{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027327070879590094, 'fraction_numerical': 0.017079419299743808, 'mean_word_length': 5.041237113402062, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Does Current Army Physical Fitness Training Doctrine Adequately Prepare Soldiers for War

Abstract : The U.S. Army has continually adjusted its fitness regimen to best prepare Soldiers for combat. This paper attempts to answer a critical question: Does the current U.S. Army physical fitness training doctrine adequately prepare soldiers for war? Since 1941, FM 21-20, "Physical Training," has been the sole source for Army fitness training. Outdated, it was replaced in March of 2010 by "Army Physical Readiness Training" (APRT). Nevertheless, FM 21-20 does contain the building blocks of a successful fitness program. These building blocks will be used to compare the new APRT program with two alternative programs. The three programs also will be compared on their ability to train Soldiers to execute 10 muscle movements identified as critical by Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC). Through this comparative analysis, the thesis will demonstrate which program best meets the Army's fitness evaluation criteria and trains the requisite muscles to execute the 10 movements. The results will reveal whether the APRT is the best system for preparing soldiers for war.