This report discusses (1) the rationale for differences in difficulty among the military services physical fitness standards, (2) how the services adjust the standards for gender and age, and (3) DOD’s oversight of the fitness program. Lack of Adherence to DOD Policy and Confusion Over Multiple Objectives Contribute to Differences in Service Requirements

Physical fitness programs enacted by the services are a mixture of different requirements, lacking a clear rationale for marked differences in difficulty. These differences occur in all three testing areas—cardiovascular endurance, muscular strength and endurance, and body composition. However, all services adjust program standards for physiological differences between the sexes in all three testing areas, and for age in the case of cardiovascular and muscular strength and endurance standards. Table 2.3 shows that each of the services uses different weight-for-height values. Although the references to additional objectives in the guidance has apparently led to some confusion, the Office of the Secretary of Defense official responsible for overseeing the fitness program stated that physical fitness standards are intended only to set a minimum level of general fitness and health for military personnel and are not directly related to job performance. This leads to questions about the fairness of standards applied to men and women. Researchers found that service equations predict different body fat values when applied to the same woman, the subject population used to develop the equations is becoming increasingly less representative, and existing calculation approaches do not account for racial differences in bone density. To reflect these and other gender-based physiological differences, DOD guidance directs that testing standards be adjusted. The degree of gender difference varied by service. However, according to discussions with Navy officials, command concerns about appearance resulted in lowering the female standard to 30 percent. Consequently, they were also unable to tell us the basis for adjustments to the standards for gender. Procedures for Determining Body Fat May Not Accurately Account for Gender and Racial Differences

The basic approach used by each service to determine the percentage of body fat has been to first develop a set of measures of the circumference of various body sites, such as the waist and neck for men, and the neck, waist, and hips for women. Moreover, DOD has not enforced the annual reporting requirement or identified a common set of statistics needed to assess fitness. Comparisons of limited data we were able to obtain raised questions about program effectiveness. Failure rates among the services appear to be markedly different, with women failing at significantly higher rates than men. Problems Have Persisted for Years

Problems, such as confusion over multiple fitness program objectives and failure to enforce key policy requirements, have persisted since at least the early 1980s. Similarly, DOD’s requirement that all personnel, regardless of age, be tested for physical fitness is clearly spelled out in DOD’s 1981 directive, and DOD’s 1981 report on fitness in the military notes that the Navy and the Marine Corps were already exempting older personnel from fitness testing at that time. Recommendations

We recommend that the Secretary of Defense revise the physical fitness guidance to establish a mechanism for providing policy and research coordination of the military services’ physical fitness and body fat programs and define the statistical information needed to monitor fitness trends and ensure program effectiveness, and require that this information be maintained by all services and provided in the currently required annual reports.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the military services' physical fitness and body fat standards to determine if: (1) differences exist among the military services in physical fitness standards and tests and the basis for any difference; (2) the services have a sound basis for adjusting the standards for gender and age; and (3) the Department of Defense (DOD) exercises adequate oversight of the fitness program.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) significant differences exist in the tests and standards that the military services use to measure physical fitness; (2) these differences reflect varying levels of difficulty in required performance in all testing areas--cardiovascular endurance, muscular strength and endurance, and percentage of allowable body fat--and occurred for different reasons; (3) specifically, services did not always adhere to DOD guidance for fitness testing or, in some cases, interpreted the guidance differently; (4) service officials stated that confusion over the program's objectives, stemming from conflicting statements in DOD's guidance, contributed to differences among the services; (5) adjustments to account for physiological differences by age and gender are, according to experts, appropriate for general fitness and health standards, and DOD guidance requires that gender-based adjustments be made; (6) although each of the services adjusts for gender, the degree of adjustment varies considerably; (7) inconsistent and sometimes arbitrary approaches to adjusting the standards have contributed to questions concerning the fairness of the standards applied to military men and women; (8) body fat standards are also questionable due to: (a) differences in each service's equations for estimating body fat, resulting in estimates ranging between 27 and 42 percent for the same woman; (b) outdated measurement approaches that did not account for racial differences in bone density; and (c) changes in ethnicity and other population characteristics of the current military that question whether the populations used to develop the equations represent the populations in today's military; (9) despite a clear requirement for all services to test all personnel regardless of age, the Navy and, until recently the Marine Corps, have exempted older personnel from fitness testing for years because of concerns about being able to retain senior leaders; (10) DOD's guidance and oversight of the service physical fitness programs are not adequate; (11) multiple program objectives and lack of DOD monitoring of service compliance with key policies, have persisted since at least the early 1980s without resolution; (12) DOD has not enforced annual reporting requirements or identified a common set of statistics to use in monitoring the services' fitness programs; (13) the statistics currently maintained by the services lack standardization; and (14) the limited data available raise questions about program effectiveness because failure rates appear to be markedly different among the services and women appear to fail at significantly higher rates than men.