42%. You're going to look 42% sexier.
-
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
SECNAV to Implement Sweeping Changes
- Thread starter usnavymle
- Start date
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
We want to encourage a culture of healthy diet and fitness. But our metric for this is going to be any man with under a 39" waist is deemed to be within standards, regardless of height. And if you are over that then his bf will be calculated using only his waist measurement compared to his height.
Makes total sense and sounds 100% accurate. Why even bother?
Makes total sense and sounds 100% accurate. Why even bother?
Height to waist ratio is the new hotness for a quick swag of fatness. It's apparently a much better indicator than BMI.
I'm sure in making these new regs the Navy just made it up as it went and didn't bother to consult all the health professionals it employs.
60 percent of the time, it works every time!
A wing AMSO once told me that one of the reasons they keep dicking with the PRT standards so often is that the governing office in Millington has two O-4 physiologists competing for one EP.
The rope and choke is imperfect. It should be changed. But to what? We know calipers are better. We know water submersion is better. What we don't know is how the poor LT stuck with CFL as a collateral is going to execute that. As of now, the majority of personnel pass the height weight without being taped (Navy data). The reason why the rope and choke remains is because it is quick and easy to do, for the relatively small percent of the population who require it.
How about:
1. Measure height and stand on a scale.
2. You're in the numbers, get back to work.
3. You're out of the numbers, rope and choke.
4. You're good there, get back to work.
5. You're not good there, you go see the doc for a caliper measurement.
6. You're good there, get back to work.
7. You're not good there, you fail.
How about:
1. Measure height and stand on a scale.
2. You're in the numbers, get back to work.
3. You're out of the numbers, rope and choke.
4. You're good there, get back to work.
5. You're not good there, you go see the doc for a caliper measurement.
6. You're good there, get back to work.
7. You're not good there, you fail.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
But the new regs are now independent of height. You pass with a < 39" waist if you are 5'6" or 6'5".
Hence my comment of 'why bother.' We replaced an imperfect system with another imperfect system that is less stringent, all while the Navy is grand standing about starting a new found culture of fitness.
If they were going to stick with the rope and choke then the only necessary changes were to add a few lbs to the height/weight charts for people 6'1" and over and do a better job policing that the PFA is being conducted properly.
Whether or not we agree with the changes, or whether or not this change actually does anything to encourage/promote healthy lifestyles... Meh. But, I don't think they pulled 39" out of thin air.
I hear this thing is supposed to be super accurate and takes about 30 seconds. http://www.inbodyusa.com/
For $4,800.... This seems like a little better value.
I've often wondered why we even do the BCA as part of the PFA. Why not train the HMs to do it and have it as part of your PHA? They're supposed to be taking your height-weight-body comp then anyhow.
I don't know if it's true. But it fits my confirmation bias.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Well, what is the goal of the PFA? I thought it was supposed to measure a servicemember's physical fitness. If we're really just concerned about predicting insulin resistance with as low as 40% accuracy for women and 60% accuracy for men then we really should be doing this:
At which point they can do further evaluations/monitoring if you have an at-risk profile.
Also, if waist circumferance is a better predictor than bodyfat for adverse health effects and that's all we care about now, then why are we still doing the bodyfat assessment when medical researchers already agree that 37" in men is the cutoff for being overweight?
quick/dirty force shaping tool
magnetfreezer
Well-Known Member
There would probably be HIPAA issues with incorporating PHA type information into FITREPs, etc.