Military Anti Muscle Bias

[WillBrink]

Anti Muscle Bias in The Military

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.

[sinister]

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]

1. Yeah the PT test/weight test doesn't do well for heavier people, and its really a ****ed 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 **** 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]

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]

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]

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.

[WillBrink]

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]

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?

[chuckman]

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.

[WillBrink]

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...tness_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.