View Full Version : Military Anti Muscle Bias
Anti Muscle Bias in The Military (http://www.optimalswat.com/entry.php?b=2)
Military members with more muscle are penalized during fitness tests.
Keeping with my recent theme of there being a general anti muscle bias in the media and scientific community …I’m sure this will come as no surprise to those in the military, but it’s good to see that objective data shows the bigger guys and gals in the military tend to be penalized for carrying extra muscle mass during testing. A paper by a Dr. Vanderburgh published in Military Medicine entitled “Correction Factors for Body Mass Bias in Military Physical Fitness Tests” concludes
“…recent research evidence indicates that military physical fitness tests penalize heavier service members and do not measure levels of absolute fitness, arguably just as important as relative fitness.”
His research suggests there is a 15% – 20% penalty on heavier (not fatter! ) service members during the physical fitness tests of the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force. In fact, these physical fitness tests imposes a systematic bias against heavier service members and this bias is independent of percent body fat.
This is a very interesting finding in my view and supports the fact there exists an anti muscle bias where endurance is rewarded but strength is not, even if it does not reflect the actual needs of soldiers or the general population.
The fact is, having more muscle mass (which may lead to slower run times) is more relevant to soldiers with “… the common push-up, sit-ups, abdominal crunches, and curl-up tests not only impose an unfair body mass bias, but they may have limited occupational relevance as well.”
Per my comments in a prior blog on a recent report that looked at injury rates of SF soldiers, it’s good to see researchers are starting to identify the limitations of “traditional” training used by the military and are suggesting ways of improving that training which will lead to improved performance and reduced rates of injury for the war fighter. Hopefully, these finding will trickle there way down into the training of our military forces.
In my limited experience over a 31-year Army career in infantry, Ranger, Special Forces, and Special Mission Units I saw no bias to big/muscular Soldiers except for those who could not move their mass over distances at combat speed (mission, terrain, and load dependent).
Big/strong/muscly matters not if you can'd get to the objective and back with your troops and loads.
Big guys are the exception in SOF units. We have lots of them, but not in the proportions you'd find at a Gold's Gym.
Special Forces and Ranger units take pride in their ability to cover distances and terrain carrying loads designed for mission endurance or to bring death and destruction on the enemy -- as opposed to many units who take pride in "Death before Dismount" from their vehicles.
One of the kids in my Ranger class was a big football player with no mental toughness for actual combat tasks. I'm sure he was one heck of a guy on the gridiron, but he couldn't hang with the rest.
Belmont31R
08-27-10, 18:15
1. Yeah the PT test/weight test doesn't do well for heavier people, and its really a fucked up system. Some really fat people skate through because they have a huge neck but a person can get flagged because they have a smaller bone structure but more muscle.
2. Even if a person is 250, and 8% body fat you are still relying on the smaller guys to carry them out. I still agree with total weight restrictions since the military works as a team. Even at 6' 185lbs Id have a lot of trouble dragging someone who was 220, and with 60lbs of gear on.
3. I do think endurance is more important than overall strength. Most of these weightlifter type guys could barely run a mile without passing out. You have to have a balance between strength and endurance. Just like some skinny ass marathon runner would be useless if you needed strength the strong guys would be useless if you had to get somewhere quick. VERY FEW people can be strong AND have endurance to go alone with it.
4. When I was AD I usually ran in the fast group, and there were no "big" guys in it that group. Id take a "endurance" guy over a "strong" guy any day of the week. Those big guys will be wheezing and heaving after more than a 1/2 mile of any serious movement, and I sure as fuck don't have to have to drag some 250 lb "strong man" around + all his gear. I don't really much PT anymore but I always tried to keep my physical readiness a mixture of the two. I ran with our fast group but there were quite a few of them who were way faster than me. I dont really think its good to have a "specialty" in either area. Those "fast" guys were usually bone skinny, and weak. At around 185 and 6' I wasn't in the slow category but when I was in shape I could still do a 14 minute 2 mile. Most of the guys quicker than that were the bone skinny ones.
5. There are some exceptions. I knew a couple brutes who were around 240, and about 6'3 6'4 and could do a 1330 2 mile. But keep in mind you'd be allowing the rest of the guys who can get up to 240 who struggle to run a 1530 in with them, and thats a majority of the big guys.
Belmont31R
08-27-10, 18:21
In my limited experience over a 31-year Army career in infantry, Ranger, Special Forces, and Special Mission Units I saw no bias to big/muscular Soldiers except for those who could not move their mass over distances at combat speed (mission, terrain, and load dependent).
Big/strong/muscly matters not if you can'd get to the objective and back with your troops and loads.
Big guys are the exception in SOF units. We have lots of them, but not in the proportions you'd find at a Gold's Gym.
Special Forces and Ranger units take pride in their ability to cover distances and terrain carrying loads designed for mission endurance or to bring death and destruction on the enemy -- as opposed to many units who take pride in "Death before Dismount" from their vehicles.
One of the kids in my Ranger class was a big football player with no mental toughness for actual combat tasks. I'm sure he was one heck of a guy on the gridiron, but he couldn't hang with the rest.
Pretty much what Im saying...A few of the big guys could still run but most of them could not. Plenty of guys I served with could out bench me by a lot but when it came to the run they were staggering in a minute or two later than me, and much more winded.
We had an A-team on our FOB with us, and I didn't see any huge guys with them. In fact most of them were around 5'6 to 5'10.
But a persons strength is useless if they can't get where you need them to go if they can't get there without being out of breath first.
Bill Bryant
08-27-10, 18:25
In the Marine Corps (my son is finishing boot camp right now--crucible in a few days) I wouldn't call it an anti-muscle bias as much as a pro-endurance bias--presumably for very good reasons.
Belmont31R
08-27-10, 18:33
In the Marine Corps (my son is finishing boot camp right now--crucible in a few days) I wouldn't call it an anti-muscle bias as much as a pro-endurance bias--presumably for very good reasons.
Yes it is for good reason. Very few big guys can move themselves in a manner that helps in mil operations. Being "big" might make you look cool in the gym but most likely you will be a liability when it counts. There are all kinds of liabilities people can have. One reason women are not allowed in combat MOS's. Its better to have people who are all on the same track than 1 guy who runs a 12 minute 2 mile but can barely drag his own weight, and another guy who is 220 but cant keep up or is winded when you really need him. Doesnt matter how strong a person is they still are fighting as a "team" not an individual. You need people to be able to move quickly, and yet still carry their own weight. That doesnt lend itself to either the super skinny fast guys or the big guys who are out of breath after a mile.
Additional sources of interest:
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008 Aug;40(8):1538-45.
Occupational relevance and body mass bias in military physical fitness tests.
Vanderburgh PM.
Department of Health and Sport Science, University of Dayton, Dayton, OH 45469-1210, USA. vanderburgh@udayton.edu
Abstract
Recent evidence makes a compelling case that US Army, Navy, and Air Force health-related physical fitness tests penalize larger, not just fatter, service members.
As a result, they tend to receive lower scores than their lighter counterparts, the magnitude of which can be explained by biologic scaling laws. Larger personnel, on the other hand, tend to be better performers of work-related fitness tasks such as load carriage, heavy lifting, and materiel handling. This has been explained by empirical evidence that lean body mass and lean body mass to dead mass ratio (dead mass = fat mass and external load to be carried/lifted) are more potent determinants of performance of these military tasks than the fitness test events such as push-ups, sit-ups, or 2-mile-distance run time.
Because promotions are based, in part, on fitness test performance, lighter personnel have an advancement advantage, although they tend to be poorer performers on many tests of work-related fitness.
Several strategies have been proposed to rectify this incongruence including balanced tests, scaled scores, and correction factors--yet most need large-scale validation.
Because nearly all subjects in such research have been men, future investigations should focus on women and elucidate the feasibility of universal physical fitness tests for all that include measures of health- and work-related fitness while imposing no systematic body mass bias.
_______________________________________
A possible method of adjusting for the bias:
Mil Med. 2007 Jul;172(7):738-42.
Correction factors for body mass bias in military physical fitness tests.
Vanderburgh PM.
Department of Health and Sport Science, University of Dayton, 300 College Park, Dayton, OH 45469-1210, USA. vanderburgh@udayton.edu
Abstract
Recent research findings combined with the theoretical laws of biological similarity make the compelling case that all physical fitness test items for the Army, Air Force, and Navy impose a 15 to 20% physiological bias against heavier, not fatter, men and women. Using the published findings that actual scores of muscle and aerobic endurance scale by body mass raised to the 1/3 power, correction factor tables were developed. This correction factor can be multiplied by one's actual score (e.g., push-ups, sit-ups, abdominal crunches, or curl-up repetitions or distance run time) to yield adjusted scores that are free of body mass bias.
These adjusted scores eliminate this bias, become better overall indicators of physical fitness relevant to military tasks, are easily applied to the scoring tables used in the present physical fitness tests, and do not reward body fatness. Use of these correction factors should be explored by all military services to contribute to more relevant fitness tests.
Bill Bryant
08-27-10, 18:52
I agree that it would be unfair to press a combat fitness bias on non-combatants working behind the scenes--99.999% of the Air Force for example. Or 100% of women in all branches. The big muscle gym crowd would excel in warehouses, working on repair crews, etc.
Unlike other branches, the Marine Corps fitness standards include pull-ups/chin-ups, a very good strength-to-weight test that is biased in favor of no one, and its tougher running requirements are tied in directly with battlefield fitness realities.
Are we comparing apples and oranges here?
Was the research you cite (I see no mention of Marines) correlated to actual MOS fitness requirements in any way?
Geez, what a can of worms, and one of my soapboxes. I was always 'overweight', but underfat, as evidenced by the uber-precise (said sarcastically) taping and subtraction exercise. In spite of acing the PFT and PRT (or PRA or whatever they call it now), I was made to sit in mandatory nutrition classes. As a corpsman I saw many good careers wrecked because of the archaic body fat policy.
At least the Marines have moved to using a combat fitness test as well, which I think is a much better indicator of fitness while performing combat-related tasks.
The mil at large won't go to a better standard until the standard is stupid-simple so everyone can use it and understand it, and they find a clear way to eliminate the true fat bodies who have no business in uniform but at the same time retain the 'right' bodies who can perform.
I agree that it would be unfair to press a combat fitness bias on non-combatants working behind the scenes--99.999% of the Air Force for example. Or 100% of women in all branches. The big muscle gym crowd would excel in warehouses, working on repair crews, etc.
Why fixate on "The big muscle gym crowd"? There's no discussion of such people being ideal for mil. ;)
Like the person who can run forever, but can't carry a load for even a short distance, the "The big muscle gym crowd" has limited physical capacity.
Unlike other branches, the Marine Corps fitness standards include pull-ups/chin-ups, a very good strength-to-weight test that is biased in favor of no one, and its tougher running requirements are tied in directly with battlefield fitness realities.
The Marine Corp realized their prior fitness tests were not tied well to battlefield fitness realities, so they created the CFT:
"Combat Fitness Test that will simulate the stresses, strains and sometimes urgent demands of missions downrange.
While the PFT — essentially unchanged since 1972 — measures upper-body strength and aerobic endurance, the new test aims to assess broader, real-life skills.
“It’s looking at burst speed and anaerobic ability,” said Lt. Col. John Armellino, one of the Marines helping to develop the new CFT for Training and Education Command in Quantico, Va. “The commandant wanted to develop a better measure of overall fitness, to better prepare the Marines for combat.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2008/04/marine_combatfitness_042008w/
The CFT tests functional strength better, power output, etc. Ergo, it's more real world then running and chin ups. People with more LBM and less BF, tend to score well on the CFT as expected.
We're not talking about muscle heads here, we are talking about a balance between strength and endurance which may actually reflect the true physical needs of the war fighter.
Bill Bryant
08-27-10, 19:50
Why fixate on "The big muscle gym crowd"? There's no discussion of such people being ideal for mil. ;)
Disregard all my statements on this thread. I've obviously read through it too fast and misunderstood the issue.
dookie1481
08-27-10, 20:54
Interesting article.
http://startingstrength.com/articles/army_weak_long.pdf
VMI_Marine
08-27-10, 22:54
Just came across this article (http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/20/revisiting-combat-outpost-reilly/) while going through the Crossfit archives today.
The gym at Combat Outpost Reilly – busy even in the searing heat with Marines relaxing between long foot patrols – says something about a sight that unfolded earlier this week roughly two miles to the outpost’s south. On that day, one of the company’s units, Third Squad of First Platoon, laden with water, body armor, weapons and ammunition, managed after several hours of fighting to rush under fire at Taliban fighters in a compound, and overrun a Taliban position with such speed that the last fighters, wearing only a single layer of clothes, barely got away.
As others have stated, you need a healthy mix. I've always been one of the small, endurance guys. Now I crossfit to work on my strength. I've had to sprint under fire, in addition to humping 60-80 lbs of crap in 120-130 degree heat. I've also had to climb a few mountains in NE A-stan. I wish I'd known then what I do now about functional fitness.
Hunter Rose
08-27-10, 23:15
Rah Virginia Mil!
Someone mentioned the Air Force. Our new PFT is the most asinine test in the world that measures nothing. Have a small waist and you will pass. Sucks for us big guys though, at 6'5", 225lbs, and with a 37.5" waist, I have scored less than people I have out push-upped, out sit-upped, and ran 2 minute faster 1.5 miles than, because I loose an ungodly amount of points for having larger than a 35" waist.
The Air Force wins the price for stupidest most useless PT test hands down.
The Marine Corps CFT may not be perfect, but it is a move in the right direction.
Von Rheydt
08-28-10, 15:01
In my limited experience over a 31-year Army career in infantry, Ranger, Special Forces, and Special Mission Units I saw no bias to big/muscular Soldiers except for those who could not move their mass over distances at combat speed (mission, terrain, and load dependent).
Big/strong/muscly matters not if you can'd get to the objective and back with your troops and loads.
Big guys are the exception in SOF units. We have lots of them, but not in the proportions you'd find at a Gold's Gym.
Special Forces and Ranger units take pride in their ability to cover distances and terrain carrying loads designed for mission endurance or to bring death and destruction on the enemy -- as opposed to many units who take pride in "Death before Dismount" from their vehicles.
One of the kids in my Ranger class was a big football player with no mental toughness for actual combat tasks. I'm sure he was one heck of a guy on the gridiron, but he couldn't hang with the rest.
Its no different on the otherside of the pond.
The UK has its basic military fitness tests that are administered with a slight fudge factor for age. No consideration is given to weight or height.............either you can do the basic job of soldiering you are paid for or you can't.
You are not considered fit for active service if you fail your assessments - pay is adjusted accordingly. If you fail your assessment you will also not be considered for promotion.
I have seen small 5' 10", 150lb SF and Para's carry nearly 100lb of weight for a day and more to a Lay Up Position.
I knew two 'Body Builders' in the military. One was a cook who starred in porno films as a sideline. The other one got through the course and came to the unit I was in, within around 6 months the runs and marches were taking his bulk off him.
There definitely is a mass distribution penalty as well - all my muscle mass is low, which is why I can keep up on any hike, but even in fantastic shape I still scratch out a 2nd class PFT, yet even out of shape a very high CFT (and I get to carry the fattest person there).
Admittedly the musclebound guys lack the endurance for the most part that others do, but there is always a crowd of 'overweight' but well under 15% bodyfat guys that get driven from service (even in desk jobs) because of unreasonable testing and standards, like our inane waist taping system.
I absolutely would say that it IS reasonable to put a combat biased fitness requirement for everybody - if one works under the assumption that youll work behind a desk, why have a fitness requirement at all? I work behind a desk 98% of the time, but when I get to finally go on patrols and ops, I suddenly need the ability to hump an even heavier pack in addition to all other gear with grunts that have been doing that all day. I'm a moose when I need to be, though only my CFT score would hint at that.
There are fixed loads that will exist in combat (rifle: set weight. ammunition: set weight. Armor - very little difference. Water is always heavy.) Nobody is going to argue that a small Marine with a high PFT is going to be better capable of doing that, only that somebody with an abysmal one may not.
Still, I don't mind that as an asthmatic who sucks at pullups I have terrible PFT score - I work on the skillsets I need to stand out in my job, and making improvements on that has made me a better Marine.
variablebinary
08-29-10, 02:06
For what its worth, I've seen both wiry little bastards and meatheads pass the APFT, but bigger guys are almost always slower.
However, speaking very generally, I'd want the bigger soldiers on my team when out in the field.
Running around with rucks, gear, and weapon is very different than running a 5 minute mile in just APFU's
For what its worth, I've seen both wiry little bastards and meatheads pass the APFT, but bigger guys are almost always slower.
However, speaking very generally, I'd want the bigger soldiers on my team when out in the field.
Running around with rucks, gear, and weapon is very different than running a 5 minute mile in just APFU's
Seems your personal field experience jibes well with the materials I have posted. :cool:
I think the other issue to consider is the damage having that extra weight does to your knees over the course of a career where running is such a huge factor. Running several miles every day at 240lbs can be a really bad thing. Even if you can do it, your most likely setting yourself up for long term issues and probaly a knee replacement (or two).
The trick is finding a performance balance that allows you to do well in everthing, not necessarily max everything (depending on your genetics).
I see guys who struggle every day against what their natural build is. Some people just do not have a good setup for soldiering. I wish I could have been a pilot, but my vision killed that dream. Guys that are 5'3" and can't bench 100lbs are not really cut out for "outside the wire." Some of them push through and still do a good job. Others become liabilities to themselves and their respective teams/squads.
There is so much political correctness now that its hard to hammer those who fail or do not wish to comply with the standard. You simply end up on the APFT improvment plan and donkey dick it along for what seems like an eternity. "Look! I did one more pushup this week!--I'm improving!" I usually see these extra round size people with the tread mill set to 12% and hanging on to the bezel while they pretend to be working out. We have a Captain here at Camp Victory who must weigh in the 300lb range. I've never seen ACUs his size before. His pants look like poncho liners sewen together filled with flubber.
I appreciate the hardcore SGM's now more than I did when I was in, when you have one that's involved with his troops it makes a huge difference! Keeping a professional and engaged NCO corps is critical to this process.
The Marines still "eat their own" for the most part so if your a douchebagger, your going to have a really hard time.
Being a contractor in a joint environment for the last 4 years has been interesting thats for sure! I've seen this go every direction possible with all branches. The USAF is doing a good job of keeping people fit overall. Even if the testing and scoring sucks, I think they've setup enough consequences now that everyone is aware that making the decision to be out of shape is a career killer.
It is a strange new world when the Air Force is seemingly second to the Marines in terms of fitness, followed very closely by the Navy and the Army bringing up the rear! (Mainly, it seems Navy people that just came off a ship that wasn't a carrier seem to have PT issues) I'm sure I'll get flamed for saying that, but thats what I see in the Paul R. Smith gym and I am there every day. I have been an NCO in both the USAF and the Army as well, so I'm not just saying this lightly. I had a lot of pride wearing my Army PT gear to the gym and keeping myself fit never seemed optional. When I was in the USAF, being a gym rat was almost frowned upon because it meant I wasn't in the shop. Lots of things change with time.
I think the services would do well to create a universal standard and enforce it on everyone. JCSE would be a good template.
VMI_Marine
08-29-10, 10:54
Admittedly the musclebound guys lack the endurance for the most part that others do, but there is always a crowd of 'overweight' but well under 15% bodyfat guys that get driven from service (even in desk jobs) because of unreasonable testing and standards, like our inane waist taping system.
That's because their CoC failed them. There is a waiver process for guys who don't pass the tape test but still perform. Personally, I will gladly endorse waivers and write letters to promotion boards for Marines who don't pass the tape but do well in all other categories. It's called looking at the whole Marine.
Interesting discussion. Personally, I believe that the combat arms require men who don't focus too much on strength or endurance. You need both at one time or another.
Also, WRT knee problems from running, that's because the majority are doing it wrong. Land on your forefoot, not your heel. Look for the Harvard study done by Dr. Daniel Leiberman, some good info in there on the difference in impact stress between forefoot and heel striking. Here (http://www.barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/) is a good site for some reference material. Personally, although I do wear and love the Vibram Fivefingers, I don't think you need to necessarily make a radical change to your footwear. Just train yourself to land properly and it should help, independent of the type of shoe you're wearing.
Seems your personal field experience jibes well with the materials I have posted. :cool:
Yah, until you have to carry that big guy.
I have seen a 130lb guy ruck 147lbs.
I have seen a 220lb guy run sub 6min miles.
I do not believe there is a steriotype to what you are capable of with your size.
I believe it all falls down to mental toughness and motivation. As an example, I have done some long walks with absolutley no physical preparation for them. I made it because I was motivated by those around me, and was able to bite down, fall into my happy place and stride it out.
PJ
variablebinary
08-30-10, 02:38
Yah, until you have to carry that big guy.
I have seen a 130lb guy ruck 147lbs.
I have seen a 220lb guy run sub 6min miles.
I do not believe there is a steriotype to what you are capable of with your size.
That's very true. I personally know some shorter, smaller stature soldiers that are machines.
My trainer in this pic is a smaller guy, but he can out ruck me everyday, all day. He's a prime example of what you mean. Size is only half the story. He was easily lugging 50+% of his body weight over 10 miles including mountainous terrain.
Obviously, being fit, large and muscular is generally more conducive to lugging things around, but that is just the norm, not an absolute rule.
http://home.comcast.net/~firearmspics/Army/pic1.jpg
If you think the military has an anti-muscle bias against male soldiers, you should see how bad it is against females.
I've mentored females in the military since 2003; the height and weight standard is just idiotic for in shape females. An athletic, combat-capable 5'6" female needs to weigh better than 140 pounds. I've had a collegiate sprinter female mentoree who weighed in at 172 and was absolutely ripped.
On the other hand, one of the strongest females I know is 6' and 115 pounds. Iowa farm girl, and is harder than woodpecker lips.
This is a hard topic for me to talk about. I have always been short and stocky, and back in 1995 I was honorably discharged from the Army for weight control failure. I was 5'7'' 195lb and I did 100+ pushups 100+ situps and my slowest 2 mile run ever was a 13:30 after 6 weeks of no running becuse I broke my big toe. I had even re-enlisted a week before I broke that toe, but it was this injury that pushed me over the 20% body fat limit. I PT my ass off but i could never get below 21%. One of the hardest parts was getting flagged and seeing every one else in the platoon that you went to 19D O.S.U.T. with getting promoted. Or other scouts getting AAMs for dismounted recon patrols that you led thru the NTC at night with no G.P.S. But that was along time ago and I need to sleep so I can get up and get on the elliptical for an hour like I do every day.:cool:
End Rant. . .
When I was in every PT test I took I had to be taped. I'm 5'5" and then I was 165. My max weight at that time according to the Army should have been 154. I only had a 11% body fat though and I always did 100+ push ups and situps and ran the 2 miler in 12:30 or less. That was 21years ago. Today I've only gained 10 lbs since then and can still do 100+ situps and pushups. Running is a different story. After the jumping and all the running I have arthritis on both of my knees. I can ride a bike all day and still do hard leg work outs but running long distances is a no go.
Oh yea my max allowed weight was 165lb for my height and age. I was 165lb the first day I stepped off the bus at Fort Knox and 190lb the day I graduated . . .
That's very true. I personally know some shorter, smaller stature soldiers that are machines.
My trainer in this pic is a smaller guy, but he can out ruck me everyday, all day. He's a prime example of what you mean. Size is only half the story. He was easily lugging 50+% of his body weight over 10 miles including mountainous terrain.
Obviously, being fit, large and muscular is generally more conducive to lugging things around, but that is just the norm, not an absolute rule.
http://home.comcast.net/~firearmspics/Army/pic1.jpg
Side comment.
DITCH THOSE MOLLE PACKS!!!!
sorry, I hate those things with a passion.
PJ
variablebinary
08-30-10, 23:09
Side comment.
DITCH THOSE MOLLE PACKS!!!!
sorry, I hate those things with a passion.
PJ
Not a fan either.
I've been meaning to replace it, I just havent gotten around to it.
dookie1481
09-01-10, 15:53
Yah, until you have to carry that big guy.
I have seen a 130lb guy ruck 147lbs.
Yeah that was me. My loadout for the FX in USMC Scout/Sniper School weighed more than I did. That shit just sucks. Even worse, I fell about 5 min after we stepped off right onto my kneecap.
VMI_Marine
09-04-10, 14:53
Here's an interesting study (http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=%2Fp124201coll2&CISOPTR=580&filename=581.pdf) by 3 MAJs from CGSC. I'm sure there will be some rolled eyes from those who are not members of the Crossfit cult :D, as the study is obviously targeted towards proving the efficacy of CF type training, but there are still some good points that are relevant to this discussion.
The Army Physical Fitness School, then at Fort Benning, Georgia, began testing Soldiers using a 1946 Physical Efficiency Test. This test, created from the lessons of combat during WWII and intended to test U.S. Army Soldiers’ readiness for combat, consisted of the following events: jumping over a 3ft wall, and an 8ft ditch, climbing a 12ft rope two times without pause, conducting a fireman’s carry 100 yards in 1 minute, foot marching 5 miles in 1 hour, running 1 mile in 9 minutes, swimming 30yds and treading water for 2 minutes. After giving this older test to modern day Soldiers, the Army Physical Fitness School found that present day Soldiers were less fit than
their WWII counterparts were. The director of the Army Physical Fitness School attributed this trend to the fact that the current APFT had become the focus of physical training in the Army and that the APFT did not accurately measure the skills necessary for combat, particularly anaerobic skills such as agility, strength and speed.
I know there's a Crossfit thread, but this seemed a better fit given Will's original topic. Full disclosure, I'm an avowed (but not particularly good) Crossfitter. However, I'm interested in comments on the study, both positive and negative.
Here's an interesting study (http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=%2Fp124201coll2&CISOPTR=580&filename=581.pdf) by 3 MAJs from CGSC. I'm sure there will be some rolled eyes from those who are not members of the Crossfit cult :D, as the study is obviously targeted towards proving the efficacy of CF type training, but there are still some good points that are relevant to this discussion.
I know there's a Crossfit thread, but this seemed a better fit given Will's original topic. Full disclosure, I'm an avowed (but not particularly good) Crossfitter. However, I'm interested in comments on the study, both positive and negative.
And here is where the wheels come off the "Military anti-muscle bias" argument.
The typical WWII soldier was a skinny little fuck who never touched a barbell or other kind of weight in his life. He also didn't take performance supplements or guzzle homoerotically named protein powders by the gallon.
What he was was a relatively active person, with a fairly low body weight who did repetitive exercises when forced to by his chain of command.
The problem with the military's "anti-muscle bias" that I see, is that the great majority of "pro-muscle" military folks are actually fat fucks who have little or no utility on a sustained battlefield. The amount of muscular, lean and useful soldiers that I see from day-to-day is a shockingly small number of individuals.
Of course, our society and style of work has developed a break point between the 98 pound weakling and the lard-ass. I think the culture of a soldier BEFORE he enters the military has as much or more to do with their effectiveness as any kind of training they do while they are IN the military.
The 6' 115 pound female I mentioned above will not work out unless forced at gunpoint, yet she is still strong as hell, for instance, despite having been off the farm for a number of years.
The "I got kicked out of the military even though I had 0% body fat and ran a sub-5 minute 2 mile" are cool as hell, but when in the occasions I knew the individual telling the story, I've always wondered how they could have the 0% body fat yet still be built like a frog.
Belmont31R
09-05-10, 02:21
IME the only people who were kicked out for weight did so after a year + of not dropping the weight.
20%+ for a male is quite a bit even if they can run all day and night. I know it sucks, and the standards are archaic but a 20% BF male is chubby.
I've seen three cross-fit related injuries in the past 4 years because people jump into this program and are not nearly physically prepared to do so. (2 people tore up their shoulders, the other blew out their knee jumping on the box).
I also see people trying to do the "Spartan" workout (aka the final test for the actors in the "300") and seriously F-themselves up. One dude pretty much had muscle failure/cramp while holding the 135lbs over his head and tossing his legs back and forth.
I've also seen major fails with Sparticus and P90X. I think people really go hard on some of this crap before they have a clue what they are trying to do.
Also saw a chic throw out her back doing ab-ripper-X.
I am curious to see what is going to happen when the rest of 18th ABC rips in next year. They had guys running around the building where I work with their rifles over their heads on several occasions. I thought I was watching "The Green Beret" where John Wayne yells--Who are ya and How far?
On a funny side note, I had a co-worker who was just not built for anything other than eating donuts. After a long period of time working with him he reached a state of half-way decent fitness. We were on the treadmills one day doing a light-moderate incline 30 minute workout and he cramped up like he had just ran the ironman. He was laying on the floor screaming behind the treadmill in a fetal position. He didn't know that when you cramp up, stand on that leg and it will go away! After that he started his journey back towards muffin-cat, king of muffins. :)
I think people really go hard on some of this crap before they have a clue what they are trying to do.
I think this is also where a lot of those injuries come from when it comes to "crossfit", "P90x", "Insanity", etc. Too much "I can do that!" and not enough ego-checking beforehand. I've seen it where guys will try it and push so hard they barf and then quit because they won't pace themselves. Instead they think they can blow through it like they can doing say 2 min of pushups/situps like on the APFT.
It really takes a little research to know what you are getting into when it comes to training this way and to find out where you should begin.
I'm a believer in trying to be that best of both worlds, ie strong and have endurance. I'm not a big guy either(5'7 and 165lbs), and for the first three years in the army I had to work to stop being taped after a weigh in. Mostly it was eating discipline but also I started doing crossfit and the like and it has helped in trimming down and better PT scores. I never thought I could max the run, I was always a 14min + guy. After I started doing the other stuff(and dropping the weight), I can get sub 13min on my runs.
I'm hoping that big A(and the military as a whole), can find/develop a program where you can train for both. *rolls eyes*
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.