Posted on Jan 20, 2016
SGT Cable Systems Installer/Maintainer
37.5K
117
48
7
7
0
Posted in these groups: F6f0e119 ABCPArmysgt SGT
Avatar feed
Responses: 11
MAJ FAO - Europe
26
26
0
Army Times recently ran an opinion piece by a major deriding the methods used for measuring body composition. I have it on good authority that Army Times plans to run a follow-up segment on this topic presenting various points of view (ie, we should change the way this is done vs. the current way is the best thing ever). We've seen through other examples how popular opposition/support can lead to change---ie, the cancelling of Tops in Blue and the U.S. Army Soldier Show, black socks with PT uniforms, etc). If we want the Army / DoD to change this in a meaningful way----let's use the opportunities presented by social media and other avenues (in a responsible manner, of course) to push the issue. If the SMA cares enough about the opinions of Soldiers to let us wear black socks, perhaps if enough folks voice their opinion and provide potential solutions to the methodology problem, a change could be considered.

Here's my take on this:

The the tape test:
1) is based on data collected in the 1950s and metrics developed from that data in the 1980s;
2) uses very limited science that routinely produces drastically inaccurate results;
3) ignores the fact that in the last 30 or 40 years technology that very accurately measures body composition has been developed and, gasp, is already used by the Army and other Services in Army Wellness Centers and equivalents);
4) Leads--sometimes--to the involuntary separation of Servicemembers in which the US Government has invested an enormous amount of resources. Think about how much it costs to train an artilleryman, or a Navy submariner, or a pilot, or any one of the hundreds of other specialists in the military. Involuntarily separating these folks--even in small numbers--based on inaccurate results from the tape test is a giant waste of resources.
(26)
Comment
(0)
LTC Eric Coger
LTC Eric Coger
>1 y
No matter what we might wish or want, the reality is that when a leader walks into a room they are judged in part by their appearance, neatness of uniform (to include "SWAG"), haircut, body type, etc. If you can't PT or appear that you can't, you have a disadvantage. Some of this is due to military conditioning, but a lot of it is deeper than that. We should primarily promote and retain based on capability, but we cannot 100% discount the realities of human nature and perception. How you look does matter. If you look fat, you will be judged negatively. We need to look at the total Soldier (Sailor, Marine, Airman, etc), but we are getting smaller, we need people who can do it all; this is a way to generally easily identify under-performing members. Is it ever wrong? Yes, but it is right more often than not.
(0)
Reply
(0)
MAJ FAO - Europe
MAJ (Join to see)
>1 y
LTC Eric Coger I agree with all of what you said about appearance mattering. I'll disagree if your last comment is about the DA Photo. Presenting information (race, gender, age, etc, ie, those things which in the "real' world are basis for discrimination) to a board responsible for HR processes (promotion, retention, etc) is just wrong, because it allows the entry of bias into the process. I'm all for quantifying on one's records how fit or unfit they are (say, by having APFT score cards be part of one's records, or at least points per event, as well as some indication of body composition, as long as it didn't indicate gender or age).
(0)
Reply
(0)
LTC Eric Coger
LTC Eric Coger
>1 y
MAJ (Join to see) - I agree 100%. Block out the face, cover the details about gender and race, etc. But would you also go into all of the OERs/NCOERs and redact all gender pronouns and names? That would be harder. But we can be trained to write evals without using names and gender pronouns. After board results are determined (but before they are released and confirmed) the board looks at demographics of those selected, there is a "quota" system to an extent but it only goes one way and it is discriminatory, not sure how to compensate for that part, but these are steps in the right direction.
(0)
Reply
(0)
MAJ FAO - Europe
MAJ (Join to see)
>1 y
LTC Eric Coger I think we'd need to black out gender specific pronouns and names in previous reports/documents, and set a new standard that dictated the use of "this NCO" or "this officer" or "this Soldier" in place of names and gender-specific pronouns. I also don't think we should even use a DA Photo, simply because doing so shows race and gender. Even if you blacked-out the hands and head, females still have different uniforms. As all the information that is shown about the uniform is easy to demonstrate through other means (ORB/ERB, PT score, body composition, etc), I just don't see the need for a DA Photo. Race and gender and the like are blocked out on ORB/ERB for boards for purposes of preventing bias, but showing the DA Photo circumvents this. Thanks for the comment.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SGT Duane Severa
9
9
0
I never met the height/weight standard while I served because I was muscular. It's disappointing that this can still be a challenge today. Fitness comes in a lot of shapes and sizes.
(9)
Comment
(0)
MAJ FAO - Europe
MAJ (Join to see)
>1 y
SGT Duane Severa So, there’s not a “height/weight” standard. There never has been. There has always been a “body composition” standard that established upper limits for body fat percentage.
(1)
Reply
(0)
COL Business Development
COL (Join to see)
>1 y
He's talking about the screening weight which is also based on the data you mentioned. The body composition evaluation using the tape test is then used if a Soldier does not meet the screening weight. If a Soldier does not meet the body composition standard then they will continue to be evaluated using the tape test until they meet the standard or are separated. That being said if a person is not "average" they may not be below the screening weight and will have to be taped which as the Army Times research showed can be off by up to 20%.
(4)
Reply
(0)
MAJ FAO - Europe
(1)
Reply
(0)
SGT Wesley Strong
SGT Wesley Strong
>1 y
I was always right on the verge and I maxed my PT test at 290 or above since AIT, most times it was 220+. People have different body types. I have been considered close to overweight since about year 3 of the Army by "conventional" standards that were put in place in the 60's and 70's. The body types have changed tremendously in those 40-50 years and the "average" is much larger than what had been considered "ideal or average" back then. Times have changed, the standards need to change to reflect that, especially for the folks who passed or excelled in the APFT.
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Water Treatment Specialist
6
6
0
Honestly, I do not understand why a soldier is still subject to the height/weight requirements after they have proven to be more than capable of passing the APFT. I have consistently been taped despite having the 2nd highest female APFT scores in my unit, it is a constant stress that I find unnecessary. Not only do I think we should adopt the new electronic handheld BMI readers (they are fool proof and less time consuming) but I also think this step should only apply to soldiers who have failed the APFT due to possibly being overweight. NFL line backers come to mind, I am sure they would fail the Army's weight and tape requirements but are in peak physical shape.
(6)
Comment
(0)
CPT Health Services Administration
CPT (Join to see)
>1 y
I disagree. We have a tenancy to weigh/tape at the same time we do an APFT, so wet lump them together. They are however mutually exclusive and governed by different regs. A soldier should not be able to look like Fat Albert just because they can pass the PT test.
Don't get me wrong, I think tapping is a terrible method. When fat soldiers with huge necks can circumvent the system, or Preparation-H and Saran Wrap. There is a problem, but giving waivers for PT isn't the answer.
(1)
Reply
(0)
MAJ Billi-Jean King
MAJ Billi-Jean King
>1 y
There are more efficient ways of measuring body fat than taping. Frankly, taping does NOT actually measure body fat. Unfortunately, I think most soldiers would balk at being "pinched" for a skin-fold caliper, and I doubt that the Army wants to spend $$$ on calipers. But it is accurate, dependable, and repeatable. I hope that the Army does a better job of consulting health professionals and coming up with a "happy medium" so-to-speak with standards and benchmarks for weight, health, and fitness.
(2)
Reply
(0)
CPT Health Services Administration
CPT (Join to see)
>1 y
PFC Charlie Sanders - as I stated, the APFT and HT/WT are governed by different regs and are separate standards. Body composition should be considered, but tapping is antiquated and should be replaced with a better method and better science. I don't think someone should get a waiver for PT scores, they should meet both standards.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SSG Small Arms/Artillery Repairer
SSG (Join to see)
>1 y
CPT (Join to see) - sir here is my issue . We all pretty much agree that the tape test is not a good idea correct ? I can see the fat Albert argument also but is a soldier is physically fit by army standards say a 260 why are we bothering with 600-9? I understand pt test and body composition fall under 2 different regulations but they still go hand in hand to me. I get taped everytime and I have a high pt score ; I got it we need standards but we are not even taping soldiers according to the regulation it is a system where if I am taping u and I like u then u pass if I don't like u you may or may not pass. Until the army can get something that works I say leave the 260 and above pt scores alone .
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close