Louisville Mojo: Fort Knox recruits no longer run 5 miles

At a time when many gyms boast of hosting "boot camps" to get the out-of-shape into shape, the actual Army is changing it's actual boot camp to something that looks like an "ab blaster" class, according to an Associated Press story this morning.

In the first major revision of standard boot camp training since 1980, the Army is dropping five-mile runs and bayonet drills for exercises that they believe might better train a sedentary generation for the conditions of modern warfare. (I gather they don't use a lot of bayonets anymore in actual wars. Also, they don't usually run five miles.)

For example, instead of long distance running, new recruits will focus on sprinting in a zig-zag pattern.

Yesterday, I noted that I'm not a doctor and don't play on television. That disclaimer goes double for being a soldier.

But I covered Fort Knox (where the new standards are supposed to start being used this month) as a reporter, and specifically covered a Marine boot camp at Parris Island once.

Even just observing the first few hours and days of boot camp is an unforgettable experience, so I can imagine that the going through it is truly life altering. Maybe not for people who were in incredible physical shape to begin with, but for most people.

I bet there will be a lot of "old-school" observers who decry these changes and undoubtedly they will have some points.

Speaking as non-runner, non-soldier, non-fit person, I would think that even if you don't actually run five miles in war, being ABLE to do so might speak to an overall level of fitness that is valuable. But, on the other hand, it's a little hard to see how bayonet drills would help.

I, for one, will just trust our military leaders to make this decision. You?

ADD A COMMENT

J.S. Holland tue mar 16 2010 at 11:00 am ·


	Personally, I wouldn't trust "our military leaders" to make a cup of coffee, but the zig-zag sprinting actually IS a beneficial and sorely-needed spruce-up (They've already been doing it in Special Forces for years). I predict the new wars will be soon fought entirely with drones, anyway, and the actual soldiers will be more of a clean-up-the-mess force after the squawking's over. Which means that physical fitness isn't as important as reflexes, marksmanship and alertness.

Beverly Bartlett tue mar 16 2010 at 12:35 pm ·


	I'm not anti-zig-zag sprinting, which does sound like a good idea. I just thought the long distance running would also be useful. The prospect of drone-only war is kind of depressing to me. Then it will be less-risk politically to go to war, but higher-risk for the civilians of whatever country is getting attacked.

Right_in_KY tue mar 16 2010 at 12:36 pm ·


	I went through basic/AIT at Ft. Knox in 1984. We ran two miles every morning and did a five-mile run on a few occassions during the 14-15 weeks I was there. Never saw a bayonet. I think the military has softened a lot over the years, and not all for the better. Our defenders need to be mentally sharp and physically strong. Future wars my be fought with drones and long-range weapons - but they won't be decided until blood has been shed. Defeat comes by surrender and surrender comes by submission. Few will submit to a drone - but by the physical occupation of an advancing army of men - which most often will wage real war with those who oppose them.

J.S. Holland tue mar 16 2010 at 12:58 pm ·


	"I think the military has softened a lot over the years, and not all for the better." I totally agree, but it's been going on over the course of a century. I suspect that in a time-travel hand to hand combat smackdown, the U.S. Army of 1918 could mop the floor up with the U.S. Army of 2010. (However, I also suspect that the men who fought the Revolutionary War could open the proverbial can on all armies that have followed since.)

Beverly Bartlett tue mar 16 2010 at 1:45 pm ·


	Is that really true? I always thought that soldiers of yesteryear were supposed to be sort of rag-tag -- you know, guys who were half deaf from untreated ear infections, people who walked funny because of broken bones that weren't set properly, 14-year-old kids. Now, they weren't FAT and certainly had some mental toughness, but when I picture a Revolutionary War soldier, I don't really imagine someone that could take on a modern Marine in hand-to-hand combat all that well. But.... all my former disclaimers... apply.

Right_in_KY tue mar 16 2010 at 2:46 pm ·


	I think soldiers of old were tougher than today. Not as big, some maybe not as strong as some of the bulky ones of today - but there were plenty of 'country-strong' men - those raised on farms, who worked the factories - who labored with their hands under conditions that our generation simply whines about. Just the barracks in the Army have changed. When I was at Knox - we were in brand new quarters - complete with air conditioning - our meals were pretty good and we were really treated pretty well. Those who trained a few years before me were in WWII-era housing (which I stayed in at other times) and they get cold in the winter and hot in the summer. Maybe a good analogy is the game of football. Today's players are bigger, faster and stronger - but those of yesteryear were tougher. They lost teeth, wore leather helmets and limped around with broken bones. It's still a dangerous game -but I think you had to have a tougher shell to play the game a few decades ago than you do now.

J.S. Holland tue mar 16 2010 at 2:53 pm ·


	Yeah, but that's just the point - men back in the day were tough enough and stubborn enough to fight with broken bones, walking pneumonia, malnutrition, frostbite, what have you. Speaking as an old hillbilly myself, who has seen pure rustic old-school stubbornness and gumption kick the livin' tar out of splenda-drinkin', videogame-obsessed whippersnappers with biceps the size of canned hams, my money's on tenacity. The Viet Cong had tenacity. That's why they won.

J.S. Holland tue mar 16 2010 at 2:56 pm ·


	My previous comment was directed at Beverly. Yeah, for once "Right_in_KY" and I agree 100% - there's strong, and then there's old-school yesteryear COUNTRY strong, and the whiners of today don't have it and can never get it.

Beverly Bartlett tue mar 16 2010 at 3:28 pm ·


	I think people in general -- soldiers and non soldiers -- are more pampered today than they were 100 years ago. Consequently we complain about things previous generations wouldn't even think to complain about. (It's cold in the winter. It's hot in the summer. My TMJ is acting up. And so forth.)I don't know that that is the whole story. I mean: "So beaten down by pain that I stopped complaining" is not exactly a mental state to strive for. To be clear, I'm not completing disagreeing with you all. I'm not about to suggest that I'm as tough as a pilgram woman, for example. And the "country-strength" thing -- I've heard it referred to as "man strength," meaning you get it from life not from the gym -- I think there is something to that. But when compared to 200 years ago, today's army is better educated, healthier, and just more sophisticated (knowing how to play psychological tricks on themselves, etc.)I'd never want to bet against one of the Americans at Valley Forge, certainly. But I think if you read their letters they did complain AND, the thing is, I wouldn't really want to bet against our current soldiers either. When I covered them at Fort Knox, they were an impressive group of people. I don't think you can judge them because ... you know, they complain when the air conditioner breaks. I do that myself. Doesn't mean I couldn't muster up some toughness in a situation that called for it.

Right_in_KY tue mar 16 2010 at 3:37 pm ·


	Sure there was complaining at Valley Forge - just as there surely was in the Ardennes Forest in 1944 and on the Battan Death March. Human suffering breeds complaints. I'm also sure that many of today's soldiers would fight side by side with their counterparts of yesteryear and show just as much bravery - but I do wonder about the overall toughness of the common soldier. Of course - this story is about whether or not that toughness is needed today as it was back then. Apparently military leaders think it's not quite as important to have your troops able to run 5 miles. And maybe they're right. I think the toughness that will get soldiers through the worst battles is just as much mental than it is physical. I read about Daniel Boone not long ago - how he survived on his own in the wilderness that was Kentucky for nearly a year waiting on his brother to return with supplies. He was low on ammo and powder, had to live day to day like "Man vs. Wild - lol" and battled the elements, wild animals and constant threat of Indian attack or capture. Think of his toughness - not just physical - but struggling through lonliness, fear, uncertainty - but yet he did it. I shake my head at that kind of toughness and just wonder how he made it.

VeggieMomster tue mar 16 2010 at 4:30 pm ·


	I gotta say, no one without tenacity joins the military. And, regardless of his generation, some lazy ass kid has signed 4 years of his life to the government to be SHOCKED about what he found upon arriving at boot camp, or at war. Now, I haven't signed up, myself, because my pansy ass couldn't hack it, but my brother, who suffers PTSD from his service in Afghanistan is one bad ass MF, and is now a border patrol agent who often runs for hours to hunt down drug runners who flee on foot. I've gotten a little bit away from my point, but anyone who joins the military has more gumption than any regular citizen. But, depending on one's military job, many sit at computers now. Times change, so isn't it like comparing tangerines to oranges?

Right_in_KY tue mar 16 2010 at 4:33 pm ·


	Times do change - most certainly. And maybe the tasks of all military occupations aren't as physically demanding as others and in other eras - but our troops need to be prepared. Tangerines and oranges are different, but both are subject to being squeezed.

shadowknight tue mar 16 2010 at 7:51 pm ·


	Thank God for the Marines,

Myfriendpain tue mar 16 2010 at 10:27 pm ·


	The Army's new PT program has actually been in practice for about 3 or 4 years. It was designed by soldiers and for soldiers and intended for use on a daily basis. A person's body cannot keep up with the same hard exercises every day. Sooner or later the muscles will simply give up. The new program was intended to maximize the workout on select muscle groups and each exercise should only be used once or twice a week and never twice in a row. For example, Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays a unit may work on stamina and upper body cardio. On Tuesdays and Thursdays, abs and muscle mass building exercises may be implemented. Every unit has it's own PT schedule to suit their own needs. A Tank unit, for example would work harder on muscle building and strength training while a dismounted infantry unit would focus more on stamina and cardio... You get the point. As for the 5 mile runs that civilians think are a big deal, it's nothing. When I was an enlisted instructor at Knox, we would sometimes run ten or more miles in one session, which was FAR more than any trainee ever ran while I was there. Even those "motivational runs" were uncommon and are still implemented today. Any soldier will agree that their is no substitute for a good early morning run. They are great for building stamina and boosting the cardiovascular system. However, any doctor will tell you that there are not many exercises worse than running, especially on the paved roads found on most military installations. The problem with it is the constant high impact strain on the legs, knees and ankles. The new program concentrates more on low impact and resistance training so there are less injuries incurred in garrison and more soldiers are available to take the battlefield. Yes, the military is softer than it was 100 years ago, however that does not mean that it is any less prepared for combat. Back then, people marched for days to a battlefield only to be cannon fodder. The weapons were not nearly as accurate and the odds were against the soldier living after being wounded. Infections ran rampant and the importance of having a healthy immune system greatly affected survivability. Today, through the use of antibiotics and medical science, most soldiers who are wounded in the line of duty will live to fight another day. Few soldiers ever even march into combat due to the use of helicopters and armored personnel carriers. The zigzag run is far more effective because

Myfriendpain tue mar 16 2010 at 10:32 pm ·


	I got carried away. The rest of the entry shouhld read: ...The zigzag run is far more effective because it makes you harder to hit and the soldier will not be running for as long before finding cover. The straight line, long distance run is still important, but not in the same sense as it was then. I for one think it's about time someone took a better look into the broken system and improved it. For those who think the program is for softies, try it for 90 days and I promise you will be in great shape.

Beverly Bartlett wed mar 17 2010 at 7:53 am ·


	Right In Kentucky, I share your interest in those sorts of "survival stories." Absolutely fascinating. I'm reading "The Lost City of Z" right now and just amazed by the experiences of those in the Amazon -- most of them weren't alone, but being with people adds its own challenges. My friend pain -- first, let me say it amuses me that the person saying a five mile run is "nothing" has a name like "My friend pain." Hee. I assure you it would be a rather big something to me. But seriously, I really appreciate your perspective on this. It's nice to hear from someone with recent and relevant experience!

truejager1 wed mar 17 2010 at 8:30 am ·


	As to the comment about the Viet Cong winning because of tenacity. That is not why they did not win. I was a history major in college and really U.S. history. I was also a soldier. Vietnam was lost because of two things. First, was the fact that you forced people to go over and fight a war they did not believe in. Second, you don't go into a place half assed. If you are going to go to war, dont call it a police action. There is a reason that the U.S. does not loose to often. We have an Army made up of volenteers. What better people to fight than one who is willing to put his life on the line.

truejager1 wed mar 17 2010 at 8:39 am ·


	As for the toughness of the past vs. present? Take a look at how we raise children. No longer allowed to disipline our children because of CPS! We over indulge our children because we did not get every thing we wanted growing up! You can not compare those of yesterday to today. We have handcuffed parents and everyone in general. You wonder why teens are the way they are today. You can not be an 18-20 yr old and think that you can raise a child. I have a 2 yr old and I am 36. I have seen the world and what war is like. Lost many close friends to. My only hope is that I can raise my son as well as my father did with me and my four siblings. I agree there is disipline and abuse, but you can not tell me that time out works all the time. Sometimes foot to ass is needed. Back when I was still in school, principles to still give wacks as a form of punishment. Just my thoughts on the toughness of past vs. present.

Beverly Bartlett wed mar 17 2010 at 9:42 am ·


	Trujager, you raise some interesting issues about Vietnam. But I've vowed to speak up when people make statements like this about kids that I find wrong. It is absolutely not true that CPS keeps you from disciplining your kids. It keeps you from BEATING your kids, yes. But if a parent can't figure out a way short of beating (or even hitting) to discipline a child, then that's the parent's problem not CPS's.) When I was a kid, there was a hot headed teacher with a paddle that was always threatening people with it and making a big show of how much he valued discipline. His class was NOT more conducive to learning than the other classes -- it was less.

truejager1 wed mar 17 2010 at 9:50 am ·


	I agree that CPS does serve a purpose. Beating a child is wrong. I grew up with a mother and a father that both would spank anyone of their 5 children for wrong doings. They raise 5 children that none had drug or alchol problems, no teen pregancies, and none that have done jail time. To be able to say that in the 80's and 90's is a feat in itself. I had a women say something to me for lightly tapping my son on his diaper in public because he was thowing fit and screaming. I am a big guy and could really hurt him, but he barely moved. I told her that 1. He is my son and I will disipline him as I see fit 2. I did not really hurt him. 3. He stopped his screaming in public. I dont think anyone has the right to tell us how to handle our children. While I agree that abuse is very wrong, there is a time when a child needs to be spanked. The point I was making is to compare soldiers of yesterday to today cant be done. The way we raise our children is different.

Beverly Bartlett wed mar 17 2010 at 10:09 am ·


	That's true. Our children are raised differently in any number of ways. I mean, if you go back -- not that long really -- children had to be responsible in ways they just don't know. They were picking cucumbers, or whatever, and if they missed a bunch that directly affected the family's ability to survive. Parents had to be a bit more demanding in that situation.

Humbug wed mar 17 2010 at 11:45 pm ·


	Back when i was in BCT in 2007 at Ft Leonard Wood, we didn't have the zig/zag running. There was bayonet training mostly useless due the fact there wasn't enough time spent on the subject. Same for Modern Army Combatives, four hours was not enough time to learn. Speaking of the bayonet the Corp pulled a charge in 2004 in Iraq, the British Army had a few incidents before they pulled out of the theatre also. We had five days of Basic Rifle Marksmanship, the Marines on the other hand had twenty days worth of B.R.M, combatives and easily five or more days of bayonet. Keep the standards high, lengthen BCT a professional volunteer force needs to be sharp. No "Stress cards" and no DSG saying 'please'. http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14911 http://www.blackfive.net/main/2004/05/friends.html http://defensetech.org/2010/01/29/bayonets-hit-the-mark/

truejager1 thu mar 18 2010 at 8:31 am ·


	You say that parents had to be a bit more demanding in the past. I will agree, but why not today? We should not cheat our children of what made our country what it is! Granted our children dont have to work the fields to help the family or get a job at 13. But instead of giving them everything they want, make them work for it. I was not given my first car. I had to work, help maintain the cars that my family had, and I was involved with sports. My father did not feel he had to give me anything. I have never thought I was entitled to anything. I knew if I wanted something I had to work hard and sav! Just my thoughts.

ADD A COMMENT

blogs: Let's talk about family life