Should AR 600-9 be re examined?

2015-03-26T11:32:28-04:00

Please allow me rant about AR 600-9. I served from 1989 to 2005 and was always under threat of being flagged due to weight. I always passed the tape, but it was a pain in the rear. Throughout my Army career I maintained high AFPT scores never scoring under 280. I even was a triathlete until becoming 100% disabled in 2005. Now my son is active duty Army and faces the same challenge and I would venture to say he is in better condition than I was at his age. Due to genetics we have a large upper body and chest, which adds to body weight. My waist was never over 31 so the tables are flawed. Don’t even start me on the rant as to how inaccurate the Army tape test is.

Here is my question, if the Army can spend god knows what on studies determining what the PT uniform looks like, why can we not look at the accuracy of the current weight tables in relation to AFPT and a real body fat measure?

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 26 at 2015 11:47 AM

2015-03-26T11:47:54-04:00

The height/weight chart is not a perfect solution for everyone. It never will be. However, what % of service members is it a "good fit" for? Is it 85%?

For the "15%" that it isn't a good fit, does the taping alternative "adequately" address that issue?

Now, Height/Weight is one aspect of Physical Fitness, but it is not the complete portion. Just like Personal Appearance is a portion of it. Removing Height/Weight could adversely affect Personal Appearance, even though someone maintains a high first class PFT. Just like removing the ability to tape could.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2015 11:56 AM

2015-03-26T11:56:47-04:00

Things like this needs to be introduced at the recruiter level and through BCT and AIT. Soldiers don't get taped in AIT and it's kind of unfair throwing them to the wolves. First pt test in the unit and they are getting flagged for failing tape. They need to start informing Soldiers as early as possible.
But as of now the standard is the standard. Soldiers need to learn and know their bodies as far as nutrition and weight gaining and losing.

Response by PO1 Dustin Adams made Mar 26 at 2015 12:11 PM

2015-03-26T12:11:03-04:00

With an ongoing RIF, this is just another tool to par down the size of the force. Plus with budget constraints I don't see any of the services wanting to take the time or spend the money to properly train personnel in other more accurate methods of measuring body fat (calipers.)

But I can sympathize with your struggle, nothing like being fit but "fat".

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Mar 26 at 2015 12:35 PM

2015-03-26T12:35:04-04:00

Remember that the tables (and other BMI indexes) are based off of an idealized "normal" person...AKA a mesomorphic white male. So folks like you and me who fall out of that body type get screwed (I am a short stocky Asian who's built more like a mini-lineman). But the tape test is cheap and quick to do. Could we do more exacting tests? Yes, they exist. But they are also more expensive to do.

Response by LCpl Rustin Poorboy made May 30 at 2015 9:21 PM

2015-05-30T21:21:37-04:00

I concur I was always double rations barely making weight because I'm lanky built but never had trouble hauling my gear now at 35 yrs old I wish I was that size lol

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2015 12:51 PM

2015-06-22T12:51:21-04:00

As I have said in other posts, appearance standards do not fight wars and only effect recruiting posters and neato recruiting videos with dragons and swords. We should focus on fitness and not fatness. Just like there are high speed NCOs that are almost statistically idiots, there can be high speed NCOs that happen to wear size 42 pants. They still lead.

We already took down the barrier against color, gender, and orientation. Why continue to prohibit those who happen to be larger than you in the waist?

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2015 4:36 PM

2015-06-22T16:36:00-04:00

I've been an advocate of tossing the height and weight standards for years. I would like to see a system where 600-9 is gone completely but we raise the minimum passing score on the APFT to 70 points in each event rather than 60.

Or, keep the height and weight but if you get above a certain score (say 240), then you don't have to worry about it. THAT is incentive to be better at PT.