I posted some papers here some years ago on how the BMI penalizes many in the mil, but can't find them on searching here.
At one time, the military used BMI exclusively to decide if someone was above acceptable bodyfat levels. We all know the +/- of BMI.. Later, If people failed the BMI, they were given the tape test, which is supposed to more accurately asses BF apparently. I'm assuming the tape test is based off the relative fat mass index (RFM)? The RFM seems more accurate then BMI and they claim RFM actually correlated well to DEXA (I'm skeptical, but OK...) in the article posted, but there's example of people doing very well on all the physical recs but failing the tape test.
Clearly, the tape test penalized certain body types, still does not account for FFM of some individuals (albeit better then BMI...) and does not achieve it's goals of finding out if the soldier can do what's needed of them in the field/their MOS, etc.
Thoughts and or resources I should read on the topic? Do different branches handle this differently than the big green? I think the mil needs to come up with a points system metric of some sort. I understand the need for simplicity of formulas such as BMI and RFM, but it's cheap and easy to use basic calipers say, and I'd like to see perhaps a tape, vs calipers vs DEXA or water comparison. Maybe those who fail the tape test, but do very well on the physical tests gets kicked up for additional tests? I need to research this one some more, but I was spurred onto to reexamine this topic after seeing a pic of someone clearlt in great shape, who aces the physical recs, who could probably drag an injured person and take the SAW and ammo with her, get rejcted from taking her Sgts test due to failing the tape test, and that pisses me off!
Article on how people getting too fat for the mil (which we know is true) but also some discussion on the tape test, and supposed new guidelines coming and such:
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/y...getting-worse/
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks