Military Anti Muscle Bias

[VMI-MO]

Seems your personal field experience jibes well with the materials I have posted.

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]

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.

[120mm]

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.

[2152]

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.
End Rant. . .

[Watrdawg]

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.

[2152]

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 . . .

[VMI-MO]

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.

Side comment.

DITCH THOSE MOLLE PACKS!!!!

sorry, I hate those things with a passion.

PJ

[variablebinary]

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]

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]

Here's an interesting study by 3 MAJs from CGSC. I'm sure there will be some rolled eyes from those who are not members of the Crossfit cult , 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.