It All Works
Photo by Steven Bisson, Savannah Morning News
Written by Nate Palin
I aspired to coach in special operations because I wanted to apply the best human performance practices to a population that I witnessed investing a ton of effort into mostly uninformed physical training.
I aimed to optimize warfighter physicality.
An N of 1
As a Ranger, I was far from a physical specimen. In part, because the endurance biased Army Physical Fitness Test was my North Star, but also because I was a “smart” Ranger who relied primarily on my brain’s power while keeping my body’s power at least fit enough to support my mental strengths. Other than my run times and other conditioning feats, I set all my personal strength and power related bests in my very late 30s, including my strict pull-up max on my 40th birthday (yes, I understand that’s more muscular endurance than strength).
I was far from a physical liability - I was an asset (in large part thanks to an athletic upbringing); but I was equally far from competing with the fittest Rangers who took their physical training considerably more seriously.
The Fittest Army Rangers
What did the fittest Rangers do for their training?
A few common approaches included:
Old school PT (push-ups, sit-ups, run + rucking + “combat” focused PT)
Bodybuilding
Distance training for endurance hobbies
Crossfit
Gym Jones
Ranger Athlete Warrior (RAW)
Athlete’s Performance style system
Effort and genetics played a much bigger role than training approach in separating the beasts from the common Rangers.
Effort is also what separated Rangers from the majority of the non SOF military. What we were doing worked because it all works… if you work for it.
Sure, the Ranger culture values physicality by tying it tightly to mission essential tasks. However, pride, accountability, and even enjoyment probably motivated our individual and collective efforts more so than professional performance purposes. And, truth told, vanity (aka looking good naked) likely trumped any other reason for physical training.
Smarter vs Harder
Don’t demonize hard work.
In the few times I’ve revisited parts of the 75th Ranger Regiment, the addition of strength and conditioning coaches is obvious. Observationally, the floor, the ceiling, and the average of physicality are all higher than they were when I departed in 2010. Coaches do not reduce the physical effort invested by a unit that prides itself on fitness - They guide existing energy toward more structured and intentional execution that leads to well rounded and advanced outcomes that include movement (positions and rhythm), output (strength & power), and capacity (continuous and intermittent). In simpler terms, they apply hard work smartly.
Rather than reduce intensity, coaches show Rangers how to diversify it. Coaches show Rangers that intensity is not always defined by rate of perceived exertion, but also includes load, velocity, power, intent (thanks, Rob), skill, and more. Rather than reduce volume, coaches show Rangers how to modify sets/reps, speed, heart rate, rest periods, to achieve specific outcomes. Coaches do not replace work with recovery, they maximize work with recovery to ensure the work is effective in achieving what it’s intended to achieve.
The Army’s Physical Fitness Work Ethic
There’s a dangerously popular narrative circulating that the Army needs to start working smarter instead of harder.
Don’t get me wrong, the Army does need to work smarter. However, they need to prioritize working smarter at lifestyle elements like sleep, nutrition, and stress management (socialization, purpose, sleep (again), mindfulness, activity, etc.).
When it comes to physical fitness, the Army is not working hard enough to benefit from working smarter.
I’m sorry, but if you lined up the average soldier from every brigade across the force, no casual observer would hypothesize that the bodies in front of them were a product of working too hard. I’m not actually a fan of equating training inputs to body composition outcomes, so before you get upset about my use of the “eye test”, the same opinion would result from an informed observer analyzing Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) scores.
I did not sit down to write this blog with the intention of deep diving into solutions for the Army’s physical fitness shortcomings. However, I’m not the biggest fan of identifying problems without suggesting solutions so I’ll share some thoughts that I presented extensively to attendees at last year’s Army Holistic Health and Fitness Symposium.
FM 7-22
Army Fitness Lives or Dies with Its Leadership
First and foremost, the responsibility of soldier physicality rests in the hands of leadership. Apathetic, ignorant, lazy leaders foster a culture of soldiers who mirror identically harmful characteristics while engaged, informed, and active leaders foster a culture of identically beneficial characteristics. “Informed” (when it comes to how to train) is the least important consideration because the most brilliant plan never executed is worthless. Many leaders are even in a position where they can outsource expertise to coaches, apps, and programs. What leaders cannot outsource is responsibility.
As a brief aside, I am well aware that we likely need to head further upstream to truly solve the Army’s physical fitness woes. The youth in the United States of America are less active than ever and it’s feeding a national defense crisis. That doesn’t mean that leaders can simply throw their hands up and complain without addressing what’s within their span of influence. I started Basic Combat Training with plenty of unfit recruits who became empowered by enhanced physical fitness over the course of Basic and AIT - thanks to the leadership of Drill Sergeants who were extremely engaged and active.
What can leaders do to help the Army work harder? I suggest that leaders at every level should accept, model, advocate, resource, and supervise.
Accept
Accept that intentional health and performance practices have value
Accept that physical fitness standards are mandatory
Accept that the landscape is rapidly and forever evolving (“the only constant is change”)
These might sound obvious but there are plenty of Army leaders at every level who refuse to value physical training or accept the Army Combat Fitness Test / Holistic Health and Fitness program as legitimate things, let alone accept and promote change.
Model
Lead by example
Share your story but not your burden
Be vulnerable (be authentic when there’s something at stake)
Number 1 should be obvious and numbers 2 and 3 apply more to mental health best practices. Regardless, leaders need to model the change they want to see in their soldiers. As Vernon Griffith would say, “Actions speak, while words just make sounds.” To be more cliche, don’t talk about it - be about it.”
Advocate
Promote the resources at your disposal (personnel, equipment, education, etc.)
Protect training time by providing top cover from bureaucratic bullshit
Push the envelope of what is possible by getting creative
Leader advocacy often results in achieving the time, space, equipment, expertise, and example needed to enhance a unit’s physical culture.
Resource
Ensure training time is on the calendar and unopposed
Find funds to purchase equipment and develop systems to ensure it’s used
Invite experts into the mix in whatever capacity you can afford to
Resourcing and advocacy go hand in hand. Plenty of units have the resources but don’t effectively leverage them because they lack leader advocacy. For units that lack resources, leaders need to creatively figure out how to find them. Trust me, somebody somewhere is doing more with less (just look at the Marines).
Supervise
Own the responsibility of your unit’s physical fitness and aim to influence within it and beyond it
Establish a system of accountability and hold soldiers to it
Review and revise the unit’s approach on a regular basis
FM 7-22 literally states that, “The success or failure of the H2F system depends on the quality of its leadership.”
Endex
Relying on leadership does not mean default responsibility to the next rung up the ladder. It means leading yourself, your peers, and/or those under your charge. If you’re an unfit soldier, that’s a problem. If you’re a super fit soldier with unfit subordinates, that’s a problem.
The only thing that stands between being physically strong and physically weak is work.
Hard work - not even necessarily smart work. Because it all works. IF you work for it.
AGD Communications
Sign up below and receive…
Pull-Up Progression Guide
Monthly Newsletter
Special Offers & Updates
We never spam and never share your info.
