Do you think the Army height and weight standards are too strict, too lenient or not accurate?

SFC Anabel Cepero — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:02:35 -0500

I have heard of Soldiers who always have to be taped, even though they are fit. Many say that they don't think the standards are very accurate. Do you think the standards are too strict, too leniant or not accurate?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2014 1:07 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:07:12 -0500

I think there are far better practices than we use in the Army, but since I have been in this is what we have been stuck with.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Feb 25 at 2014 1:11 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:11:09 -0500

Whether or not it is inaccurate is not even a subject of debate. The military has formally acknowledged time and again that it is inaccurate, but, lacking a practical alternative, it is the method we are stuck with.

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2014 1:18 PM

1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:18:55 -0500

I think the standards are a little too unrealistic. Many individuals who are fit and can pass the fitness test are done in by the tape test. I do agree with having high standards, but if you do a tape test against any lineman from any professional football team, almost all of them would pass the fitness part but fail the tape measure miserably.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2014 2:18 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:18:07 -0500

I think there is MAJOR room for improvement when it comes to height/weight standards. However, the thing that irritates me the most is hearing Soldiers complain that they busted tape because they weren't taped properly. If you're that close to being over the percentage limit, then there are things that need to be worked on already.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2014 2:26 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:26:44 -0500

I think the tape is a one size fits all approach, however, different body types are going to be taped differently. If someone has a tiny neck their % will go up as opposed to a larger person with a larger neck. The tape needs an overhaul to something more accurate. If we are going to start throwing people out we better do it with something on point.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2014 3:32 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 15:32:45 -0500

As much as I have seen how retarded the ABCP H&W standards are ( I have taped people here that are "overweight" but have like 10% under the max allowed fat percentage) but unfortunately it's the system that the Army wants to use so we as NCO's the only thing we can do is enforce the standard

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Feb 25 at 2014 3:45 PM

SGM Matthew Quick — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 15:45:40 -0500

These are standards...Soldiers can either conform to the standards or leave the service.

Soldiers (even society in general) will say everything is not fair if it's hard or they cannot achieve a certain standard...Soldiers need to grow up, realize military service is BIGGER than the individual or take their self-serving attitudes away from the military.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2014 6:22 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 18:22:43 -0500

There is a big problem with the Army's general population viewing "overweight" as being the problem. You can make the weight on the screening table and still get flagged for not meeting body fat standards.

The reason the height and weight screening table is so narrow is because making that specific weight at that specific height within that age bracket and gender pretty much guarantees that someone who doesn't look to be over-fat isn't over-fat.

Why does the circumference value suck so much? Because it is the cheapest, repeatable method of estimating body fat percentage for an individual. Everything else requires something more than dimestore fibreglass measuring tape.
I personally am a fan of electrostatic resistance scales that measure body fat percentage as a difference in current dropped over the total mass of tissue as defined by height and weight. This would eliminate the no-neck over-fat population as well. Problem: These scales cost money and require maintenance. Tape is cheap.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2014 7:55 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 19:55:50 -0500

At my height I can't weigh more than 178 or 179 lbs if I'm correct. I've never had a BMI over 10% and usually it is less but I'm always close to the weight limit (fluctuating between 168-178 given the type of PT I'm doing). I have never failed an APFT so if I weigh 180 lbs why should I be taped?

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2014 8:59 PM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 20:59:26 -0500

I think the Marine Corps has the most strict standards for height/weight and body fat standards. Somebody post yours and correct me if I am wrong. As I've grown through the Corps, I went from a lean Marine to a bulk Marine. With this change I went from making weight to being over weight and making body fat percentage. I use to be embarrassed to have to tape and would cut weight like professional athletes do for weigh ins but having to do that 2-4 times a year, I finally gave up trying to make weight and focus on body fat percentage. I don't weigh myself anymore, I measure myself. Here is the standards for males. I try to aim at least 1-2% below my max because you don't want to be borderline, doesn't look good for promotion not to mention the margin for errors. So at first I was trying to shoot for 16% but now I shoot for 17%.

AGE 17-26: 18%
AGE 27-39: 19%
AGE 40-45: 20%
AGE 46+ :21%

Having to be tapped for about 3 years now, I know how inaccurate our measuring system is. I don't disagree with it for its one of the most cost effective ways to gauge your body fat but you have to know your stuff and ensure you do not bloat yourself before and that the measurements are done accurately.

Dont eat a massive meal before hand, consume a ridiculous amount of fluids, or workout before a measurement, you can bloat a lot. With measurements, always have a spotter who knows the regulations and ensure the tape is not pulled too tight or loose and is parallel with the deck for the waist and perpendicular to the axis of the neck. Doing either of these two things wrong can severely alter your measurement. Depending on your height/weight, a half inch can mean 1% body fat difference.

For a bigger Marine like myself, it is not easy, but it's the standard and you must meet it!

Response by SFC Ian Lumgair made Feb 25 at 2014 9:12 PM

SFC Ian Lumgair — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 21:12:33 -0500

They are bull shit and not based on medical or physiological standards of any kind. Not one Sports Medicine doctor of any team in any professional sport uses the Tape test the way the Army does. Its ridicules cookie cutter and lazy. The Army need to take a look at itself and ask is this being honest? Does using something that based on shoddy science reflect the integrity we expect from out troops.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2014 9:45 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 21:45:03 -0500

I would like to know where all the masses of these fit overweight Soldiers are hiding. Majority of the Soldiers I tape. BTW after being an SGL for three years/PSG and 1SG, I have taped a fair share of Soldiers. I promise you majority, about 98% who bust over the allowable percentage are not fit Soldiers and APFT scores easily confirmed. there may be a Soldier who passes APFT, and appear fit but if he does not meet the allowable body fat percentage then he did not meet the standard. Every persons body is different but you can easily change body composition through diet and exercise, especially weight training. Muscle weighs more than fat and more muscle equals less body fat. BLUF, the standard is the standard and it is achievable if you want it bad enough.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2014 10:17 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 22:17:05 -0500

Seeing a lot of "good enough." Is that really what the Army/Military should shoot for if that's the case then why not just change everything to the "good enough" standard? I agree that the standard is set and as a soldier that gets taped it is frustrating but it's the standard.This is an issue for the individuals at higher ranks. The only thing I would ask is there should be more training on this and not just read the reg and that person is good to go and can tape away. NCO's aren't perfect and everyone makes mistakes but when you get taped by one SM and then another and their measurements and BF% are different it's a definite sign that there needs to be class teaching NCO's the correct method of measuring. Good enough is the wrong answer.

Response by SSG Oliver Mathews made Feb 25 at 2014 11:08 PM

SSG Oliver Mathews — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 23:08:50 -0500

I don't see a drastic change in the technology coming any time soon.
That being said, i think there are more effective ways to Tape Male and Female soldiers. I am not a scientist or doctor, but if you look at the system, Females get 3 measurements: Hips Neck and Waist, and males get two: Neck and waist. My thought process is why not measure more points to create a more accurate assessment?

Why not create an algorithm that incorporated the wrist, gorearm, bicep, neck, chest, waist, hips, thighs, calf and ankles or a combination of such points as seen fit.

Where it will not cost any more, it chances the dynamics, it would just take an extra 2-3 minutes.

If a soldiers ankle and calf are the same exact size you can already see that there might be a problem, or if the forearm and bicep/wrist are the same size... so on and so forth.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2014 2:18 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 27 Feb 2014 14:18:54 -0500

I believe that if you want to enforce the standard you should teach NCOs how to tape to standard. I can't believe how many people feel they are capable, but can screw a Soldier within a matter of an inch. Too high, too low, too loose. Where are all these Master Fitness Trainers? I get taped and that's ok, but to get taped by different people and feel like I can do a better job, or show them how to do it is wrong. Also, to have someone tape me and not know what they are doing, but tell me I can't help them, when I have been doing this way longer, also wrong. Finally, if you have to be taped, it isn't necessarily a bad thing, we are all born differently, it is those that don't pass that need to be brought to standard. I have been there and I brought myself out.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2014 2:28 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 27 Feb 2014 14:28:09 -0500

I have always referred to the AWCP and HT/WT as a third grade standard. I have been in almost 13 years and have never passed HT/WT standards. I have never failed tape however. I have never been over 16 percent BMI (according to the Army standard). As you can see from my photo I do not appear to be obese and I am not. I am 210 lbs, workout 6 days a week and no matter my diet or workout routine I will never get down to 179 lbs that my 69" inches is allotted.

I am glad they updated the reg and gave Commander's quicker authority to bar to reenlist/discharge repeat failures.

Response by SGT Thomas Sullivan made Feb 27 at 2014 2:54 PM

SGT Thomas Sullivan — Thu, 27 Feb 2014 14:54:19 -0500

It is not accurate, Period. I am more concerned with appearance while in uniform, PT score, and capability to perform one's job above and beyond.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2014 12:35 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:35:34 -0500

I am also one of those that always got tapped since I joined the military. Even though I don't agree with the method it's still the standard. If you do not meet height and weight you will be taped and if you fail tape you will be enrolled in the ABCP program. I have a few soldiers that get taped and their body fat is around 10-13 percent

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2014 12:45 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:45:41 -0500

I have two opinions on this. I, myself, have always been "lean" and haven't had an issue with height and weight standards. However, I have bulked up at some points and have been 2-3 pounds away from being "overweight". While I know passing the tape standards would be no issue, it's still funny that the standard would say i'm almost overweight. Now, on the flip side, I've seen Joes who are 300+, but they have a fat neck and pass tape. We really have to change this.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2014 1:05 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 06 Mar 2014 13:05:49 -0500

The tape test is out dated and flawed. I mean, how much would it cost just to give units a set of calipers instead?

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2014 9:41 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Apr 2014 21:41:32 -0400

This month I passed the APFT with a 290. At 26 years old and 70 inches, I weighed in at 203 lbs. and was taped at 22% BF, the limit for my age. I certainly do not deny that I could stand to lose a few pounds, but I wonder what exactly are the reasons for the implementation of a BF standard. Is it for aesthetical reasons?

I am aware of the standard and will always meet it; however, I don't rightly understand its purpose.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 28 at 2014 1:26 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 28 May 2014 13:26:59 -0400

Way outdated!!

Response by SGT Kristin Wiley made Oct 15 at 2014 3:10 PM

SGT Kristin Wiley — Wed, 15 Oct 2014 15:10:52 -0400

The standards are not accurate. From my experience 80% of women get taped, are Army women really that overweight or are the standards scientifically inaccurate? I would definitely say inaccurate, women in the military have more muscle than the general population. Muscle weighs more than fat, so I would say that we need to be authorized more weight. I do bodybuilding, and I flucate between 5lbs over my standards to within standards. I would assess that I'm on the average to fit side of army women so in an ideal world the 'average' SHOULD easily fit within standards. My body fat is around 24-26%, but with the Army tape test I measure 28-32% depending on the indivdual taping. What bugs me the most though, is that fatbodies can pass our tape test, while fit individuals get condemned by it. If we aren't going to have an accurate standard, the Army needs to define what a neat and professional appearance is so we can remove those who clearly do not fit in this category.

Response by Sgt Luke Charles made Nov 17 at 2014 10:56 AM

Sgt Luke Charles — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:56:03 -0500

The standards are about health there are exceptions to the rules but that is where the tape measurement comes in. Does any one really think that a person who has a 40 inch waist is fit? What is unscientific about the correlation between waist size and bodyfat level? I see someone using Arnold Schwarzenegger as an example Arnold claims his waist was 32 in so it was probably 34 maybe 36 tops lets remember Arnold took steroids and dedicated his whole life to"looking"fit from his teens until he was about 50. Medically people within those weight ranges are healthier than those outside of it that is not true for each individual but VASTLY true overall.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Nov 17 at 2014 11:11 AM

SGT Richard H. — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 11:11:02 -0500

I had to be taped at pretty much every weigh-in, and I taped out at about 14-16% every time. I'm not really qualified to say for sure that they are inaccurate, but I can definitely say that they don't encompass people who work out well beyond the standard and have a higher weight without a higher body fat content.

Response by SPC Greg Burnett made Nov 17 at 2014 10:00 PM

SPC Greg Burnett — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 22:00:57 -0500

18 year old senior in high school, wrestler, PV2 in the guard, already been to basic.
Went for a body composition test for wrestling to determine what weight we could go down to.
5'10", 200#, came up with 12% with an electronic test where they hooked one lead to our wrist and one to our ankle.
At the time, government health standards called me obese at 175#.
Do the math and my lean body mass was 176#.
Had semi-annual weigh-in that weekend and came up 21% by the tape; 20% allowable although I hadn't finished AIT yet so...
They let me bring in the print out from the other test.
Put me off to the tape real quick like.
5 years later, my college roommate was a biomedical engineering grad student.
He thesis was on body fat testing methods.
His conclusion was that the tape was just slightly more accurate than eyeballing.
I would think the way things are these days there would be some little electronic thingee that could be used.
There's gotta be an app for that. ;-)

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 18 at 2014 4:49 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:49:16 -0500

I Have 100s of pictures of Soldiers considered overweight kicking ass down range. I've seen a PT stud succumb to the pressure and break down. Physical standards are important. But If I were king, I wouldn't kick a stud out because they missed tape by a bit. Some people have skinny necks. If I could change the reg, it would exempt Soldiers that scored a 250+ in the APFT from 600-9. But I'm not king, so I enforce what is regulation, as it is my duty. Back in 1998, there was talk about exempting Soldiers that score a 270+. But that quickly went away. Remember trying to chapter a Soldier for weight in 2002? You couldn't, coz we needed fighters. Why is a soldier good enough to go to war heavy, but not good enough in garrison? My 2 cents.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 13 at 2015 12:02 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 12:02:32 -0400

The tape is not a standard body fat percentage is the standard, screening weights is simply a time saving tool the fact that you need to be taped should have no bearing whatsoever on your perceptions. All bodybuilders need to be taped, but they have low body fat percentages. If you fail your body fat percentage test then pass the screening weight you still need to be taped until you pass the tape test.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 23 at 2015 7:18 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 19:18:30 -0400

I agree that there needs to be a standard and I do not believe that the standard is too strict. However, what they need to change is the taping itself. I have seen people with six pack abdominals fail a tape and people with 40+ inch waists and look disgusting in their uniform pass their tape. I won't say that it is unfair, however, it is HIGHLY inaccurate as (the male standard at least) ws created in 1958 using the science at that time. The US has the most technogically advance military in the world, yet we use these archaic ways to decide if someone is "fit" enough to stay in the Army.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Aug 7 at 2015 2:23 PM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Fri, 07 Aug 2015 14:23:02 -0400

Height and weight don't equal physical fitness. There are plenty of people who are in shape but not fit and there are out of shape people who are for.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 13 at 2015 11:44 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 13 Aug 2015 11:44:06 -0400

I have to be taped every time. I'm in good shape for the most part. I don't mind being taped though. Some can't carry the weight well and could stand to lose a few. Myself included, but I surpass the standards mostly so it shouldn't bare any real weight against anyone as long as they do as well.

Response by CH (CPT) Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 16 at 2015 5:27 PM

CH (CPT) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 16 Aug 2015 17:27:42 -0400

We just had a conversation about this very issue this weekend. I would like to see some sort of exemption for Soldiers who score high on the APFT. if you can score a 270, I don't care if you're built like Danny DeVito. (Plus that would be hilarious to see)

Response by COL John Hudson made Dec 19 at 2015 9:34 AM

COL John Hudson — Sat, 19 Dec 2015 09:34:01 -0500

Deep breath time, folks. This is a professional forum. The Army physical fitness program is as fair as any such program can be. I've already addressed this in at least two other posts...so slow down and consider the following. This program does address exceptions - the individuals who put it together recognized the fact there are human beings out there who are physically outside the 'norm' - hence the TAPING aspect. That is NOT the end. Any unit COMMANDER is the final link, and has the authority to waive results IF - a) the service member meets the "EYE" test by NOT presenting a slovenly or obese appearance b) PASSES the PT test (I did NOT say make a perfect score) and c) performs an acceptable function within the unit (would earn at least a 'meets expectations' level efficiency report). If you fall into this category, go to your unit top NCO and/or Commander and talk to them. Keep in mind this program provides a lengthy time period spread out over months to come up to an acceptable level - why would anyone NOT believe in the fairness of this program? That said, perhaps the focus of this thread is on the wrong aspect...meaning it's not the 'program' some have a problem with but rather the 'person' doing the judging? If that's so, one can request that they be graded by another - preferably a disinterested 3rd party. JCH

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Jul 9 at 2018 5:39 PM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Mon, 09 Jul 2018 17:39:38 -0400

I think that they are somewhat antiqueted,

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 30 at 2018 3:14 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 30 Aug 2018 15:14:33 -0400

I have failed tape I have passed tape its a numbers game. put me next to someone who weighs the same as me and they will look totally different. I have seen people much fatter than me not even have to get taped. like belly hanging out and not get taped.. wtf. then here I am. I am a muscular female. I usually fail cause of my hips.. which are much wider now because I had a kid. surprisingly I weight 20 pound more than I did prepregnancy but clothing is two sizes down. EVERYONE is different. I just know I have to beat the tape every time. BUlk up my neck and try to loose some inches from my wide ass hips. not to mention God gifted me a bubble butt from birth. its unrealistic. so many different body types and I know if I got a caliper test this wouldn't be an issue.

Response by SFC Ralph E Kelley made Aug 30 at 2018 3:28 PM

SFC Ralph E Kelley — Thu, 30 Aug 2018 15:28:35 -0400

Wahoo ... You got me started - I was 230lb, 6 foot tall, never passed tape. Went to be immersion tested semi-annually and came out with an average of 17% body fat every time. I was able to deadlift 250 lbs and do 8 reps. The main problem was in the immersion tank I 'floated' (lung capacity) so they always had me wear a 40 lb vest so I could sink.
The standards are just that - standards - a guide rather than a hard and fast rule. My opinion, expressed with candor and truthfulness was some NCOs and officers were either lazy or unable to understand the 'intent' of the overweight standards was to provide the Services with fit soldiers.
I will say that was only one unit. Every other unit had more sense.