is now optional? Our answer to a systemic leader failure to follow Army Regulations is to change the PT test so "leaders" can keep "teaching the test" but by doing so they will stumble into fitness? That is beyond sad.
All of this is the culmination of a long trail of bad leaders being coddled. Master Fitness Trainers we are first solution for bad leaders. Then Combatatives. Now ACFT. What are you going to do in 10 years when fitness remains bad because of bad leaders? When are you going to hold leaders accountable?
If the intent of the ACFT was to get rid of women in the Army, bravo, mission accomplished. Any female soldier over 36 who is not maxing the 2 mile run now wont past the ACFT. 21:07 is a failing run for a 62 year old male right now. Its a passing run for a 32 year old female. Factor in the 3-5 min increase in run times because of the sprint/drag and if you arent in the 17 minute range – max for a 37 year old female – you wont pass. If you are a female senior Captain you are going to take your blended retirement and move to the civilian sector while you are young. 10 years from now you wont have any female senior leaders. Good job I guess?
Stop being soft on leaders. PT is bad when leaders are bad. Its not the test, its not the uniform, its not the name of the program. You have changed all of those and still have a problem. Its leaders.
There is a lot to take issue with about 7-22, as well.
The various drills and exercises have been flawed since NSCA was contracted to develop the Tactical Athlete idea and the PRT system. The programming, while sound in theory, is poorly applied. It’s personal training dressed up in army regalia – not athletic training.
Actual athletes don’t hit the weight room to run through drills mimicking their field movements, sans equipment; they work to build specific, targeted attributes that better enable them to perform those functions on the field (this is why varsity football weight rooms are full of power racks and Olympic platforms rather than turf and tackling dummies) – they then hit the field to practice those skills (on the turf, with tackling dummies, etc.).
Engaging a target with a rifle is a physical and cognitive skill, while being able to carry the 8+ pounds that rifle weighs for miles on end and still have the strength and stamina to engage accurately is a combination of physical attributes.
7-22 seeks to kill both birds with the same stone, but lacks the appropriate progression to even lift the stone. It’s full of good ideas, and I would love to have access to the types of facilities it pushes for – but I can get better results with a ruck, a bar with some plates, and an old-school obstacle course.
The diff between a good gym and a great gym is effective programming. I did none of it at our gym but our owner , (a CF genius whose programming produced CF Games-Top 10 athletes, btw,) did that himself. Programming is pert near a full time job for someone that must have the ability, education and inclination to devote themselves to the clients.
The Army has already cracked the nut on letting civilian companies teach soldiers fitness, they need to go full-monty and just use Crossfit. I can't think of a good reason why they dont. Crossfit has allowed certified soldiers to open Crossfit gyms on military bases for free! The Crossfit executives love the military. The workouts and instruction videos are online, free, and easy to use. The ACFT exercises also mimic common crossfit exercises! The ease of transition is so obvious that I think there might be some sort of sabateur high up in the army "fitness community" who has an alternate agenda. I dont if this is true, but it would make sense.