Ditching the standing power throw strengthens the Army fitness test
While visually dramatic, the medicine ball throw demands a particular motor pattern — hurling a 10-pound object overhead and backward — that rewards practicing the specific skill more than developing fitness. Proponents argue it measures 'explosive power,' but they neglect to address a fundamental truth. There are better tools for this purpose, with greater field utility and scientific support.
Defending the standing power throw: A pillar of the Army fitness test
While defenders of the SPT cite research from 2001 that suggested that the SPT was a valid and reliable assessment of total body explosive power, subsequent analysis in 2005 observed that combining men and women into a single sample had inflated the correlation. This follow-up research came to the opposite conclusion, stating that throw 'may have limited potential as a predictor of total body explosive power.'
More recent research among firefighters further challenged the validity of the SPT, concluding 'practitioners should exhibit caution' in using it as an assessment. A consistent finding in these studies is a strong learning effect, suggesting the uniqueness of the movement tests skill more than underlying fitness. The other studies cited to defend the throw assessed a supine push press and a kneeling chest pass and are therefore irrelevant.
The standing broad jump has long been used across athletic and military domains as a validated indicator of lower-body power. It captures the same desired quality — explosive force production — with fewer logistical complications. It requires no special equipment, takes less time to administer and carries greater face validity about tasks such as sprinting, vaulting and jumping — critical movements on the battlefield.
This is precisely why the 75th Ranger Regiment, whose RAW assessments helped shape the original ACFT, removed the medicine ball throw years ago in favor of the broad jump. When one of the most elite and operationally focused units in the military chooses to streamline its assessments in this way, the larger force would do well to take notice.
Criticism of the recent change to the ACFT also comes from the leadership that oversaw the development and rollout of the Occupational Physical Assessment Test (OPAT). Despite initial claims that the OPAT significantly reduced injuries and saved the Army millions, a 2021 Army Audit Agency report contradicted these assertions, revealing increased injury rates and insufficient tracking of injury data during OPAT's implementation. Although public statements by Center for Initial Military Training (CIMT) officials touted substantial benefits, the audit found no reliable data to support those claims. Notably, CIMT later endorsed a recommendation to begin tracking such data. These discrepancies underscore the risks of relying on internal success narratives that lack validated, transparent evidence.
Critics of the standing power throw's removal frequently cite concerns over losing a 'comprehensive' evaluation. Yet, they fail to distinguish between complexity and effectiveness. Just because an event appears multifaceted does not mean it provides actionable or essential data — primarily when other options deliver equal or better insight more efficiently. The broad jump offers a more reliable, scalable alternative in an operational environment where time, equipment, personnel and consistency matter. It assesses key components of combat performance — notably, explosive triple extension — in a safer, more intuitive format.
The ACFT was always intended to evolve. Removing the standing power throw is not a capitulation but an informed refinement grounded in field realities, best practices and a clear-eyed understanding of what combat fitness truly demands. To conflate nostalgia with necessity is to risk clinging to a version of the test that no longer serves the mission. We should embrace this shift not as a loss but as progress — toward a smarter, more combat-relevant assessment of the soldiers who defend our nation.
Nick Barringer is a nutritional physiologist with applied and academic experience. He received his undergraduate degree in dietetics from the University of Georgia and his doctorate in kinesiology from Texas A&M. The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official position of any organizations he is affiliated with. He can be reached at drnickbarringer@drnickbarringer.com.
Alex Morrow is an Army Reserve officer with experience working in several military human performance programs. He hosts the MOPs & MOEs podcast, which can also be found on Instagram at @mops_n_moes. The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official position of any organizations he is affiliated with. He can be reached at alex@mopsnmoes.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
4 days ago
- Medscape
Weight Loss Before Military Training May Cut Injury Risk
TOPLINE: Army recruits who lost excess weight to enter military training experienced fewer musculoskeletal injuries (MSKIs), particularly in the lower extremities, during basic combat training than those who did not lose weight to join the service. METHODOLOGY: The nation's obesity epidemic means that fewer individuals meet the US Army's weight and body-fat standards for entering basic combat training. Only 29% of 17- to 24-year-olds in the country would have qualified to join the military in 2018, with overweight and obesity among the leading disqualifying factors. Researchers analyzed data from 3168 Army trainees (mean age, 20.96 years; 62.34% men; mean maximum-ever BMI, 26.71) to examine the association between weight loss before enlistment and rates of MSKI during basic combat training. Trainees completed a baseline questionnaire that asked whether the person lost weight to enter the Army and included follow-up questions about the amount of weight lost, duration of weight loss, methods used, and prior physical activity. MSKIs were classified as any injury to the musculoskeletal system and further categorized by body region (lower extremities, upper extremities, spine/back, and other areas, including the torso and head/neck). Researchers identified MSKIs from medical records collected throughout basic combat training and for up to 6 weeks afterward to capture injuries that occurred during training but were documented only after its completion. TAKEAWAY: Overall, 829 trainees (26.16%) reported losing weight to enter the Army, and they tended to have higher mean maximum-ever BMI, body-fat percentage, and lean mass compared with those who did not lose weight to join the service. The mean weight loss was 9.06 kg at a rate of 1.27 kg/wk among the 723 trainees with complete data. The most commonly reported weight-loss methods were exercising more (83.72%), changing diet (61.04%), skipping meals (39.32%), and sweating using a sauna or rubber suit (25.57%). Trainees who lost weight to join the service had a lower risk of any MSKI (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86) and lower extremity MSKIs (HR, 0.84) during training than those who did not lose weight to enter the Army. No difference was found between the two groups in the risk of upper extremity, spine/back, or other MSKIs. Among trainees who lost weight to join the Army, the amount of time it took to lose weight was not associated with the risk for any MSKI or region-specific MSKIs. IN PRACTICE: "The findings highlight that losing excess weight before entering military training may reduce MSKI risk for incoming recruits, enforcing the benefits of healthy weight loss programs," the authors wrote. SOURCE: The study, led by Vy T. Nguyen, MS, DSc, Military Performance Division, US Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Natick, Massachusetts, was published online in Obesity. LIMITATIONS: The study did not assess whether the association between weight loss and the rate of MSKIs persisted over long-term military service. How the two most frequently reported weight loss methods — increased exercise and dietary changes — may have influenced the observed association remains unclear. Medical records may not have captured all MSKIs if trainees did not seek medical care due to concerns about graduating on time or being placed on limited duty. DISCLOSURES: The study was supported by the US Army Medical Research and Development Command's Military Operational Medicine Program. Two authors received support from the funder. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Tom's Guide
4 days ago
- Tom's Guide
Netflix just added 2 seasons of a gripping sci-fi series — you've got 31 episodes of 'Quantum Leap' to stream now
I've always been drawn to shows that explore time travel in a unique way. There's something thrilling about following a character as they navigate someone else's life, piecing together moments that could change everything. And the 2022 revival of 'Quantum Leap' proves that when handled with imagination, this concept makes for compulsively watchable TV. The series first aired on NBC in 2022, introducing a brilliant physicist who unexpectedly begins leaping into other people's lives across the recent past. Alongside a dedicated team, he must navigate each new host's circumstances, making critical choices that allow him to eventually return to his own timeline. Although NBC canceled the show after two seasons, Netflix has now has picked up both seasons of the show, giving subscribers a chance to binge the full adventure in one place. That's 31 episodes total, packed with intriguing leaps, memorable characters, and plenty of unexpected twists that will keep you guessing until the end. If you're looking for your next Netflix binge, 'Quantum Leap' makes a strong case for itself. Here's everything you need to know about this revival and why it's worth adding to your watchlist. 'Quantum Leap' serves as a continuation of the original 1989–1993 show. Set nearly three decades after Dr. Sam Beckett's disappearance into the Quantum Leap accelerator, the series introduces Dr. Ben Song (Raymond Lee), a physicist leading a new team tasked with reviving the time-travel project. The team includes Addison Augustine (Caitlin Bassett), Ben's fiancée and a decorated Army veteran who appears as a holographic guide; Herbert 'Magic' Williams (Ernie Hudson), a career military officer overseeing the operation; Ian Wright (Mason Alexander Park), the AI specialist managing the project's artificial intelligence system; and Jenn Chou (Nanrisa Lee), who handles digital security. The narrative unfolds when Ben makes an unauthorized leap into the past, awakening in a different person's body with fragmented memories. Guided by Addison, who communicates with him as a hologram, Ben discovers that the only way to return to his original timeline is by correcting a pivotal event in the life of his current host. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. To be clear, this isn't a reboot. Instead of reimagining the story, the first episode of the modernized 'Quantum Leap' picks up directly from where the previous series left off, continuing the journey of the Quantum Leap project. Think of it as the next chapter in the saga. The show pays homage to the beloved characters while introducing a new team tasked with transforming the experimental accelerator into a reliable, functioning tool. It's essentially a fun time travel story about a physicist who leaps into other people's lives, trying to set things right before moving on. It may feel a little sentimental at times, but that's part of the show's enduring appeal. The concept of 'leaping' itself remains the standout element of this revival, as it continually places Ben in unexpected situations that test him in new ways. What stands out even more is the decision to make Addison (who serves as the helpful holographic guide), not just a team member but also Ben's fiancée. He just can't remember her. This twist adds a deeper emotional layer to their exchanges and makes it clear that the series isn't attempting to replicate the central bond from the earlier show. 'Quantum Leap' does occasionally drift into corny moments, but the strong performances from the main cast keep it grounded. And honestly, a touch of lighthearted silliness now and then only adds to the fun. Even though the first season of 'Quantum Leap' has an average rating of 58% on Rotten Tomatoes, it remains compelling to watch. This sci-fi series is easy to binge and doesn't demand too much mental effort, making it genuinely fun. It's a shame the show was canceled though, but if it finds success on Netflix, there's a chance it could be revived. That's a huge maybe. I'm fairly confident 'Quantum Leap' will jump into Netflix's top 10, considering there's 2 seasons available and 31 episodes to stream. It's definitely worth adding to your watchlist if you need something gripping but entertaining. Stream "Quantum Leap" on Netflix now. Follow Tom's Guide on Google News to get our up-to-date news, how-tos, and reviews in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button.
New York Post
09-08-2025
- New York Post
Lasers are innovating modern warfare, for better or worse
Earlier this summer, Israel made military history. Not with a missile, bomb or bullet — but with a beam of light. In a first for modern warfare, the Israel Defense Forces successfully intercepted Hezbollah drones using a high-energy laser weapon in live combat. The breakthrough weapon, developed under the Iron Beam program, quietly zapped dozens of targets out of the sky during the Iron Sword campaign, marking the first confirmed use of laser cannon technology on an active battlefield. According to a joint statement in late May from the Israeli Ministry of Defence, the Israeli Air Force and defense contractor Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, 'soldiers from the IAF Aerial Defence Array operated high-power laser system prototypes in the field, successfully intercepting scores of enemy threats.' Advertisement 9 Rafael Advanced Defense Systems The technology might sound like science fiction, but officials say this laser cannon, which resembles an oversized spotlight, is anything but make-believe. Israel's success may signal a turning point in the race to develop laser weapons, but it's far from the only player on the field. China was accused last month of targeting a German aircraft with a laser during an EU operation. Germany called it 'entirely unacceptable,' although China denied the claim. Meanwhile, Chinese scientists are reportedly developing a microwave-based beam weapon that resembles the Death Star and is capable of combining multiple sources into one high-powered shot. Advertisement Russia recently unveiled the 'Posokh,' a laser weapon described as a 'ray gun' for downing drones. Russian Airborne Forces also showcased a prototype laser rifle in March designed to protect civilian infrastructure from UAV attacks. 9 AFP via Getty Images Laser weapons, formally known as directed energy weapons (DEWs), have been on the global radar for decades. But until now, they've mostly lived in research labs and defense trade shows. More than 30 countries are developing the technology — and the US military alone spends $1 billion annually on high-energy laser (HEL) research. 'The Army, Navy and Air Force have all been developing laser weapons,' says Dr. Iain Boyd, PhD, director of the Center for National Security Initiatives at the University of Colorado Boulder. 'The Navy has installed HELs on several ships, the Army is using them for base defense and vehicles, and the Air Force has studied installing HELs on fighter jets.' Advertisement Are lasers poised to become the weapon of choice for modern warfare? Boyd tells The Post he expects to see 'a steady increase in the use of high-energy laser weapons in the coming years. It is still relatively immature technology, but as the remaining challenges are overcome, their potential to change some aspects of warfare will be realized.' For the moment, the Iron Beam — known in Hebrew as Magen Or, which translates to Shield of Light —shows the most promise. An offshoot of the Iron Dome, Israel's air defense system that's been operational since 2011, the Iron Beam was designed to 'complement the Iron Dome and work alongside it, not replace it,' says military analyst Yaakov Lappin, who's been closely following the technology for years. But the Iron Beam promises something no other weapon can deliver: shots that cost a few dollars apiece. 'It's vastly cheaper,' Lappin says. Advertisement Israel currently spends upwards of $100,000 per Iron Dome interceptor. That's a steep price to shoot down enemy projectiles that might cost just a few hundred dollars to build. The Iron Beam's electric 'bullets,' by contrast, are practically free. 9 AP 'They are described as having an 'infinite magazine,' ' says Dr. Boyd. 'Unlike guns and rocket launchers that have a finite number of munitions available, as long as a HEL has electrical power, it can keep on firing 'bullets' of photons.' The US, meanwhile, has yet to deploy lasers in real-world combat despite decades of research. The Army's Stryker-based laser, Navy's ship-mounted HELs and Air Force programs all remain in test phases. 'I am not content with the pace,' US Navy Vice Adm. Brendan McLane said in a keynote speech at the Surface Navy Association confab in 2024. 'We must deliver on the promise this technology gives us.' America's laser weapon dreams go back to Ronald Reagan's 1983 'Star Wars' Strategic Defense Initiative, a $200 billion attempt to shoot down nuclear missiles with space lasers. That program fizzled out by 1993. Subsequent efforts, like the joint US-Israel 'Nautilus' laser in the late '90s, also stalled for being too bulky, weak and slow. 9 Sygma via Getty Images The pivot came with solid-state lasers which are smaller, more efficient and electric rather than chemical. Advertisement Israel had one key advantage over other nations in the race to develop lasers, says Brian Wang, a science writer and co-founder of the popular tech blog Next Big Future. 'The US has spent billions over the decades, but Israel had actual fighting as a forcing factor to get this stuff working and deployed,' he explains. The breakthrough came when Israeli engineers abandoned the old idea of firing one giant beam and instead developed a system that fires hundreds of small, coin-sized beams. These beams lock onto a single vulnerable spot, often identified via telescopic reflection, and bombard it in succession until the threat is neutralized. The Iron Beam uses optical fiber lasers, which are essentially souped-up industrial lasers, to destroy aerial threats. 'Electricity is used to excite atoms or molecules,' explains Wang. 'They emit high energy photons, and all the photons are concentrated using mirrors. The laser heats a critical area — say, the fuel tank or warhead — until the missile fails.' 9 Commander Naval Surface Force Atlantic/Facebook Advertisement Lasers convert electrical energy 'into a focused beam of light particles, or photons,' says Boyd. 'Depending on the energy, they can cut, melt, combust or destroy a target.' In practical terms, the Iron Beam vaporizes drones with surgical precision. But there are limits. HELs currently can't intercept long-range ballistic missiles like the ones targeted by Israel's Arrow 3, which shoots down threats outside the Earth's atmosphere. For now, lasers remain short-range guardians. Also, a weapon capable of melting metal at 2 kilometers isn't exactly energy-efficient. A 100-kilowatt laser requires a massive power source and cooling system. The most advanced (and smallest) prototypes draw 300 kilowatts — enough to power 30 homes — and are only about 50% efficient, meaning they produce immense waste heat. This limits where and how the weapons can be deployed. And there's another catch. Advertisement 'The effectiveness of laser beams can be diminished through interaction with a variety of environmental phenomena,' say Boyd. Rain, fog, dust and smoke can scatter laser beams, reducing their effectiveness. 'The laser needs to stay locked on a target for several seconds to be effective,' he adds. Which is why naval lasers, like those tested on the USS Preble, haven't seen wide use. The sea is a famously unforgiving place for precision optics. A misplaced beam can also cause serious unintended damage. As Boyd warns, there's concern about potential collateral effects. 'A laser beam reflecting off a surface could blind someone,' he says. 'Or if it misses a target, it could travel hundreds of miles. There is a need to ensure no innocent party is affected.' Advertisement The UN banned laser weapons designed to blind in 1995. But with nations like Russia and Turkey reportedly fielding HELs, updated international rules may be overdue. And then there's the conspiracy crowd. Social media has fueled bizarre theories claiming government lasers have started wildfires in California and Hawaii, an idea experts flatly reject. 'I am very skeptical about these claims,' says Boyd. 'Installing a laser of sufficient power to start a fire on a drone is not simple. For a laser to be effective, you need to have very fine pointing control to ensure that the beam stays precisely on the target.' Achieving that during flight requires sophisticated technology, Boyd says, and there are 'probably more effective ways of starting wildfires from drones than lasers.' In a world where a $500 drone can destroy a $10 million tank, militaries are desperate for cheaper, smarter defenses. Lasers offer just that, if they can overcome their limitations. Israel's success may mark the beginning of a new era, one where the flash of a laser, not the roar of a missile, is what keeps the skies safe.
