6
6
0
What is your opinion about the Army's body composition study? Do you think we need a change? Do you think the height/weight examination should be completely eliminated?
Body composition study makes stop at Fort Lee
Posted from dvidshub.net
Height and Weight
Health
Standards
Fitness
Edited 2 y ago
Posted 2 y ago
Responses: 6
4
4
0
Yes we do need a change. Basing it off BMI is stupid. BMI is archaic and doesn't accurately represent anyone's body fat.
Too many people in the Army suffer from eating disorders because of the body composition standards. I know I do since I had my daughter it's hard af to keep weight off. And the fact that sometimes they measure me an inch shorter than I am so then I have to lose down to an inch shorter than I am.
From what I heard is that the ideas going around are to potentially raise the table weight to align with the fact that people are lifting more weights. Muscle weighs more than fat. So that makes sense we should adjust weight standards to the ACFT. Also there is an idea that they raise the limit of when they tape. Instead of if someone is 1 pound over maybe at 5 pounds over. Someone being 1 pound over the table weight is ridiculous to tape them. Also adjusting where we tape because everyone has different body types. I recall when there was a point for females we got our wrists taped. That made no sense - wtf does that have to do with body fat?
We need an overhaul in our body composition program also for the simple fact of how people consume food in this country. It doesn't matter really what you eat - everything is processed. Unless you are growing your own food, you're getting processed food. That's why people are fatter than they used to be - and the fact we have never modified how we measure body mass.
If it can stop people from going to extreme measures to pass weight every six months, I'm all for it. I know when I retire it's going to take me time to reprogram my body and have a healthy relationship with food again. Add in the fact I grew up with food insecurity...as do a lot of people. They really need to also start having new soldiers go through a dietary class or something. Because there are people who grew up food insecure, homeless, hungry or didn't have proper nutrition. I thought with the ACFT there was supposed to be a dietitian and personal trainer in every BN or something.
It needs to change.
Too many people in the Army suffer from eating disorders because of the body composition standards. I know I do since I had my daughter it's hard af to keep weight off. And the fact that sometimes they measure me an inch shorter than I am so then I have to lose down to an inch shorter than I am.
From what I heard is that the ideas going around are to potentially raise the table weight to align with the fact that people are lifting more weights. Muscle weighs more than fat. So that makes sense we should adjust weight standards to the ACFT. Also there is an idea that they raise the limit of when they tape. Instead of if someone is 1 pound over maybe at 5 pounds over. Someone being 1 pound over the table weight is ridiculous to tape them. Also adjusting where we tape because everyone has different body types. I recall when there was a point for females we got our wrists taped. That made no sense - wtf does that have to do with body fat?
We need an overhaul in our body composition program also for the simple fact of how people consume food in this country. It doesn't matter really what you eat - everything is processed. Unless you are growing your own food, you're getting processed food. That's why people are fatter than they used to be - and the fact we have never modified how we measure body mass.
If it can stop people from going to extreme measures to pass weight every six months, I'm all for it. I know when I retire it's going to take me time to reprogram my body and have a healthy relationship with food again. Add in the fact I grew up with food insecurity...as do a lot of people. They really need to also start having new soldiers go through a dietary class or something. Because there are people who grew up food insecure, homeless, hungry or didn't have proper nutrition. I thought with the ACFT there was supposed to be a dietitian and personal trainer in every BN or something.
It needs to change.
(4)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
SFC Kelly Fuerhoff I feel your pain. I live off of a vegetable-based diet to make scale weight so I totally get your frustrations. Bottom line, I think if a Soldier can pass the ACFT, they shouldn't be subject to a screening. Instead, as SFC (Join to see) pointed out, they should be prioritized for H2F intervention to maximize their potential. Doing such a thing should help with recruiting a bit as well.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I agree with SFC Fuerhoff in that the ABCP is incredibly detrimental to the overall mental well-being of many Soldiers. I don't think that the program needs to be eradicated, however, the measuring system needs to be redone, the allowances need to be revised, and we need to overhaul the mentality regarding the ABCP. Especially towards females. We demonize people because they bust the HT/WT initial screening and call them fat bodies when in realty, most are not actually fat. At worst, most are a little on the heavy side but certainly not fat. It has led to Soldiers making drastic choices to make HT/WT and tape like liposuction, insane fad diets, putting weird creams on then wrapping themselves in plastic and sitting in a sauna for excessive amounts of time, and developing eating disorders/unhealthy relationships with food. And for what? So 1SG doesn't call them a fat @$$? It makes no sense whatsoever.
As SFC Kelly Fuerhoff said, some people (she mentioned women specifically) are naturally built in a way that makes them look big but they aren't. Yet they draw the ire of the command because we have beat into leadership that anyone who doesn't look the part doesn't belong in the club. That's not acceptable, especially when physical appearance allowances regarding hair, nails, and jewelry are being changed drastically as it is.
I would also agree that the system exacerbates the issues many have with food issues and food insecurities. We are pretty good as an organization at making mental health issues worse in Soldiers and then blaming them for it or for not getting the help they deserve but that our training schedules won't allow.
As SFC Kelly Fuerhoff said, some people (she mentioned women specifically) are naturally built in a way that makes them look big but they aren't. Yet they draw the ire of the command because we have beat into leadership that anyone who doesn't look the part doesn't belong in the club. That's not acceptable, especially when physical appearance allowances regarding hair, nails, and jewelry are being changed drastically as it is.
I would also agree that the system exacerbates the issues many have with food issues and food insecurities. We are pretty good as an organization at making mental health issues worse in Soldiers and then blaming them for it or for not getting the help they deserve but that our training schedules won't allow.
(1)
(0)
SFC Kelly Fuerhoff
SFC (Join to see) - It's our hips and waist!! Like some of us can't help it we have wide hips and a big ass lol. I have starved myself so I don't get taped - not because anyone would call me fat. I definitely have never been called fat in the Army and right now if I tell people what I do to get under table weight (for even an inch shorter than I am) they say "What? You're not fat." Ding, ding exactly.
I guarantee when I retire, it's going to take me a long time to stop getting on the scale every day. To stop worrying about the number.
I guarantee when I retire, it's going to take me a long time to stop getting on the scale every day. To stop worrying about the number.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SFC Kelly Fuerhoff - I can understand that. There are many females with wide hips, waists and sizeable asses, lol. They always complain but sadly the regs have been against them for many years. Us fellers with long skinny necks get hosed too. It's super annoying so I understand the struggle a little bit, though not to the same extent. I have done some very unpleasant diets and cleanses and such to get to where I was under the table weight. I have been called fat for a number of years and it took its toll. I'm in a much better place in it now but it took a bit of time.
When I retire, which should be in the very near future, I definitely plan to give no cares about the stupid HT/WT standards of the Army and focus on my own health standards. Hopefully it doesn't take you too long to let go of those numbers on the scale and recognize you're healthy and fine the way you are!
When I retire, which should be in the very near future, I definitely plan to give no cares about the stupid HT/WT standards of the Army and focus on my own health standards. Hopefully it doesn't take you too long to let go of those numbers on the scale and recognize you're healthy and fine the way you are!
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Make it non-punitive if the SM can score over 70 in each event of the ACFT. Add it as a screening factor to identify priority groups for intervention with H2F personnel.
(3)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
I like the non-punitive perspective SFC (Join to see)! What you propose is a solid pathway to help Soldiers be the best version of themselves. Have you addressed your idea in townhalls or surveys?
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I would keep this requirement. Today, we are faced with those could serve is obese and struggle in meeting today's rigors of serving. Military members today that have be physically fit to fight and win on the battlefields,
seas amd air globally. Our competitive advantage has always been training combined with the will to fight wars and endure its challenges!
seas amd air globally. Our competitive advantage has always been training combined with the will to fight wars and endure its challenges!
(3)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
I see your point! However, I think that if a Soldier can pass the modern physical fitness test, they're "fit" enough for combat mentally and physically. Perhaps establishing a minimum score to avoid height/weight screening makes more sense?
(2)
(0)
SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM
MSG (Join to see) Having both methods give us the best in serving! In fairness to those who serve and our citizens!Those who serve today are often faced with unseen and unknown challenges.
(2)
(0)
MSG Thomas Currie
SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM You are exactly right about "our competitive advantage" -- but note that nothing in the advantage you described mentions being thinner than normal.
If we look at any of the conflicts the US military has fought, you will find plenty of soldiers who would not have met today's arbitrary height/weight standards.
We constantly see the excuse "Military members today that have be physically fit to fight and win on the battlefields" but how true is that and even if it were true, how does that relate to the current height/weight standards.
Anyone willing to think has to admit that different jobs require different levels and different kinds of physical fitness... and realistically none of those job requirements align closely with either the physical fitness test or the height/weight standards.
The ONLY reason we need an arbitrary PT test and arbitrary height/weight standards is because the top leadership doesn't feel they can trust leaders at the lower levels to train and evaluate their soldiers.
Unfortunately those top leaders are probably right -- for one thing, they remember the days when they were junior officers and they remember covering for soldiers who were good at their job even if they didn't pass some event on whatever PT test was in use at that time or didn't look like they belonged on a recruiting poster.
Having a clearly defined standard makes pushing paperwork a lot easier -- even if that clearly defined standard makes no sense at all.
If we look at any of the conflicts the US military has fought, you will find plenty of soldiers who would not have met today's arbitrary height/weight standards.
We constantly see the excuse "Military members today that have be physically fit to fight and win on the battlefields" but how true is that and even if it were true, how does that relate to the current height/weight standards.
Anyone willing to think has to admit that different jobs require different levels and different kinds of physical fitness... and realistically none of those job requirements align closely with either the physical fitness test or the height/weight standards.
The ONLY reason we need an arbitrary PT test and arbitrary height/weight standards is because the top leadership doesn't feel they can trust leaders at the lower levels to train and evaluate their soldiers.
Unfortunately those top leaders are probably right -- for one thing, they remember the days when they were junior officers and they remember covering for soldiers who were good at their job even if they didn't pass some event on whatever PT test was in use at that time or didn't look like they belonged on a recruiting poster.
Having a clearly defined standard makes pushing paperwork a lot easier -- even if that clearly defined standard makes no sense at all.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google