Why is the Army more focused on what the body composition is rather then the fitness of their soldiers?

LCpl Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 05 Aug 2019 17:02:38 -0400

Response by LTC Kevin B. made Aug 5 at 2019 5:08 PM

LTC Kevin B. — Mon, 05 Aug 2019 17:08:54 -0400

Body composition is related to your overall health, which is different than fitness. The Army wants healthy soldiers, and that's in addition to being fit.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 5 at 2019 5:12 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 05 Aug 2019 17:12:27 -0400

I wouldn’t say the Army focuses more on body composition vs fitness at this point. Obviously the two are intertwined. The upcoming move to the ACFT seems to signal a shift towards more “functional” fitness. The APFT was a decent assessment imho but the upcoming one will be much better. It will be interesting to see how (or if) the weight tables get updated as soldiers put on more muscle mass in order to max the ACFT events.

Response by SFC Ralph E Kelley made Aug 5 at 2019 6:48 PM

SFC Ralph E Kelley — Mon, 05 Aug 2019 18:48:54 -0400

As you noted, being 'Fit' is not the same as 'Body Composition'. I entered the Army at 6' / 230 lbs. I always maxed the AFPT. for an 18 y/o. I retired in 1993 at the same weight / height while still maxing the AFPT at the 18 y/o scores.
I got weighed every month I was active duty (including several hospital stays) and in the early days the 1SG and CO would just sign off based on my PT Test scores. When the tape test came out I got measured, weighed then always taped - because I was 'overweight' by the height/weight charts (even the year I retired), but never failed the tape. Several times in my career, I was sent for the 'full-immersion survey' in a water tank. Body fat index was 14% every single time.
I'm glad the US Army tested my run ability by using the 2 mile run. I could run for miles and miles, walk all day with 150% of my body weight and often pulled myself straight up 60% slopes with full gear with ruck. Some people are small and 150% of their body weight = 70/75 lbs extra. My large frame's 150% equaled 115/120 lbs extra.
But if you expected me to haul ass? Wasn't going to happen - a sprinter I wasn't. I had to squeeze into tiny areas and I couldn't 'sneak' anywhere with my big feet.
As you can imagine, I have mixed feelings about height and weight charts. I wasn't fat by any means, but I certainly was not 'Standard'. The new focus (I had 20 yrs In and now 26 yrs Out) by the Army using overall Body Composition makes more sense.
Hope I've shed some light on the issue for you. My perspective is as one who had to deal with the old system. My final comment is 'fitness' (aka my sprint comment) is a set of standards.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 5 at 2019 7:25 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 05 Aug 2019 19:25:11 -0400

There are two separate programs with equal emphasis on each: Physical fitness, and body composition. Units usually run [at least] two APFTs a year and that's when they screen height and weight. Failing either will get you flagged. Failing APFT twice in a row will get you kicked out, failing HT/WT for too long, or coming back onto the program will get you kicked out.

Response by CPT Tom Monahan made Aug 6 at 2019 4:17 PM

CPT Tom Monahan — Tue, 06 Aug 2019 16:17:46 -0400

The Army must not like large frame short legged body types. Just look at the standards to be in the Old Guard Honor Guard. I was one of those who was alway calipered or taped and passed. My APFT was always 270 or more (yes I maxed push ups and sit ups but with a 29 inch inseam I was not the fastest). I took a total immersion test once and was at 11% total body fat.