Posted on Apr 13, 2014
Should Height/Weight be Disregarded if the PT Score is High Enough?
271K
2.51K
292
85
85
0
We all know that the Army's Height/Weight system has it flaws, and something I believe that could fix part of it would be making it invalid if the PT score is high enough. My personal opinion is that if you can achieve a 270 with a 90 in each event you shouldn't have to worry if you have too small of a neck for your waistline. I'm interested to see how others feel about this.
APFT
Standards
Height and Weight
Fitness
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 177
0
0
0
This seems to be common sense but we stick system of measurements that was first developed during the great depression. Big guy who can run like a horse and handle his weight, why not.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I wish I could have voted for "the ht/wt system needs an overhaul anyway, but standards for body mass are necessary despite your score." As is though, I voted for option A. I have always had to be taped, under the cut off when I enlisted, over the cut off now. I'll admit to having trouble with my weight and PT in the past (Meaning I was a lazy fatbody who deserved to be discharged). For now however, I view getting taped as a constant reminder of the victory I felt after dropping the weight and raising my PT score.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Jumped the gun here. I was going to say that the BMI needs to be continually enforced regardless of appearance or PT score because a soldier that has excessive amount of fat is still putting himself at risk even if he can move it quickly.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The Marines got it right. That's an oxymoron for being flagged and you have a 280 or higher
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
This has been a topic for discussion for a while now. Obviously there are valid points for both sides. IMO it comes down to looking good in your uniform. Yes a fat Marine/Solider can run a 300 PFT. Yes someone in shape can run a 250. However, when all is said and done, it is about our appearance and what the American people see matters. I know I didn't answer the question but, that is just my opinion. I can see it going either way.
(0)
(0)
SGT John Rauch
but why should appearance matter more than performance? it just doesnt make sense. I can understand in certain MOSs where you have to be under a certain size to actually fit into your workspace but other than that, I would want the guy who is the most capable instead of the guy who just looks capable. pretty only matters in hollywood and last I checked, the military isnt hollywood
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Unfortunately size does matter. It's not just based on performance or looks. If your my battle buddy and you weight 250lbs how am I supposed to carry/drag you to safety if needed? There is a fine line between being a little overweight and performing well and being extremely overweight. This isn't something that is cut and dry. There are hundreds of different cases. It would need to be looked at case by case.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Capt Richard I P.
1SG Michael Blount, I have to respectfully disagree. As I mentioned above in my more topical response, looks don't matter. Combat doesn't care how you look, or "tape" (which is one of the least effective BMI measurements possible short of height/weight). It only cares how you perform. As an organization the military is designed to win combat, ergo all we should care about is what it takes to win.
(0)
(0)
1SG Michael Blount
Capt Richard I P. - sir, I've been in both combat and basic training. I agree with your arguments IRT combat. I don't know about USAF, but USA, particularly in basic training the environment is to get as many people out via regulation as possible. One of those regs has to do with breaking the tape.
(0)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
1SG Michael Blount I too know very little, nearly nothing about the USAF.
I would argue in all training the inherent purpose of the organization should have sole primacy. Combat readiness can be the defining characteristic people must meet. An emphasis on appearance is archaic. If a person can meet standards that our organization has indicated are the most important to accomplish his/her mission, I don't much care about his/her height weight ratio or neck to waist ratio, or caliper reading, or any other arbitrary measure of bodyfat percentage. Performance is the only reasonable measure of a warrior.
I would argue in all training the inherent purpose of the organization should have sole primacy. Combat readiness can be the defining characteristic people must meet. An emphasis on appearance is archaic. If a person can meet standards that our organization has indicated are the most important to accomplish his/her mission, I don't much care about his/her height weight ratio or neck to waist ratio, or caliper reading, or any other arbitrary measure of bodyfat percentage. Performance is the only reasonable measure of a warrior.
(0)
(0)
1SG Michael Blount
Capt Richard I P. - Oh, I concur 100%, sir. I'm just saying the bureaucrats are running the Army now and all they care about is what the paper says. Unfortunately, that's what I'm bound by in a basic training environment. The combat side of me feels otherwise.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I have seen this mentioned/discussed by CSsMs for quite some time while it never gained any traction. While this may not be a bad idea, how many people really would benefit from this change? The real question is, who do you want to pull you out of a overturned/burning vehicle? A fit fatty or a 135 Solider pound X-cross country runner who scores 300 Pts on their APFT that can barely lift their body weight?
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
These standards also effect retention. I have seen an LPN in the Army who could not pass Ht/ Wt or the PT test. Get out of the Army and get a Civilian Job in the same Department of the hospital he was working in as a soldier. Same Job except this time he was a Civilian LPN he was paid more as a Civilian, doing the same job and didn't have the Army Ht Wt or PT issues to deal with.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I think it's a joke in most cases unless you really need it, I know that whenever myself or my former SL who is pretty bulky, whenever we had to get height/weight or even taped when our scores are well above 270 and the fact that you can obviously tell that we're in great shape is just a waste of time
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I believe that there should be a provision whereby a service member that earns at or above 80% in ALL exercise events of their Branch's Physical Fitness assessment should be exempt from Ht/Wt standards.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
We had a guy in my first unit, a wrestler, who kept failing the ht/wt even though he was in no way fat. He finally had to do the pool test to pass.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Perfect example of why I think this is a good idea. I had a SPC, (who is making his UFC debut this Saturday), who could not pass height and weight. He was a scholarship wrestler in college and needed to maintain his height and weight. He also did not pass tape. He had a very high PT score. He was barred from awards and promotions. You would be lucky if you had a guy with half his heart and dedication.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I didn't until I saw it
UFC Fight Night: Mendes vs. Lamas
Event information, results, video, and fighter information for UFC Fight Night: Mendes vs. Lamas.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google