Military members with more muscle are penalized during fitness tests.

[WillBrink]

Keeping with my recent theme of there being a general anti muscle bias…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 on reducing injury rates of SOF 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.

[RyanB]

Buddy of mine was a stocky airborne officer. Told my brother not to bulk up before boot because you don't want to carry the weight, either training or in operations. Lean was the way to go.

He was on jump status until 44 or 45 and is 80% disabled.

[Rated21R]

(get's popcorn ready)

As a lean guy (6ft, 165) I would love to see where this thread goes. I have heard from so many of the body builders that the PT test is unfair. I'm just here to read the info.

[Army Chief]

I do understand the grievance here, but I still feel that the Army is placing emphasis where it belongs in view of the mission sets we most commonly encounter. Flexibility, agility, endurance and aerobic conditioning are all important components to total fitness in the academic sense, but they are even more important in current zone of conflict where heat and other climatic factors really tax the body.

If we're to truly be objective about this, we would have to admit that there are many body builders in uniform who possess great mass and strength, but who fare little better than the fat boys when it comes to their ability to run, work in tight quarters, or tolerate temperature extremes. It doesn't help when many of these guys are also taking supplements which keep them in a perpetual state of near-dehydration. I've seen more than one strong man wilt in Iraq as a result.

I don't make these observations to feed any particular bias against mass, but if we were to be honest about this, the optimal "atheletic" human form is streamlined and balanced -- think cross-trainer here -- and not defined by an overdeveloped musculature. Again, this isn't a criticism against those for whom the weight room is a second home, but many of these guys are better suited to bouncer duties than to soldiering on current fields of conflict. Today, we fight as a lighter, more mobile force, and agility and endurance are far more important than the ability to lift heavy objects, wield a biggier stick or pack an extra powerful punch. The issue here isn't a bias against bulk or strength; it is a bias toward balance and total conditioning -- something that relatively few body builders in uniform have traditionally worked to achieve.

AC

[ryanm]

I agree with AC's summary. I'm a contractor in Iraq, but I see alot of soldiers in the gym trying to "get big". I see an equal number on the cardio equipment. I will say that there are some that need to do a lot more weight training. Anyone who can't do a pull-up needs to seriously work on that issue. I can think of several guys that are max score PFT but can only do a couple of pullups.

I see pull-up performance go both ways, the hardcore lifters can't do very many and the super skinny guys can't do them at all. To me, the pull up has become the line in the sand on fitness. I try to keep myself in a happy medium where I can do 10-15 at a steady pace with full extension, running 7min/miles while still max performing pushups/situps. Seems like when I was trying to bulk up, I was seeing huge gains in strength on the bench but lost ground on pull-ups fast. Same effect when I was going for running speed/lean mass (Although, they get easier at first because of weight loss, then you start to see a drop if you continue down this path exclusively)

[Microwvbleturtle]

As AC commented on, there are a good number of guys who feel that their sole task while over here is to get "swoll". Most of them do in fact use supplements of some type to assist in their endeavor. I have unfortunately seen my fair share of them become recipients of IVs following patrols.

The Army's height and weight requirements will never fit everybody, but they're designed to not fit everybody. Muscle mass does not directly coorelate to true physical fitness, especially the kind required OCONUS.

I for one feel that for deploying soldiers more emphasis should be put on cardio as well as core strengthening but I'll leave it at that for fear of getting too off-topic.

[ghost762]

I had an instructor here at Whidbey IS. that got sent to fat boy camp for the navy because he was over weight and not from fat, but from too much muscle.

[brianc142]

I'm also of the belief that a happy medium is best. I've known plenty of guys during my career who could smoke the run on the PT test but heaven forbid they have to drag a fellow Soldier or LEO out of harms way in full kit. Most often skinny guys can do a fair amount of push ups too. Big guys on the other hand sometimes struggle with the run but rock out on the push ups and sit ups. I have lifted weights since I was 15 years old so it's a lifestyle for me. Running pretty much the same during high school and college athletics on into my career. I think it's important to do resitance, ie. weight training as well as a significant amount of cardio to be best fit for the job of a Soldier or LEO. I'm still not convinced that running 2 miles (Army) or 3 (Marine Corps) along with the push ups, etc. is the best way to test someone's physical fitness but it's a test and holds Soldiers and Marines to a standard which is what it's all about in the end. PT tests aren't enforced enough in the LE world to suit me, at least with alot of departments, hence the number of fat cops running around. There's nothing more disgusting than a fat Soldier or LEO in uniform. Sorry but that's my opinion.

[PACKINHEAT]

With 14 years AD and as a career Soldier I can say the system is NOT bias in my opinion.

That said I am 6' and a solid 235lbs. I spend lots of time in the gym lifting, but also cardio training. Everyone in the military knows what is expected of them as far as fitness test are concerned. With size often comes strength, but in the end its all a give and take. Very few guys are capable of a great deal of strength and size along with very impressive cardio endurance.

I see both sides of the coin at my size compared to the average guys of my height that run between 180 and 200 lbs. I will probably never run a 12 minute 2 mile, but I can keep up with most of the ODA operators in full kit. Operationally you are highly unlikely to run that far that fast, if you do you will likely be combat ineffective at the end of the movement.

Are the tests functional as a measure of fitness? I think so, but they do not always reflect fitness as a whole. I have seen plenty of Soldiers who can max their APFT, but are not capable of carrying their full kit and a ruck of any significant weight over any type of significant terrain.

Were as I have I seen the opposite with some of the larger guys, Never going to max the PT test but completely capable on the ground carrying impressive loads. I agree with Ryan and Chief, pull ups should be part of every PT eval as they are probably the most practical event.

As a bigger guy I can say too many Troops are currently focused on looking impressive, not necessarily performing impressively. Get big, get strong, but never neglect your basic responsibility to your brothers on your left and right, they can only move as fast as the slowest man. If your that slowest man, shame on you.

my 2 cents

[Saginaw79]

When i was enlisting in the USMC I had issue as well

I weighed like 200-210 when according to them my max weight was like 185 but it was mostly muscle, I had to get a waiver(?) or something and they used a different method to calculate where i needed to be(i forget what it was)

It was all for nought as i had a previous history of asthma when i was a younger kid so they said no, but they were all over me about the weight thoigh I am short and stocky