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
While I agree that the system is flawed and the Army BFI test is quite inaccurate, I don't believe it should be left to the judgement of a soldiers COC if they're out of standard or not. Although the standard for the APFT is clear and the majority of units maintain the standards we would be foolish to believe this is the case everywhere. By giving a COC the final judgement call on go or no go we would take away the quantitative measure throughout the army. This could also lead to a nightmare of appeals from soldiers deemed out,of standard
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
I feel as if the height/weight and entire pt test are complete waste of time. I watch a soldier who is a 120 pounds soaking wet in boots and Utes run a 11:20 2 mile max push up and sit ups and never even get blinked at for height weight but on the opposite end of the spectrum its always trouble. I feel as if the Army and all branches in general need to turn to a more combat related scenario because if a soldier who is 120 and 150 with full kit needs to pick up a soldier 200 plus and get him or her out of combat they are going to be hurting
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I've spoke on this before on RP. Good on you if you can kill the PT test, however, if your appearance is being affected by your weight, you should consider slimming down. The perception that you are fat and lazy is going to outweigh (pun intended) your physical capabilities.
(0)
(0)
PO2 (Join to see)
To answer the question though, I think the testing should be revamped. The current system is simply convenient, cheap, and easily distributed to forces worldwide.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
A standard is a standard, we follow the standard as Soldiers. I do admit there are flaws but we follow the standard. Being in shape and fit for duty is important and if your a leader its your responsibility to be an example and be the standard.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
As a person who was always getting taped but regularly scoring 85% or better in each event, no less than 95% in the run, I believe that if you are doing above the average for PT and do not appear to be "unfit" or carry an unprofessional appearance, then yes, the HT/WT should be waived. I knew a lot of Soldiers who did the same thing but couldn't pass HT/WT, but could out-PT a whole platoon of Soldiers that looked the part who were barely passing. It makes sense to do, so don't expect the Army to make that change.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
If someone can pass a PFT with a score of 270 or higher the HT/WT should not be a factor. For example, I taped someone and according to our HT/WT standards he was over his BF % but scored a 282 on his PFT a couple weeks ago. Also people should look proper in uniform, no stress testing buttons
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
5'11, 225lbs. The only army pt test I didn't max was after a knee replacement. 1 year after, 297... the APFT is not a good gauge of fitness. Put 120lbs of gear on me, have me walk ~20 klicks, over two mountains, three firefights, 36 hours later still chugging along. Yet I get taped every time.
(0)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
Lyle, I'd have to agree with your opinion. I too have contemplated over this subject for many years, and as of recently a fellow classmate conducted a thorough staff study on the current AR 600-9 Ht/Wt standards and methods of calculating BFT. Frankly, it's broken and based off assessment data from post-Vietnam and earlier metrics of human anatomy prior to Vietnam. All that to say, if a Soldier (regardless of rank, gender, age, etc.) can perform to the optimal physical standards for combat and garrison (current APFT does little for assessing combat fitness) based on a metric (APFT), then why should he/she be subject to Ht./Wt. screening? Most other Army forces of our Allies (UK, AUS, NZ, etc) do not have this standard. However, they DO have two separate physical tests; one for general fitness, one for combat. Both must be met to standard based on age. Further, operations past and present have PROVEN that combat physical and mental fitness DOES NOT correlate to a 2 mile run time, nor max of PU and SU. What I personally care about, is "functional fitness" and what you can do to S/M/C/SM on during combat. I care less what you weight, and more about what you can carry and how fast you can think, adapt, and anticipate to defeat an enemy. Lastly, with regards to Ht./Wt. keep in mind that AR 600-9 has a separate line of effort, that is to uphold the professional appearance of a Soldier and Army Professional. Commanders can, and do (based usually on a CSM/1SG recommendation) conduct AR 600-9 screenings on Soldiers who "look fat" (have an un-Soldierly appearance). At the end of the day, what are the CAPABILITIES we want our Soldiers (all ranks) to have when it comes to battlefield fitness (strength, endurance, etc). That is what the Army needs to, in my opinion, re-assess for the future warfare we will face.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Honestly I think if you can meet the physical standard then it shouldn't matter at all their height and weight. I've seen great soldiers than can pass the apft and were more knowledgeable than people who have been in for twice as long get threatened with a chapter for being overweight.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
the system really is a flawed one. ive seen sailors who can do an outstanding on their prt but bc of how the system is layed out, they are either a failure on the height/weight or theyre borderline. its disappointing and something that really should be reviewed more often than it is at the moment.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google