Posted on Jan 20, 2016
How do you think the new Army Body Composition Program (ABCP) will affect the force? Why?
36K
117
57
7
7
0
ABCP
SGT
Responses: 13
26
26
0
Army Times recently ran an opinion piece by a major deriding the methods used for measuring body composition. I have it on good authority that Army Times plans to run a follow-up segment on this topic presenting various points of view (ie, we should change the way this is done vs. the current way is the best thing ever). We've seen through other examples how popular opposition/support can lead to change---ie, the cancelling of Tops in Blue and the U.S. Army Soldier Show, black socks with PT uniforms, etc). If we want the Army / DoD to change this in a meaningful way----let's use the opportunities presented by social media and other avenues (in a responsible manner, of course) to push the issue. If the SMA cares enough about the opinions of Soldiers to let us wear black socks, perhaps if enough folks voice their opinion and provide potential solutions to the methodology problem, a change could be considered.
Here's my take on this:
The the tape test:
1) is based on data collected in the 1950s and metrics developed from that data in the 1980s;
2) uses very limited science that routinely produces drastically inaccurate results;
3) ignores the fact that in the last 30 or 40 years technology that very accurately measures body composition has been developed and, gasp, is already used by the Army and other Services in Army Wellness Centers and equivalents);
4) Leads--sometimes--to the involuntary separation of Servicemembers in which the US Government has invested an enormous amount of resources. Think about how much it costs to train an artilleryman, or a Navy submariner, or a pilot, or any one of the hundreds of other specialists in the military. Involuntarily separating these folks--even in small numbers--based on inaccurate results from the tape test is a giant waste of resources.
Here's my take on this:
The the tape test:
1) is based on data collected in the 1950s and metrics developed from that data in the 1980s;
2) uses very limited science that routinely produces drastically inaccurate results;
3) ignores the fact that in the last 30 or 40 years technology that very accurately measures body composition has been developed and, gasp, is already used by the Army and other Services in Army Wellness Centers and equivalents);
4) Leads--sometimes--to the involuntary separation of Servicemembers in which the US Government has invested an enormous amount of resources. Think about how much it costs to train an artilleryman, or a Navy submariner, or a pilot, or any one of the hundreds of other specialists in the military. Involuntarily separating these folks--even in small numbers--based on inaccurate results from the tape test is a giant waste of resources.
(26)
(0)
LTC Eric Coger
No matter what we might wish or want, the reality is that when a leader walks into a room they are judged in part by their appearance, neatness of uniform (to include "SWAG"), haircut, body type, etc. If you can't PT or appear that you can't, you have a disadvantage. Some of this is due to military conditioning, but a lot of it is deeper than that. We should primarily promote and retain based on capability, but we cannot 100% discount the realities of human nature and perception. How you look does matter. If you look fat, you will be judged negatively. We need to look at the total Soldier (Sailor, Marine, Airman, etc), but we are getting smaller, we need people who can do it all; this is a way to generally easily identify under-performing members. Is it ever wrong? Yes, but it is right more often than not.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
LTC Eric Coger I agree with all of what you said about appearance mattering. I'll disagree if your last comment is about the DA Photo. Presenting information (race, gender, age, etc, ie, those things which in the "real' world are basis for discrimination) to a board responsible for HR processes (promotion, retention, etc) is just wrong, because it allows the entry of bias into the process. I'm all for quantifying on one's records how fit or unfit they are (say, by having APFT score cards be part of one's records, or at least points per event, as well as some indication of body composition, as long as it didn't indicate gender or age).
(0)
(0)
LTC Eric Coger
MAJ (Join to see) - I agree 100%. Block out the face, cover the details about gender and race, etc. But would you also go into all of the OERs/NCOERs and redact all gender pronouns and names? That would be harder. But we can be trained to write evals without using names and gender pronouns. After board results are determined (but before they are released and confirmed) the board looks at demographics of those selected, there is a "quota" system to an extent but it only goes one way and it is discriminatory, not sure how to compensate for that part, but these are steps in the right direction.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
LTC Eric Coger I think we'd need to black out gender specific pronouns and names in previous reports/documents, and set a new standard that dictated the use of "this NCO" or "this officer" or "this Soldier" in place of names and gender-specific pronouns. I also don't think we should even use a DA Photo, simply because doing so shows race and gender. Even if you blacked-out the hands and head, females still have different uniforms. As all the information that is shown about the uniform is easy to demonstrate through other means (ORB/ERB, PT score, body composition, etc), I just don't see the need for a DA Photo. Race and gender and the like are blocked out on ORB/ERB for boards for purposes of preventing bias, but showing the DA Photo circumvents this. Thanks for the comment.
(0)
(0)
9
9
0
I never met the height/weight standard while I served because I was muscular. It's disappointing that this can still be a challenge today. Fitness comes in a lot of shapes and sizes.
(9)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
He's talking about the screening weight which is also based on the data you mentioned. The body composition evaluation using the tape test is then used if a Soldier does not meet the screening weight. If a Soldier does not meet the body composition standard then they will continue to be evaluated using the tape test until they meet the standard or are separated. That being said if a person is not "average" they may not be below the screening weight and will have to be taped which as the Army Times research showed can be off by up to 20%.
(4)
(0)
SGT Wesley Strong
I was always right on the verge and I maxed my PT test at 290 or above since AIT, most times it was 220+. People have different body types. I have been considered close to overweight since about year 3 of the Army by "conventional" standards that were put in place in the 60's and 70's. The body types have changed tremendously in those 40-50 years and the "average" is much larger than what had been considered "ideal or average" back then. Times have changed, the standards need to change to reflect that, especially for the folks who passed or excelled in the APFT.
(2)
(0)
6
6
0
So here comes the turd in the punchbowl... from the Gray Beard! How will the Army deal with Body Composition when the soldier has the body parts of both genders. I hesitate to say male part or female parts (gender neutral is the order of the day) because as I recall the standards for body fat allowances were different for the genders but since everything is going gender natural how is this all going to get resolved... Chicks with d***'s and guys with b***b's Body Composition? ---just saying....
(6)
(0)
PFC (Join to see)
that's a good question about the gender neutrality, i wonder did good ole secdef carter think about that one or any one else ?
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google