Just ask the Air Force.
This just in: we have new AF fitness standards to be implemented in the Aug/Sep time frame. I already ran my preliminary scores, and they report that my BMI* is above "normal," therefore affecting my fitness scores adversely, as well as suggesting, as far as my AF record is concerned, that I can run and do pushups and situps well, but (basically) that I'm fat.
* Body Mass Index.
Long ago and far away, the AF cared what my weight was, and I was always flirting with "fatness." I was a "chunky chicken" going through Basic Military Training (a fancy word for boot camp) at 18, meaning I was always within 10% of my "maximum allowable weight" (144 lbs). I've walked that line the entire time I've been in uniform.
Then, a couple of years ago, the AF realized (picture a light bulb here) that body weight is not a reflection of fitness. Does this make sense? Fitness is a reflection of fitness. Pretty straightforward when you think about it, isn't it?
As you can tell, I'm an advocate of performance-based fitness standards as opposed to weight-based standards. Weight as a prime indicator of fitness and/or attractiveness may just be an American phenomenon, but it's misguided. The main reason is that weight and height alone tells you nothing except, well, your weight and height. On a scale of average people, it gives you an idea of what your weight should be. The key words here are "average" and "an idea."
For those of us who are not of average physical build, genetics, and/or physical fitness, these charts are worthless. And even for those who do fit the "average" mold, they can best know when they are at a weight that is healthiest for them (hence the "idea" part of my qualification).
What these charts don't indicate is where any "extra" weight is on your frame or what (more importantly) is causing it--muscle or fat.
So the AF went to what was almost entirely a performance-based fitness test a couple of years ago, doing away with weight management entirely. I applauded this move. The test was as follows: 50% for run time, 10% for pushups and 10% for situps. The other 30% was the unfair glitch: it was "iliac crest circumference"; in reality, it was the measurement just above the iliac crest. This was the only flaw in the system: all males (regardless of height or age) were on the same scale for waist measurement (32 inches or less for the full 30 points), and the same applied to females (29 inches or less for max pointage). Everything else was weighted for age and gender. At the very least, the waist measurement should have been additionally weighted by height, but it wasn't, making it the source of much disgruntlement among the troops. But all in all, the test was intelligent and a vast improvement over the old "ride the bicycle and test your heart rate* and get on a scale so we can record your weight" system.
* What the devil was that nonsense about, anyway?
So today I was dismayed to read the following, just released by "Air Force Print News":
Under the original fitness evaluation, body composition scores were based on abdominal circumference only. The updated AFI will now direct that body composition also be measured using body mass index.
BMI is calculated by dividing weight in pounds by height in inches squared, and multiplying the result by 703. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, those with a BMI between 18.5 and 24.9 are considered to be normal. Those with a BMI of 25 or above are considered overweight.
Being translated, that means we're back another form of the old, much-reviled, weight-management system.
Let's think about what they're doing here. Here's the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's nifty calculator so you can determine if you are "underweight," "normal," "overweight" or "obese." (But remember, BMI does not indicate body fat. That's why we use it to determine if people are underweight, normal, overweight or obese.)
Now for a tiny bit of perspective, from a significant group of us who are quite healthy and fit (thankyouverymuch), and simply weigh a lot: I've made a 100 on the last two of my Air Force fitness tests. This is a bit rare for anyone, thanks to the waist measurement requirement that many people simply are not genetically suited to max out. I have some genetics in my favor for that, as well as years of steady physical training. At my last PFT* (three months ago), I did 61 pushups in a minute, 68 situps in a minute, and ran 1.5 miles in 11:30. I am what you might call "in shape." (Oh...I'm 37 years old, incidentally. I have excuses for poorer performance; I'm just not using them. OK?)
* Physical Fitness Test
My BMI is 25.75. I'm overweight.
It isn't just me, either. I discussed it with two gentlemen who just shipped in. Both are healthy, strong young men. Both are men you'd feel comfortable sending on a road march with an 80 lb. pack without fear they'd snap in two or have a heart attack. We calculated their BMIs, and both came up at 28. Well. That's what they get for being fit, I guess.
This is my main beef with this sort of thing: the cards here are stacked in favor of couch potatoes who take care to not eat too much, or people who are just genetically skinny.
You may argue that the weight standards are there to ensure Airmen aren't fat slobs. I would answer that fitness standards ensure Airmen aren't fat slobs. If Airmen can meet fitness standards and still be fat slobs, then I submit to you that we should raise our fitness standards.
For comparison, check this out: in this picture, I was 137 lbs. I'd lost too much weight. My collarbones and ribs and pelvis bones were standing out. My pants were falling off me. My BMI was 23.5--just barely within "normal" range on the upper end of the scale. For me, though, I was underweight. I needed more bodyfat, clearly.
So anyway...all hope is not lost. If you make the "within normal range" for BMI, you get your full 30 points. If you don't, they'll fall back on the current waist circumference measurement to determine your score.
I wonder how many people will fail the BMI portion only to max the waist measurement backup?
d
