Military weight standards effect on recruiting

1. SPECIAL ARTICLES
U.S. Military Weight Standards: What Percentage
of U.S. Young Adults Meet the Current Standards?
Rochelle Nolte, MD, Shawn C. Franckowiak, Carlos J. Crespo, DrPH, Ross E. Andersen, PhD
PURPOSE: Each branch of the U.S. military enforces maxi-
mum allowable weight standards that must be met to join the
military. We wanted to determine what percentage of U.S. civil-
ians between the ages of 17 and 20 years met these standards.
METHODS: The height and weight of adults between the ages
of 17 and 20 years, as measured in the nationally representative
sample of the Third National Health and Nutritional Examina-
tion Survey, were matched against the height/weight charts of
the military services. The percentage of men and women in each
population subgroup who weighed more than the maximum
allowable weight was calculated.
RESULTS: The percentage of young adults whose weight ex-
ceeded the military weight standard ranged from 13% to 18%
for men and 17% to 43% for women. When stratified by race,
15% to 20% of non-Hispanic white men and 12% to 36% of
non-Hispanic white women were over the weight standards,
11% to 19% of non-Hispanic black men and 35% to 56% of
non-Hispanic black women were over the standards, and 13%
to 24% of Mexican American men and 26% to 55% of Mexican
American women exceeded the military weight standards.
CONCLUSION: A large percentage of the young adult popu-
lation from which the U.S. volunteer military is drawn is over
the military weight standards, particularly among minorities,
who comprise a disproportionately large proportion of the mil-
itary. There is a marked discrepancy between the weight stan-
dards for men and women, and the appropriateness of these
standards needs to be assessed. Am J Med. 2002;113:486–490.
©2002 by Excerpta Medica, Inc.
A
n army composed of strong, trim soldiers is an
idea dating back more than 2000 years. The U.S.
Army first developed a policy for physical stan-
dards in 1775 (1); these standards have been reassessed
and changed during the past 200 years (1). Women’s
standards were first developed in the 1940s (1). Each of
the armed services has developed its own “Maximum Al-
lowable Weight” chart that is used to screen every mem-
ber of the military semiannually.
The military regulations that accompany these tables
detail the specific objectives for each of the services’
weight standards. The objectives consist of two compo-
nents: health and fitness standards, and appearance stan-
dards. Military personnel are required to maintain these
standards at all times, so they are always prepared for
their mission and always “combat ready.” Those who do
not meet the weight standards may have adverse actions
taken against them, ranging from involuntary enrollment
in a weight loss program to involuntary separation from
the military. They can also be denied promotions, bo-
nuses, transfers, awards, vacations, or leave. In fiscal year
1995, more than 5000 people were discharged from mil-
itary service for being over the weight standards (2).
With almost 1.4 million members, the U.S. military is a
large “employer” of young adults. Because the military
comprises volunteers from the general population, we
wanted to determine how many adults aged 17 to 20 years
in the general population met military weight standards,
by sex and race.
METHODS
Sample Design
The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey (NHANES III) was conducted by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (3). The survey was de-
signed to produce a nationally representative sample of
the civilian, noninstitutionalized U.S. population. The
NHANES III was conducted from 1988 through 1994 and
consisted of two phases lasting 3 years each: phase I,
which was from 1988 through 1992; and phase II, which
was from 1991 through 1994. The NHANES III over-
sampled Mexican Americans, non-Hispanic blacks, and
older adults to ensure weighted, reliable estimates from
these groups.
An interview was conducted in the participant’s home,
and a detailed clinical examination was conducted in a
From the Division of Geriatric Medicine (RN, SCF, RA), Johns Hopkins
School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; and Department of Epide-
miology (CC), University of Buffalo, School of Medicine, Buffalo, New
York.
The opinions and materials are those of the authors and do not re-
flect or represent the official position of the U.S. Coast Guard or U.S.
Public Health Service.
Requests for reprints should be addressed to Ross E. Andersen, PhD,
Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Johns Hopkins School
of Medicine, 5505 Hopkins Bayview Circle, Baltimore, Maryland 21224,
or andersen@jhmi.edu.
Manuscript submitted September 4, 2001, and accepted in revised
form June 25, 2002.
486 ©2002 by Excerpta Medica, Inc. 0002-9343/02/$–see front matter
All rights reserved. PII S0002-9343(02)01268-8

2. mobile examination center. Interviewing staff consisted
of experienced persons, many of whom were of Hispanic
origin or were fluent in both English and Spanish. All staff
attended yearly training sessions to ensure maintenance
of effective interviewing skills.
Information on self-reported race and ethnicity was
used to classify persons as non-Hispanic white, non-His-
panic black, or Mexican American (persons of Mexican
origin living in the United States). Age was defined as the
age in years at the time of the household interview, which
preceded the medical examination by 2 to 3 weeks.
Historical trends in body composition in young U.S.
adults were examined by using previous nationally repre-
sentative U.S. health examination surveys, in which
height and weight were measured. We began with the
National Health Examination Survey, which was con-
ducted from 1960 to 1962; we also used data from
NHANES I (1971 to 1974) and NHANES II (1976 to
1980).
Dependent Variables
During the NHANES III clinical examination, height and
weight were measured using balance beam scales and a
calibrated stadiometer. From these data we calculated
each participant’s body mass index in kg/m2
. We classi-
fied participants into weight categories according to the
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s current
groupings of body mass (4): underweight, Ͻ18.5 kg/m2
;
normal weight, 18.5 to 24.9 kg/m2
; overweight, 25 to 29.9
kg/m2
; and obese, Ն30 kg/m2
.
The current Maximum Allowable Weight charts were
obtained from the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, and Ma-
rine Corps. Representative heights, weights, and body
mass indices are displayed in Table 1. Using the data from
NHANES III, we calculated the proportion of young U.S.
adults who were within the weight standards for each of
the services. In some cases, these calculations were mod-
ified slightly for this study, as described below. The Navy
rounds all heights up to the nearest whole inch and
rounds all weights down to the nearest whole pound, so
no modification was needed. The Army rounds the height
down to the nearest whole inch for all height fractions less
than 1⁄2 inch and rounds up to the nearest whole inch for
all height fractions 1⁄2 inch or greater. The Army rounds
the weight down to the nearest whole pound for all weight
fractions less than 1⁄2 pound and rounds up to the nearest
whole pound for all weight fractions 1⁄2 pound or greater.
No modifications were made to the heights and weights
on the Army chart, but because the heights were all
rounded up to the nearest whole inch and the weights
were all rounded down to the nearest whole pound in our
measurements, the interpretation of the standards is
slightly modified. The Air Force measures height to the
nearest 1⁄4 inch and has a different maximum allowable
weight for each height fraction of 1⁄4 inch. The Air Force
chart was modified to list only the maximum allowable
weight at each whole inch. All height fractions were
rounded up to the next whole inch. The Marine Corps
chart lists height in the nearest whole inch and weight in
the nearest whole pound. The chart does not explicitly
state how the numbers are to be rounded, but for the
purposes of our study, the heights were rounded up to the
nearest whole inch and the weights were rounded down
to the nearest whole pound. The proportion of men and
women who weigh more than the maximum allowable
weight was calculated for each of the armed services. The
maximum allowable weights for the various services
translate into body mass indices of 25.9 to 29.9 kg/m2
for
men and 22.7 to 28.0 kg/m2
for women.
The U.S. military is composed of volunteers from the
civilian population. The demographic characteristics of
the military are slightly different from those of the U.S.
population. There is a higher percentage of non-Hispanic
Table 1. Military Maximum Allowable Weight and Corresponding Body Mass Index*, by Height
Height
(inches)
Men Women
Army Navy Air Force Marines Army Navy Air Force Marines
Weight in Pounds (Body Mass Index in kg/m2
)
60 132 (25.8) 142 (27.7) 153 (29.9) NA 116 (22.7) 142 (27.7) 136 (26.6) 125 (24.4)
62 141 (25.8) 152 (27.8) 158 (28.9) NA 125 (22.9) 149 (27.3) 141 (25.8) 130 (23.8)
64 150 (25.8) 162 (27.8) 164 (28.2) 160 (27.5) 133 (22.8) 156 (26.8) 146 (25.0) 136 (23.4)
66 160 (25.8) 172 (27.8) 174 (28.1) 170 (27.4) 141 (22.8) 163 (26.3) 155 (24.9) 147 (23.7)
68 170 (25.9) 182 (27.7) 184 (28.0) 181 (27.5) 150 (22.8) 170 (25.9) 164 (24.8) 156 (23.7)
70 180 (25.8) 192 (27.6) 194 (27.8) 192 (27.6) 159 (22.8) 177 (25.4) 173 (24.7) 165 (23.7)
72 190 (25.8) 201 (27.3) 205 (27.8) 203 (27.3) 167 (22.7) 185 (25.1) 182 (24.8) 175 (23.7)
74 201 (25.8) 211 (27.1) 218 (28.0) 214 (27.5) 178 (22.9) 192 (24.7) 194 (24.9) NA
78 223 (25.8) 231 (26.7) 242 (28.0) 235 (27.2) 198 (22.9) 206 (23.8) 215 (24.9) NA
80 234 (25.7) 241 (26.5) 254 (27.9) NA 208 (22.9) 213 (23.4) 226 (24.8) NA
* To convert from pounds to kilograms, divide by 2.2. To convert from inches to centimeters, multiply by 2.54.
NA ϭ not applicable.
Meeting U.S. Military Weight Standards/Nolte et al
October 15, 2002 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE௡ Volume 113 487

3. blacks and fewer women than in the general population,
although the percentage of women in the military contin-
ues to increase. Although non-Hispanic whites comprise
71% of the general population (5), they comprise only
65% of enlisted men and 50% of enlisted women (6).
Non-Hispanic blacks comprise only 12% of the general
population (5) but account for 20% of enlisted men and
35% of enlisted women (6). The Army has the highest
percentage of non-Hispanic black women (47%),
whereas non-Hispanic white women account for only
37% (7).
Statistical Analysis
Statistical analyses were carried out using SAS, Version 6
(SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina). For each survey,
sampling weights were calculated that accounted for the
unequal selection probabilities resulting from the cluster
design and from planned oversampling of certain sub-
groups. All analyses incorporated appropriate sampling
weights.
RESULTS
From the early 1960s through 1994, height has remained
stable in young adults, whereas the mean weight has in-
creased (Figures 1 and 2).
The percentage of white men aged 17 to 20 years who
were over the maximum allowable weight ranged from
15% to 20% compared with 13% to 19% of black men
Figure 1. Average height in inches among persons aged 18 to 24 years in the United States, 1960–1962 to 1988–1994. To convert
from inches to centimeters, multiply by 2.54.
Figure 2. Average weight in pounds among persons aged 18 to 24 years in the United States, 1960–1962 to 1988–1994. To convert
from pounds to kilograms, divide by 2.2.
Meeting U.S. Military Weight Standards/Nolte et al
488 October 15, 2002 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE௡ Volume 113

4. and 12% to 24% of Mexican American men (Table 2).
The percentage of young white women over the maxi-
mum allowable weight ranged from 12% to 36%, com-
pared with 35% to 56% of black women and 26% to 55%
of Mexican American women. In every population sub-
group, a larger percentage of women than men weighed
more than the maximum allowable weight. As the maxi-
mum weight for men is consistently translated into a
body mass index over 25 kg/m2
, no men with a body mass
index below 25 kg/m2
were excluded. The maximum
weight for women varied, with all services having some
maximum weights translating into body mass index be-
low 25 kg/m2
.
DISCUSSION
We found that at least 13% of young men and 17% of
young women would fail the military’s screening test for
weight. The percentages were much higher among non-
Hispanic black women and Mexican American women.
This situation is most likely the result of a combination of
the strict military standards and the increasing propor-
tions of young Americans who are overweight or obese.
In 1991, 7% of 18- to 29-year-old U.S. adults were classi-
fied as obese (8), whereas from 1991 to 1999, there was
about a twofold increase in the prevalence of obesity.
Thus, 14% of young adults were classified as obese in
1999 (9).
The other factor contributing to the high percentage of
people who would fail the test is the strictness of the
weight standards, especially for women. The maximum
allowable weights for women are significantly lower than
for men, even though the World Health Organization
(10) and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
recommend identical weights for men and women of the
same height (4). The allowable weight for some women is
set at a level that excludes a percentage of women who are
considered to have a healthy weight (Յ25 kg/m2
). The
allowable weight for men is set high enough to include
two thirds of overweight men.
The discrepancy between the proportions of men and
women who would be able to meet the weight standards is
especially marked in minority populations. There is a
small difference between the body mass indices of non-
Hispanic black men and Mexican American men when
compared with non-Hispanic white men. Thus, a slightly
higher percentage of Mexican American men are ex-
cluded based on these standards. The difference among
the women is greater, with substantially more non-His-
panic black women and Mexican American women fail-
ing to meet the weight standards than white women.
All persons who fail the initial weigh-in have the op-
portunity to be assessed using anatomical circumference
measures for an estimated body fat percentage. This is far
from a perfect option. The “tape test” is more time con-
suming and could become an administrative and logisti-
cal burden, depending on the number of people who
would fail the initial weigh-in. Obtaining the measure-
ments can also be an uncomfortable and embarrassing
situation for the person being measured. An accurate,
easy-to-use, inexpensive, and easily reproducible method
has yet to be developed. The strictness of the weight stan-
dards continues to affect military personnel after their
initial enlistment. Women in the Army and Marine
Corps repeatedly report negative career paths once a
height/weight evaluation is failed, even if their body fat is
within standards (2). Although the ideal situation would
be that military personnel maintain their weight through
a healthy diet and exercise, 72% of women in the military
who were recently surveyed met the criteria for an eating
disorder, such as anorexia nervosa or bulimia nervosa.
Surveys were sent to all women stationed at three major
medical centers for the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and to
all the female Marines stationed in Okinawa, Japan (2).
The Marines and the Army have more restrictive
weight standards for young women than do the Air Force
Table 2. Percentage of U.S. Men and Women 17 to 20 Years Old Who Weigh More Than the
Maximum Allowable Weight for Each of the Military Services
Group N Army Navy Air Force Marines
Percentage (95% Confidence Interval)
Total men* 695 18 (13–23) 13 (9–17) 13 (8–17) 15 (10–19)
Non-Hispanic white men 167 20 (11–27) 15 (8–21) 15 (8–21) 16 (8–21)
Non-Hispanic black men 229 19 (14–26) 12 (8–17) 11 (6–16) 15 (10–21)
Mexican American men 268 24 (17–33) 15 (11–21) 13 (9–18) 21 (17–27)
Total women* 780 43 (37–49) 17 (12–22) 23 (17–29) 33 (27–39)
Non-Hispanic white women 217 36 (30–45) 12 (7–18) 17 (10–24) 27 (20–35)
Non-Hispanic black women 270 56 (47–62) 28 (21–35) 35 (29–41) 46 (38–52)
Mexican American women 250 55 (47–65) 26 (17–35) 36 (27–46) 45 (37–55)
* Other races not specified are included in total estimates.
Meeting U.S. Military Weight Standards/Nolte et al
October 15, 2002 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE௡ Volume 113 489

5. and the Navy. As expected, a higher percentage of women
in the Marine Corps report failing the height/weight eval-
uation than in the other services, even though, as a group,
they are leaner than women in the other services (2). Over
30% of female Marines report a body fat Ͻ15%. More
than 22% of female Marines report amenorrhea, and
97.5% met the diagnostic criteria for an eating disorder
(2). Women in all military services report a higher inci-
dence of fasting, vomiting, excessive exercising (more
than two times daily), and use of diet pills, laxatives, and
diuretics to lose weight, compared with women in the
general population (2).
There are some limitations to this cross-sectional
study. The NHANES III population does not perfectly
represent the population eligible for military service.
Some persons in the general population may be ineligible
based on mental or physical health concerns, as well as
educational or criminal disqualifications. The actual per-
centage of people who would be considered overweight
may be slightly higher, as our method of rounding up for
height and rounding down for weight results in more
lenient interpretations of the weight tables of all the ser-
vices except the Navy. Despite these limitations, this
study raises questions about how the military is screening
personnel, and whether it is fair and appropriate, espe-
cially for minorities and women.
In conclusion, a large percentage of the U.S. young
adult population is over the maximum allowable weight
for the military. The percentage failing the height and
weight standards is higher in minority populations, who
make up a disproportionately large proportion of the
military. There is a marked discrepancy between the
weight standards for men and women, with the weight
standards for women excluding some women with
healthy weights, and placing women who join the mili-
tary at risk of developing eating disorders. The appropri-
ateness of these standards needs to be assessed.
REFERENCES
1. Johnson NA. The history of the Army weight standards. Mil Med.
1997;162:564–570.
2. McNulty PA. Prevalence and contributing factors of eating disorder
behaviors in active duty service women in the Army, Navy, Air
Force, and Marines. Mil Med. 2001;166:53–58.
3. National Center for Health Statistics. Plan and Operation of the
Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–94.
Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
National Center for Health Statistics; 1994. Vital Health Statistics
DHHS Publication PHS 92-1509.
4. National Institutes of Health and National Heart, Lung, and Blood
Institute. Obesity Education Initiative: Clinical Guidelines on the
Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity
in Adults. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services; 1998.
5. Resident Population Estimates of the United States by Sex, Race, and
Hispanic Origin: April 1, 1990 to July 1, 1999, with Short-Term Pro-
jection to March 1, 2000. Washington, DC: Population Estimates
Program, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau; 2000.
6. Defense Manpower Data Center. Distribution of Active Duty Forces
by Service, Rank, Sex, and Ethnic Group. Defense Manpower Data
Center. Washington, DC: Department of Defense; 1999 Report No.
3035.
7. Demographics Unit, Human Resources Directorate Office of the
Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel Headquarters Department of
the Army. Army Demographics FY99. Washington, DC: Depart-
ment of the Army; 1999.
8. Mokdad AH, Serdula MK, Dietz WH, et al. The spread of the obe-
sity epidemic in the United States, 1991–1998. JAMA. 1999;282:
1519–1522.
9. Mokdad AH, Serdula MK, Dietz WH, et al. The continuing epi-
demic of obesity in the United States. JAMA. 2000;284:1650–1651.
10. World Health Organization. Physical status: the use and interpre-
tation of anthropometry. Report of a WHO Expert Committee.
World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 1995;854:1–452.
Meeting U.S. Military Weight Standards/Nolte et al
490 October 15, 2002 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE௡ Volume 113