Should the Army Height and Weight Standards be revised?

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 10:18:20 -0500

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 10 at 2015 10:20 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 10:20:19 -0500

I ask this question because I am a black female who ALWAYS has to get taped. I am 70" tall and I weigh in (it fluctuates) anywhere from 179-184. I've never had an issue with being taped until you run across those who don't tape correctly. Therefore putting Soldiers at 1-2% over, but yet scoring 270+ on PT test. No matter how hard I train my genetics will NOT CHANGE.

Response by SFC Stephen King made Dec 10 at 2015 10:25 AM

SFC Stephen King — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 10:25:11 -0500

Great question SGT Private RallyPoint Member I have waited for 23 years for the Army to update and or change the standard. That being said yes, the standard needs to be addressed and updated to a more effective practice in measuring body fat also the different types of body types needs to be incorporated into the standard.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 10 at 2015 11:04 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 11:04:08 -0500

I don't have a problem with the standard. The Army has been living under the current set more or less unchanged for my entire career. You either meet it or you don't.
I DO think that the Army in this day and age can adopt a more accurate means to test body composition. The tape test is what it is basically so that units can conduct it with minimal equipment and technical knowledge. We have all seen what happens when a taping Soldier doesn't do it properly. I also know the issues that genetics plays with bone density and such.

My take is sometimes we lose the forest for the trees. The BFCT, like the APFT, is not meant to be a club to play gotcha with Soldiers. It is an assessment tool so that the commander may tailor training programs to address the physical fitness of their unit grounded in the unit's METL. The whole point is to identify issues and train in a way that solves those issues and builds physical capabilities.

Response by MAJ Jim Steven made Dec 10 at 2015 11:47 AM

MAJ Jim Steven — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 11:47:43 -0500

Here is what struggle with...
Many of us are now a sitting Army, sitting in cubicles, staring at powerpoint and excel and going to meetings and discussing what we saw, while sitting.
One hour of exercise in the morning, assuming you don't have to skip that and come in for an early meeting, just doesn't cut it anymore at 40 years old.
My brother works at a warehouse, walks 6 miles before lunch!! Computer stations are standing and on wheels.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 10 at 2015 12:14 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:14:59 -0500

The whole APFT and HT/WT/Tape standards need to be looked over. I think our APFT should be more along the lines of what the Marine Corps does for their fitness test and our HT/WT/Tape needs to be looked over due to the fact that the people's bodies now versus 25+ years ago are completely different. Plus there are waaaaaaaaaaay too many over weight legit fat bodies that pass the tape test because they have a 20+ inch neck.

The part of people saying they work at a desk all day or don't have time to do PT is complete BS. The military pays you to do PT! YOU signed up for this and knew what the requirements were, you MAKE time! I just came from a duty where I was up at 0500 in order to get to work by 0630 and was non stop until I left at 1700 or later and didn't get home until 1800 or later, sometimes just in time to put the kids to bed. So I would be doing PT at 2100 or later just so I could do my duty as a Soldier and maintain my physical fitness. Sometimes you just have to suck it up, yes it sucks but you have to make it happen.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 10 at 2015 12:17 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:17:51 -0500

I'm with the "yes - H&W standards need to be revised" crowd for essentially the same reasons that have been posted already. As well as it's an antiquated (although, not as far as most SM's probably think) system, as the human body continues to evolve.

In 1976, the standards were updated (from the previous update in 1960, which implemented the 5 year age increments) due to "Army personnel were becoming too sedentary and were not maintaining desired levels of physical fitness. Quite simply, the Army leadership felt that there were too many obese soldiers". (Sounds familiar?)

The problem is the human body isn't identical from one to the next. We're all different types of somatotypes - which leads to different body compositions. And the Army's H&W standards really address only one - the mesomorph.

A good (but rather lengthy read) is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK235960/ - which delves into the history of H&W standards for the Army and the rationale for the standards at the time.

Body Composition And Military Performance: Origins Of The Army Standards - Body Composition and...

Karl E. Friedl

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 10 at 2015 1:22 PM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 13:22:26 -0500

SGT Private RallyPoint Member I've already mentioned this but, before joining I lost close to 90lbs. I have loose skin on my belly, to the point that my 1SG asked me to try to get a tummy tuck since it didn't look fair to him that I had to be taped over that skin. I've never busted the tape but every H&W day, I get ready for an uncomfortable experience.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 10 at 2015 1:27 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 13:27:18 -0500

Absolutely. They should be stricter. By BMI standards, most people in the Army are obese. I agree, some people don't tape correctly but you can avoid running into any issues by not getting too close to the limit. You can also bring up any concerns on the spot and your leadership has the option of having someone else tape you.

Just to be clear, although the current system is neither perfect nor the most accurate, it is the most practical given our environment. Furthermore, NO SYSTEM will make everyone happy. And no, weight standards shouldn't be based on race.

"No matter how hard I train my genetics will NOT CHANGE." I call BS on this one. There are plenty of black female athletes with sub 10% body fats.

Response by SSG Todd Halverson made Dec 10 at 2015 1:29 PM

SSG Todd Halverson — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 13:29:55 -0500

I would say that the BFCT needs to be updated to a better system. It still needs to be simple and easy to understand with limited technical equipment. One must realize that this is just a tool to help the CDR assess his unit. Then, if the CDR is smart, they can modify the training to meet the needs of the Soldiers and reach their training goals. If there are some who need help loosing weight or passing the APFT, he can set up programs to assist with that. The 1 - 1.5 hours every morning may not be enough to help some Soldiers.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 10 at 2015 1:38 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 13:38:44 -0500

Did you ask for a retape?

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Dec 10 at 2015 2:08 PM

SSG Warren Swan — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:08:58 -0500

This needs to be seriously looked at, but right now it won't no matter how much we bitch, whine, or moan. There is a strong desire to get troops out. By hook or crook it's going to be done. This is another tool that will be used in some commanders box to weed out those who aren't "bad" troops, but aren't as "good" as others. How many times have you seen TOG Soldiers and hear "they are models of professionalism and how we should look"? Not to take away from ANY of them, but with some of them getting there fresh out of BCT, are they really? I use them as my example being I used to be judged against them when I had to stuff my tail in Dress Blues on a regular basis at Myer. We preach "total Soldier" and the H/W and APFT come in to trip some very, VERY good Soldiers up. I've had to assist in chaptering out a NCO who was SH*T hot in her MOS, awesome in regards to teaching her job to new troops who weren't even in the Army, but due to APFT/H/W she was seen as a sh*tbag, and even though 1SG hated to do it (He was HELLBENT on saving this NCO), he had to get her counseling done and the recommendation to the commander to chapter her out on weight control. She was sent packing. Is this what we've come down to? A good leader, great NCO, and could TEACH? I know many "stellar" NCO's who couldn't teach themselves how to rip up an already torn paper bag. But they're studs, never have to be taped, and know how to play the game with those above them. I foresee soon that the Army is going to realize that they cut too far too soon. You're going to see massive changes to get back a lot of the talent that it sent packing to include debt forgiveness, bonuses, and stop losses. At that point, MAYBE the Army will take a longer look until it feels the service is too "fat" again. I remember the talk about changing the APFT to make it more inline with what troops are doing in battle.....how'd that work out? Been at war for 14 years and still do the same three event APFT, even though it's been shown it has no relevance to what the force actually does. If anyone on RP has ran two miles in 12 minutes, done 80 push ups, and did 90 sit ups in two minutes in full battle rattle, while conducting your PCC's and PCI's, please let me know. I know dragging a Soldier, carrying a Soldier, road marching over ROUGH terrain with body armor and ruck, working your neck to death looking everywhere and nowhere at the same time, all play into the APFT we need to focus on for the battles coming up. The one upside to the three event test is there's no money and very little time involved to conduct it. Do the six event test on a company, and get ready to be there all day long. S3 can schedule in advance for the next six years for the six event test, and something will go wrong they cannot control. I hope the Army and the sister services get past the "looks" part of being a troop, and realize there is more to this, and actually practice the Total Soldier Concept.
I think after reading this, I'm dead wrong. If the Army really listened to those at the ground levels, we would still be wearing BDU's or a very close variant of it with green jungle boots (tan isn't bad), and they would've realized what the rest of the Army already knew; we had the best uniform ever at the time, there was no need to change it, but we did to a uniform that works great on a couch or in the sky, but not in terrain where you're "grey" and the surrounding ground is tan or green.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Dec 10 at 2015 2:13 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:13:25 -0500

Actually, they are reviewed when recruiting gets low or a major conflict occurs. In the meantime, the DOD can be very discriminatory with regard to standards. Makes it easier to downsize to what the top brass and civilian leadership views as the perfect military member.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Dec 15 at 2015 5:07 AM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 05:07:02 -0500

Now they want to revise it? After the Army told me No being 6'5' and 129lbs when I tried to join! Good thing the Navy Waivered me since I served for 21 years! LOL!

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 15 at 2015 5:31 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 05:31:43 -0500

There was an Army Times article a while back that showed how extremely inaccurate the tape test was. Sure, it is a screening tool but when it comes to flagging Soldiers and separation a more accurate test should be used. The consequences are too great. It also can work the other way. I see a lot of Soldiers who look obese but can pass the tape test. I'm not sure if it's true or was just a rumor but I heard that the Marines could be put out if they looked overweight. Being pretty much "average" in height and weight I am just under the screening weight for my height but as I get older it gets harder to stay there.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Dec 15 at 2015 5:45 AM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 05:45:37 -0500

Yes they should. Before I retired, we had people being taped that were muscular, and could pass their pt test with no problem. It is an antiquated system that does more harm than good.

Response by PFC Greg Ortiz made Dec 15 at 2015 6:22 AM

PFC Greg Ortiz — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 06:22:18 -0500

As long as a soldier can pass the APFT, then i would say fine, but they must be able to pass and be able to perform there job, if BOTH those criteria are met, then ok, if not then no

Response by LTC Charles T Dalbec made Dec 15 at 2015 7:03 AM

LTC Charles T Dalbec — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:03:22 -0500

Why revise something that has been in AR 600-9 regulation for nearly 25 years?? Unless regulation takes into consideration Older AGR Soldiers there is no reason to change.

Response by SPC Steven Depuy made Dec 15 at 2015 7:04 AM

SPC Steven Depuy — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:04:27 -0500

I don't know what its like today. I know when I served in the 70's and 80's, it was a joke. When I was stationed in West Germany, I scored so high on my PT test, I was exempt from PT, I also weighed 210 pounds and was 5'10", and was on the fat mans program. The irony was pretty funny. Then I joined the PANG in the 80's, I always was one of the first 3 to finish the run during our two week drill. I ran 10k twice a week, and 5m three other days. I weighed 212 pounds. They wanted me to go full time with my unit, it was shot down because I was 40 pounds heavier than what it said I should be. It was so frustrating to see the guys walking around with pot bellies who could not walk to their car without being out of breath, and I was rejected even though you could bounce quarters off mine. I am fat now, blew a knee out in the late 80's and my running days ended. But the standard has always been a joke to me.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Dec 15 at 2015 7:12 AM

Cpl Jeff N. — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:12:15 -0500

The military needs a way to get the fat bodies out and keep them from coming in. If the current tape method doesn't work, then they should incorporate a body fat type measurement. I knew many Marines that lifted a lot and would not "pass" the height and weight charts. They were never harassed. Those in charge of the measurement process simply made a note. There was also the appearance thing. You could pass the height and weight chart and look like crap in dress uniform. You could get nailed for "appearance" issue too regardless of the weight/height test.

Response by LTC Charles M Carter made Dec 15 at 2015 7:13 AM

LTC Charles M Carter — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:13:34 -0500

It's easy to say we would like to have the standards relaxed, but the truth is that the real problem is that the standards are only enforced during peacetime. If they are that important, then they should be enforced always. I understand that the Army wants their Soldiers to "look" good and nobody wants a "fat" Army, but there has to be a more realistic standard that could be more readily applied during both peacetime and wartime. I understand that we don't need the extra burden of the paperwork associated with a "Weight Control Program" during wartime so that means we need to develop a better program for peacetime.

Response by CPL Howard Conover made Dec 15 at 2015 7:56 AM

CPL Howard Conover — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:56:24 -0500

Passing the PT test and all of the other qualifiers is and should be the most important. Of course we don't want anyone to be overtly obese but again if a soldier can run, shoot, and fight (hand to hand) then at least give them high consideration.

Response by CW5 Ivan Murdock made Dec 15 at 2015 7:57 AM

CW5 Ivan Murdock — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:57:45 -0500

I think the body fat test should move to technology vs. the tape test. But I absolutely think that we need stricter. As they get past 40 years old allowing Male (26%) and Female (36%) is way to high for the demands of combat. I will reiterate as I have on other posts. IF we are going to draw down than we have to pick the best of the best to stay. There are so many programs available to help soldiers maintain fitness. With very few exceptions there are world class fitness facilities. Physical fitness is one of the anchors to leadership that hold our Army in place. The height and weight are general guidelines, there are soldiers who make weight that are not in compliance, I think the commander/1SG should body composition test that soldier and hold them to body fat vs. weight. The bottom line is we need to be a more lean in every way to continue to be the most effective fighting force ever made:)

Response by 1LT Kathleen Heisler made Dec 15 at 2015 8:00 AM

1LT Kathleen Heisler — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 08:00:55 -0500

I believe the standard height/weight requirements should be looked at. While serving on active duty, I never made weight per the scale but always 10% lower then the max allowed of body fat. At that time, I was given the pinch test for body fat%. It was very frustrating and if they still do the tape measure test is a joke

Response by SFC Brian Walden made Dec 15 at 2015 8:27 AM

SFC Brian Walden — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 08:27:32 -0500

Height/Weight standards.... There has to be some limitation on appearance/fitting into a MOPP suite, but considering that the combat role is amongst more MOS's, I feel, (and always have) that a combat PT test (obstacle course/full battle rattle) immediately followed up with a weapon qualification, would better evaluate a combat ready Soldier.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 15 at 2015 8:53 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 08:53:56 -0500

YES! SGT Private RallyPoint Member , I'm not sure how it is for female soldiers, but from personal experience it's a bit out-of-date. When I left IET, I was in phenomenal shape, but NEVER made the Army's H/W standards. People in today's society are legitimately bigger than when this was created. I look forward to the day that H/W is revised, along with a more practical and applicable APFT.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 15 at 2015 8:56 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 08:56:47 -0500

The tape method needs to be replaced since it is completely unreliable. Whoever came up with idea that having thick neck, barrel chest, and no fat in stomach area means being overweight was out of their mind.

I was tape tested in Warrior Leader Course at 156 pound on 5'7ft and failed it. WTF? Seriously? Not even bragging I had six pack and I failed the fking tape test cause I didn't have double chin and pecks of Hulk Hogan? Not to mention passing PT test with 95 push ups, 120 sit ups and 13:30 2 mile run.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 15 at 2015 9:16 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 09:16:04 -0500

Best solution I've seen to this issue is to allow an extra 2-5% body fat based off of your APFT score. So if you score a 75 in each category on the APFT, you get an extra 2% leeway on your body fat score, 80 you get an extra 3%, etc.

I've dealt with the back and forth with taping issues. I wish i could say that i've never been over weight and it was simply a taping error, but I've been on both sides of the equation. I can't tell you how demoralizing it is to have worked your butt off for several months, come in and take an APFT, score 75-90 points in each category, and then miss tape by 1% because somebody "knows" the(ir) "proper" taping procedure and refuses to let anyone do a re tape. And while i applaud the CPT for posting what is supposed to happen with being separated for failure to meet height and weight standards, I've seen several people chaptered out for this, and i can guarantee you that those procedures were not followed.

Response by SPC Shai Hawkins made Dec 15 at 2015 9:17 AM

SPC Shai Hawkins — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 09:17:58 -0500

Height and weight shouldn't even be a factor. Fitness only.

Response by SSG Audwin Scott made Dec 15 at 2015 9:32 AM

SSG Audwin Scott — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 09:32:00 -0500

I say yes it should! As a former training NCO, I saw many fit soldiers that just didn't meet the Armies height and weight standards. Often times the females that were blessed in more respectful terms in certain areas were penalized for having body fat that just came naturally to them. I understand the purpose of the height and weight standard is to prepare each soldier to be fit to fight but in some cases there should be exceptions to the rules.

Response by SSG George Baker made Dec 15 at 2015 9:48 AM

SSG George Baker — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 09:48:15 -0500

yes i really believe it should. case and point.
at the age of 18 in 1969 i tried 3 times to enter the US Army. rejected for being under weight ( 98 lbs.). on the 4th try with a court order i was excepted. I was sent to Ft. Bragg, NC and put into a fat man/overweight program. I was feed twice the amount of any soldier in the program. there was some BIG people there. i was total feed 6 times a day weight in twice a week. LOL i never gain a onuce. this went on for my first 3 weeks of boot camp. they had to special order uniforms for me cuz i was smaller then the smallest uniform made (even the female had none that fit. when i got out in 1985 i was still eatting double rations and weight 130. thats 15 years of under weight by Military standards. so yes i think they do need to change the guidelines.

Response by COL John Power made Dec 15 at 2015 9:59 AM

COL John Power — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 09:59:31 -0500

It probably is time to revisit the standards, but there will always be those that aren't satisfied. The common thread of complaint I've read is that one who passes the PT test but fails the measurements is in trouble. The PT Test should prevail and perhaps it should be a more difficult test to measure true combat readiness. But then some folks are in MOS that don't require the "full battle rattle" of the infantry. Should they take a different test? Would that be fair? And then some will complain that the test isn't fair; not properly administered, etc. I recall a call I received from a young soldier when I was an IG. He complained that some six months after his medical exemption ended he was being required to take a PT test and it wasn't being fairly administered. I offered to come to his unit and take the test with him to be sure the NCO administering the test was fair. I also suggested that even as a 52-year old Colonel I'd probably beat his numbers. He hung up!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 15 at 2015 10:03 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:03:52 -0500

There are machines that can scan one's full body to determine their Body Fat Content rating. The only problem is that they are not portable and most likely expensive but they do have them.

Response by MAJ Bill Darling made Dec 15 at 2015 10:05 AM

MAJ Bill Darling — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:05:59 -0500

I've always thought that if you can pass the APFT, it doesn't matter what your physical makeup is. After all, we've seen enough reports in Army Times in which world-class athletes like NFL linemen would not be able to meet Army standards.

Also, given the Secretary Defense's recent announcement on women in combat arms positions, we need to immediately go to a universal standards for minimum and maximum height.

Response by MSG SAMS1E / GCSS Prep Pishner made Dec 15 at 2015 10:07 AM

MSG SAMS1E / GCSS Prep Pishner — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:07:04 -0500

If equality is being equal therefore yes I had to put out a lot of good male soldiers who could have stayed in under the female AR600-9 and PT standards

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 15 at 2015 10:13 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:13:27 -0500

I agree that they do need to be revised. I think they are silly to be honest. I am in the same boat you are. I consistently get 270 on my APFT. I run a lot usually but usually around 200. I go to the gym daily but I still get taped. So when there is an APFT I have to start cutting. I have a small neck so I run the risk of failing. But I see soldiers out there that are pouring over their belts that get a pass on height and weight. It blows my mind. I went to Ranger School weighing about 210. My allowable weight for my height is 184. So I was a good 25 over. But at Ranger School they don't weigh you knowing you are going to lose it. So I did the Ranger PT test and Ruck and didn't have any issues. We did a 5 mile under 40 minutes and I made it with no strangle. But if I were to have been taped I would have failed. I have only made weight a few times in the Army. When I first joined, mainly due to not lifting. Then after Ranger school when I dropped 30 pounds. After my weight went back up. I can't maintain a 184. I would have to get rid of all my body fat just to do that. I wish they would give you ability to weigh more with a higher score. But I don't see that coming.

Response by SSG Delanda Hunt made Dec 15 at 2015 10:37 AM

SSG Delanda Hunt — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:37:41 -0500

Yes I think its about time to allow Midgets and Leprechauns in the Military, they have a lot to offer and only need half the food and clothing. Big Momma should also have a chance to plug up holes in a navy ship. Since standards are being lowered we might as well take it to another level.

Response by SGT Jason Hartnett made Dec 15 at 2015 10:41 AM

SGT Jason Hartnett — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:41:13 -0500

Yes some people are just built bigger.

Response by PV2 Charles Jackson made Dec 15 at 2015 10:59 AM

PV2 Charles Jackson — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:59:23 -0500

I was given an article 15 for diss-obeying an order to lose weight I was ten pounds overweight, another weighed in front of me and was 80 lb over but neck was enough to be okay???? "I'm fat but he's good to go?" WTF

Response by SFC Garry Kolberg made Dec 15 at 2015 11:11 AM

SFC Garry Kolberg — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:11:16 -0500

Quality soldiers are let out because of a couple inches or pounds while below average soldiers are allowed to stay in because of being under the standards set. Standards set 25 years ago no longer fit the standards of today. It should be adjusted at least every 5 years. But, we must all remember that we were or are a part of the team that has to work together, to depend on each other and it is our responsibility to maintain our bodies to an acceptable standard that will not be a detriment to that team. It probably wouldn't be considered fair but maybe H&W Standards should by set by MOS's.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 15 at 2015 11:12 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:12:51 -0500

To answer the original question, yes, I think there needs to be a revision. The question as I see it, though, is what are we trying to accomplish with a height/weight measurement. If it is an appearance standard, then some sort of ratio might be better suited. If it is a health standard, then, as suggested above, there needs to be some tie between physical readiness (PT) and the HT/WT standard. At the same time, there has always been the desire to have a standard that the commander can employ at any location anytime. Part of the reason that the PT test has been push-ups, sit-ups, and 2-mile run in the Army is that the only equipment you need to execute the test is a stop watch and a clip board. The same with the body fat test...all you need is a tape measure. At 76", I have been taped from pre-commissioning until my recent retirement, yet my physical fitness has always been the same...as smaller colleagues of mine were throwing out their backs putting on body armor, I was fine...yet there's always the negative connotation that comes with a service member that has to be taped.

It is time to revise that standard and to first assess what we are trying to achieve. Then, design a measurement that correctly assesses what we are trying to achieve. With the elimination of gender segregation for combat MOS's, it is an ideal time to come up with a standard that suits the job. If there is a correlation that says to be an infantryman you have to be able to do 20 push-ups, then that is the standard...IF there is a correlation. I would submit that any test should evaluate job specific requirements (for that infantryman(person, maybe a 5 mile road march with a 40+ pound ruck within a specific timeframe is a realistic standard). But as mentioned above, there is no correlation with being able to max the current PT test and being an effective infantryman or conversely an effective PowerPoint Ranger.

Response by 1SG Nelson Alequin made Dec 15 at 2015 12:03 PM

1SG Nelson Alequin — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 12:03:20 -0500

As long as the appearance does not detract from a military appearance, there should be a change. Reasonbeing there are Soldiers who have larger muscles than others, be it genetically or not. The tape system ensures that this is taken into consideration. Females, depending on their ethnicity are all proportioned differently. Taping of the hips, wrist and neck often reveals biased calculations and need some modifying to make it fair across the board.

Response by SFC Brian Ewing made Dec 15 at 2015 12:33 PM

SFC Brian Ewing — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 12:33:16 -0500

To be fair and honest; I think they should change them and base them on a Soldier's Body Type. For instance, I had a fellow NCO that was about 250 but he was basically all muscle (not chubby or flabby in any kind of way) and he would pass his PT test with ease but he was always being taped on the Weight Control Program.

Is it fair that he should have to be on the WCP just because he doesn't meet a certain HT/WT requirement?? I think that is unfair to Soldiers, the current system does not take into account a Soldier's body type thus leaving no room for two people who may weigh the exact same but be totally different body types.

One will be considered overweight and the other not just because of the shape of their bodies. The Army should change the standard but only to account for a Soldier's Body type without making it seem as though every Soldier deserves to be on the WCP just because they didn't meet a non-flexible HT/WT Chart.

Response by SFC Kelly Comstock made Dec 15 at 2015 1:21 PM

SFC Kelly Comstock — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:21:43 -0500

Yes the tape should be put in the trash can. (I do not believe in the dual standard for male/female we are all Soldiers). In my career I have had to tell Soldiers, some with very high PT scores they were flagged because of height/weight! 300 on your PT test and can't get promoted because your on the fat boy program!! That is just wrong!

Response by COL Ted Mc made Dec 15 at 2015 2:21 PM

COL Ted Mc — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:21:17 -0500

SGT Private RallyPoint Member - Sergeant; If you are asking if the military needs a more accurate (and more objectively measurable) set of physical fitness guidelines, the answer is "Yes.".

If you are asking if everyone has to exceed a certain fitness level in order to remain in the military, the answer is "Yes".

If you are asking if everyone has to meet the fitness level for ALL jobs in the military in order to fill SOME jobs in the military, the answer is "No.".

Personally I agree with the concept of "action testing" rather than the "exercise testing" which is being done now. (The number of times that you are going to have to do either push-ups or sit-ups in a firefight is exceedingly low.)

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 15 at 2015 2:27 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:27:07 -0500

The current tape test is a joke. I was HHC CDR for a reserve unit on Ft Benning and there was this one female who looked like she was 8 months pregnant, but her neck was so fat that she taped out every time. Aside from that, I think the standards are a bit arbitrary. I am a pretty big guy, 6'2" 215lbs. which is right at the max for my age group. If I lost enough weight to get down to what the Army considers my "ideal" weight, I'd look like I just escaped from Auschwitz....

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 15 at 2015 2:38 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:38:44 -0500

Yes! Immediately

Response by MSG John Wirts made Dec 15 at 2015 3:07 PM

MSG John Wirts — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 15:07:28 -0500

When I was in the ARMY was and still is totally confused between the terms "overweight" and "obese"! In one of my former units (an Army Reserve unit) one of our unit members was a millwright, his biceps were larger then most peoples thighs! The man sent in a picture of himself with the weigh-in results, to try to show he was not fat, or obese! The lack of system could not accept anything but at or under Height/Weight chart desired weight as physically fit. We lost quite a few good solders due to the constant harassment about "overweight". The most accurate method of determining body fat ratio, immersion in water was never approved for use even for those classified as "overweight", we just stumbled along and never really addressed the problem. If weight is going to continue to be a factor in retention, then ALL THE SERVICES should adopt a standard for all services, and establish a single scientific standard to determine if a person is Obese. I can't remember how many unscientific obesity tests were used to harass someone who was above the height/weight chart ideal parameters! Get It Right, stop wasting finiancial resources developing the next FAD HEIGHT/WEIGHT parameters!

Response by SPC Tim Grasmick made Dec 15 at 2015 3:19 PM

SPC Tim Grasmick — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 15:19:53 -0500

Before OSUT at Ft. Knox I weighed in under the max for my height. After 4 months of training I had to be taped. Every time after that I always had to be taped after weighing in. The best number I got was 2% body fat. What always got to me was waiting to be taped with some soldiers that were a bit portly and wasting my time. I could have been getting dressed and ready for work with every one else. I am no longer in after 12 years but I always thought there should be a better way of doing this test.

Response by SGT Jay Ehrenfeld made Dec 15 at 2015 3:37 PM

SGT Jay Ehrenfeld — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 15:37:40 -0500

No.

Response by COL LaVoy Thiessen made Dec 15 at 2015 4:15 PM

COL LaVoy Thiessen — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:15:34 -0500

A prior test known as the Army Physical Readiness Test (APRT - 1970s vintage) should be reconsidered, re-normed for each separate MOS. It included pull-ups, inverted crawl (crab walk), dead-man carry, horizontal ladder, run-dodge & jump, sit-ups, push-up, and two-mile run. We didn't us the tape or calipers back in those days because, I assume, it was believed if you could pass the APRT you were ready for duty.

Response by COL John Hudson made Dec 15 at 2015 4:38 PM

COL John Hudson — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:38:16 -0500

I wrote a paper addressing this very issue decades ago. Reserve vs. Active requirements. The present system makes no distinction. Troop Program Units (TPU) are supposed to physically train and keep Reservists up to speed IF a Reservist belongs to such a unit. But any PT for one weekend a month is useless for the long term. Regardless of how the Reserve system plays out...no Reservist has the same opportunities as ANY active component (AC) service member. AC members in my unit were given daily time off specifically for PT - and other units had similar opportunities...all using equipment conveniently provided by the military. Most people I know in the everyday world don't have the income to belong to a Fitness center or the time away from daily obligations to attend such, and I've never worked for a civil organization that provided time and equipment for on-the-job PT. So, Change/Lower the standards? "Gosh, Colonel Hudson, all I do is watch a computer screen, push buttons, fly a drone from my home town - why do I need to do all that PT?" Answer: No one knows when, where, how or why the next balloon will go up, so it's prudent to have some level of preparedness across the board. "Front Lines" no longer exist in this world today. ANY position is just as open to conflict confrontation as any other, whether one is tip of the spear or a bean counter - all are equally exposed. 'Rear area' is a myth...this comes from my boots-on-the-ground two tours in Vietnam, 1x in the Balkan Conflict, and the better part of four years in Iraq. And finally - regardless of how hard this seems...a healthy body can handle the trauma of combat better than one that's not.

Response by SGT Mark Rhodes made Dec 15 at 2015 5:36 PM

SGT Mark Rhodes — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:36:31 -0500

That standard is so far out of date that it is a joke. When I was in I was considered overweight, lol, I scored 300 on my PT Test, I was a semi-pro bodybuilder and carried about 2% body fat. With that being said they would look at me, tape me, put me on remedial PT(no Joke) but they did that so I could train the other remedial soldiers and help them lose weight. But year after year the same thing happened even after switching duty station. Like a said before that Standard to a JOKE>

Response by SSgt Donnavon Smith made Dec 15 at 2015 5:41 PM

SSgt Donnavon Smith — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:41:35 -0500

I have a huge neck, so I have never had an issue with the tape. I generally never had an issue with the weight or any fitness test either. Because I genetically have a big sloppy chin/neck area I would be sent in for tape testing several times a year. That gets old! Although I have had had my BF% increase by 6 percent in one month after loosing 4 pounds. This is the solution. http://www.bodpod.com/en/products/body-composition/adult-children-bod-pod-gs/bod-pod have a set max percentage and a PFT and call it good

COSMED - BOD POD Gold Standard in Body Composition

Gold standard body composition assessment systems based on air displacement plethysmography (ADP) tecnology suitable for adults, children and infants.

Response by SPC Byron Skinner made Dec 15 at 2015 8:45 PM

SPC Byron Skinner — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 20:45:58 -0500

Sp4. Byron Skinner. The question is a good one but I guess its here that I differ with most of the folks here. While at recruitment there has to be some range of weights and heights if for no other reason they can make uniforms is just so many sizes. The better reason might be why not hire people for the job, like the civilian world does. High standards of physical fitness for those in the Combat arms maneuver MOS's by necessity must be high. The soldiers who are destined for occupations that have low physical demands should have to only pass a much reduced annual PT if any at all. The daily PT runs and a monkey obstacle course for all soldiers is just dumb. Two thing to back up what I just said first check out the base hospital as inquire what is the most common injury, its PT accidents, the second and I would assume the most obvious is by requiring unnecessary physical requirements the military is limiting itself to the availability of some great abilities and talents. Smart weapons require smart people. The operator and crew of an electoral magnetic kinetic weapon or laser weapon, don't need to be able to do one push up but do need to know how that weapon works and that its is used on the right people when called upon. The militaries insistence on mo' PT gives us General/Admirals who can run a six minute mile but can't win wars. Generals Eisenhower, Patton and Truscot most likely between themselves couldn't do a push up or run a mile but they knew how to kill Germans and win a war. Our current Generals form the headless Chairman on down can run like the wind but can't lick a bunch of guys fighting out of the beds of Toyota's, the best Infantry Fighting Vehicle of the 21st Century.

Response by SGT Lawrence Corser made Dec 15 at 2015 9:06 PM

SGT Lawrence Corser — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 21:06:32 -0500

Sure, just enforcement of it in the ranks is a bigger problem. During deployments and memes you see online there are a lot of very out of regulation people in the Army. Now not as tight in some areas, because I was always on the program but passed tape even with a small neck.

Response by MSG Ed Wilson made Dec 15 at 2015 9:47 PM

MSG Ed Wilson — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 21:47:39 -0500

It is way over due for an overhaul....its seriously outdated!

Response by SPC John Gifford made Dec 16 at 2015 12:01 AM

SPC John Gifford — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 00:01:15 -0500

There needs to be a weight limit. I have noticed, that the higher the rank, the bigger the waist

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2015 12:31 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 00:31:02 -0500

Yes! The "tape test" that is still used today has been vetted by multiple universities and health facilities and had been proven to be the least accurate way of measuring a person's body fat.

Response by SSG Gregg Mourizen made Dec 16 at 2015 2:18 AM

SSG Gregg Mourizen — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 02:18:00 -0500

I have a lot of negatives for the Army High and weight standards. First, It counts way too much towards promotion. I have seen many, many incompetent and or incapable people put into leadership positions, who have enough trouble keeping themselves in line, let alone being responsible for others. Often, while more capable and competent soldiers are passed over du to not making points or meeting weight standards. Leadership depends on far more than just how many push ups or sit ups you can do, or how fast you can run. How can a PT test be worth more for promotion than Education, Training, Relevant work experience and performance records?
Yes, without a doubt, fitness is important. But as mentioned in many of these postings, GOOD and CAPABLE soldiers are put out to pasture due to their weight, without regard to their importance to unit or mission. I have seen many hard working soldiers passed over for awards or promotions, just by where their percentages lay. I have seen units suffer huge capability losses due to weight control pushing key solders out. The difference between a good hard working soldier and a SH*T-bag are often determined by a tenth of a percent. Very little effort is made to try to bring these soldier into compliance other than pushing them towards eating disorders and poor moral. I myself worked out daily, when time and mission permitted. I was eating far less that is considered healthy (less than 1000 calories per day). It wasn't until my third try to se a dietician that not eating enough was actually contributing to my weight problem. What is worse, is having to listen to people with no knowledge of healthy weight loss techniques, often having never experienced a weight problem themselves and with poor eating habits of their own.
I rode the line for many years, often seeing up to a 5% weight difference between tape measurements, with no way to dispute the measurements or even be allow to have one of the alternate, more accurate, methods even being considered. Myself and many others suffered through many injuries to try to meet the standards for no recognition.
Even though I might not have been able to run as fast as some of my peers, I more often than not could carry much larger loads over longer distances than most of them. My skills ratings where always at the top of the charts. Yet, I saw many PT studs get promoted, when there were many others more deserving of the position.
So yes, the weight control program needs to massively revamped.
An accurate measurement process needs to be used (Calipers, dunk tank, using more measuring points).
More relevance needs to be pushed towards actual leadership skills and traits than just physical fitness.
More effort needs to be made towards fixing a good soldier rather than just trying to replace him/her with a newer skinnier model. All that experience and training should be worth something.

Response by SP6 Dustin Devlin made Dec 16 at 2015 8:21 AM

SP6 Dustin Devlin — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 08:21:57 -0500

I am a former marine and just recently out of the army reserve, i believe if you pass your pt test tape should not matter. I was taped for my whole career

Response by COL Mo Fenner made Dec 16 at 2015 8:39 AM

COL Mo Fenner — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 08:39:54 -0500

There are several good points here. I have a little bit that I would like to add. 1. Several people mentioned the Commander must.... That is not true. A commander has a lot of discretion if they want to use it. I could do a lot for someone who could run seven minute miles, weighed 240 lbs and was 5'6". I know because I did. 2. I firmly agree a valid PT test should be the standard. Being fit will save your life in real operations and that is what our jobs are (or were) about. Pushups, situps, two mile run for a PT test don't cut it for several reasons. The first is that it is too easy to train for just the PT test. It only tests a few parts of training. It is a good start but lets add pullups - test you against your body weight. Lets test us doing a weight drag or carry for 50 yards. It should maybe be a standard weight since it simulates dragging someone hurt. It is not unfair for smaller people. It tests something that you may need to do. 3. For years we have talked about an MOS specific test for PT, but the answers have always said that it is too hard. I disagree. It would be more fair. It only needs to be one event. It could be a crew drill for a gun crew but something obviously different for the unit clerk. 4. We do the present test because it requires no equipment. In 1976, we did a run, dodge and jump test. It needed equipment. A shuttle run with blocks is similar and only needs a few wooden blocks. The horizontal bars could be replaced by pullups. Anyplace there is a door, you could add a pullup bar.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2015 9:11 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 09:11:06 -0500

Yes. I have never failed a PT test in my life, but always walk that razor edge on HT/WT. According to weight standards, I usually qualify as "obese" and had a promotion packet delayed a year because l was flagged. But just looking at me, I look up to speed. Even a previous company commander told me all he cared about was passing PT. I get it if you look like Santa wearing ACUs, but if you pass the 'eye test' and pass PT, it shouldn't be an issue. As a 41 year old 73" tall male, I returned from BCT five pounds over max weight. Something needs changed.

Response by SSG Don Maggart made Dec 16 at 2015 10:56 AM

SSG Don Maggart — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 10:56:30 -0500

Response by MSG Joseph Collins made Dec 16 at 2015 7:08 PM

MSG Joseph Collins — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 19:08:22 -0500

I like some of you guys are retired. I don't really remember when that water test began to check your body fat, but if I'm not mistaken I was a PFC at the time, and everyone was tested regardless of the service member's height and weight, or your PT score. It was cumbersome and put us behind schedule on training. I do not remember anyone being passed the standards, however, we went through this maybe five or six times per week, and we PT'd like a .... not to mention humping all over God's green Earth, and most found time to hit the weights whenever possible and play on sports leagues. So I agree, they system needs to be revamped. To be clear, I always liked PT with troops, but the body fat test, somebody in Foggy Bottom must have thought that up.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Dec 16 at 2015 11:18 PM

COL Charles Williams — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 23:18:29 -0500

Not sure I know your angle or rational SGT Private RallyPoint Member, but I would say Yes.

I paid attention to Height/Weight and PT always, and still do. But, I also saw many large folks, muscular at times who had issues endlessly with 600-9... and then some really fat dudes with really large necks... who did not... We used to joke at the gym, about fat dudes working on their necks vs. their bodies.. One size fits all, does not work, as SFC Stephen King stated.

Response by SPC Rory J. Mattheisen made Dec 18 at 2015 12:39 AM

SPC Rory J. Mattheisen — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 00:39:25 -0500

It definitely has to be revised, I was never taped because I was skinny as a rail but at 74" and 225LBS I was borderline obese, I have a 32" waist and am definitely not obese. It should be about fitness not waist size any way.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Dec 18 at 2015 3:16 AM

Capt Jeff S. — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 03:16:40 -0500

Too many overweight soldiers.

Response by Maj Mike Sciales made Dec 18 at 2015 4:16 AM

Maj Mike Sciales — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 04:16:55 -0500

Why not eliminate the standards entirely? We keep cutting benefits so why insist on a healthy force? In the 70s with all the smoking and drinking enlisted guys died, on average 18 months after retirement and officers lasted 3 years. That would reduce health care costs and retired pay.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 23 at 2015 9:41 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 09:41:09 -0500

Yes. They should be more strict. I think the Marines have it right.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 27 at 2015 12:05 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 00:05:50 -0500

I truly think that height and weight standards should be revised. Every nationality does not have the same physical makeup. For instance islanders..they are not small people in general. It needs to be revised or base fitness on fitness tests..

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2015 2:31 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 14:31:10 -0500

It ABSOLUTELY needs revised. Everyone in the Army should agree with that. We have all seen good soldiers get the boot because of this. It's ridiculous. I get taped every single time, I'm 6'2" 225lbs. I always pass though. The chart says I need to be 205lbs. Well I'm sorry I'm not a stick figure, I'm just built this way and it's not body fat.

Response by 1SG Gerald Schroeder made Jan 23 at 2016 11:07 PM

1SG Gerald Schroeder — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:07:16 -0500

Yes the Army should revise their height and weight standards. We are in the 21st century and should be using 21st century technology to determine this. This would take our the human error factor and eliminate the archaic measuring tape method. But the big army won't change add they want to downsize the force.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2016 5:41 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 17:41:46 -0400

We need more precise tools for measurement and then we need to increase the standards. If you increase the standards and enforce the standards, people will become motivated to get into the gym and lay off the fattening foods. I used to use the Air Force gym because it was always empty. When they started kicking people out using PT standards, it became standing room only overnight.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2019 2:22 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Jul 2019 14:22:21 -0400

The current tape test is a joke. As long as you have a fat enough neck, you can pass tape. I knew a female MAJ once who, quite literally, looked like she was 9 months pregnant. But she made tape every time because she had a 22 inch neck.

Response by LTC Charles T Dalbec made May 12 at 2021 4:25 PM

LTC Charles T Dalbec — Wed, 12 May 2021 16:25:37 -0400

AR 600-9 needs a complete rewrite and yes height and weight charts need to be revised