So I was reading in Men's Health the physical conditioning criteria to be a "Ranger" in the U.S. military. Here are the strength criteria:

1) 80 pushups in 2 minutes

2) 80 situps in 2 minutes

3) 12 chin ups

So which one of these does not belong? Why require extreme endurance for the chest, tris, front delts and abs, and require greater strength in the back and bis? I know these are all body weight exercises, but that seems like an arbitrary distinction.

Doesn't look arbitrary to me ... chin-ups are much more difficult than push-ups or sit-ups, so the rep range is less because most people don't work up to 80 pull-ups. You're comparing apples and oranges ... the back muscles and the body in a vertical hang are different than chest or core with the body weight distributed flat across the ground.

Jeremy

So I was reading in Men's Health the physical conditioning criteria to be a "Ranger" in the U.S. military. Here are the strength criteria:

1) 80 pushups in 2 minutes

2) 80 situps in 2 minutes

3) 12 chin ups

So which one of these does not belong? Why require extreme endurance for the chest, tris, front delts and abs, and require greater strength in the back and bis? I know these are all body weight exercises, but that seems like an arbitrary distinction.

You might want to check out the "Conditioning" section at Dragon Door.com for some interesting articles on this. Many of em are written by ex-commandos, rangers, special forces and what not. They don't seem to hold the two-arm pushup in high esteem as a measure of a soldiers readiness for combat. I was totally surprised by some of their ideas and recommendations.

Doesn't look arbitrary to me ... chin-ups are much more difficult than push-ups or sit-ups, so the rep range is less because most people don't work up to 80 pull-ups. You're comparing apples and oranges ... the back muscles and the body in a vertical hang are different than chest or core with the body weight distributed flat across the ground.

Jeremy

Yes but you're missing my point. . .Doing 12 chin ups for most men would be a test of muscular strength. Whereas for most of those same men, doing 80 push ups in 2 minutes would be more likely to be a test of muscular endurance.

To be conistent, they should require that you do 80 pullups in 2 minutes on a pull up assist machine. . .or do 12 pushups wearing a weight vest or very heavy back pack.

Is it possible that there are more situations in combat where you would need strength for pulling movements, and endurance for pushing movements? Or am I just reading into this way too much.

No. To be consistent they would need you to do 80 rows with about 70% of your bodyweight in 2 minutes. Like Jeremy said, the pull-up is in a different plane of motion and is not comparable with the push-up. Rowing would be a pain to test because it involves outside equipment*. The army compromises by using push-up and pull-up requirements that would more than likely provide the cross-over strength needed to complete a hypothetical rowing test.

*Body rows would be an acceptable substitute if they weren't so easy to change leverage on and, thus, difficulty -- easy to cheat on. It would also be hard to ensure proper positioning so that the person only has to pull 65-75% of their bodyweight.

They would never use any of those tests you guys are suggesting for purposes of cost and ease of testing.

The point of the test isn't to make you the world's strongest person, you just have to be strong enough. Somebody who can meet those requirements is going to be relatively strong. Don't forget that these are definitely not the only requirements. The training is really the main requirement, and it's your ability to succeed in the training that shows whether you'll be a capable soldier in the army, not how many assisted chin-ups, weighted push-ups, or even normal chin-ups or push-ups you can do.

Because you can practice all of these with nothing but a bar to do chin ups on. Strength with chest would require a backpack with weight and crap. high reps with chin ups requires an assist machine. It's a hassle. They're testing as they are out of convenience, not some more thought-out process of endurance vs strength for certain muscles.

(former Field Artillery officer here)

You are missing the point of the test. It is a measure of fitness, not a measure of strength or endurance. The normal PT test is:
2 mile run
2 min pushups
2 min pullups


The Rangers and Airborne training have the additional requirement (not a requirement....they just do them) of pullups. I never did chinups. At Airborne school the men had to do 8 pullups. It was 8 true pullups. I mean elbows locked, and chin above the bar. The reason that Rangers and Airborne have this additional training requirement is that the design of the parachute. The Army uses two types. One of them does require a lot of upper body strength to maneuver. You have to grab the risers and pull like hell. You have to understand all those civilian parachutes you see where you land oh so softly are not the ones used by the grunts. We go to Airborne School for 3 weeks to learn how to fall correctly. The parachutes of the Army are designed to get you on the ground as fast as possible as safely as possible.

Generally everything in the army is endurance based. You cannot lead from the rear. You have to be able to keep up. I was a fire support officer. My ruck sack was at least 125 pounds due to all the equipment that I had to carry. It really is not a strength thing to carry that much....it is endurance.

I don't really see the problem. You need some measure of strength and endurance in the army as they are both measures of fitness. So, why not test both? It's not necessary, expedient, or cost-effective to test both for every muscle, however.

So I was reading in Men's Health the physical conditioning criteria to be a "Ranger" in the U.S. military. Here are the strength criteria:

1) 80 pushups in 2 minutes

2) 80 situps in 2 minutes

3) 12 chin ups

So which one of these does not belong? Why require extreme endurance for the chest, tris, front delts and abs, and require greater strength in the back and bis? I know these are all body weight exercises, but that seems like an arbitrary distinction.


They're actually all strength from the point of view of real military work loads. One of my brothers was in the a "sort of elite" military unit, but not as "elite" as Rangers. And they thought nothing of hiking 25 miles over hills with a 150 pound rucksack, and then crawling with the rucksack all night long to get "into position" and then lying in the mud for three days. His unit was supposed to be about setting up radio links behind enemy lines. When the military wants endurance, they measure it in miles and days, not reps.

My first strength and conditioning coach (25 years ago) was from the Army (also U. S. Olympic team). He didn't have a lot of strength as one would put it here. But he had endurance like the Energizer Bunny only dreams about. He used to do running after our workouts, and we would put in the two miles getting our lungs burnt out trying to keep him from lapping us, and then he would put in his other ten without even slowing down. It was like a demonic wind up doll. The Army no longer has a pentathlon team, but they have other endurance stuff.

I would guess the chin ups is 12 because 80 would be freaky. The 80 sit ups and push ups, if strict, is nasty, but 25 miles with a 150 pound ruck, or a hard half marathon at the drop of a hat, it's not.