physiologists who develop such tests place strong emphasis on the proper validation of the tests.

In a 1992 review in Armed Forces and Society, Vogel described how the Army's initial (1982) male body fat standards of 20 percent were formulated, based on a subjective estimate of the level of body fat commensurate with a desirable level of aerobic fitness. Preliminary data (Vogel and Friedl, 1992) showed a negative association between body fat (as determined by the Army equation) and 2-mi run time for the youngest age group of men. Another study of Army personnel found virtually no relationship between body fat and run time of men or women (Harman and Frykman, 1992). Cureton (1992) employed an "added weight" model to attempt to determine whether women's additional body fat was responsible for their lower aerobic fitness. In this model, weight was added to the trunkal area of male subjects, but no differences in performance were seen, possibly because no added weight was distributed to the extremities, as would be the case in women.

In a study of women during basic combat training, Westphal and coworkers (1995) examined the relationship among weight-for-height; BMI; total body fat as predicted by all services' circumference equations and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry; body fat distribution as predicted by waist-hip ratio; performance on the Army PFT; and measures of strength and task performance (torque task performance, machine lift, bench press, military press, and vertical jump). Increasing BMI was associated with increasing performance on strength tasks, decreasing sit-up and running performance on the Army PFT, and no association with performance of push-ups (also part of the Army PFT). Waist-hip ratio greater than 0.81 (which is associated with higher FFM and greater health risks [see Chapter 2 in this report]) was associated with a significantly increased performance on a torque task, a small but not significant increase in performance on other tests of strength, poorer performance of sit-ups and push-ups, but no effect on run time. Women who exceeded their Army weight-for-height limit during BCT demonstrated greater performance on strength tasks than those who were within standard. When these same women were divided into two groups based on whether or not they exceeded their body fat limit (as assessed by the Army circumference equation for women), those who exceeded the body fat limit were stronger than those who did not, but the disparity in performance was not as great as when the division was according to weight-for-height (thus the weight-for-height screen tends to eliminate more strong women than the body fat screen). Use of the Navy and Marine Corps equations produced similar results. Performance on the Army PFT was not compared between those who exceeded their body fat limit and those who did not in this study. Nevertheless, it appears that increased BMI was associated with poorer performance on the Army PFT but greater strength, and that increased body fat was associated with greater strength.

Front Matter (R1-R16)

Executive Summary (1-24)

1 Introduction (25-32)

2 Body Composition (33-60)

3 Physical Fitness Policies and Programs (61-86)

4 Weight Management (87-108)

5 Nutritional Concerns of Military Women (109-126)

6 Pregnancy and Lactation and Postpartum Return-To-Duty Fitness (127-156)

7 Conclusions and Recommendations (157-170)

Appendixes (171-172)

A Workshop Summary, Agenda, Participants, and Abstracts (173-252)

B Practices and Policies Tables (253-262)

C Military Occupational Specialty Classification Tables (263-280)

D Search Strategy for Literature Review (281-284)

E Civilian Inquiry Letter and Table of Responses (285-290)

F Abbreviations (291-294)

G Bibliography (295-334)

H Biographical Sketches (335-338)

Index (339-352)