I'm glad I have a big neck, otherwise I'd be screwed at 250lbs....outstanding low on the last prt be dammed.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Body Fat Waivers Scrapped
- Thread starter EM1
- Start date
They told us that too, but it is not always the case. I had the highest resting g of my group and I'm not big boned or short. There are also marathon runners out there with really low heart rates who crushed it.
I'm referring to the low HR/BP translating to poor G-tolerance part. I'm an avid distance runner with a low heart rate and blood pressure. I'm 6' tall and 172lbs. My resting G was 4.4, which was the second highest out of nine guys. My roommate who is shorter, more built, and has borderline hypertension had a resting tolerance under 4.
slug
Member
There are some physical advantages to being fat. You float better if you happen to ditch. And if you ditch in cold water with a crew member who is skinny and in-shape, he will most likely die of hypothermia first. Then the fat guys can eat him.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
It is what it is...it's no surprise what the height/weight standards are. If the Navy's ideal of body composition doesn't coincide with your body building goals, then you have to make a decision regarding what's more important.
Navy PRT scores are mostly bullshit because at best Sailors ignore the standard of pushup/situp form and at worst they magic count. So now it's just a matter of an out-of-shape Sailor trotting his fat ass 1.5 miles in like 13 minutes in order to pass. Not really that hard.
Navy PRT scores are mostly bullshit because at best Sailors ignore the standard of pushup/situp form and at worst they magic count. So now it's just a matter of an out-of-shape Sailor trotting his fat ass 1.5 miles in like 13 minutes in order to pass. Not really that hard.
I'd disagree. It's similar to how cockpits were designed, they are based off of body sizes of people from the 60's. People nowadays are naturally bigger and are as healthy if not more so than from when the standards were set.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
The 60's?
I'm 5'9"...I have to try REAL hard to go over my max weight of 186 pounds. People might be naturally taller today than they were 40 years ago, but that's irrelevant since you get more weight with height.
Someone said it before and I agree: if you're finding yourself over the limit and you actually maintain a good workout routine, drop the weights and do more cardio. I agree that not everyone is built equally, but the standards are there and while you're in the military you have to workout to reach those standards, not workout however you want and bitch that the standards don't match your workout. But I really find it hard to believe that such a high percentage maintaining a strict workout routine are having trouble meeting height/weight standards.
I'm 5'9"...I have to try REAL hard to go over my max weight of 186 pounds. People might be naturally taller today than they were 40 years ago, but that's irrelevant since you get more weight with height.
Someone said it before and I agree: if you're finding yourself over the limit and you actually maintain a good workout routine, drop the weights and do more cardio. I agree that not everyone is built equally, but the standards are there and while you're in the military you have to workout to reach those standards, not workout however you want and bitch that the standards don't match your workout. But I really find it hard to believe that such a high percentage maintaining a strict workout routine are having trouble meeting height/weight standards.
Fat bodies will always be fat bodies, but it's a fact of life that some people are just naturally bigger. I am googling like crazy to find an article I read a few years ago about humans as a whole are physically getting bigger (not talking obesity, just bigger). It may not apply to every single person, you're the perfect example, but I myself am a counter example in that the only time I've ever not had to be taped was when I was working out four to five hours per day in preparation for Ironman Florida.
Personally, I think the standards need to be revisited and the method of body fat estimation needs to be revisited as well.
They aren't - otherwise the Navy would change the standards. Remember the short-lived PRT instruction that came out around 2000? The one that assigned your lowest score as your overall score?
Yeah, me neither.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Well, the rope and choke is the biggest bullshit around. I've seen more fat bodies pass the rope and choke by sucking in than anything else. Usually the guy doing the roping is a junior enlisted, and he probably feels extreme peer pressure not to raise a fuss about a certain LPO, chief, or officer being out of standards.
As for the height/weight standards, yea the Navy's table is obviously geared toward maintaining a slender build, and yea that's difficult for a lot of people. My point is that it's no secret...we all had to pass those standards to get into the Navy, and they've probably been around before I was born. It does no good to complain that you can't do your Mr. America weight routine and maintain those standards.
I saw tables of such in one of my econ textbooks in college. Definitely a fact. You can also use anecdotal evidence as well. Go to any history museum and see the military uniforms on display- they were tiny! Hell, as a 5'3"/130 lb female I'm too big for a lot of them. Even in WWII there were differences. When my grandmother died we cleaned out her house and we found my grandfather's crackerjacks from the war. Even though he was 6' tall the waist size of his pants was insanely tiny. Female uniforms now reflect this shape change. Yes, we have a greater obesity problem now in America, but vanity sizing for women shows how much people have changed. The Navy hasn't updated woman's pants sizes since the war if I had to guess, so in normal clothes I wear a size 4 or a 6, but my uniform pants are a 14.
Maybe its just that the civilian clothing manufactures changing their clothing size numbering to appeal to the sensitivities of each progressively "growing" generation of women...
Also keep in mind that while today we worry about recruits being too fat, back then a large percentage were undraftable due to being malnourished during the Great Depression. Puts the "Great Recession" into perspective, eh?
As far as overall sizes go, I remember reading that the average Union soldier was 5'6". A lifetime of malnurishment was par for the course back then.
Ooooh. That's a bold statement! You, sir, are very brave. :icon_wink