Fat to Fight: Are Current Fitness Standards Good Enough?

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 11 Jul 2015 13:19:58 -0400

"Per Army Regulation 600-9, males are allowed Body Fat percentages from 20-26% based on age. Females are allowed 28-34%."

Pass a PT test, meet height & weight requirements (or comply with these grueling standards). Check those two blocks and you're clear to go eat a cheeseburger pizza covered in Doritos with a six-pack of beer. Every service has a similar standard. When it comes to the health of the force, is that the right standard?

You've encountered diehard adherents to Paleo, Clean Eating and Whole 30. You might even be one of them, because the health benefits are unparalleled. Then you walk into an on-post food court full of fat bombs: Burger King, Taco John, Anthony's Pizza (Go ahead and argue that Subway Chicken & Bacon Ranch Melt on Monterey Cheddar is pushing you to peak fitness).

What is the right fitness standard for your service? How should we shape the on-post environment to support the lifestyle that level of fitness requires?

Response by SFC Stephen King made Jul 11 at 2015 1:26 PM

SFC Stephen King — Sat, 11 Jul 2015 13:26:14 -0400

Fitness Test or standards across the Military all need to be more specific to strength along with job related tasks. The fact is all people have different body types this should be a consideration for the bodyfat standard

Response by SPC Margaret Higgins made Jul 11 at 2015 1:37 PM

SPC Margaret Higgins — Sat, 11 Jul 2015 13:37:18 -0400

I was very overweight when I entered the service. I had huge physical challenges in Basic Training. I started out at the end of the line; while running the PT track. I ended up at the beginning of the line.
I was immediately chosen to be Squad Leader; when I got to AIT. I guess, because I was in such good shape.
At that point, I have never felt in better shape in my life. I felt great!
I believe that everyone in the military should be their ideal weight.

Response by SSG Robert Webster made Jul 11 at 2015 1:42 PM

SSG Robert Webster — Sat, 11 Jul 2015 13:42:19 -0400

I'll answer that with a YES. The standards are not the problem. You could strip all of the junk food items out of the dining facilities, and the junk food vendors out of the Exchange and it still will not effect the problem that you are alluding to. You could even require that a soldier only eat 3 combat meals a day in the form of MRE's, C-Rations, or any other form of combat meal and you will still have a problem with obesity and individuals being overweight.

The key is education. In this realm it would include diet, exercise, and appropriate health care as needed. These four items have almost always been a stated part of physical fitness in the modern era as stated in several older, updated, and new manuals in this subject area.

Are the manuals not available to the soldiers, NCO's, and Officers of todays Armed Forces?

Taking care of soldiers is a primary responsibility of all NCO's and Officers, is this responsibility being abdicated? Teaching and mentoring is a responsibility of all NCO's and Officers, or has that changed in the new and more modern Armed Forces?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 11 at 2015 1:48 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 11 Jul 2015 13:48:55 -0400

It's not the standards that are the problem, it's enforcement of them. With that said, this seems to be changing. I've seen several people get politely asked to retire over the last year(O-4s and O-5) because they couldn't make weight/tape. For years it was kind of overlooked, especially (it seems) on the medical side. But doesn't look like it is anymore.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 11 at 2015 2:05 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 11 Jul 2015 14:05:47 -0400

Our APFT doesn't measure strength. It measures our muscular endurance based in a percentage of our body weight based on the specific exercise we're performing. Whether we maintain standards for the fitness tests or transition to a newer version that's tailored more to individual body styles, muscular endurance still needs to be maintained.

Different body types process foods differently. I have no problem maintaining a higher than average APFT score while eating nothing but crap and focusing my PT on being able to do a given task for a long duration as opposed to how much weight I can lift.

In my experience overseas, how strong I am has not come in to play. Our patrols requires us to be able to endure hours of movement on foot with what we felt we needed on our backs. I feel as though history has also shown that endurance plays a key role in success.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 11 at 2015 2:30 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 11 Jul 2015 14:30:28 -0400

There are a few things you have to consider. I hate healthy food. I love Taco Bell and will eat there often. I also love coke. But do to my lifestyle choices I have to radically off set those. For me that means hours in the gym and hour long runs. But I realize the need for balance. If I didn't eat so bad I would most likely have a six pack. But dem' chicken quesadillas keep getting in the way. But I don't have any issues with my fitness at all. I consistently score above 270. Now, I do get taped. I blame for the fact that I lift also.

But what we have so much of an issue with is a lack of understanding in how we eat and how our style affects our performance. Do I abuse the system. I do. I don't disagree. I should eat better so I could run less. But I do realize that I have to balance it out. I don't eat so bad that I consistently gain weight and if I can't get to the gym to burn the calories I intake less. We need to really help our soldiers with this. If a soldier is failing at PT it will be their lack of motivation when it comes to fitness and their over indulgence on food. If they could just find that balance and maintain we wouldn't be where we are today.

On a side note the worst I have got so far was getting up to 220 knowing I was going to deploy to Iraq. I should be about 185-190. But I knew I was going to missing all that food. But while deployed I dropped to about 185. I also did my 2 mile run in 11:59. At our base I came in 7th on a 10 mile run with a time of 1 hour and 14 mins. So I made up for it. At least until I got home.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 11 at 2015 3:28 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:28:53 -0400

The issue with trying to introduce new healthier places is that the current options have long standing contracts with military posts. In my personal opinion, we should eliminate a majority of these places if we are indeed trying to promote a more fit service. However, this could be problematic as some posts have the only available options in desolate locations. How can we change this culture and solve both dilemmas?

Very Respectfully,
1LT Krohn

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 11 at 2015 7:35 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 11 Jul 2015 19:35:07 -0400

Set the standards required for combat readiness.
If people can met those standards their size should not matter.
Pretty sure there are plenty of folks out there with 40in waists that can kick ass as well as the ones with a 39.5in waist.

Again set the standards......then fat/skinny, tall/short it does not matter you either met them or don't.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 11 at 2015 7:54 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 11 Jul 2015 19:54:58 -0400

Well, the standard is the standard. The army says, you are a fully capable killing machine ready to rain death up America's enemies if you can get a 60 in each APFT event. If after meeting that requirement a service person wishes to engage in high intensity calorie intake, cool. Just understand in 12 months you have to pass it again. This tends to become problematic as one gets older. Is this bad for the army? Na. Most 18-28 year olds need calories and are on a see food diet any way. And,all of us healthy diet people avoid the junk food anyway

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 11 at 2015 11:07 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 11 Jul 2015 23:07:46 -0400

It’s pretty bad on the NG side as well. We work with a soldier and really try to give them every opportunity. I have soldiers working 60, 70, and 80 hours a week. I average 4-5 days a week on a 13 hour shift surrounded by a 1 hour commute each way. Couple that with one week I’m on days, the next I’m on nights. I find time to run, but honestly, not enough. I NEED to run more, for my waist and my PT score. I want to run more, but my body screams of exhaustion. When I’m on nights as I am this week, I get home at 0800-0815, usually just in time to run the girls to daycare and the other to the barn if she has riding lessons that day. I get back home anywhere from 0900-1000, prep my meals for the next shift and go to sleep. I’m back up by 1500 at the latest if I was even able to sleep that much. Take a shower and do it again. Working days is just the opposite except I’m getting up at 0300 and getting home at 2000. Spend an hour or two with my girls and kiss the wife and it’s off to sleep. Fitness is a challenge, but believe it or not I still manage to run 2-3 times a week. 2-2.5 miles is usually all my body can handle because let’s not forget the grass needs to be cut, gutters cleaned, and the girls want to go bike riding. My point isn’t pity me, it’s just that you have to find a way. Maybe you won’t reach the standards you want, but you’ll reach the standards you need. I won’t have to work these hours forever, only about another year. Then my PT will be back to where I want it.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2015 6:19 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 06:19:42 -0400

It drives me nuts when I go into a DFAC and there's all the signs to "Go Green," then get to the counter all of the main options are labeled red. That doesn't help, Army!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2015 7:20 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 07:20:55 -0400

I support the standards. My only problem is that I don't understand the science behind the tape test. I'm all for the prescribed body fat percentages. But too many times I've seen the fat body with a fat neck who is 'good.' While there's a somewhat pudgie kid with skinny neck who is not. I've never understood this. Fortunately with a little heart provided, I can usually help the pudgie kid meet tolerance and the scare was enough to keep them in tolerance.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2015 8:09 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 08:09:07 -0400

The Army (and military in general) can be a lot smarter when it comes to fitness and fat standards. I am a huge proponent of Soldiers being physically able to do their jobs. That explains why combat arms and those branches who directly support them (combat medic, observer, etc.) have a stringent fitness requirement.

However, this does NOT explain why we as a military bleed our own talent when it comes to jobs like cyber, dental corps, lawyers, or finance and administrative personnel by holding them to a fitness and fat standard. What's the point of having cyber Soldiers take PT tests? We hire them to make sure the Chinese can't hack our servers. We hire dentists and pay for their dental school to take care of the CAT III and IV. Does it matter how fat they are if they can do their jobs?

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2015 11:22 AM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:22:02 -0400

Though the current BF Indexes are clearly discriminatory for males in the Armed Forces, it forces men to stay in a far more fit and trim physical condition. Allowing females regulation-sanctioned permission to pack on several extra pounds of girth is detrimental to them and to the overall battle readiness of the unit. I have seen what 34% looks like on some women in uniform, and it is neither professional nor smart.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 14 at 2015 12:59 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Jul 2015 12:59:44 -0400

I think our standards are too lax for us to be resilient warriors, but we cannot get everyone to meet the standards we have, so making them more stringent doesn't seem like it would work.

I am sure for smaller/"elite" units, then are able to hold people to higher standards (since everyone there had to be dedicated to getting there), but with larger organizations, its (in my experience) not realistic to think everyone in the group will excel at PT or body composition. I attribute a lot of it to the declining physical wellness of American society.

Just my .02.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 15 at 2015 7:21 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 19:21:09 -0400

I am phat but I am semi-sexy.

Response by SFC Ralph E Kelley made Aug 3 at 2018 6:45 PM

SFC Ralph E Kelley — Fri, 03 Aug 2018 18:45:35 -0400

I remember being 6', 230 lbs 17% body fat, maxing out 500 on the old five-event APFT and still being sent to Gorgas Hospital in Panama everytime we weren't in the field or deployed. The reason was I didn't pass height/weight scale or tape test.
It went on for 7 months (always immersed at 17-18%) until the Hospital's Master Chief (Army Hospital but the immersion tank was run by the Navy) brought it up to the Hospital's Director. My CO and 1SG had to 'see' him about interpreting regulations as opposed toactual soldier fitness.
Pretty sure they didn't even get cussed at but afterwards they did display an understanding that the written regulations are a guide. I had met the "Commander's (read as the Army Surgeon General's) Intent."