@rmannina86 Generally agree, however... the assessment is not in any sense gender-neutral. It’s like judging monkeys and elephants by how well they climb trees.
@rmannina86 First, the leg tuck is supposed to measure abdominal strength/endurance... but somehow we went from another abdominal test (the sit-up) where women generally outperformed men, to a concern that most women can’t pass the leg tuck
@rmannina86 And that’s because, a standard pull up bar is sized for a male hand. And grip strength around that diameter bar is the best predictor of leg tuck success.
But that bar size doesn’t translate to anything we need to grip in normal duties (ammo cans, water jugs etc are all smaller)
@rmannina86 This also hampers deadlift and kettlebell performance.
And the medicine ball throw is equally absurd. The chief predictor of distance is release height...and again, women, regardless of their training or fitness, are generally disadvantaged.
@rmannina86 No amount of training will make you taller... but does tall make you a better soldier? Certainly not.
So is the premise of Kristen Griest article still good? Yes, gender neutral standards help combat gender stereotypes and undercut baseless criticism... but the ACFT ain’t it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I apologize that I am not a kinesiologist but lets not let that stop me!
The #ACFT is the talk of the town!
Even the @16thSMA wants you to run it in order to build the data set for analysis.
Let's call this the LitReview for the EverySoldier (TM)
First, let me thank/hate @rmannina86 for making me do this. Your incessant prodding is a credit to yourself, the 2 Cavalry Regt and the US Army.
The most important read to understand the ACFT is "Baseline Soldier Physical Readiness Requirements Study" published in NOV 2019 iadlest.org/Portals/0/AD10…
Forgive a RT, but this requires more than 280 characters:
Deterrence requires a signal to an adversary that an ally/thing is above the threshold of response. Sometimes to reassure allies we place assets at risk (units in Europe, @PatDonahoeArmy in ROK etc)/1
The RAND study recently released shows that assets heavy units are stronger in general deterrent value. In terms of the study, Units are coded heavy v light, bomber v fighter, etc /2
When coded in this way, the least mobile units had the most deterrent effect. With heavy ground at the top and air assets at the bottom. This begs the question: what accounts for their deterrent value? /3