Should members who fail PT test be allowed to take the "other" PT tests as a substitu

[Joker76]

I was thinking...lots of folks have running waivers and do the three mile walk (which i hear is brutal), why can't those who simplly can't run take the walk test? If its a good enough way to judge fitness for those who medically can't run...why is it not a good enough way to judge the fitness of all?

If the point of the test is to weed out those who are not "fit", and if we allow those on run waiver to prove they are "FIT" by walking three miles...then we must assume that same test can prove the fitness level of anyone...right?

Thoughts?

[chipotleboy]

Simple answer: because it isn't 'manly'.

When I came on active duty in '89, I thought I had done my last 1.5 mile run, since it said on the books that we had the option of doing the 3 mile walk. When I mentioned to a colleague that this was how I intended to do my PT tests in the future, I was counseled that doing the walk wasn't considered 'manly', and I would be given a hard time by leadership if I tried to get away with it.

So I toughed it out, passed the 1.5 mile run every time, and when the ergo bike test came along, I looked back fondly to the 1.5 mile run. As bad as the current PFT is, I consider it a godsend compared to ergo cycle.

[ART]

For me, running sucks. I fucking HATE it. My 45 year old knees simply cannot take the beating required to stay fit enough to pass the PT test with a decent score (+90), without a supplement cocktail that includes glucosamine and Vicodin. That said, put me on a bike, and I can cycle forever. I routinely do sub 5.5 hour 100 mile rides with little difficulty.

Apparently it's not about your overall health and fitness level, it has more to do with how good your knees are.

Anyway, there has to be a one-size-fits-all fitness test, and a short run or walk is about as close to PT test nirvana as we'll ever get.

[CrustySMSgt]

I will admit to being one who always laughed at the 3 mile walk option. But now having found myself with a strained MCL (sliding in to home playing softball... and I was safe... lol) and looking at doing the 3 mile walk, I'll attest to the fact that it ain't a cake-walk. I have been practicing; done it 3 times now and did it in 44, 42, and 43 minutes so far. It is tough to keep your legs pumping away that fast while still only walking. I've got a few weeks before I test, so I figured I can hopefully put in a sub-40... but it won't be easy.

As far as why we can't just skip the run and go straight to the walk, it is an interesting question... your point that if it is a valid measure of fitness, why isn't it good enough is a valid one. I suspect the party line will attribute it to the "warrior ethos" or something along those lines... lol

[technomage1]

Personally, unless I was hurt I'd rather do the run. That said, I wouldn't see anything wrong with allowing the member to chose which test (run, bike, or walk) they would prefer to take. After all, if they are supposed to be equivalent, then it shouldn't matter which test is taken.

[Silver Fox]

For what it's worth about the walking: I had one of the fitness trainers from the HAWC working with me once, I wasn't out of shape, I just wasn't in the shape I wanted to be in, but anyway.... he had actually told me that a half hour walking as fast as I could without having to jog burnt more calories and was more demanding than jogging or running for thirty minutes because your body didn't have time to recover from your strides. Sure, I looked like a total pussy/loser/retard speed walking on the treadmill, and you look like a goofball walking really fast.... but you know what, it did work. I dropped weight like it was going out of style. I shrunk down by twenty pounds doing that and then started hitting the gym. I wanted to get thinner first so I'd see the benefits of weight lifting faster. So if folks at the HAWC say that the fast walking is more strenuous, I don't see why you couldn't do that instead.

[LOAL-D]

No! Shoot them at dawn and put their families in prison!

[Silver Fox]

No! Shoot them at dawn and put their families in prison!

We defy them by living!

[BigT2002]

I'd rather run 1.5 miles and get it done and over with in 12 minutes than walk 3 miles and get it over with in 40 personally....

[Jefe03]

I'd rather run 1.5 miles and get it done and over with in 12 minutes than walk 3 miles and get it over with in 40 personally....


I"d rather run 1.5 miles and get it done and over with in 9 minutes :D

[imnohero]

I would submit that a 40 minute 3 mile walk is a better indicator of overall fitness than a 12 minute 1.5 mile run.

You want a test of fitness, dig a 12" wide, 12" deep ditch by hand in hard soil. Score based on how many feet you dig in an hour, no resting.
I know, how about the 80 lb bags of cement 20 yards uphill for an hour, score based on how many bags moved in 1 hour, no resting.

If you've never done either of those activities, go try it sometime, you'll see what I mean.

Seriously, the 1.5 mile timed run is NOT a good measure of overall fitness or endurance.

But then, the entire PT program is pathetic, why should the test be any different.

[KOTULCN]

I will admit to being one who always laughed at the 3 mile walk option. But now having found myself with a strained MCL (sliding in to home playing softball... and I was safe... lol) and looking at doing the 3 mile walk, I'll attest to the fact that it ain't a cake-walk. I have been practicing; done it 3 times now and did it in 44, 42, and 43 minutes so far. It is tough to keep your legs pumping away that fast while still only walking. I've got a few weeks before I test, so I figured I can hopefully put in a sub-40... but it won't be easy.

As far as why we can't just skip the run and go straight to the walk, it is an interesting question... your point that if it is a valid measure of fitness, why isn't it good enough is a valid one. I suspect the party line will attribute it to the "warrior ethos" or something along those lines... lol

I had to do the walk test when my neck was all screwed up, I will tell you as youhave already found out your shins feel like they are going to shatter when you are done. I did my test on a down and back, 1.5 miles each way in 39:02. I believe the walk test is actually harder and more demanding then running a 1.5 mile course. Good luck!

[nomad]

I would submit that a 40 minute 3 mile walk is a better indicator of overall fitness than a 12 minute 1.5 mile run.

You want a test of fitness, dig a 12" wide, 12" deep ditch by hand in hard soil. Score based on how many feet you dig in an hour, no resting.
I know, how about the 80 lb bags of cement 20 yards uphill for an hour, score based on how many bags moved in 1 hour, no resting.

If you've never done either of those activities, go try it sometime, you'll see what I mean.

Seriously, the 1.5 mile timed run is NOT a good measure of overall fitness or endurance.

But then, the entire PT program is pathetic, why should the test be any different.

Being a dirt boy from CE this is easy money. Problem is then none of the skinny geeks will be able to pass the test.

[Modus]

A 3 mile walk? lol. We'd definitely be the laughing stock of the armed forces.

[Silver Fox]

I'm for a 5 mile run myself. :)

[LOAL-D]

I'm for a 5 yard run.....

[Silver Fox]

To the refrigerator? ;)

Followed by 24 twelve ounce curls in rapid seccession.

[Shrike]

I'm for a 5 yard run.....

Easy there, Sebastian Coe...pace yourself!

[technomage1]

I'm for a 5 yard run.....

Make sure to warm up and cool down after this workout....:rolleyes:

[Raptor81]

I always laugh at how stupid the PT test has become.

1.5 mile run doesn't test anything except if you can run 1.5 miles
pushups doesn't say if you can carry a 180 lb person out of combat
and we all know the AF doesn't do "crunches" right in the 1st place

I'm all about the "Fit to Fight" program IF AND ONLY IF it actually tests the concept and our current and future test that comes out in January DOESN'T TEST THIS!!!

I've almost lost confidence in my senior leaders to fix the problems of the US Air Force. Stop messing with broken programs and say "they're fixed now" when they're actually worse.

Here's my PT Test for people not on a waiver:

Confidence Course(doesn't need to be exactly like Lackland AFB)

People on a waiver get to:

Pick 2 of 3 ways to test their fit level

A. 2 mile run with 18 minute time limitfor men and 22 minutes for women just like basic
B. Bike Test(but needs totally revamped because the science behind it is totally broken)
C. 3 mile walk(average person walks 1 mile in 15 minutes so should take less than 45 mins to finish)

Notes: 1. Obviously, you wouldn't do them back-to-back cause that'd be way too rough.
2. A lot of bases have to deal with the heat index(aka Wet Globe Temp.).
3. Fitness should be fun and enjoyable and personally, i enjoyed the Confidence Course!
4. Correction to #3..."I enjoyed people falling in the water and getting all wet during the Confidence Course!"(I wasn't 1 of the wet people)
5. Even if i was on a waiver, i'd pick to do the confidence course and i'd just deal with the pain because it tested stamina, endurance along with your physical ability to overcome and adapt....sorry for using 1 of the Marines sayings but it's true.

[izzy135]

The 3 Mile Walk is no walk in the park or Mall Walk. Due to lousy knees I was moved to the walk, I currently cover the three miles in 34min and 36 seconds, 18 seconds short of maxing for a 44 year old. It has taken me about 8 months to get to these times and a lot of 6 mile walks.

[Aitrus]

I'm for offering a choice between the 1.5m run and a 4m ruck march.

Ruck march format: use 1/4 body weight for the ruck size (none of it water weight), complete the course in 1hr for max points, 1hr 20 min max time (adjust for age). Ranger Shuffle allowed.

This choice will even it out between the skinny sprinter types and the muscled endurance types and adjust for body sizes.

[pheenix]

I was thinking...lots of folks have running waivers and do the three mile walk (which i hear is brutal), why can't those who simplly can't run take the walk test? If its a good enough way to judge fitness for those who medically can't run...why is it not a good enough way to judge the fitness of all?

If the point of the test is to weed out those who are not "fit", and if we allow those on run waiver to prove they are "FIT" by walking three miles...then we must assume that same test can prove the fitness level of anyone...right?

Thoughts?

I will confirm the walk test is horrible. I had to do it because insufficient time had passed since my profile lapsed (surgery related) even though I requested to run. Here's a summary of my experiene:

Lap 3: Shins feel like they're going to explode
Lap 11 - 12: Every step included f-bombs.

For a little while afterwards, my friends said I walked like I forgot to wipe my derrier.