How do you think the new Army Body Composition Program (ABCP) will affect the force? Why?

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Jan 2016 22:02:35 -0500

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 20 at 2016 10:45 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Jan 2016 22:45:27 -0500

What's new?

Response by COL Charles Williams made Jan 20 at 2016 11:11 PM

COL Charles Williams — Wed, 20 Jan 2016 23:11:50 -0500

Can you share the new changes? SGT Private RallyPoint Member

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jan 21 at 2016 12:37 AM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 00:37:59 -0500

How much will it weigh?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 21 at 2016 1:50 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 01:50:43 -0500

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.

Response by SGT Duane Severa made Jan 21 at 2016 2:22 AM

SGT Duane Severa — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 02:22:50 -0500

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.

Response by SSG Oliver Mathews made Jan 26 at 2016 5:42 AM

SSG Oliver Mathews — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 05:42:09 -0500

I believe the basis of the system was never to actually measure perfect body fat... If you look at what people are supposed to be, versus what they are, it points to the ABCP being more focused on maintaining a certain body type in the military.

So as to say that if you have a soldier that is Extremely well built (Muscular) or the overweight both get the same treatment. If a soldier is so large whether it be from lifting at the gym versus eating to much you run into the same issue... The inability of your peers to move you in the event that you are injured. If the Army maintains a size aspect it limits the chances of the army having a 6 foot tall person weighing 250lbs. Add your gear (80ish pounds) on to the body weight and now your buddy has to move you 330lbs of you... plus his body weight plus gear...

And i get it... there are people that join at 100lbs with a brick in their pocket. and guys that are naturally 200lbs...

This is just my take on it... I could be wrong... probably am... but its the way i understand the ABCP

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2016 9:50 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 09:50:51 -0500

Honestly, I do not understand why a soldier is still subject to the height/weight requirements after they have proven to be more than capable of passing the APFT. I have consistently been taped despite having the 2nd highest female APFT scores in my unit, it is a constant stress that I find unnecessary. Not only do I think we should adopt the new electronic handheld BMI readers (they are fool proof and less time consuming) but I also think this step should only apply to soldiers who have failed the APFT due to possibly being overweight. NFL line backers come to mind, I am sure they would fail the Army's weight and tape requirements but are in peak physical shape.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2016 10:30 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 10:30:17 -0500

The ABCP has its challenges I agree. I think it's even more challenging for females. However, I do think there is a rational solution; I've thought this for years. What if the Army incentivizes the ABCP? For example, they can pick a number, lets say 80%. If you score 80% or more on each event of your APFT, then you are exempt from ABCP. I think this works great in a variety of ways; 1) for those who are muscular, but don't have the neck measurement, or simply don't want to pass tape saying they are 20% when they really are 8%, it let's them off the hook and relieves the anxiety. 2) for others who are stocky like many of our fellow FA Gunners that need to carry heavy munitions or those who simply find, because of their body proportions, it is difficult to pass the tape test, it can give them the incentive to increase their APFT score. This is a Win Win. It entices increased activity leading to fit Soldiers, which should be the number one focus.

Response by LTC Marc King made Jan 26 at 2016 11:01 AM

LTC Marc King — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 11:01:44 -0500

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....

Response by SPC Jose Rojo made Jan 26 at 2016 11:18 AM

SPC Jose Rojo — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 11:18:55 -0500

This only picks on enlisted. Whayt about Generals with big guts n dont do pt test. Lead by example start at the top to show they are fair.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2016 8:22 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 20:22:18 -0500

I think the issue is the method of deliver, not the program itself. Professional appearance and ability to perform are similar faces to the same coin. Professionalism.

However, the body measurement vs height math equation used for figuring BMI is beyond disappointing. There are much more accurate methods (such as water displacement or calipers). The argument always seems to be the cost of new equipment and training how to use it. Well... we do that every year, in nearly every aspect of our careers. How many new uniforms have we gone through now?

And how is a bigger neck the tie breaker? Someone who is obese will put on more size in their neck, than someone slightly overweight. Yet, the guy slightly overweight will come out as a higher body fat percentage, using AR 600-9 math. You also tend to lose neck girth first, when dropping weight, slowing down the progressing to come off of an ABCP flag.

Just my 2 cents.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2016 12:28 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 12:28:26 -0500

I think we should use what the Canadian Military uses, pass the PT test you are good to go ( no taping or weigh ins). If we can have out of shape, overweight Generals why not the rest of the Military, as long as they are physical fit and can do there mission.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 11 at 2017 12:35 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:35:00 -0500

I am very curious how the new PT test will effect height and weight standards. The new PT test seems to be geared towards Soldiers who can lift more weight.