Text 19929, 122 rader
Skriven 2007-09-02 19:26:21 av Carol Shenkenberger (1:275/100)
  Kommentar till text 19879 av MICHAEL LOO (1:123/140)
Ärende: Re: PREDICTIONS 73
==========================
*** Quoting MICHAEL LOO from a message to CAROL SHENKENBERGER ***

ML> I'm trying to relate this to my own experience. I'd have
ML> thought that the military had some serious P.T. standards,
ML> and, wow, I'm surprised at some of the things you're saying.

Srry to say but we arent all perfect.  Steve's right that the Navy tends to be
the fattest ones.  I may have created a wrong impression though and will
correct it here.  

Out of 1100 people, we have 11 who are over the standard and the standard is
far lower than 36% body fat.  I forget (but we can all google it) but I think
it's 22% or so for males and 26% for females?  That is also misleading as the
way they hest is a pure hight-weight scale so a 100% muscle bodybuilder 'fails
the test' and has to get measured by arcane other methods.  Muscle weighs more
per square inch than fat so the results have to be adjusted.


 CS> Seems so.  My standard of 'fat' may be a bit wider than Steve's but it
 CS> isnt too 
 CS> far off.  They sent out the stats agan on the remedial program today. 
 CS> 34  people out of 1100 are on it but only 11 for being 'over fat'.

ML> With the standards you describe below, having anyone on the list
ML> who's over fat would be a disaster, militarywise. I can see
ML> a computer tech or a food reviewer at 36% body fat, but anyone
ML> expected to do anything related to fighting, forget it.

Correct and we all agree which is why we get upset when someone is transferred
in who's over the limit.  36% is the most excessive.  Event stateside they
draw the line on guys that big.  Technically, they qualify as 'obese' at that
stage.

There might be a few of the 11 who are pushing the 30% or higher, but most are
the 26-28% group I think.  Then again, i don't really know how to judge
bodyfat just by looks.  Lets say, 30-40 lbs over optimal?  Seems right to me.


 CS> The rest failed 
 CS> the run time requirements (a true hard thing for us being at sea so
 CS> much and  when on land, in 3 bottle weather generally).

ML> [I'd probably have failed a run requirement even when I was in
ML> shape and could do a 20-mi hike with backpack. Some of us just
ML> cannot run. Just to keep from being to sanctimonious about this.]

Not to worry.  I am a terrible runner and always have struggled with that
portion.  The older I get, the harder it is.  Lately due to medical problems,
I have not been able to run at all.

 CS> fat and  higher, is a problem for us.  Once they arrive, it takes us 9
 CS> months to geta  replacement.  The last 3 generated 'Personal For'
 CS> messages to their CO and  CMC's for passing on their problem kid to the
 CS> FDNF and the resulting 9 month  gap we have to take if we send them
 CS> back.

ML> I'm at 18% and I have just a small amount more than what I would
ML> consider an ideal amount of padding (my ideal waist size is only
ML> 1" smaller than my current one). I went to a site and did the
ML> calcs and found that I'd have to weigh 90 more lbs and have
ML> another 12" on my waist to have 36% body fat. As I said, that is
ML> perfectly fine for some folks (okay, not perfectly, as there are
ML> usually health consequences), but it doesn't comport with the
ML> image of our defense forces,

Smile, your scale may not be the same one we have in use.  I've been a test
guinea pig for the system once.  The water test showed 17% and the navy one
showed 23%.  Not but 15 mins between the tests.  THe Navy scale is way off if
you are short.  Arnold Swartznegger in his heyday bodybuilder mode would fail
the Navy test too because it's just height-weight at the start.  He'd have to
be measured to pass.

ML>    A rather effective manouver as we've
 CS> never had the same command repeat such performance.  Had their
 CS> commands done  the right thing and just descreened them, we'd have
 CS> gotten folks who were fit  with no gapped billet problem.
 CS> We can deal with normal medical problems and the 'oops, this just
 CS> cropped up'  same as anyone else, but we do not transfer our 'problems'
 CS> to someone else to  deal with.
ML>  
ML> So you're saying that your command adheres to a higher standard
ML> of honor than most of the navy, it sounds like. Bully for you,
ML> both for not shipping out your own problem cases and for trying
ML> to solve them in house, but shame on the rest of them!

I agree.  It pisses me off when someone arrives who's immediately on the weight
loss requirement.  It doesnt happen often though.  3 of the 11 out of 1100
people.  The odds are not that bad and 8 of them were home-grown 'bg boys'
(actually, of the 8 home-grown, 3 are women who had a child in the last year
and are trying still to get the weight off).


MMMMM----- Recipe via Meal-Master (tm) v8.05
 
      Title: Xxcarol's simple soup adaptions
 Categories: Xxcarol, Soups
      Yield: 3 Servings
 
      1 cn Cream of Chicken Soup
    1/2 c  Broken spagetti bits
      1 c  Water
    1/2 c  Broken chicken bits, cooked
 
  What to do when sitting in sleepy little Sasbo Japan when it's pouring
  rain and the kid asks for chicken noodle soup?  Adapt!  I had none so
  used what I had.
  
  If I had mushrooms, I'd have added them too!
  
  The 1/2 cup broken spagetti is not tight packed and any pasta cooked
  of about that amount will do.
  
  From the simple kitchen of:  Carol Shenkenberger, 19OCT2002
 
MMMMM
Shawn, this one is simple if you arent feeling up to real cookery, but filling.
An alternative would be to add rice but the hard kernals might not be all that
much fun.
                                       xxcarol

--- Telegard v3.09.g2-sp4
 * Origin: SHENK'S EXPRESS, Sasebo Japan 81-6160-527330 (1:275/100)