gi_janearng ([info]gi_janearng) wrote in [info]usmilitary,
@ 2006-09-13 15:18:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
New Army Height/Weight Standards
www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r600_9.pdf

Effective 1 Oct 06

Be prepared for a lot of crying and gnashing of teeth from the females in the locker room.  The new standards come down hard on the females and loosen a tad on the males.  

Example?  A female in our Battalion taped out at 28%, but with the new standards, it has nearly doubled her percentage to 44%.  Which would make her fat by Army Standards.

What about pregnant soldiers?  I don't know of one woman whose hips did not expand and change after giving birth. 

My husband who currently has some issues with making tape before going to AIT?  Is now well under the standard and is considered fit for the Army. 

My own initial thoughts?  That the recruiters better start watching "America's Next Top Model" since that's what their new recruits are going to look like.

Discrimination?  Discussion welcome. 

(Post a new comment)


[info]viking_goddess
2006-09-13 09:00 pm UTC (link)
As someone who was seriously considering joining the military, I am happy that i did not... I would be one of the people being taped and judged fat... which for someone in recovery for an eating disorder - that would have made me snap... (i'm heavier now - but would not have done well losing weight to get in, and then still being told i was fat). does the military want women who can fight, or women who can pass out from being underweight, or be blown away by the wind... sorry, this just bugs me.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]gi_janearng
2006-09-13 09:10 pm UTC (link)
Understood. I wouldn't be surprised if eating disorders become more rampant now because of the new standards.

I was extremely skinny when I joined, but under the new standard, I would have had to lose twice the weight I did just to enlist.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]tproot, 2006-09-19 09:58 pm UTC

[info]desert_vixen
2006-09-13 09:06 pm UTC (link)

You are aware that the weight allowed went up, right? For women in my age/height group (21-27, 63"), it went up 8 pounds - from 135 to 143. I'm not sure how drastic the change was in other brackets.

The taping part is BS, but I think the upped weight might keep more women from being taped. Although, it's looking like if you have to get taped, you're going to be in trouble, as they did not adjust the fat percentage allowed up.

DV

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]gi_janearng
2006-09-13 09:09 pm UTC (link)
The weight went up, but it's not a factor in considering body fat percentage anymore.

It doesn't do anything for a lot of women in my Battalion. Eight pounds may seem like a lot, but it's not when you're talking curvaceous women who are either pear shaped or hour-glass shaped.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]soldiergrrrl, 2006-09-13 09:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]desert_vixen, 2006-09-13 10:26 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]gi_janearng, 2006-09-13 10:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]desert_vixen, 2006-09-13 11:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]gi_janearng, 2006-09-13 11:56 pm UTC

[info]angeldecoy
2006-09-15 11:41 pm UTC (link)
By them upping the weight limit, I came actually came off the "to be taped" list. I still think the 'new system' is a bit jacked up. I'm betting it'll be ammended before too long, kinda like what the AF did with their whole "abdominal circumference" thing.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]theycallmesir
2006-09-13 10:11 pm UTC (link)
I'm no guru on the previous standards, so this may have not changed...but.

I find it odd that a woman who was on the weight control program and then becomes pregnant is not promotable.
So the soldier is non-promotable for the next 10+ months? Because she sure isn't going to be losing weight during that time.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]gi_janearng
2006-09-13 10:41 pm UTC (link)
Well, if you read the new reg, it sounds like pregnant women have to be on weight control if they were already before they got pregnant. Which doesn't make a lot of sense.

As far as I know, you weren't considered non-promotable if you were pregnant, but I have yet to have my first child, so I don't know how it worked before. Someone else can chime in on this one?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]desert_vixen, 2006-09-13 11:53 pm UTC

[info]rockahulababy
2006-09-14 04:01 am UTC (link)
How does it odd? If they were on the weight control program before becoming pregnant, that means they're flagged, which means they can't be promoted and aren't eligible for favorable actions. I don't see how a woman who was flagged for being on weight control before she was pregnant should have her flag lifted when she gets pregnant. The flag will be lifted once she is off the weight control program.

I haven't had the chance to read the new reg yet. I'll get a better chance tonight when I'm at work, though.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
EDIT - [info]rockahulababy, 2006-09-14 04:01 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]theycallmesir, 2006-09-14 12:18 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]desert_vixen, 2006-09-14 01:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]theycallmesir, 2006-09-14 01:59 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]gi_janearng, 2006-09-15 07:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rockahulababy, 2006-09-14 01:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]gi_janearng, 2006-09-15 07:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rockahulababy, 2006-09-15 07:49 pm UTC

[info]chiss
2006-09-13 10:13 pm UTC (link)
I have no idea how this is at all conducive to enlistment; would it count towards that? Or maybe they want the females "in better shape"?

Don't know...

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]gi_janearng
2006-09-13 10:42 pm UTC (link)
Yes, this would be for new enlistments as well.

I would like to know how it somehow ups enlistment too, unless they are looking for those that fit the Barbie doll description.

A new and prettier Army maybe?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]chiss, 2006-09-13 11:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]gi_janearng, 2006-09-13 11:33 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]chiss, 2006-09-14 01:25 am UTC
funny story
[info]plungerdna
2006-09-13 10:13 pm UTC (link)
I can't open PDFs on this computer, so I cant read the link yet, but here's my story:

SOOoooo...I am currently in the Navy, but the first branch I looked at was the army. At 5'0" and 145lbs (body builder--NOT fat) I would have needed to lose 24lbs to be in my weight category. I got taped and it came out that I needed to lose 2 lbs (I have a relatively skinny neck). I lost 8 lbs (by not lifting) and then dehydrated myself for weigh in. I came up as 135, got taped and this time it said I had to lose 10lbs to be in standards...WTF?!?! This was in 2004 and I quickly realized that I was already within standards for the Navy.

The weight-height method that is used calculates BMI or Body Mass Index. It uses weight in Kg divided by (meters)^2 and was actually invented by insurance companies to be used as a factor in determining premiums. There is little correlation between longevity and BMI and why they are even used today by the medical field baffles many, but they are common. "You have to examine your patient--not his or her labs" as my intern tells me daily.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: funny story
[info]theycallmesir
2006-09-13 10:19 pm UTC (link)
I've seen guys that could bench 300+ lbs, scored over 300 on thier PT test every time and still get taped and always fail.
The method is archaic, asinine, and widely accepted as the most inacurate method available. I'm pretty sure the guy at the carnival that guesses your weight would do better.
Is it to much to ask to buy a $5 caliper (wait that would be $500 in DoD prices). Even 3 point caliper test would be better.

IMHO, if you ace the PT test, then you don't get taped.

/rant

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: funny story - [info]plungerdna, 2006-09-13 10:24 pm UTC
Re: funny story - [info]desert_vixen, 2006-09-13 10:29 pm UTC
Re: funny story - [info]plungerdna, 2006-09-13 10:32 pm UTC
Re: funny story - [info]gi_janearng, 2006-09-13 10:46 pm UTC
Re: funny story - [info]spartonian, 2006-09-14 04:44 am UTC
Re: funny story
[info]gi_janearng
2006-09-13 10:45 pm UTC (link)
Oh yeah, this doesn't surprise me. I was told about a potential recruit who was a wrestler at a local college (big name college) and couldn't make tape. He went to his doctor and did the water test and showed only 7 percent body fat, but that wasn't good enough. He had to make the Army's standard.

So he couldn't enlist.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: funny story - [info]theycallmesir, 2006-09-14 12:21 pm UTC

[info]fierceredhead
2006-09-13 10:39 pm UTC (link)
I was getting taped every PT test under the previous standards because I was told that at 68" I was not supposed to weight more than 142, now it says I can weigh 166. When I weighed 170, I was pretty big but I guess it also depends on how your body handles the weight and where it puts it.

But I was 177 when I joined and they told me I had to lose ten pounds just to barely meet the standards. When I came in at about 168 I was 29.8% body fat, I guess now that would have been almost 50%. :P

(Reply to this)


[info]y2katie
2006-09-14 12:19 am UTC (link)
when i joined up 5 years ago, i needed to weigh 141 and I went in weighing 140.5. according to the new standards, I can weigh 152! thats a lot of change. enough to where i wont even need to be taped anymore. (i got out after getting hurt, but am considering going back in.... the new weight standards make it so i dont have to lose anymore weight cause now i make it again)

(Reply to this)


[info]seeking_insight
2006-09-14 04:10 am UTC (link)
heck, we gotta PT test next month. i better make sure our NCOs are tracking this! thanks!

(Reply to this)


[info]axismundi
2006-09-14 09:53 am UTC (link)
Recruitemnt numbers are hurting... yet the branches cut the number of positions.

Recruitment numbers are hurting... so they release new standards that nearly require you to be anorexic...

Makes a lot of sense, no?

(Reply to this)


[info]desert_vixen
2006-09-14 08:22 pm UTC (link)

Semi on-topic, my coworker and I were discussing the reg and came across another weird thing.

In paragraph 3-2k(1)(c), there is a reference to pregnancy and being entered into a weight-control program after "135 days of convalescent leave"

Personnel who meet this regulations’s standards and become pregnant will be exempt from the standards for the duration of the pregnancy plus the period of convalescent leave after termination of pregnancy. They will be entered in a weight control program, if required, after completion of 135 days of convalescent leave and with approval of a medical doctor that they are fit for participation in a weight control program.

First, you're only on "convalescent leave" for 6 weeks. Second, MY profile and the addendum from CHPPM state that you are exempt from the APFT and AR 600-9 standards for 180 days. Third, it SEEMS to me that this would only apply to people who were already in the AWCP.

Anyone else have a read on this?

DV

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]gi_janearng
2006-09-15 07:21 pm UTC (link)
Did you see the paragraph where it sounds like you have to be on weight control *while* pregnant. That doesn't make sense to me and now you show me this. So which is it?

I've never been pregnant, but it would only seem right to me that they would make it the same across the board for pt and wc.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]desert_vixen, 2006-09-15 10:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]luv2all97, 2006-09-16 05:34 am UTC

[info]luv2all97
2006-09-16 05:30 am UTC (link)
I think you said it in your next comment.. but that just means if you met the standards before you were pregnant, they aren't going to flag you for being overweight after you have your baby. I think it's like 5 months you have to lose the weight or something? If you are overweight after those 5 months, then you'll be put on the WCP. I dunno, I've never been pregnant but I work in S1 so regs are sort of my "thing" :P

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]desert_vixen, 2006-09-16 07:25 pm UTC

[info]tproot
2006-09-15 03:00 am UTC (link)
The bottom line for the average soldier...more PT, fewer lickies & chewies. Our Army is bloating out of control. If anything, they should have tightened the standards for both genders AND the enforcement by commanders. Forgive my realistic stance if you will, but your weight is your choice. I agree that the tape test is a terrible way to determine body fat, but there is little room for anyone to argue the obvious fact that more and more soldiers are overweight, out of shape, and nothing is done about it. I had lunch with some visiting Marine officers the other day, and I had no answer for their questions of "What's with all the fat-bodies?" It's time we as an Army started caring again. The standards are NOT ridiculous. You don't have to look like Barbie. You have to look like someone who spends more time at PT than the PX.

If you don't have the discipline to lose the weight, soldiering isn't for you. This isn't a welfare machine. I pass enough fat male and female soldiers, NCOs, and officers on a daily basis to fill a battalion. It all comes down to personal discipline. Officers and NCOs need to set the standard. But I still live in that fantasy world called the Army where people take their oaths and jobs seriously.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]fervid_dryfire
2006-09-15 08:26 pm UTC (link)
If you don't have the discipline to lose the weight, soldiering isn't for you. This isn't a welfare machine.

Completely agreed. For what it's worth, this problem is a lot worse in the Air Force by comparison. I'm not happy about that one bit either. We are trying to fix it, though- whether or not we're trying hard enough has yet to be seen.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]mukhtar
2006-09-15 09:38 pm UTC (link)
The problem with the old weight standards was that it was based on white female officers in the 1950s. It did not take into account any minorities, nor did it take into account the numerous people who do not lead anywhere near the active life those in the 1950s did. Most of the females I know that got taped under this standard were either 3-5 lbs over, or they really were in need of losing weight. So raising the limit slightly is a good thing, because it means the army is finally progressing slightly.

We do, however, have more and more people becoming overweight in the army, and it's beyond sad and right into pitiful. But it's because they stopped enforcing the standard of "if you don't meet weight and tape for x amount of time, you are gone". If you don't enforce the standard as an organization, the standard gets ignored and no one cares.

Like you said, it's time for the army to start caring again, but not by tightening the regs, just enforcing the ones they have in place.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]luv2all97, 2006-09-16 06:31 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]tproot, 2006-09-16 01:29 pm UTC

[info]luv2all97
2006-09-16 06:24 am UTC (link)
If you don't have the discipline to lose the weight, soldiering isn't for you. It all comes down to personal discipline.

This will probably in your eyes only prove the your point more to you (yes I am ass-U-me ing that), but I have to say there are some cases where that is not true. Like me, for example. I am an "overweight" soldier and I have been on the WCP for damn near 2 years now. 2 years. Which I realize is WELL over the time limitations that are supposed to be in place but it's not my fault those limitations are not being enforced. And I agree that I should have been out a long time ago. Anyway. I have done everything that I know how to to try and lose weight and meet standards. I have been doing PT twice a day for 2 years now (yes, for the whole 2 years), at one point I was even up to PT 3 times a day. I've been to the nutritionalist, taken diet pills etc etc, and I just can't seem to meet the standard. I spent a year in Kuwait doing PT twice a day, walking around every day in 130+ weather, not eating junk food and still was considered overweight. Doesn't sound right does it? I have been told that everyone from my brigade commander on down knows that I am one of the hardest working soldiers they know and they know how hard I am trying etc etc. So, yeah. Just because a soldier is overweight doesn't always mean they are not disciplined. Maybe that is the exception to the rule, but I damn sure know I have been more dedicated and disciplined that 3/4 of the soldiers that aren't "fat".

But, yeah, I agree, the Army needs to start enforcing their standards. And not just halfway, either. They shouldn't flag you as overweight and make you non-promotable, but then refuse to let you out. If they aren't going to kick people out for not making their standards then they shouldn't have the standards in the first place.

Sorry this was so long.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]tproot, 2006-09-16 01:28 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]bombardiette, 2006-09-27 03:26 pm UTC

[info]luv2all97
2006-09-16 06:34 am UTC (link)
I sat in on a class the NCOs were having for these new tape standards. According to the CPT who was giving the class, Department of the Army says that only "3 percent" of soldiers will be affected by this new reg, everyone else will supposedly be just about the same percentage they were before....... Yeah, right.

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…