Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not sure how someone can really get over fat of that fairly generous limit, despite free counseling, free training advice, free gyms, being surrounded by body Nazis who really enjoy helping people get fit, and usually time to work out.
That's an individual's personal problem and laziness to not meet the standard, not the Army's or other service's. I like to eat; when I approach the limit, it's because I ate crap KNOWING it was crap, and too much of it-not the BMI table being 'misused'.
I agree with the first statement, I never understood how some of these people could like to maintain themselves like that.
The BMI table is misused, a person that meets the BMI specifications can still have high body fat, so why not measure everyone? It is well known in the fitness world that this occurs frequently, hence why it is preached that weight is not a direct sign of physical fitness nor body fat percentage. There is a term "skinny fat" which means people who are thin, but have a high body fat percentage and/or fat around the liver and other organs.
The BMI table is misused, a person that meets the BMI specifications can still have high body fat, so why not measure everyone?
That's a Commander's discretion. As to 'why not everyone', it can take forever to do an entire company, some of whom meet weight and clearly meet body fat standards.
During the times I commanded, I had several folks who appeared unfit despite meeting the screening table weight. I still made them tape. None of them were over the body fat limit, so they still passed.
Either way, I disagree with the concept of body weight as a measurement tool, I feel a person should be based on performance only. If someone passes all physical tests, why should their body weight be a factor?
Well, when you're made Secretary of the Navy, you can change it.
As for 'why body weight should be a factor', for the Army (which can be extended to other service), there is a specific regulation stating why:
AR 600-9,
"1–5. Objectives
a. The primary objective of the AWCP [Army Weight Control Program] is to insure that all personnel—
(1) Are able to meet the physical demands of their duties under combat conditions.
(2) Present a trim military appearance at all times.
b. Excessive body fat—
(1) Connotes a lack of personal discipline.
(2) Detracts from military appearance.
(3) May indicate a poor state of health, physical fitness, or stamina."
I presume the other services have similar goals and metrics, whether explicitly stated or not. You don't have to like it, but it is the law of the land: fitness is not the only goal. It's also appearance.
What if a person cannot fit into a Humvee tank? Been in one of those with three other people? Quadruple extra large does not work. Ever been in the cockpit of a fighter jet? They don't make those in quadruple XL either.
There has to be a standard. Not only fitness, but also size is a factor in performing job functions.
Ok, this is an argument regarding job function, which is different than what is being discussed. Many are not physically qualified to be in a fighter jet, that is not a physical standard the rest of the military goes by.
As far as fitting into these things, as the other poster stated, it is not about size or weight, but about body fat. Power lifters can be sizable and still be within standards, even when someone smaller than them is not. Pat Tillman would have had to take the body fat test.
Well, when you're made Secretary of the Navy, you can change it.
As for 'why body weight should be a factor', for the Army (which can be extended to other service), there is a specific regulation stating why:
AR 600-9,
"1–5. Objectives
a. The primary objective of the AWCP [Army Weight Control Program] is to insure that all personnel—
(1) Are able to meet the physical demands of their duties under combat conditions.
(2) Present a trim military appearance at all times.
b. Excessive body fat—
(1) Connotes a lack of personal discipline.
(2) Detracts from military appearance.
(3) May indicate a poor state of health, physical fitness, or stamina."
I presume the other services have similar goals and metrics, whether explicitly stated or not. You don't have to like it, but it is the law of the land: fitness is not the only goal. It's also appearance.
"Well, when you're made Secretary of the Navy, you can change it."
Fallacy, has nothing to do with the ability to discuss about it. As a tax payer and citizen, I am entitled to discuss about it.
"fitness is not the only goal. It's also appearance."
This is about the only logical argument, though subjective and a smaller person can easily have more body fat than a larger person; a person standing the gate with their stomach hanging out looks ridiculous, as those apple shapes waddling as they walk.
Do you feel that our military discriminates against overweight people? I certainly do, I think the military is about the only organization that still openly and clearly discriminates against overweight people but nobody talks about it.
Sadly, Orlando . . . there is far too much "PC Sensitivity" when it comes to obesity in this country. NOT just in the Military but in many organizations which rely on their employees / members to be healthy and in top shape in order to perform their duties.
When I was in the Army (eons ago) I passed all of my PT tests as well as all of my weight standards (including when I was pregnant).
My DH on the other hand had to be taped each and every time (for almost 23 years) because he was NEVER within weight standards (including Basic/AIT- we were in the same Unit). He has almost a 19 inch neck so taping was not an issue. He would not have fit into a tank or cockpit but for his MOS (MP) he was more than fine.
He always maintained a fit Military bearing, was Drill Sergeant of the cycle 4 times and passed every PT test (even after he broke his neck C4, C5 and C6- after his medical leave was up). He Retired when he could no longer comfortably perform PT ( he developed spinal stenosis as a result of his broken neck).
There HAS to be standards in the Military- after all lives can and DO depend upon it.
"Well, when you're made Secretary of the Navy, you can change it."
Fallacy, has nothing to do with the ability to discuss about it. As a tax payer and citizen, I am entitled to discuss about it.
Okay, if you want to go there. As another citizen, I suspect you knows someone who was put out because they were overweight. Grossly overweight. Another way of putting it is fat. You're just trying to stir up support for changing a perfectly reasonable policy, with frankly very weak arguments.
The irony of this, is that one of the major health problems in veterans is obesity, and co-occurring disorders of high blood pressure, diabetes, and other health issues. They have programs at the VA to help with obesity, the MOVE program is one, to increase activity, reduce food intake, and gain healthy eating habits.
Okay, if you want to go there. As another citizen, I suspect you knows someone who was put out because they were overweight. Grossly overweight. Another way of putting it is fat. You're just trying to stir up support for changing a perfectly reasonable policy, with frankly very weak arguments.
No, I do not know of anyone ever to get booted, as I said, that was not even the policy when I was in, a person could not eat there way to a discharge, they changed that shortly after I was in (I guess they have changed it back). For myself, I was a toothpick when I was in.
The policies have changed consistently over time, even when I was in they changed the standards.
If you ever reviewed my post history, you will see how a am not a fan of fat people, and I consider it as a lack of self discipline and self respect.
But the subject was not fat people, it was overweight people in which we have had a number of posters here state differing reasons for it. One poster stated it was for fitness reasons, but that was invalidated as being overweight has nothing to do with being able to pass the PT, many overweight people pass the PT, even Pat Tillman would have been considered overweight and would have had to do the body fat test. Body fat is not related to weight, a thin person can have more body fat as a percentage than a large person. So again, this argument is flawed.
The arguments have drifted from fitness standards, to being overweight, to body fat, to appearance. Those are four distinctly different arguments for the weight standards. I have countered three of those arguments and yet you have not stated anything factual against my arguments.
1. Fitness; I have stated an overweight person can score an outstanding on a PT test, it has happened plenty of times.
2. Overweight; this is flawed because an overweight person can still be within standards as long as they do not have a high body fat, so any debate about weight therefore is invalid because at the end, weight is not the defining concern.
3. Body fat; not dependent on weight, but a person not making weight will be tested for it. A small person can have a higher body fat than a large person, this is a fact, you are welcome to Google for yourself. Large athletic people frequently have a lower body fat than smaller non-athletic people, yet it would be the only the large athletic type who would get tested.
The one item we do agree on that a fat person does look sloppy and looks ridiculous (though subjective) in uniform (implying we agree based on your earlier post, but you did not state if you agreed with the rule or not).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
