The U.S. Army’s latest iteration of its fitness test, the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT), has sparked debate among soldiers, with reactions ranging from cautious optimism to outright skepticism. Based on discussions from Reddit users—many of whom are current or former service members—the new standards appear to be a step in the right direction, though concerns remain about enforcement, gender disparities, and combat readiness.
One infantry soldier recounted their experience with the previous ACFT, noting that formations were passing despite barely meeting minimum standards—such as a 32-minute four-mile run, which would have been considered a failure under older PT tests. The commenter praised the new AFT for tightening standards, arguing that "if you can’t run a 20-minute two-mile, you’re a liability in combat."
However, others believe the bar should be set even higher—particularly for combat arms personnel. One infantryman who scored a 490 (his worst performance) called the current standards "pathetic," suggesting that combat arms soldiers should be held to a minimum of 450-500, with mandatory fitness plans for those who fall short.
The AFT’s Combat Scale—designed to ensure soldiers meet higher physical demands—has raised concerns about gender disparities. Some speculate that the minimum weight requirements (60s and 80s for certain events) could disproportionately affect female soldiers, particularly in combat roles. One user bluntly suggested that the test might be used to "kick all the icky gurlz out of the infantry."
Female Engineer Officers (12A) also voiced concerns, noting that their branch—which includes both combat and non-combat roles—may face difficulties due to the rigorous two-mile run standard, which remains a contentious issue.
A recurring criticism is the Army’s obsession with the two-mile run, which some argue doesn’t reflect real-world combat scenarios. One veteran proposed replacing it with a 20-minute one-mile run with a pack, citing the General Patton competition as an example where exhausted soldiers struggle to engage targets immediately after finishing. The suggestion is that endurance under load, rather than pure running speed, should be prioritized.
While many agree that the AFT is an improvement over the old APFT ("hot trash," as one veteran called it), lingering frustrations suggest that the Army still hasn’t fully aligned its fitness standards with actual combat demands.
Key takeaways:
Ultimately, the AFT represents progress—but if the Army truly wants to optimize combat effectiveness, further refinements may be necessary.
AFT CALCULATOR