Military Anti Muscle Bias

[T2C]

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.

Quote:
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.

This readiness test should be taken seriously. Physical fitness training and standards should be focused on preparation for combat operations and not focused on making a Soldier/Sailor/Marine/Airman ready to pose for the cover of a fitness magazine.

For the rank and file it's all about muscular endurance, speed and the ability to operate at a high level of stress for extended periods of time. The physical training program should focus on building and maintaining the ability to do these things.

[just a scout]

If I remember correctly, the bias started back in the 80s with PFT becoming sport based under GEN Sullivan, I think. He was a runner, with the greyhound build, and thought all soldiers should be like that. Then the PFT, which became sports based, was heavily weighted towards the fast run. The height/weight charts were predicated toward the lean runner's build. I was ALWAYS overweight and taped the entire time I was in, I averaged right around 200-205 at 5'11", which was 20 lb over. But I was 9% body fat, and regularly scored 270 or better, usually 290 on the PFT, for 18-22 y/o.

Of course, 20 years later, I've lost all that and now I'm playing catch up.

[The_War_Wagon]

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.

If that's not a sig line somewhere (SOCNET, Lightfighter, et.al.), it OUGHTA be!

[Vandal]

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 last USAF PFT I took was 5 years ago as a ROTC cadet before getting medically DQ'd for back injuries as a senior. My experiences directly mirror the above. I played football for 10 years was 6'3" and 225lbs with a 36" waist. Aced the push and sit ups and did very well on the run but because of my weight got taped, and passed, every time. The AF was looking for skinny cross country runners at the time to fill cockpits, missile silos and desks, not people who could really handle themselves in nearly any situation. If you put a load on most of my classmates they would fall out within a mile.

Currently I'm not sure I would exactly call it an anti-muscle bias but more of an anti-body builder bias due to the type of conflicts we've been involved in recently. Strength and endurance, not one or the other. At least that's who I would want.

[Caduceus]

The last USAF PFT I took was 5 years ago as a ROTC cadet before getting medically DQ'd for back injuries as a senior. My experiences directly mirror the above. I played football for 10 years was 6'3" and 225lbs with a 36" waist. Aced the push and sit ups and did very well on the run but because of my weight got taped, and passed, every time. The AF was looking for skinny cross country runners at the time to fill cockpits, missile silos and desks, not people who could really handle themselves in nearly any situation. If you put a load on most of my classmates they would fall out within a mile.

Currently I'm not sure I would exactly call it an anti-muscle bias but more of an anti-body builder bias due to the type of conflicts we've been involved in recently. Strength and endurance, not one or the other. At least that's who I would want.

Unfortunately, you're the exception, not the norm. Most body builders I see in the gym totally neglect cardio.

Sure, they can lift the trash can at home, but they get winded taking it to the curb.

[bp7178]

The title of this thread sets the tone of the discussion, but I don't think its correct.

They don't want people that are weak for their body size, nor to they want people who are heavy for their body size.

Balance and proportion.

[WillBrink]

The title of this thread sets the tone of the discussion, but I don't think its correct.

The data (posted) and most of the comments in the thread would not seem to agree.

They don't want people that are weak for their body size, nor to they want people who are heavy for their body size.

Balance and proportion.

They generally penalize people who are plenty strong and functional for their body size. That's well established, but does seem to be ever so slowly improving as they realize different body types (1) have different abilities that are applicable to mil recs and (2) may reflect better "real world" recs of modern combat.

That's my interpretation.

[Averageman]

I hit a prime assignment that allowed me to control my hours. The job was relatively difficult, but I enjoyed it and was very good at what I did.
This freedom allowed me several hours in the gym daily and I took prime advantage. At 5'11" I was weighing in at 193, benching 350 and squatting 500, I can't remember my dead lift weight, but it was respectable. Yes my 2 mile run times slowed down about 1.5 minutes with the gain in mass, but I was still in the high 280's for my APFT.
Now the Army used to have a "Pinch Test" and right as they were going to the new "Tape Test", I got taped. I didn't mind the failure of the tape test, but by no measure other than that test was I "Fat".
I took it for what it was and increased the cardio and decreased the weight training and learned a lesson.
An increase in running daily brought off 5 pounds and all was well and I went on to serve 12 more years and continued a 280 or better score on my APFT's.
What bothered me about the test was and still is, it's accuracy at predicting body fat. At no time in my career was my true body fat over perhaps 12%.
BTW, the jiggly SSG with the washboard neck who administered the tape test was sent back from ANCOC for being over weight, but didn't get discharged for being 25 lbs over until he got to his unit in Korea. I will never forget the joy he had in finding me overweight or the karma that later kicked his ass in Korea.
If I was king of the Army.
1) I would look at a better way of measuring body fat other than the tape test.
2) I would find some balance in Weight and APFT, there should be some way to balance what you can achieve physically vs allowable body weight. We have an imperfect system and I think we could do better.
3) I would assign APFT and weight control to be administered outside of the Unit, i.e. B co 1/30 Infantry administers the APFT and weight control for D co 3/66 Armor. This would eliminate most bias and fudging of the system.

[bp7178]

The data (posted) and most of the comments in the thread would not seem to agree.



They generally penalize people who are plenty strong and functional for their body size. That's well established, but does seem to be ever so slowly improving as they realize different body types (1) have different abilities that are applicable to mil recs and (2) may reflect better "real world" recs of modern combat.

That's my interpretation.

Ok dude, we get it. You're not a runner.

Can we all just move on?

[WillBrink]

Ok dude, we get it. You're not a runner.

Can we all just move on?

You are free to move on from this thread at any time sir. I find it an interesting, and potentially useful topic.