Posted on Mar 24, 2021
Is it time for the Army to create new height & weight standards and a new body fat test?
15.4K
44
21
5
5
0
We've all seen it. People who are muscular, wide hips, large neck failing the "tape test". Also people not passing h&w due to the Army's unrealistic standards. Is it time for the Army to create a new body fat test and adjust their standards for height and weight? PFC (Join to see) SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL SFC James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" LTC Stephen F. CPL Dave Hoover SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth SSG (Join to see) MSG (Join to see)
Height and Weight
Standards
Soldiers
ABCP
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 10
9
9
0
It's time to do away with them completely. If you can pass the ACFT, which the Army says is the standard level of performance required to be a Soldier, then clearly your body is good enough to be in the Army. If you're carrying a bit of excess potential energy around the waistline, oh well.
Performance is more important than apearance. Right?.....Right?
Performance is more important than apearance. Right?.....Right?
(9)
(0)
5
5
0
On my last NCOER I was rated the best NCO in the company by my 1SG. I have maxed out my civilian education and consistently at the top of the OML. I tape between 25 and 26% which is in regs for my age group. But, because I couldn't get down to 2% or more below the upper limit my CoC wouldn't send me to NCOES. I bench over 300 lbs, deadlift over 350 lbs, back squat 275 lbs, military press 175 lbs, do 66 push ups, 40 sit ups, and pass the bike and walk (either one depending on the day of test). I spend about 2 hours a day in the gym. I am not a couch potato, but at the same time I have thyroid issues and have a hard time getting my waist smaller. I got frustrated with all of that, and all of my joints hurt, so I retired. I think if a soldier can perform well above standard, that is better than having someone who meets the weight screening tables and can barely eek out enough push ups or sit ups to just barely pass. I mean, the enemy won't give a flying fu@k what my BMI is. With the weight of the gear we have to hump dismounted, I would think greater muscle mass would be more desirable. Something has got to change.
(5)
(0)
SSG Gregg Mourizen
I always went from most reliable NCO to dirt-bag, base on where I sat 1% above or below. My performance never changed, but my Tape test always determined how they say me. I often saw up to 5% deviation, between tapings. Whether using the same person taping or not.
You would think, being able to do your job would be more important, than where you sit on the tape test. That negative attitude, brought on by superiors, was more of a morale buster, than anything else in my military career.
You would think, being able to do your job would be more important, than where you sit on the tape test. That negative attitude, brought on by superiors, was more of a morale buster, than anything else in my military career.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
The Army doesn't have unrealistic standards for body fat, these are the standards put forth by current medical information. It is not unreasonable to expect a 20 year old male Soldier to be at or below 20% body fat or a 41 year old male like myself to be at or below 26% body fat. That is within the range considered acceptable by medical professionals.
There is a common misconception that the ABC program is based on Body Mass Index or that BMI and body fat % are the same thing. BMI is just a number that indicates your height to weight ratio. The Army uses a BMI table to screen out people who do not need to be taped. If you're 5 ft and 90 pounds you almost certainly are below the 20% body fat level and don't need to be taped.
Theres also a myth of the Soldier who crushes the PT test but can't pass tape. While everyone may have met that "one" Soldier, those people are outliers and you can't create Army policy based on the occasional outliers. The data shows that people who fail height and weight also do poorly on the APFT or fail it. From what I've seen when looking at spreadsheets of flags at the BDE level and down over the years, at least 80% of Soldiers flagged for height and weight are also flagged for APFT failure at some as well.
As for a better evaluation method, it's the best of what we've got available. The Army needs something that is portable, easily trainable, and not expensive. Consider the other viable options: calipers, bod pod, body scanners, immersion test, and electric resistance. In any testing method you have an margin of accuracy in the test itself and a second margin of error for the person giving the test. Electrical resistance gives wildly varied results depending on how hydrated someone is so it's too inaccurate to use. Scanners, bod pod, and immersion testing are all very accurate and easy to use, but prohibitively expensive or bulky. That leaves calipers and tape test that meet the requirements for inexpensive, portable, and trainable. Calipers are more accurate however they are harder to train someone on and more likely for the tester to make an error. Tape has a higher margin of error in the test itself, but is easier to train someone on and administer. For those who say the tape test gets screwed up a lot, the calipers would be even worse. With the tape you can be off by a half inch and that's only a deviation of about a single percentage. Also, the regulation requires the taper to round the measurements in the Soldiers favor, up for the neck and down for the waist on males.
So, while I would like to see more accurate testing, the tape is the best alternative until the Army springs for the cost of installing, maintaining, and calibrating some fancy new bod pods or DXA scanners at every unit
There is a common misconception that the ABC program is based on Body Mass Index or that BMI and body fat % are the same thing. BMI is just a number that indicates your height to weight ratio. The Army uses a BMI table to screen out people who do not need to be taped. If you're 5 ft and 90 pounds you almost certainly are below the 20% body fat level and don't need to be taped.
Theres also a myth of the Soldier who crushes the PT test but can't pass tape. While everyone may have met that "one" Soldier, those people are outliers and you can't create Army policy based on the occasional outliers. The data shows that people who fail height and weight also do poorly on the APFT or fail it. From what I've seen when looking at spreadsheets of flags at the BDE level and down over the years, at least 80% of Soldiers flagged for height and weight are also flagged for APFT failure at some as well.
As for a better evaluation method, it's the best of what we've got available. The Army needs something that is portable, easily trainable, and not expensive. Consider the other viable options: calipers, bod pod, body scanners, immersion test, and electric resistance. In any testing method you have an margin of accuracy in the test itself and a second margin of error for the person giving the test. Electrical resistance gives wildly varied results depending on how hydrated someone is so it's too inaccurate to use. Scanners, bod pod, and immersion testing are all very accurate and easy to use, but prohibitively expensive or bulky. That leaves calipers and tape test that meet the requirements for inexpensive, portable, and trainable. Calipers are more accurate however they are harder to train someone on and more likely for the tester to make an error. Tape has a higher margin of error in the test itself, but is easier to train someone on and administer. For those who say the tape test gets screwed up a lot, the calipers would be even worse. With the tape you can be off by a half inch and that's only a deviation of about a single percentage. Also, the regulation requires the taper to round the measurements in the Soldiers favor, up for the neck and down for the waist on males.
So, while I would like to see more accurate testing, the tape is the best alternative until the Army springs for the cost of installing, maintaining, and calibrating some fancy new bod pods or DXA scanners at every unit
(3)
(0)
SSG Gregg Mourizen
I have to disagree with your "best we've got available" for evaluation method.
The average of three measurements, with less than .5 difference in measurements. Variables on tape placement, how tight the evaluator thinks the tape needs to be. I have seen up to 5% difference, even with the same person taping. I have seen evaluators use different tensions on the tape. Placement is everything
The caliper test measures more points, is fairly simple to calculate, and is far more accurate than the Tape test.
Obviously, nowhere near as effective as the water displacement (Immersion) test. But of course that is much more complicated.
What has always amazed me is, even if you can manage to successfully protest the measurement, they (in my experience) would always just have another NCO measure with the tape, rather than using a more accurate method of measuring.
What also amazes me is that people refuse to see the largest problem with the tape test. it doesn't accommodate for body type. I have see soldiers with huge necks, or no-necks, who pass tape, in the teens, with huge guts. I have see slim soldiers fail, because they have skinny necks. Otherwise skinny girls, with large hips, failing. I had a friend almost get booted from PLDC (Now WLC) for one pound. He mas over his max weight by one pound, and then proceeded to fail tape. On the re-tape, he made the 1 pound (sweat, pissed, who knows) and then was considered fit and did not need to tape.
I still, would rather see the calipers, which are not effected by body types. All other arenas use it as a standard, for a reason. More accurate, fairly simple computation. Less room for variation.
Either way, a little extra body fat, should not be a career ender, if the soldier is still able to perform to standard. I don't think I have ever seen a unit take weight loss as a serious issue, and would either ignore the problem or boot the soldier out to preserve "the numbers".
The average of three measurements, with less than .5 difference in measurements. Variables on tape placement, how tight the evaluator thinks the tape needs to be. I have seen up to 5% difference, even with the same person taping. I have seen evaluators use different tensions on the tape. Placement is everything
The caliper test measures more points, is fairly simple to calculate, and is far more accurate than the Tape test.
Obviously, nowhere near as effective as the water displacement (Immersion) test. But of course that is much more complicated.
What has always amazed me is, even if you can manage to successfully protest the measurement, they (in my experience) would always just have another NCO measure with the tape, rather than using a more accurate method of measuring.
What also amazes me is that people refuse to see the largest problem with the tape test. it doesn't accommodate for body type. I have see soldiers with huge necks, or no-necks, who pass tape, in the teens, with huge guts. I have see slim soldiers fail, because they have skinny necks. Otherwise skinny girls, with large hips, failing. I had a friend almost get booted from PLDC (Now WLC) for one pound. He mas over his max weight by one pound, and then proceeded to fail tape. On the re-tape, he made the 1 pound (sweat, pissed, who knows) and then was considered fit and did not need to tape.
I still, would rather see the calipers, which are not effected by body types. All other arenas use it as a standard, for a reason. More accurate, fairly simple computation. Less room for variation.
Either way, a little extra body fat, should not be a career ender, if the soldier is still able to perform to standard. I don't think I have ever seen a unit take weight loss as a serious issue, and would either ignore the problem or boot the soldier out to preserve "the numbers".
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SSG Gregg Mourizen your argument is that the people who can't manage to hold a tape correctly to measure will do a better job using calipers to measure? That's like saying if they can't ride a bike we should give them a unicycle
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google