Posted on Jan 20, 2016
SGT Cable Systems Installer/Maintainer
37.7K
117
48
7
7
0
Posted in these groups: F6f0e119 ABCPArmysgt SGT
Avatar feed
Responses: 11
Votes
  • Newest
  • Oldest
  • Votes
MAJ FAO - Europe
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.
(26)
Comment
(0)
LTC Eric Coger
LTC Eric Coger
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
MAJ FAO - Europe
MAJ (Join to see)
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
LTC Eric Coger
LTC Eric Coger
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
MAJ FAO - Europe
MAJ (Join to see)
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SGT Duane Severa
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)
Comment
(0)
MAJ FAO - Europe
MAJ (Join to see)
>1 y
SGT Duane Severa So, there’s not a “height/weight” standard. There never has been. There has always been a “body composition” standard that established upper limits for body fat percentage.
(1)
Reply
(0)
COL Business Development
COL (Join to see)
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
MAJ FAO - Europe
(1)
Reply
(0)
SGT Wesley Strong
SGT Wesley Strong
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Water Treatment Specialist
6
6
0
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.
(6)
Comment
(0)
CPT Health Services Administration
CPT (Join to see)
>1 y
I disagree. We have a tenancy to weigh/tape at the same time we do an APFT, so wet lump them together. They are however mutually exclusive and governed by different regs. A soldier should not be able to look like Fat Albert just because they can pass the PT test.
Don't get me wrong, I think tapping is a terrible method. When fat soldiers with huge necks can circumvent the system, or Preparation-H and Saran Wrap. There is a problem, but giving waivers for PT isn't the answer.
(1)
Reply
(0)
MAJ Billi-Jean King
MAJ Billi-Jean King
>1 y
There are more efficient ways of measuring body fat than taping. Frankly, taping does NOT actually measure body fat. Unfortunately, I think most soldiers would balk at being "pinched" for a skin-fold caliper, and I doubt that the Army wants to spend $$$ on calipers. But it is accurate, dependable, and repeatable. I hope that the Army does a better job of consulting health professionals and coming up with a "happy medium" so-to-speak with standards and benchmarks for weight, health, and fitness.
(2)
Reply
(0)
CPT Health Services Administration
CPT (Join to see)
>1 y
PFC Charlie Sanders - as I stated, the APFT and HT/WT are governed by different regs and are separate standards. Body composition should be considered, but tapping is antiquated and should be replaced with a better method and better science. I don't think someone should get a waiver for PT scores, they should meet both standards.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SSG Small Arms/Artillery Repairer
SSG (Join to see)
>1 y
CPT (Join to see) - sir here is my issue . We all pretty much agree that the tape test is not a good idea correct ? I can see the fat Albert argument also but is a soldier is physically fit by army standards say a 260 why are we bothering with 600-9? I understand pt test and body composition fall under 2 different regulations but they still go hand in hand to me. I get taped everytime and I have a high pt score ; I got it we need standards but we are not even taping soldiers according to the regulation it is a system where if I am taping u and I like u then u pass if I don't like u you may or may not pass. Until the army can get something that works I say leave the 260 and above pt scores alone .
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Avatar feed
How do you think the new Army Body Composition Program (ABCP) will affect the force? Why?
MAJ Human Resources Officer
4
4
0
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.
(4)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
COL Charles Williams
2
2
0
Can you share the new changes? SGT (Join to see)
(2)
Comment
(0)
SSG Aviation Operations Specialist
SSG (Join to see)
>1 y
It's just the 2013 AR 600-9 he was referring to
(0)
Reply
(0)
SGT Cable Systems Installer/Maintainer
SGT (Join to see)
>1 y
Sir, I am referring to the changes outlined in AR 600-9, based on a posting to Armytimes.com and the actual reg. I would prefer not to place excerpts from the regulation onto Rallypoint. However, I brought about this question in order to gain feedback more so on what current and former Soldiers and today's supporters of the Army think about no change to the actual measurement process used to gain body fat percentages (i.e. tape), yet changes to other areas of concern within the program. I think there should be a technological advancement in how body fat percentage is calculated, such as the use of up-to-date body fat percentage measurement tools in order to reflect accuracy in fat percentage assessments. Do you have any insight on this matter sir?
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Platoon Sergeant
1
1
0
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.
(1)
Comment
(0)
SGT Cable Systems Installer/Maintainer
SGT (Join to see)
>1 y
I am 100% behind the notion to rely on more accurate methods such as water displacement and/or calipers. Problem is, with the way the mission set is, that will take too much time from the Armys' daily schedule. Not to mention cost. I just do not see the Army going that route. Instead, we stand to lose more money putting a Soldier in uniform just to un-blouse him/her after program violation based on inadequate results or procedure.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SFC Platoon Sergeant
SFC (Join to see)
>1 y
Agree and disagree about mission set vs time in the daily schedule. 1st, we're Soldiers 24/7. But, that's actually beside the point. Fat calipers are fairly inexpensive (it's basically a micrometer made to pinch skin & fat at specific locations on the body) and the tables used to figure body fat are pretty quick-reference. It may actually be faster than the tape method. Water displacement would require some place to set up a tub with measurements marked on the side. Again, pretty quick.

But to compare it to what we spend on replacing lost or unserviceable tape measures... I think it about averages out.
(1)
Reply
(0)
MSG Bob Brown
MSG Bob Brown
>1 y
I had a Soldier get chaptered after he lost 30lbs on the program because he "got fatter", that is, his neck shrank and so the math said his BF% went up.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SFC Platoon Sergeant
SFC (Join to see)
>1 y
MSG Bob Brown I too have seen it first hand. I had a Soldier lose a ton of weight, but couldn't come off the program because he couldn't pass tape. He was a damn good Soldier, raised his PT score by over 50 pts in 6 months. Ended up ETSing with no award because of the flag.

Now he's a workout BEAST, going to college up north.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
MAJ Company Commander
0
0
0
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.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
LTC Battalion Physician Assistant
0
0
0
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.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Jose Rojo
0
0
0
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.
(0)
Comment
(0)
COL Business Development
COL (Join to see)
>1 y
One thing to remember is that a general officer is usually in his or her 50s. As we get older we are more likely to gain weight as our basil metabolic rate decreases. This is why the standards are lower as you age. I'm not making excuses but you can't compare a 50 year old to a 20 year old.
(2)
Reply
(0)
SFC Platoon Sergeant
SFC (Join to see)
>1 y
SPC Jose Rojo You may want to actually read FM 7-22 and AR 600-9. At certain ages (50?) you can be exempt from taking an APFT, there is a reason for this. Also, it doesn't just pick on the enlisted, I've seen many Officers (below General level) flagged for ABCP. Just because you don't see it at the Platoon level, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Oliver Mathews
0
0
0
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
(0)
Comment
(0)
CW4 Marine Deck Officer
CW4 (Join to see)
>1 y
Way back when this program started the dunk tank and other forms were not around. The tape was the best & cheapest/easiest method available. Look back to WWII, body building and fitness was not as popular as it is now. I don't believe not having a big guy in great shape was a thought behind this program. Interesting point of view though
(1)
Reply
(0)
SGT Cable Systems Installer/Maintainer
SGT (Join to see)
>1 y
I just conducted study and did a paper on this topic. Back in World War I, the Army cared about load-bearing capability when they needed Soldiers. Other than that, the focus was Soldiers looking like Soldiers with a height minimum. The Army believed, in terms of weight to height, if you were too short, you were not fit to carry a load. If you were too tall, you were also projected out of tolerance based on weight to height. Plus, it cost too much to put you in uniform. The Army did not want to pay for other means for determination if a Soldier was fit to fight or not. Now, the Army is still using those same charts/mechanisms for determination used way back when. The Army and Soldiers suffer now because of it.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Aviation Operations Specialist
0
0
0
What's new?
(0)
Comment
(0)
SGT Cable Systems Installer/Maintainer
SGT (Join to see)
>1 y
Well, there have been some changes made to the program aside from the name change from "Army Weight Control Program" to the "Army Body Composition Program". Here is a helpful link to provide those changes: http://archive.armytimes.com/article/20130708/CAREERS/307080022/New-rules-cut-loopholes-body-fat (hence, copy and paste, or see below). Nonetheless, according to Army Times, "The change: No loopholes anymore. Policies and All Army Activities are brought under one umbrella with specific requirements on soldiers and commands.

A commander now has three working days to “flag” a soldier who fails to meet standards and two working days from that to notify and enroll the soldier in the Army Body Composition Program. A soldier who is flagged is not promotable; will not be assigned to command, command sergeant major or first sergeant positions; and is not authorized to attend military schools or institutional training courses."

There is no change to what some say is the most contributing factor: the instruments used to conduct weigh and tape.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SSG Aviation Operations Specialist
SSG (Join to see)
>1 y
Yeah that's from 2013. The reg is better now spells out what has to be done by the cdr and Soldier and makes both sides accountable. They will not go away from the tape test because it's too convenient. I am a life long borderline guy it's a reality some people have to deal with if your not willing to stay within the regs your asking for a ticket out. Short chunky soldiers are drawing the short straw but that's life your gotta deal with it. The 2013 changes give the soldiers the benefit with how the measurements are taken but I think better care needs to be taken to make sure someone that is trained ie. MFT do the tape that's the preferred Administrator for the reg as well as doing the tape on a different day than the day of the PT TEST that also helps with better scores. I know the "fatty" haters are going to jump all over this and say the same old bs about having a 100 pt Soldier and all that but that's my opinion. Commanders need to look at the reg better and assign someone to do the tape as it's usually a random person doing the Pt test and not someone trained. And the soldiers need to be accountable make the life changes and stay under.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.