4
4
0
The Navy is giving another chance to thousands of sailors who otherwise would be kicked out for repeatedly failing their physical fitness tests because they exceeded body fat limits.
The service branch loosened its body fat restrictions in January and is allowing those who failed their exams three or more times to get one more opportunity to be tested this spring under the more lenient guidelines. The Navy said it has been losing too many talented sailors. Some were resorting to liposuction, diet pills and other measures to save their careers.
The service branch loosened its body fat restrictions in January and is allowing those who failed their exams three or more times to get one more opportunity to be tested this spring under the more lenient guidelines. The Navy said it has been losing too many talented sailors. Some were resorting to liposuction, diet pills and other measures to save their careers.
Sailors Face More Lenient Body Fat Rules
Posted from abcnews.go.com
Navy
Fitness
Food/Chow
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
3
3
0
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/130803p.pdf
The Navy is simply implementing DoD policy:
"6.2.2.4. Ensure that gender-appropriate body fat standards shall not be more stringent than 18 percent for men and 26 percent for women, and shall not be more liberal than 26 percent for men and 36 percent for women, as measured using circumference-based methods described in enclosure 3."
While I agree that 26% for men is quite fat, the Navy isn't doing anything exceptionally different here, except following the most liberal DoD standard.
Each Service has the authority to make up its own programs under the guidelines established in the DoDI.
Air Force: http://www.afpc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-131018-072.pdf ("3.6.5.3.
To pass the BFA, a female Airman must achieve a body fat percentage equal to or lower than 26%. A male Airman must achieve a BFA equal to or lower than 18%. Refer to Attachments 20 and 21
for score tables."
Army: http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r600_9.pdf (Age group: 17–20, Male (% body fat): 20%
Female (% body fat): 30%; Age group: 21–27 Male (% body fat): 22% Female (% body fat): 32%
Age group: 28–39 Male (% body fat): 24% Female (% body fat): 34% Age group: 40 and older Male (% body fat): 26% Female (% body fat): 36%.)
Marine Corps: http://hprc-online.org/physical-fitness/files/usmc-mco-6110.3-percent-body-fat (Age Group Male Female 17-26 18% BF 26% BF 27-39 19% BF 27% BF 40-45 20% BF 28% BF 46+ 21% BF 29% BF)
Navy (http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/support/21st_Century_Sailor/physical/Documents/Guide%204-%20Body%20Composition%20Assessment%20%28BCA%29.pdf): Male, 17-39, 22%, 40-40+: 23%; Female, 17-39, 33%, 40-40+, 34%).
A quick glance at the various Service standards show how all-over-the-place DoD policy is implemented. The Marine Corps and Army, at least, attempt to account for age-based physiological differences by having a age-normed standards. The Navy does attempt this, too, but lumping all 17-39 year olds in the same age group with the same standard is a bit silly, as is allowing a 1% increase for 40+. Only the Air Force ignores age-based differences. All the Services have gender-normed standards, which again makes sense, given gender-based physiological differences. It probably is a surprise to many (not in the Air Force) that the Air Force has both the highest standards (male, 18% and female, 26%) and at the same time the worst measurement technique.
What really needs to happen is for DoD to direct the Services to ditch the current body composition measurement standards (ie, BMI screening and the tape test) in favor of a measure that is based in science, uses technology, and is consistently accurate. The tape test has a standard deviation of +/- 4%, and routinely is off by +/- 15%. Technology--ie, the Bodpod--already exists across the DoD that measures body composition extremely accurately--why are we not using it?
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS COL Vincent Stoneking LCDR (Join to see)
The Navy is simply implementing DoD policy:
"6.2.2.4. Ensure that gender-appropriate body fat standards shall not be more stringent than 18 percent for men and 26 percent for women, and shall not be more liberal than 26 percent for men and 36 percent for women, as measured using circumference-based methods described in enclosure 3."
While I agree that 26% for men is quite fat, the Navy isn't doing anything exceptionally different here, except following the most liberal DoD standard.
Each Service has the authority to make up its own programs under the guidelines established in the DoDI.
Air Force: http://www.afpc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-131018-072.pdf ("3.6.5.3.
To pass the BFA, a female Airman must achieve a body fat percentage equal to or lower than 26%. A male Airman must achieve a BFA equal to or lower than 18%. Refer to Attachments 20 and 21
for score tables."
Army: http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r600_9.pdf (Age group: 17–20, Male (% body fat): 20%
Female (% body fat): 30%; Age group: 21–27 Male (% body fat): 22% Female (% body fat): 32%
Age group: 28–39 Male (% body fat): 24% Female (% body fat): 34% Age group: 40 and older Male (% body fat): 26% Female (% body fat): 36%.)
Marine Corps: http://hprc-online.org/physical-fitness/files/usmc-mco-6110.3-percent-body-fat (Age Group Male Female 17-26 18% BF 26% BF 27-39 19% BF 27% BF 40-45 20% BF 28% BF 46+ 21% BF 29% BF)
Navy (http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/support/21st_Century_Sailor/physical/Documents/Guide%204-%20Body%20Composition%20Assessment%20%28BCA%29.pdf): Male, 17-39, 22%, 40-40+: 23%; Female, 17-39, 33%, 40-40+, 34%).
A quick glance at the various Service standards show how all-over-the-place DoD policy is implemented. The Marine Corps and Army, at least, attempt to account for age-based physiological differences by having a age-normed standards. The Navy does attempt this, too, but lumping all 17-39 year olds in the same age group with the same standard is a bit silly, as is allowing a 1% increase for 40+. Only the Air Force ignores age-based differences. All the Services have gender-normed standards, which again makes sense, given gender-based physiological differences. It probably is a surprise to many (not in the Air Force) that the Air Force has both the highest standards (male, 18% and female, 26%) and at the same time the worst measurement technique.
What really needs to happen is for DoD to direct the Services to ditch the current body composition measurement standards (ie, BMI screening and the tape test) in favor of a measure that is based in science, uses technology, and is consistently accurate. The tape test has a standard deviation of +/- 4%, and routinely is off by +/- 15%. Technology--ie, the Bodpod--already exists across the DoD that measures body composition extremely accurately--why are we not using it?
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS COL Vincent Stoneking LCDR (Join to see)
(3)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Concur on all points.
As for why we're not using it?.... Simplicity & Bureaucracy trumps Accuracy.
The Height/Weight followed by Tape is SIMPLE. Dead simple. Requires no training, can be done with relative ease and is "Objective" (flawed but Objective). That alone makes it perfect for the "machine."
I'd be willing to bet our "filtered" system (make weight = ok, make tape = ok...) lets far more people fall through the cracks than "false positives." The height/weight standard is amazingly lenient for most people.
We get wrapped around the taping being inaccurate... but it's the second test we do. Unless we shift away from height/weight (BMI) we're going to continue to have these issues.
As for why we're not using it?.... Simplicity & Bureaucracy trumps Accuracy.
The Height/Weight followed by Tape is SIMPLE. Dead simple. Requires no training, can be done with relative ease and is "Objective" (flawed but Objective). That alone makes it perfect for the "machine."
I'd be willing to bet our "filtered" system (make weight = ok, make tape = ok...) lets far more people fall through the cracks than "false positives." The height/weight standard is amazingly lenient for most people.
We get wrapped around the taping being inaccurate... but it's the second test we do. Unless we shift away from height/weight (BMI) we're going to continue to have these issues.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
That is interesting news SGT (Join to see) I wonder if there are any other US Navy rule changes which may indicate a general issue of less demanding physical requirements for service.
FYI CPO Andy Carrillo started the same discussion about an hour ago.
FYI CPO Andy Carrillo started the same discussion about an hour ago.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google