Officials: More lenient body-size regs in the works

Navy Times — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 12:32:39 -0500

From: Navy Times

The Navy's body size rules are outdated and unattainable for many, officials say, and the service is on its way to coming up with new ones.

Late last year, the Office of the Chief of Naval Personnel revealed that officials are looking into updating the height-and-weight chart, as well as servicewide ways to encourage and reward outstanding performance on the semi-annual physical fitness assessment.

Roughly one-third of Navy personnel are heavier than the approved height-and-weight standards and must be taped, a senior Navy official told Navy Times on Jan. 27.

"If a third of the force doesn't meet the published height and weight standards, then the accuracy of these charts today needs to be and should be looked at," said the senior official, who asked not to be identified because he wasn't authorized to discuss the subject publicly. "We know that over time, the size and shape of the population has changed, so it makes sense to at least re-evaluate our baseline to ensure it is still valid."

Chief of Naval Personnel Vice Adm. Bill Moran confirmed to Navy Times that he's poised to brief his recommendations to Juan Garcia, the assistant secretary of the Navy for manpower and reserve affairs, followed by Navy Secretary Ray Mabus.

"The BCA, as we understand it, is based on decades-old data," Moran said at a public appearance in February, and the height and weight chart hasn't changed in roughly 30 years, he said.

With fitness trends like weight lifting, and the increased numbers of women in the Navy, it's important to study how body shapes have changed over time, he said.

Currently, male sailors age 40 or younger are allowed 22 percent body fat; older men are allowed 23 percent. For women, limits are 33 percent under age 40, and 34 percent for the rest. That's lower than what the Department of Defense allows — 26 percent for men, 36 percent for women, suggesting it could be within the Navy's prerogative to ease the standards to match those of DoD. Another option would allow higher body fat percentages as sailors get older.

Navy statistics show that during the spring 2013 physical fitness testing cycle, 109,902 sailors, or 30.2 percent of the force, didn't meet the Navy's height and weight chart standards and had to be taped.

Of those, 7,792 failed the tape test, for a failure rate of 7.1 percent for everyone who had to be taped.

Moran is no fan of the height-and-weight standards.

"I will tell you, every weigh-in, I am down to the ounce, just because of the way I am built," Moran said in a spring 2014 interview with Navy Times.

There might also be changes to the tape test, which measures sailors' neck girth in proportion to their waists. Many say the body composition assessment is unfair or too subjective; sailors must pass this and the PRT or they'll fail the cycle. Three failures in four years will get sailors booted out. Dozens of readers have suggested to Navy Times that calipers or a body mass index scale are preferable.

"Bioelectric impedance, which is available in nearly all scales, could be used as a replacement at no, or reduced, cost," wrote Lt. (Dr.) Mark Hauswirth, a Navy flight surgeon, in a January letter to the editor. "Its accuracy is at least comparable, and it has no bias as it does not introduce human error."

Some senior officials agree it's long past time for a change.

"It's amazing to me that with all the leaps in technology that have happened over the past few decades in ships and weapons and aircraft, that we are still testing for body fat the same way we did when I came in the service in the 1980s," the senior official said.

In addition to new body composition standards, CNP is also looking at standardized incentives for PT studs.

The Navy's Physical Readiness Program Director Bill Moore told Navy Times in 2014 that skippers have a host of incentives — from special mention in the plan of the day to prime parking spots to special liberty — they can give to sailors who score an excellent on the PFA.

CNP spokeswoman Lt. Stephanie Homick confirmed that her office was looking into more ways to reward consistently high performers, but declined to go into more details before the proposals are briefed to leadership.

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/02/24/navy-physical-fitness-standards-height-weight-update/23731997/

Response by MAJ Jim Steven made Feb 24 at 2015 12:37 PM

MAJ Jim Steven — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 12:37:41 -0500

I once saw a headline along the lines of "sitting is the new smoking."

Staying in shape and thin was easier when our jobs had us walking around and lifting things throughout the day... now, its sitting behind a computer and staring at a screen...or sitting in meetings talking about what we saw on our individual screens...

The struggle is real!!

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2015 10:25 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 22:25:45 -0500

I honestly believe that the standards should stay the same. I used to battle all the time with having to maintain my body weight before I joined. But, I wanted a change and when I joined, I signed a contract stating that I will abide by all regulations, follow all lawful orders, and maintain my physical fitness. Today I look around at some of my fellow shipmates and I am grosses out by the obesity. I don't take excuses for why someone is over weight. I do believe everybody should have to do a body fat assessment but not with taping. Yes every human being is built and made differently. But the term I am big boned while eating a donut is not realistic to me at all. I strive to be healthy and physically fit. I yes have a so called desk job, but, that doesn't stop me. I know not everyone is like me. But, what happened to being the elite of the United States and being an image. If they can't handle it then they can get out. All you have to do is fail 3 PRT's in a row. So keep the standards the same but change how it is done. I also do believe that even the PRT should be regulated across the board for all branches including woman and males. A lot of people may not agree with me on this but this is what I believe and how I view the military should be.

Response by SGT Jim Z. made Feb 25 at 2015 7:29 AM

SGT Jim Z. — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 07:29:10 -0500

According to the article the Navy's height and weight standards have not changed in 30 years and a third of the service does not meet the weight standards and need to be taped. Guess what over the last 30 years many things have changed including the proper nutrition guidelines and the gym craze. We all know muscle weights more than fat and this causes some to be taped which with a revision could possible eliminate those personnel from being taped. Now of a naval person looks like the Michelin Man in their whites then there is a problem. I know in the military we hate change but at times change is good.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2015 8:25 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 08:25:27 -0500

So the tape test hasn't changed in over 30 years and data from 2013 is used to make what case? Is there the same data available from 1980? Maybe it's not the tape test maybe we are just getting fatter?

I am not a big fan of the tape test and I know there are better measurements out there. I also know that we are a cross section of the American population and studies have shown that the American population is getting fat!

If the services want to put time and effort into the height and weight standards they should direct that attention more toward diet and exercise. Not just publishing some words in a regulation but educating the units Physician Assistants on diet and health. We are expected to perform like athletes, give us some of the same resources athletes have.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2015 9:31 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 09:31:34 -0500

I don't think they should lax the height and weight standards. 22% body fat is higher than the Marine Corps (18%). What I do agree with is changing the taping method. The neck and weight tape test is horrendous and widely inaccurate. I've seen Marines with 6 packs get put on BCP because they didn't have a thick enough neck...

I don't believe the "I'm just big boned hype"...

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2015 9:44 AM

2LT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 09:44:24 -0500

I'm for more UP TO DATE and MODERN standards than for "lenient".

Response by Cpl Clinton Britt made Feb 25 at 2015 9:47 AM

Cpl Clinton Britt — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 09:47:45 -0500

The way I see it is...... My max weight for my height was 197.. The only time that I was ever below that was Boot Camp, I weighed in at 175 and I went in at 220. I stayed in the gym constantly. I was eventually restricted from the weight room and was placed on military appearance. I made tape so I couldn't be placed on weight control.

I weighed 214lbs when I easd with a 34" waist

If the Weight standard is changed then there are other things that will have to be addressed as well

pft standards
uniforms

thats just mention a couple.

Standards are put in place for a reason

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Feb 25 at 2015 11:23 AM

Capt Richard I P. — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 11:23:03 -0500

Forget height-weight standards, enforce the Physical Fitness standards. Make a standard related to requirements for the job. Task, Condition, Standard then ENFORCE.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2015 1:05 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 13:05:21 -0500

Let me start off with, I am not making excuses. I have never been officially taped in my career. I have been an ACFL, last year to be exact. About 20% of those that were required to be taped were in incredible shape (lifted weights, etc.). Just to show that the taping method is inaccurate I volunteered to be taped a few years ago (officially weighed in at 145; 5'8" - my height can be up to 170). Even though I was well within weight standards, when I was taped it had my BCA over the allowed percentage. I am not saying to make the standards more "lenient" but at least more "accurate."