Posted on Aug 5, 2019
Why is the Army more focused on what the body composition is rather then the fitness of their soldiers?
2.85K
16
11
1
1
0
Posted in these groups: 
Height and Weight
Height and Weight
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
Body composition is related to your overall health, which is different than fitness. The Army wants healthy soldiers, and that's in addition to being fit.
(7)
(0)
LCpl (Join to see)
I'll agree with being healthy. I see soldiers every day, walking around post, that are without a doubt out of shape. A lot of them can be questioned if they even pass height and weight. Are the PT standards becoming too relaxed?
(0)
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
LCpl (Join to see) - I retired in 2011, so I have no idea if the standards have been relaxed in today's military. Keep in mind that when you see them, it's awfully hard to whether they meet lowered standards or they are flagged for PT failure and/or failure to meet the body fat standards. Don't unnecessarily draw the wrong conclusion.
(1)
(0)
LCpl (Join to see)
I do my best to not draw any conclusions upon mere speculations. Sometimes it can be difficult, especially when you see it more times than not.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
As you noted, being 'Fit' is not the same as 'Body Composition'. I entered the Army at 6' / 230 lbs. I always maxed the AFPT. for an 18 y/o. I retired in 1993 at the same weight / height while still maxing the AFPT at the 18 y/o scores.
I got weighed every month I was active duty (including several hospital stays) and in the early days the 1SG and CO would just sign off based on my PT Test scores. When the tape test came out I got measured, weighed then always taped - because I was 'overweight' by the height/weight charts (even the year I retired), but never failed the tape. Several times in my career, I was sent for the 'full-immersion survey' in a water tank. Body fat index was 14% every single time.
I'm glad the US Army tested my run ability by using the 2 mile run. I could run for miles and miles, walk all day with 150% of my body weight and often pulled myself straight up 60% slopes with full gear with ruck. Some people are small and 150% of their body weight = 70/75 lbs extra. My large frame's 150% equaled 115/120 lbs extra.
But if you expected me to haul ass? Wasn't going to happen - a sprinter I wasn't. I had to squeeze into tiny areas and I couldn't 'sneak' anywhere with my big feet.
As you can imagine, I have mixed feelings about height and weight charts. I wasn't fat by any means, but I certainly was not 'Standard'. The new focus (I had 20 yrs In and now 26 yrs Out) by the Army using overall Body Composition makes more sense.
Hope I've shed some light on the issue for you. My perspective is as one who had to deal with the old system. My final comment is 'fitness' (aka my sprint comment) is a set of standards.
I got weighed every month I was active duty (including several hospital stays) and in the early days the 1SG and CO would just sign off based on my PT Test scores. When the tape test came out I got measured, weighed then always taped - because I was 'overweight' by the height/weight charts (even the year I retired), but never failed the tape. Several times in my career, I was sent for the 'full-immersion survey' in a water tank. Body fat index was 14% every single time.
I'm glad the US Army tested my run ability by using the 2 mile run. I could run for miles and miles, walk all day with 150% of my body weight and often pulled myself straight up 60% slopes with full gear with ruck. Some people are small and 150% of their body weight = 70/75 lbs extra. My large frame's 150% equaled 115/120 lbs extra.
But if you expected me to haul ass? Wasn't going to happen - a sprinter I wasn't. I had to squeeze into tiny areas and I couldn't 'sneak' anywhere with my big feet.
As you can imagine, I have mixed feelings about height and weight charts. I wasn't fat by any means, but I certainly was not 'Standard'. The new focus (I had 20 yrs In and now 26 yrs Out) by the Army using overall Body Composition makes more sense.
Hope I've shed some light on the issue for you. My perspective is as one who had to deal with the old system. My final comment is 'fitness' (aka my sprint comment) is a set of standards.
(2)
(0)
LCpl (Join to see)
I agree 100 percent. I made height and weight, according to the charts one time. I entered boot camp at 155lbs and only 5'9. After that i was a consistent 185 and had to be taped.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I wouldn’t say the Army focuses more on body composition vs fitness at this point. Obviously the two are intertwined. The upcoming move to the ACFT seems to signal a shift towards more “functional” fitness. The APFT was a decent assessment imho but the upcoming one will be much better. It will be interesting to see how (or if) the weight tables get updated as soldiers put on more muscle mass in order to max the ACFT events.
(1)
(0)
LCpl (Join to see)
I personally don't think it will. I'm new to learning all of this but during my prior service, I saw a lot of changes to the way PT was tested and new requirements were implemented but the tables never changed. I knew guys that were PT studs with maybe a 4% body fat that would fail height and weight and would also bust tape. But they weren't fat bodies.
(0)
(0)
1LT (Join to see)
LCpl (Join to see)
I know the tape test very well and it sucks. I’ve always heard the stories of the “4%” BF guy who busts tape. If you are really that lean, it’d be hard to do. But yea....I hate the tape test. It’s cheap, quick and easy so it’s likely here to stay.
I know the tape test very well and it sucks. I’ve always heard the stories of the “4%” BF guy who busts tape. If you are really that lean, it’d be hard to do. But yea....I hate the tape test. It’s cheap, quick and easy so it’s likely here to stay.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google