A recent Secretary of Defense memo brought the topic of military physical readiness standards back into the headlines. The memo called for the institution of uniform, gender-neutral standards that would hold male and female service members to the same requirements.
A change based on flawed criteria could have tremendous negative consequences for the Navy. Conversely, if done right, changes could improve overall mental and physical fitness in the force, while increasing retention and lethality. If the Navy is going to update its physical readiness standards, it needs to take a human factors-based approach to the process.
Standards for the Mission
My dad told a story about training in 1946. After World War II, many sailors (like my father) were discharged and returned home. Some wanted to re-up, but they could not retain their old rank and had to essentially start from scratch. During a training course, one seasoned sailor would not jump off the 30-foot diving board. His instructor yelled, “What will you do when your ship is sinking?” The sailor replied: “It happened to me twice in the war. The first time I was tossed in the air and landed 100 yards away. The second time I waited until the water was up to my knees and just swam away.”
Through his experience, that sailor had learned an important truth about the difference between the service’s expectations and the realities of combat. The Navy has many times changed its height and weight requirements, measurement procedures, and the physical readiness test. Requirements often are based on what is easily measured more than what is required for a service member to perform operational tasks. The Navy did not have physical readiness testing until after World War II and somehow was able to win a war without it.
The Navy has an opportunity to align performance standards with task-based operational requirements. Applying a human factors perspective to the shipboard Navy workforce, where women make up approximately 20 percent of service members, identifies issues in four areas:
The Naval Mission is different.
While physical strength and endurance are important in a maritime environment, service members on board ships spend most of their time on watch, in maintenance, or in training—heavy lifting and long periods of exertion are relatively infrequent. In an emergency, such as damage control and firefighting, endurance under stress is important, and a rigorous but realistic set of physical performance requirements should be tailored to such scenarios. Numerous high-intensity combat and damage-control responses—such as on board the USS Cole (DDG-67) following the ship’s 2000 bombing in Yemen and after the 2017 USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62) and John S. McCain (DDG-56) collisions—were all carried out by mixed-gender crews, with no detrimental impact noted in interviews, investigations, and after-action reports.
There are physiological differences between male and female sailors.
The consistent physical differences between male and female bodies are well-documented and can help guide decisions about appropriate standards and measurements for sailors. For example, men are generally taller and have more muscle mass, while women typically have greater flexibility and endurance. Using a systems-design approach known as human systems integration ensures equipment and spaces work for a wide range of body types—for instance, creating a platform that works for the shortest 5 percent of women as easily as it accommodates the tallest 5 percent of men. This approach keeps ships safe and accessible for everyone.
There are physical performance differences between male and female sailors.
Because the military at one time was almost exclusively made up of men, physical fitness standards have tended to focus on male physiological characteristics. Women on average tend to have less muscle, more body fat, and shorter legs than men. This can result in less upper body strength for traditional assessments such as pullups and pushups, and in slower running times over mid-to-long distances.
But while pullups and pushups are a fair measure of general physical fitness for a particular gender cohort, they are not broadly applicable to a shipboard environment. Upper body strength and long-duration running are not general requirements, although certain ratings may require particular physical attributes. Even in a stressful firefighting or damage-control situation, processes such as turnover times, relief procedures, and other policies allow a consolidated team to perform at a high level.
Technology and “working smarter, not harder” have changed the Navy.
Automation, digital systems, and specialized tools have changed the way the Navy operates and in some areas reduced the need for physical labor. As a result, not every sailor needs to meet high physical standards to perform his or her duties effectively. This evolution highlights the importance of leaders recognizing and managing the diverse talents within a crew. A strong leader knows his or her sailors’ strengths and weaknesses and places the right people in the right positions to support mission success. One sailor might thrive in high-tech systems management, another in logistics, and another in physically demanding tasks. All are vital, and all bring value.
Physical fitness tests that are too rigid or overly demanding risk disqualifying highly skilled personnel whose jobs do not rely on physical strength. For example, a drone operator or cyber warfare specialist plays a critical role in increasing the Navy’s lethality through technological expertise and precise, real-time decision-making. These roles demand sharp cognitive skills, situational awareness, and technical proficiency—not muscular strength. Turning away such talent because a prospective service member does not meet the same physical standards as a boarding team member or damage controlman is a loss to the Navy’s overall capability.
Change Means Risk
There are several risks associated with simply aligning female standards to existing male standards. First, such a change could lead to the loss of many professional sailors—mainly, but not exclusively, women. This would result in manning shortfalls and a loss of lethality and warfighting readiness. Figure 2 illustrates the differences between male and female standards under current guidance. In most cases, any woman scoring below “good-medium” on the current scale would be in a probationary status if the female scale were aligned to the male scale.
Second, psychological and physical dangers would increase as primarily female sailors push boundaries to meet an arbitrary standard. A similar issue arises if age differentials are removed; older service members would feel pressure to meet tougher standards, resulting in unnecessary increased stress and pointless injuries.
The Way Ahead
There are several steps the Navy should take to get this right. First, the service should include its human factors subject-matter experts in the discussion about new physical standards. This would help the service craft a holistic, data-informed, operationally sound policy. Second, the Navy should focus on performance standards aligned to operational tasks such as watchstanding, firefighting, and damage control, among others.
The Navy should model its proposed revision to determine its likely effects on the existing force, specifically the effects on female and older service members. It should further consider a set of basic “pass-fail” standards that are gender neutral, but tailor standards with realistic differences in gender and age for performance measurement and administrative uses (evaluations, etc.).
Finally, as part of the review, the Navy should hire professional fitness coaches and trainers at the Echelon III (type commander), IV (squadron) or V (unit) level to suggest tailored training that supports functionally focused fitness exercises and wellness.
Any update to physical fitness standards should be operationally based. It must be rooted in science and prioritize task analysis over potentially arbitrary height-weight tables. The proper focus would be on functional fitness as it applies to a given specialty. Thus reimagined, standards would reflect a holistic approach to health. Updated requirements also could include a continuous fitness assessment—a wearable digital device that measures, qualifies, and promotes physical activity and continuously assesses fitness. By moving the focus away from episodic, appointment-based testing, the service could help sailors avoid the unhealthy behaviors related to it, such as fasting and stressful spikes in exercise.
Further, the Navy should incorporate functional fitness exercises, which are targeted at the skills and strengths needed for a particular job or functional area in military operations. These are exercises such as ruck marching; rope climbing; pushups, pullups, and squats; and deadlifts. These exercises improve physical readiness to perform under stress in challenging environments; reduce injury risk by strengthening muscles and joints; and enhance mental resilience.
Finally, the Navy should employ professional trainers to provide in-person and virtual training and coaching to all service members in the areas of strength, endurance, and flexibility. This would support the ability of the force to meet new standards.
In today’s Navy, success is built on a balance of physical readiness and specialized expertise. Maintaining flexible and role-relevant standards would allow the Navy to retain a diverse, skilled, and mission-capable force.
link