Should army find a new way to fat test soldiers???
Basically, we need a better, faster, more accurate method if we're talking about replacing the way its done now. Otherwise there is no point in changing the system if it is going to make things more difficult and take longer than it does now. Always upgrade, never downgrade....
In my opinion? Yes the military should use 1 standardized system throught all branches and it should be developed in conjuction with civilian health professionals in order to determine the most accurate method possible. We are talking about people's careers and the effects on thousands of family members....having said that service members should do their best so that weight never becomes an issue to begin with.
Realistically, the services will never agree on one standard and the tape is the fastest, cheapest method.
Be careful what you wish for. Tests show that the people who REALLY have to worry about bodyfat percentages, i.e. >20%BF would probably test higher with calipers than circumference.
"A closer analysis of individual data shows a general trend. It seems that the abdominal skin fold method over estimates BF when compared to the seven point method. The abdominal circumference method, on the other hand, underestimates BF when the subject is above average BF according to the seven site method. This "cut off" seemed to be somewhere within 15.59 % BF and 22.68 % BF. When BF was 15.59 % and lower, according to the seven site method, the abdominal circumference method over estimated BF. It can be seen how an greater than normal musculature of the midsection could falsely decrease the LBW calculation therefore increasing the % BF calculation. The over estimation of BF on some calculations and an under estimation of BF on others is most likely responsible for the seemingly high correlation with the seven point method shown above. Despite the ambiguity of the abdominal circumference method, it was thought to be more reliable than the seven site skinfold with those individuals above 22.68 % BF. It is known that the more obese individuals pose a greater threat to the reliability of skinfold measurements. (Lohman and Roche)"
http://www.exrx.net/Testing/BFTestComparisonStudy.html
and reasonably accurate method of assessing changes in body composition
have included skin fold measurements. The seven point skin fold
method is used by many ...
Using the charts at http://www.accumeasurefitness.com/charts.html , a 25 year old male with a, for example, 18mm reading is 18.6 percent bodyfat 1SG.
The caliper that you are talking about using is one designed so that you can use it yourself at home and get a better idea of your fitness. If you are off a fraction of a fraction of an inch in any direction your reading will be completely inaccurate. The reason for the tape over the caliper is the simplicity of it and the ability to train someone to do it. Even with a caliper and a properly trained person doing the testing you are still going to have people who are fit that just hold fat in the wrong spot. Just like everything else in the Army we have to do things for the majority not the minority.
I started in 2013 using a 9 point caliper system (and a trained person measuring) that is almost as good as a water test. The army bodyfat tape test got me at 24%, right on the edge for my age (41), (actually it's 26% I'm so used to <= 40...LOL) while the 9 point bodyfat test got me at 22.6%. This was July of 2013.
Passing an APFT is never an issue, I score around 263 - 275 most times. I've never failed a bodyfat test EVER. Today 2014 using the 9 point bodyfat test I'm at 17% BF and by May I should be at 15%. I have lost 1 inch on my waist.
The big problem is soldiers at all levels (SGT - LTC) don't properly council others on the problem and it isn't your physical training, IT'S YOUR DIET. Pt helps but diet is key and the Army is sadly lacking in diet training.
The tape test can also discourage because when losing weight the last part to go is your waist so you may do all this extra work and not see anything and that is discouraging.
The 9 point BF test can pick this up. You will lose in your arms, neck, face, legs before you lose one inch on your stomach.
Also using a scale is also discouraging because you may lose fat and gain muscle and think nothing happened. My first weight was 246.4 Lbs and at 22.6% bodyfat my bodyfat weight was 55.6 Lbs. Today I'm 245.2 with 17% bodyfat giving me a fat weight of 41.8 Lbs. That's a 13.8 Lb purely fat weight drop.
This is all about physical fitness and we all can do better. but I would say to go to a 9 point system and train all soldiers on how to measure properly. but also I am stressing diet as well and to train all officer and enlisted NCO's on diet.
Will it happen, probably not, we will stick with the tape test because it's easier. But I would recommend all soldiers to check with a 9 point caliper test and use those measurements to track progress.
A good question is how does a soldier calculate his daily calorie in take ?
The general formula for fat loss is basically expend more calories than you intake. But how much ?
Most fitness trainers say a calorie deficit of 500-1000 calories per day. You can also do 1000 by limiting 500 calories in meals and workout burning 500 extra calories. I have experimented with low calorie expenditures and you will like you have no energy and also the body will lower it's metabolism to compensate, and that's what you don't want.
Here is a formula I am using to calculate calories per day.
http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/
I also add an activity factor using the Harris Benedict Equation
http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/harris-benedict-equation/
Mine was 1.2 because I'm a software engineer and sit down most of the day.
So my daily calorie intake was 2688 calories.
Lately I use this number to calculate a 40%/40%/20% for Protein/Carbs/Fat and track these numbers.
Gettng my heart rate zones.
http://www.digifit.com/heartratezones/maximum-heart-rate.asp?Age=41#table
Regardless I'm no expert but am working on it and sharing what I have found so far.