Military Anti Muscle Bias

[Bill Bryant]

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]

Interesting article.

http://startingstrength.com/articles/army_weak_long.pdf

[VMI_Marine]

Just came across this article 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]

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]

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.

[TehLlama]

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]

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

[WillBrink]

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.

[ryanm]

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]

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 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.