- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Even the military is getting fat
Posted on 9/6/19 at 2:05 pm to Scruffy
Posted on 9/6/19 at 2:05 pm to Scruffy
quote:
As much as people try to deny it, the BMI scale, although not the best, is usually applicable to them.
And it is a decent epidemiological, directional index, to track population-wide trends.
0
Posted on 9/6/19 at 2:06 pm to GetCocky11
You're real concerned about this eh? Leave it to a dude with cock in his name to get stoked on this
Posted on 9/6/19 at 2:21 pm to TennesseeFan25
You're the one posting torso selfies and then lying about the height and weight. 
Posted on 9/6/19 at 2:28 pm to TigerinATL
What do you mean, "even"? Especially the navy.
Now, true story - about a quarter century ago, I was a young pup going through language school in beautiful Monterey, California.
It was a joint school, owned by DOD, but operated specifically by the army. So, I had the opportunity to observe, essentially, IET troops of all services, mostly in intelligence fields, but also some FSO types, etc..
In civilian clothes, it was impossible to tell Army from Air Force - with few exceptions, they were typical, young fit men and women between 18 and 25. Back then (Much closer to Vietnam era than it is to today), young marines were almost 100% male and they had the stereotypical haircut that would become more universal when we got into the War on Terror(tm) a decade later (so maybe they were onto something).
And the Navy were all fat (except for the handful of SEALs). Now, to be fair, the Navy tended to send a slightly older group of folks to language school than the other 3 services, but it was obvious they were eating well in Navy messes.
So, take it FWIW.
Now, true story - about a quarter century ago, I was a young pup going through language school in beautiful Monterey, California.
It was a joint school, owned by DOD, but operated specifically by the army. So, I had the opportunity to observe, essentially, IET troops of all services, mostly in intelligence fields, but also some FSO types, etc..
In civilian clothes, it was impossible to tell Army from Air Force - with few exceptions, they were typical, young fit men and women between 18 and 25. Back then (Much closer to Vietnam era than it is to today), young marines were almost 100% male and they had the stereotypical haircut that would become more universal when we got into the War on Terror(tm) a decade later (so maybe they were onto something).
And the Navy were all fat (except for the handful of SEALs). Now, to be fair, the Navy tended to send a slightly older group of folks to language school than the other 3 services, but it was obvious they were eating well in Navy messes.
So, take it FWIW.
Posted on 9/6/19 at 2:30 pm to Nutriaitch
quote:Not a percentage that increases the number who fit the obese category by multiples.
again, never said it applied to ALL of them.
even said that there is more fatties today than before.
my argument is that there could very easily be a noticeable percentage that are simply leaner and more muscular than before. especially with a concerted effort by the military to make them that way.
The military wouldn’t be concerned if they went from 2.3% of actually obese Marines to 8.3% who fit the classification if the additional 6% were the muscular and tall type.
We are deluding ourselves if we think that is the case.
Even if they muscular talk type accounts for 2% total who fit into the obese category, just for Marines, that is a 4% increase in actual obese individuals!
That isn’t even touching the Army or AF’s near 10% increase or the Navy’s multiples increase.
Even accounting for a population who are tall and muscular, the numbers don’t fit, unless we assume that the military has becomes such paragons of physical fitness that incredibly muscular and tall individuals built like pro athletes has skewed the stats, and we all know that is crap.
We have an obesity problem everywhere in our society.
We need to stop lying to ourselves with the “BMI is faulty” nonsense and recognize the issue.
This post was edited on 9/6/19 at 2:33 pm
Posted on 9/6/19 at 2:33 pm to Scruffy
quote:
People love to use pro athletes to discredit BMI.
Does Scruffy want to do bodybuilders next? Even reasonably naturally trained?
But, in all seriousness, BMI is a good gauge, particularly if you want to check it against waist circumference.
Obviously, exceptions apply. If one is a 6'2" bodybuilder, weighing 225 pounds with a 29" waist? Yes, technically obese and all that weight does stress the system and joints, but it is not the same as a 5'10" computer programmer who hasn't exercised since the 1980s with a similar BMI. Not nearly the same.
Posted on 9/6/19 at 2:33 pm to TigerinATL
quote:
As a lifelong civilian this blows my mind. If there's any place that could get away with "corrective action" for being overweight it would seem like the military. Have movies and tv lied to me? They can make you run until you puke and do 100s of pushups in the rain but they can't keep you from accessing the buffet?
quote:This is how it was when I was in, pre-2011. If you failed a weigh-in you took a "tape test". If you failed that you were 'flagged'(suspension of favorable personnel actions- reenlistment, promotion, awards, etc...) and you were enrolled in 'fat boy PT', which is a second daily PT session after work. I've also seen NCO's go to the chow hall with their overweight soldiers and monitor what they were eating but nothing they can really do on a soldiers personal time. If they didn't make weight after six months they could be chaptered out.
I feel like they should have weigh ins and protocols to punish overweight people until they make weight.
It's puzzling to me why there's been such a sharp increase in 8 years when there was a drawdown during that period. Usually the pt failures/fat boys are the first to get the ax when they want to get rid of people.
This post was edited on 9/6/19 at 2:43 pm
Posted on 9/6/19 at 2:34 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:BMI is a good measurement for populations.
BMI is a good gauge, particularly if you want to check it against waist circumference.
quote:Agreed.
Obviously, exceptions apply. If one is a 6'2" bodybuilder, weighing 225 pounds with a 29" waist? Yes, technically obese and all that weight does stress the system and joints, but it is not the same as a 5'10" computer programmer who hasn't exercised since the 1980s with a similar BMI. Not nearly the same.
Posted on 9/6/19 at 2:35 pm to Scruffy
quote:
We have an obesity problem everywhere in our society.
Amen and amen.
1 in 6 American CHILDREN (and adolescents) are obese, FFS.
Thanks, "4 food groups." Thanks, "video games." Thanks, "carbs, carbs, everywhere."
Posted on 9/6/19 at 2:37 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
If you failed a weigh-in you took a BMI "tape test".
Wait - the weigh in WAS the BMI (it's a ratio of weight to height). The "tape test" was a (grossly, but barely accurate) measurement of bodyfat percentage.
Posted on 9/6/19 at 2:39 pm to Proximo
quote:
BMI doesn’t mean shite
Unfortunately this is what the Navy uses to decide if you are in standards or not. There was a guy stationed in Georgia who was jacked. That dude's actual body fat content had to be less than 10%. He was overweight though because he was pure muscle and he failed tape when they measured him. He was kicked out of the Navy.
Meanwhile...you have actual fat asses who are failing to make weight but pass tape because of the stupid way they measure.
It doesn't surprise me that the Navy is overweight though. Many commands do not have mandated PT sessions because they trust their sailors to be adults and PT on their own time. Problem is...no one's going to do that. People are people and the vast majority of us are lazy schmucks who won't do anything unless absolutely required to.
Not to mention the fact that standards are INCREDIBLY low - especially for females. I'm 32 years old and I'm required to be able to do, at minimum, 35 push-ups, 44 curl-ups, and run 1.5 miles in 14 minutes and 15 seconds. I can power walk a mile in that amount of time.
Meanwhile, females my age have to do the following: 13 push-ups, 44 curl-ups, and a 1.5 mile run time of 16 minutes and 15 seconds.
This is why the Navy is the fattest branch in the military. Our standards are a joke.
This post was edited on 9/6/19 at 2:45 pm
Posted on 9/6/19 at 2:40 pm to Scruffy
quote:
BMI is a good measurement for populations. quote:
I meant to complete that thought, thanks.
Posted on 9/6/19 at 2:41 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:I stand corrected.
Wait - the weigh in WAS the BMI (it's a ratio of weight to height). The "tape test" was a (grossly, but barely accurate) measurement of bodyfat percentage.
Posted on 9/6/19 at 2:43 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
He was kicked out of the Navy.
Respectfully, nobody gets kicked out of the service for being "jacked". "Jacked" heavily implies broad shoulders, big chest muscles and large, heavy arm and leg muscles.
If that is where your weight is, for a man, you pass the screening because it ends up being a ratio of neck to waist size.
You fail the screening because your waist is too big.
Posted on 9/6/19 at 2:56 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
I'm required to be able to do, at minimum, 35 push-ups, 44 curl-ups, and run 1.5 miles in 14 minutes and 15 seconds
seriously?
that is way lower than i would have guessed
Page 8 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News