Making Soldiers Fit to Fight, Without the Situps

[scoutpilot]

Two questions Scout...
Just by looking at a person can you tell if a "fat piece of ****" is actually overweight or not?

Yes. I'm sure you have this ability as well, which involves the keen skill of looking at a person and seeing a bulbous gut and a butt far too large for the legs and body to which it is attached.

The reason I ask is that my son is considered overweight by the USMA weight/height chart but when his body fat percentage is measured he is around 7%. So he may look like a "fat piece of ****" to you but he really isn't.

Oh, you're taking it personally. Ok, no problem. I'd like you to re-read what you said before I go into it.

First, there is no USMA weight/height chart. The charts that are used are the U.S. Army Screening Weight charts, found in Army Regulation 600-9 (AR 600-9 Army Weight Control Program). They apply to all Army personnel. You'll note that they're called SCREENING weights. Why? Because for any given height, the listed weight is the weight above which you are more likely to be overweight, and thus require further inquiry. Not meeting the screening weight does not mean you are overweight. The weight is for SCREENING and is not a standard in and of itself. The standard soldiers must maintain is body fat.

I doubt you've ever been the recipient of a HT/WT screening yourself, but the function is a very complex equation involving the difference between neck and waist measurements. If I assume that your son is about 5'10" tall with an average neck of 16 inches, his waist would have to measure 30" for him to be 7% body fat. Ever seen someone that tall with a 30" waist look fat? Ever? Nope, me neither. You answered your own question, though perhaps you didn't notice. You know your son doesn't look remotely fat. I know that, and I've never seen him. But if he really taped out at 7% he can't possibly look fat to anyone, unless he's a 4' tall pygmy.

I would like to know if you always judge other soldiers to be "a piece of ****" just by their weight or if you wait to see if they can actually do their jobs and pass their APFT?

No, I don't wait to see if they can pass their APFT. If I saw a soldier with hair over his ears and a 3-day beard I wouldn't say "well, let's wait to see if he can pass his APFT and perform headspace/timing on .50-cal before I decide whether he's a dirtbag and skin him up." Why? Because the standard is the standard. Meeting the standard in one area is not an excuse to fail to meet the standard in another.

If you are overweight, you are a failure. Plain and simple. If you're an overweight leader you're a double failure. The regulation is simple and clear. To wit: "Self-discipline to maintain proper weight distribution and high standards of appearance is essential to every individual in the Army." (Section 2-1, AR 600-9)

Furthermore, from Section 3-1: "Policy - Commanders and supervisors will monitor all members of their command (officers, warrant officers, and enlisted personnel) to ensure that they maintain proper weight, body composition, and personal appearance. At minimum, personnel will be weighed when they take the APFT or at least every 6 months. Soldiers may be weighed immediately before or after they take the APFT. Personnel exceeding the screening table weight ( table 3-1 ) or identified by the commander or supervisor for a special evaluation will have a determination made of percent body fat. Identification and counseling of overweight personnel are required." (emphasis added).

That's pretty simple, right? Not only are you required to be under the allowable body fat limit, but you're required to look like a soldier. A regulation tells you that something is essential, you do it. This isn't Miss Suzy's School of Sewing and Good Manners. This isn't a hippie mushroom commune in Utah. It's the military. Regulations are established, and leaders enfore them. Anything less is unacceptable. Don't like it? We'll be happy to discharge you. This is a combat organization dedicated to national defense. This is not a jobs program.

AR 95-1 says that an aviator cannot consume alcohol within 12 hours of mission start time. Can we blow that off, too? No? Why? Is there a list of priority for which regulations we follow and which we do not? No, no there is not.

As GEN Henry Shelton famously said, "This is a volunteer Army and soldiers volunteer to meet our standards. If they fail to meet our standards we should thank them for trying and send them home."

 

[bruno]

While I understand the sentiments completely-and pretty much share them with Scout Pilot- but would like to take the opportunity to enjoin everyone to Not "take this personally" and to keep things within the bounds of civil discussion ok?

thanks and drive on.

 

[scoutpilot]

While I understand the sentiments completely-and pretty much share them with Scout Pilot- but would like to take the opportunity to enjoin everyone to Not "take this personally" and to keep things within the bounds of civil discussion ok?

thanks and drive on.

Roger, boss.

 

[WAMom68]

Scout,
I apologize for using the wrong term (USMA height/weight chart vs. screening weight). I didn't know if USMA had different standards than the regular Army.

I don't think obese people should be in the military. I do think soldiers should be in shape and able to do all the physical activities required. I also agree that if soldiers can't meet the standards they shouldn't be in the Army.

The reason I commented at all was because I had a lot of respect for you before your post about "fat pieces of ****." It is possible to talk about people who are fat and/or don't meet standard without using that terminology or demeaning them. I am just sick of it being okay to demean fat people but it is unacceptable to demean a person based on their race, gender or religion. I guess I expected more from a USMA grad and an admissions representative. Obviously I expected too much.

Bruno, I feel my comments were fair and not at all uncivil but I’m out of this now so don’t worry about it going any further.

 

[sprog]

Y If they fail to meet our standards we should thank them for trying and send them home."

And send them off to VA, where they will file claims for the rest of their lives. It would be best if sub-standard recruits never made it to active duty. This coming from someone who, on a daily basis, deals with VA appeals that have been pendente lite since Christ was a corporal.

 

[Mongo]

And send them off to VA, where they will file claims for the rest of their lives. It would be best if sub-standard recruits never made it to active duty. This coming from someone who, on a daily basis, deals with VA appeals that have been pendente lite since Christ was a corporal.

What is the correlation which you are attempting to establish here?

 

[sprog]

What is the correlation which you are attempting to establish here?

Without going into too much detail on an already hijacked thread, I have often noticed that those with the least amount of service (often kicked out for failing to meet initial entrance standards), tend to be the most active in filing claims for benefits upon separation. For example, an overweight recruit has recurrent knee problems during PT (as obesity contributes to joint stresses), is diagnosed with knee sprain, and is administratively separated for failing to meet enlistment standards. As the knee condition first manifest itself in service, if a doctor gives a diagnosis of a chronic condition, he gets service connection for it. Then, as he ages, he files for an increase (which is most likely due to obesity), and then for service connection for other conditions (back, neck, whatever) as secondary to his knee condition. The taxpayer ends up paying a monthly tax-free benefit (for the rest of his life) to a guy who couldn't make it out of basic training.

My point, is that it would be best to keep a person like that out of service in the first place. Otherwise, there are downstream costs to the taxpayer (who never got service from the soldier except as an unfit recruit).

 

[futureAFA]

The only true solution is to fix America as a whole. If we get too picky there won’t be enough soldiers, but if we need to meet the quota the soldiers will be sub-standard.

 

[scoutpilot]

I don't think obese people should be in the military. I do think soldiers should be in shape and able to do all the physical activities required. I also agree that if soldiers can't meet the standards they shouldn't be in the Army.

On this, we obviously agree.

The reason I commented at all was because I had a lot of respect for you before your post about "fat pieces of ****." It is possible to talk about people who are fat and/or don't meet standard without using that terminology or demeaning them. I am just sick of it being okay to demean fat people but it is unacceptable to demean a person based on their race, gender or religion. I guess I expected more from a USMA grad and an admissions representative. Obviously I expected too much.

I'm sorry I did not meet your expectations. I'm not sure what they may have been. As one of the wise folks here kindly pointed out, most people on this board have only a narrow exposure to the Army. For those of you in that position, I forget that the Army is a noun. It's an image based on movies and some exposure to the well-oiled machine of West Point. To me, the Army is a way of life. For many of your children it will be that way someday, too. It's not just a paycheck.

Unmet expectations not withstanding, I'll address the crux of your point. No one chooses their race. No one chooses their gender. To a large extent, most people do not choose their religion as it is imposed upon them by their parents. But each and every one of us chooses what goes in our mouth. Fat, despite the multitude of excuses (for otherwise medically healthy people), is a choice. It is a choice.

Those who raise their right hand and swear an oath to obey the orders of those appointed over them and to support and defend the constitution agree that they will watch what goes in their mouth and how many calories they burn in a day to ensure that they are ready to take up arms and defend the American way of life, just as they agree to get a haircut and shave before formation. Could I have put the issue more delicately? Yes. But why would I? Why should I? These are men and women whose job is to close with and destroy the enemies of the United States in close combat. It is their job to hump 100 pounds of gear to the objective and, upon arrival, find the enemies of America and shoot them. Delicacy is not a worthwhile expenditure of effort in this line of work.

The American people have entrusted us with a sacred duty. It is a trust more powerful than dessert, and stronger than the hardest PT session. It is worth more than a greasy pizza or a morning spent in bed instead of pounding the pavement or hitting the weights.

I think you misconstrued my usage. Does being fat make one a piece of ****? No, not at all. The world has people of all shapes, and if you work for Verizon or IBM or the DMV, I don't care what shape you're in, and nor do I have any right to do so. But when we talk about soldiers, does caring so little about those on your left and right that you will endanger their lives, the lives of those under you, and sacrifice unit readiness all for the sake of eating the junk you like to eat and blowing off the regulation make you a piece of ****? Absolutely. If you're a leader, it makes you one doubly so.

The American people give us their sons and daughters with the hope that we will not needlessly waste their lives. Any leader who allows himself/herself or his/her NCOs and soldiers to be at risk because they're not in good physical shape commits a small betrayal of those moms' and dads' each and every day, because they have not given that soldier every chance to survive and come home.

Every soldier is entitled to outstanding leadership, and to wake up every day and be an out-of-shape mess because it's easier than working hard and doing the right thing is to deny those soldiers what they deserve in exchange for pledging their lives to defend our country.

That's my opinion, as a USMA graduate and as a leader of young men who want nothing more than to succeed. No one walks into a recruiting office and says "I want to join the Army and be a fat screwup." If that's the Army experience they have, it's because they failed and their leaders failed.

I don't wake up any day of the week and plan to fail. Hence, my viewpoint.

 

[2012mom?]

Excellent!

 

[Pima]

The American people give us their sons and daughters with the hope that we will not needlessly waste their lives. Any leader who allows himself/herself or his/her NCOs and soldiers to be at risk because they're not in good physical shape commits a small betrayal of those moms' and dads' each and every day, because they have not given that soldier every chance to survive and come home.

Every soldier is entitled to outstanding leadership, and to wake up every day and be an out-of-shape mess because it's easier than working hard and doing the right thing is to deny those soldiers what they deserve in exchange for pledging their lives to defend our country.

100% agree. As a spouse of a flyer, I always had the fear if his jet went down, and his crewmate is out of shape might not be able to save him from the wreckage. My other fear was if the plane went down in enemy territory that Bullet might be at a higher risk because the out of shape crew mate would slow them down regarding evasion. Combat situations exist, and this decision is jeopardizing troops who rely on each other to get out of the bad juju. Unless this General is psychic, how can he say that none of these troops will not find themselves in bad juju?

Being physically fit is not only about that one military member, but it is about the team. Other member's lives are at risk also.

To me nothing is more disheartening than to see a member wear a flight suit where the velcro tabs are extended to the farthest point out.

Imagine this, your child is in combat, the stds have been lowered, and because they didn't have to run with a 70lb rucksack at training they are slowing the group down. Bullets are flying, and the military member who stuck with your child(carrying his fully loaded rucksack) gets shot...how does your child ever get over the guilt knowing that had they just worked out a little more, MAYBE. just MAYBE, the other member wouldn't have taken a bullet? BIG picture needs to be viewed from every aspect and that includes the psychological damage to military members who have been in fire fights. It is insane to say that those who have seen team members go down or die, don't replay it in their minds woulda, shoulda, coulda every day of their life and the rest of their life.

This not carrying rucksacks, or running sprints is all too PC for me. One of my bosses said "a hole is better than a**hole". I agree. I would rather see the Army have a hole, where the members can work together as a team by carrying the same amount, over them having to carry extra weight because they have a team member that cannot carry their fair share and only creates a burden to the mission. What's next change SERE, water, land and arctic survival schools because it is too hard and the failure rate is higher than they would like to see?

FWIW, even as a woman, I am somebody who believes that in certain career fields sex should not be an issue. I could give a rats arse if there is a female SEAL, all I care about is that she can perform at the same level as the male counterpart. I also feel that if you want to be in that career field, you should expect to perform at the male counterpart level. If a male military member must run 2 miles within a set time limit, so should the female. As a wife and a Mom, I know there are women who can run as fast or faster as my DH or my DS... why when bullets are flying should we say sex matters? Can a bullet tell the sex of the military member? Why should a woman who can perform physically at the same level as men be told SORRY you are more fit than the guy, but since you have 2 XX's you are not allowed? Flip side, why as a woman would you want that special edge? War is not like golf...there are no ladies tee boxes. Our military is volunteer, nobody is saying you MUST be in it! You decided to play by their rules, you knew walking in what the stds are. I have no pity if you can't cut it physically, and I sure as heck don't want you in it if you can't! Because my DS's life is on the line too.

OBTW, anyone who has been affiliated with the military knows age also plays into the PT arena...sorry, but I also disagree with this philosophy. A 40 yr old can run within the same time constraints as the 22 yo (Bret Favre is proof of that)...and again a bullet doesn't say go slower because of the age of the intended. Want to play in the big game, than play, don't ask or demand perks due to age or sex. Bullet at 46, 2 yrs out of the AF still can run a 7- 7:30 mile minute without practicing for weeks. I don't see a need to reduce standards due to age. If your job is combat from an operational standpoint, than, I think you should perform at the mins for the highest requirements, age and sex should have no impact.
Additionally, if your job is going to be Accounting and Finance or PA, I don't see the need for physical fitness requirements to be as high as combat operators. Maybe the military should investigate another option regarding PFT...career field...front line XYZ are the mins... rear support ABC are the mins. Want to convert over, than you must take a PFT to meet the mins.

In the end of the day, it does come down to this for me...did the military tell them when they signed on the dotted line what their physical fitness requirements are according to the military? Yes? Then why are they reducing the stds? Manpower? Okay, that means to them that an A**hole is better than a hole, and they lost sight of why they need to be physically fit. I want the hole, and not the A**hole, because I have enough faith in our military members that they can work as a team to get out of the situation with fewer players. I don't want the A**hole because that means they are a new uncertainty when planning the mission to get them to safety.

 

[Mongo]

100% agree. As a spouse of a flyer, I always had the fear if his jet went down, and his crewmate is out of shape might not be able to save him from the wreckage.

I think your fears are unfounded. In the entire modern jet age, has there ever been an instance of a tactical jet mishap where the life of one crew member was dependent upon the actions of another crew mwmber?

 

[flieger83]

I think your fears are unfounded. In the entire modern jet age, has there ever been an instance of a tactical jet mishap where the life of one crew member was dependent upon the actions of another crew mwmber?

Actually not unfounded.

MOST times you hear about aircrew having to leave the jet, it's a single-seat aircraft and the ejection system is utilized. HOWEVER in a crew served aircraft (Bullet was in the Mudhen...er....Strike Eagle ) with another crew member, that is different.

They are trained over and over again on how to egress the jet on the ground (ground emergencies DO occur and you need to get out ASAP with your gear on) as well as how to do it should they not be able to eject and have to do a ground egress following a crash-landing.

Okay...reality check: how probable is this scenario? The "ground egress" is VERY real; "been there, done that, more than a couple of times." The "crash landing scenario?" Not very BUT BUT BUT...it can and has happened. And if one crew member is NOT able to pull the other out...

A bigger question would come to MY mind in the event of a combat ejection. We're going to land fairly close together and our E&E will be as a team unless that's not possible. Then the fitness of BOTH members will be key.

Just my thoughts.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83

 

[Mongo]

Actually not unfounded.

They are trained over and over again on how to egress the jet on the ground (ground emergencies DO occur and you need to get out ASAP with your gear on) as well as how to do it should they not be able to eject and have to do a ground egress following a crash-landing.

Okay...reality check: how probable is this scenario? The "ground egress" is VERY real; "been there, done that, more than a couple of times." The "crash landing scenario?" Not very BUT BUT BUT...it can and has happened. And if one crew member is NOT able to pull the other out...

Pima was referring to a jet 'going down', so my assumption was that she was not discussing ground mishaps. In relation to ground mishaps, with both line personnel and crash crew in close proximitiy, never once in my 6000 flight hours did I look over or back at another aircrew member and think that my egress success depended in any way on their physical dexterity.

 

[flieger83]

Pima was referring to a jet 'going down', so my assumption was that she was not discussing ground mishaps. In relation to ground mishaps, with both line personnel and crash crew in close proximitiy, never once in my 6000 flight hours did I look over or back at another aircrew member and think that my egress success depended in any way on their physical dexterity.

You were fortunate.

I've been there where a fire and smoke in the cockpit necessitated an emergency ground egress...and it was up to US to do it. No help, nothing. By the time emergency responders arrived, the jet was "involved."
(FYI: when we discussed it later we learned that BOTH of us considered a nylon letdown on the runway but decided not to do it...)

The two of us just sat on the grass and watched...until the medicos' came by and said: "Are you guys okay?"

Have I ever (sorry, just ran outside...B17G overflew the house...) looked over or back and thought that my egress success depended upon anyone else? Truthfully, and since I'm still doing it, no, I don't think I ever have.

But that's simply because we depend upon each other. I "assume" they're ready and fit and I don't have to worry about that.

Good point though.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83

 

[MakeItHappen]

A 40 yr old can run within the same time constraints as the 22 yo (Bret Favre is proof of that).

Yikes, bad example. Brett ran a 4.5 forty right out of Southern Miss, but these days he's in the 6-6.5 range. He's also skipped off season workouts and training camp a few times. Dude can play football, though.
In athletics, as in life, it doesn't matter how fast you are as long as you get the job done. Brett's the poster boy there.

 

[Mongo]

You were fortunate.

Did a gear up landing once in an A-4 with the centerline tank filled with hunting clothes and antelope meat. The crash crew stopped a few times to check on 'body parts' on the runway and still nearly beat us to the end of the runway.

 

[Pima]

Dude can play football, though.n athletics, as in life, it doesn't matter how fast you are as long as you get the job done.

That's the pt...a 40+ yo can beat out the avg 22 yo.age or sex doesn't matter.

Have I ever (sorry, just ran outside...B17G overflew the house...) looked over or back and thought that my egress success depended upon anyone else? Truthfully, and since I'm still doing it, no, I don't think I ever have.

But that's simply because we depend upon each other. I "assume" they're ready and fit and I don't have to worry about that.

But I bet when you were in that situation, after you got out, the 1st thought in your mind was not your family, but your crew mate. I am guessing your automatic reaction was to make sure your crew mate was safe and secure...and if they weren't you were going to put yourself in physical harm to get them to safety! This thought process explains why physical fitness is so important in the AD world.

Now take that out a level, PT standards are reduced, are you willing to say you are not risking their lives regarding rescue due to this physical fitness change for new members?

 

[flieger83]

"...But I bet when you were in that situation, after you got out, the 1st thought in your mind was not your family, but your crew mate. I am guessing your automatic reaction was to make sure your crew mate was safe and secure...and if they weren't you were going to put yourself in physical harm to get them to safety! This thought process explains why physical fitness is so important in the AD world.

You would be correct.

We pretty much knocked each other down running over to each other to make sure we were okay.

Then we had a helluva laugh!
(we were alive and well, why not?)

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83

 

[Pima]

FLieger, under the new Army fitness program, I guess you would walk over to each other because running will put too much strain on your joints.

I do have to say I am surprised that this topic didn't twist to the fault within our public education system where PE is no longer required in every school, every yr. In NC students are only required to take 1 yr of PE. When you add this into the food served in cafeterias around the nation, it is understandable to see why obesity is occurring across the country for our youths. If you take a kid from NC who enlists and hasn't had to do PE for 3 yrs you can see why this is an issue.

That being said, I disagree with the premise of this General, that by lowering the PT standards they are doing what is best for the Army. I love the idea that the mess hall is creating healthier menus, BUT, the problem is once they go AD, they will probably revert to their unhealthy eating habits because this is not an Army wide direction regarding their mess halls. Additionally, go to any base/post shoppette at 4 pm, and you will see young enlisted members buying crappy food to take back to the dorm...i.e. doritos and cheese sauce with a Red Bull is usually what is in their basket, plus the occassional twinkie.
Afterall, they are 18 yo kids, and just because they are AD doesn't mean that their taste buds have matured.

TPG,

I do believe a 40 yo is going to run slower than the avg 18 yo, but for the most part many of them can still finish in the max time for the 18 yo. That was my point. If Bullet at 43 could complete the run in the time that is allotted for 18 yos, it seems to me, that the Army should not change their stds.

You have specific reasons for your time run, which are unique. Your 40+ yo body didn't occur because you played intra-mural football on every post.

IMHO, when you do this you water down the system. If the enlisted members get a pass at training, what happens when they go AD? Would it not be sane to ask, how will they pass the PT test as an AD? If they can't pass the PT as an AD because they didn't get the proper physical fitness training at basic, will they now reduce the mins for AD? Does Hertling expect these enlisted members to all of the sudden become physically fit when they now work 40 hrs a week at a desk? Where is the line in the sand drawn?