Too fat to enlist. (It's the school lunch.)

**Crocodylus** · 21 Apr 10, 03:59

According to what is stated in this article, the prevalence of obesity in the US is a threat to national security. What do you think?

*************************************
Report says school food making kids unfit to serve
By MARY CLARE JALONICK, Associated Press Writer Mary Clare Jalonick,
Associated Press Writer
1 hr 11 mins ago

.WASHINGTON – Too fat to fight? Many American children are so overweight from being fed french fries, pizza and other unhealthy foods at school lunchrooms that they cannot handle the physical rigors of being in the military, a group of retired officers say in a new report.

National security is threatened by the sharp rise in obesity rates for young people over the last 15 years, the group Mission: Readiness contends. Weight problems are now the leading medical reason that recruits are rejected, the group says, and thus jeopardize the military's ability to fill its ranks.

In a report released Tuesday, the group says that 9 million young adults, or 27 percent of all Americans ages 17 to 24, are too fat to join the military. The retired officers were on Capitol Hill advocating for passage of a wide-ranging nutrition bill that aims to make the nation's school lunches healthier.

The military group acknowledges that other things keep young adults out of the armed services, such as a criminal record or the lack of a high school diploma.

Although all branches of the military now meet or exceed recruitment goals, retired Navy Rear Adm. James Barnett Jr., a member of the officers group, says the obesity trend could affect that.

"When over a quarter of young adults are too fat to fight, we need to take notice," Barnett said. He noted that national security in the year 2030 is "absolutely dependent" on reversing child obesity rates.

Recruitment isn't the only problem posed by obesity. According to the report, the government spends tens of millions of dollars every year to train replacements for service members discharged because of weight problems.

This isn't the first time the military has gotten involved in the debate over school lunches. During World War II, military leaders had the opposite problem, reporting that many recruits were rejected because of stunted growth and inadequate nutrition. After the war, military leaders pushed Congress to establish the national school lunch program so children would grow up healthier.

The program was established in 1946, "as a measure of national security," according to the original bill language.

Today, the group is urging Congress to eliminate junk food and high-calorie beverages from schools, put more money into the school lunch program and develop new strategies that help children develop healthier habits.

The school lunch bill, currently awaiting a Senate vote, would establish healthier options for all foods in schools, including vending machine items. The legislation would spend $4.5 billion more over 10 years for nutrition programs.

The Army is already doing its part to catch the problem earlier, working with high schoolers and interested recruits to lose weight before they are eligible for service, says U.S. Army Recruiting Command's Mark Howell. He added that he had to lose 10 pounds himself before he joined the military.

"This is the future of our Army we are looking at when we talk about these 17- to 24-year-olds," Howell said. "The sad thing is a lot of them want to join but can't."
*********************************************
Original Article: Report says school food making kids unfit to serve - Yahoo! News

**Maxor** · 21 Apr 10, 17:05

The article has some valid points but in my opinion uses them to reach and invalid conclusion. The US military weight hight chart cares far more about a persons weight than their fitness or health. A lack of fitness is a problem but the chart doesn't notice that. A close friend of mine was a linebacker playing football in high-school and was 5'10 215lbs by the chart he had to loose almost 35 lbs. This guy blew away the fitness test requirements, and ran middle distance track meets regularly, but the recruiter and meps told him he had to loose the weight. He lost some of it got a waiver for the rest. Then ended up getting taped regularly in the military showing a 12% body fat count, he was an in shape muscular dude with a fairly heavy build. One enlistment and out because he was constantly being harassed about his weight

While I was in we had a guy who was out of shape guy who had a permanent medical waiver so he didn't have to do push ups part of the test. This guy was winded from a brisk walk from the supply building to the flightline of about 250 yards. since he was 6'1 and literally just under the weight limits he just wouldn't drink water the day before a weigh in and never got messed with even though he was completely non deployable.

Obesity is a huge problem in america, but getting the military to actually use their own fitness tests as a qualifier for joining instead of a height weight chart that punishes muscular people would be a good thing.

**bigross86** · 21 Apr 10, 17:36

I've seen big brawny beasts who made excellent tank loaders, carrying the 48kg shells like they weighed nothing, and big brawny men who could barely pick up a FN MAG with one hand and not get tired

I've seen tiny little guys also make excellent loaders, posting the fastest 4 round time in the company, and I've seen little guys get winded after a 200m run

I've seen tall skinny guys (like myself) make great loaders and eventually come TC's (Like my loader) and I've seen tall skinny guys who made excellent drivers, but didn't have the upper body strength to do more than one pull up.

**Maxor** · 21 Apr 10, 21:55

And that bit of what you've seen Ross is why instead of doing a weigh in quarterly you have them do a physical fitness test.

**bigross86** · 21 Apr 10, 22:59

Yup. Every 3 months we had to do 86 sit ups, 75 push ups and run 2km in under 8.5 minutes. Armored Corps standards weren't as high as Infantry standards. They had to run it quicker, in something like 7 minutes or so, but that's cause they walked and we drove places...

**ShawnG** · 28 Apr 10, 20:10

I really really like the idea of every 3 months... we only do it every 6 months, and in a lot of places, it isn't strictly enforced. Now, I'm in the Army National Guard, so there are a shit-ton of fat slobs that are still lurking around in uniform on weekends (It's one of my largest pet peeves in the world--when I'm a 4 star General one day...*cough*... The standards will be tightened up!).

**bigross86** · 28 Apr 10, 20:50

My pet peeve was soldiers who didn't have their uniform squared away. If their shoes weren't polished, if their pants weren't tucked into their boots (or have rubber bands to give the illusion), if they weren't carrying their ID or wearing their dog tags.

Even now, as a civilian, I look at all the REMF's that get on the bus with their shirt untucked and the top 3 buttons open and I want to bitchslap them so hard they will have my handprint on their cheek for the next 3 weeks, minimum. It really gets me goat...

**tankie** · 28 Apr 10, 22:18

Originally Posted by bigross86

My pet peeve was soldiers who didn't have their uniform squared away. If their shoes weren't polished, if their pants weren't tucked into their boots (or have rubber bands to give the illusion), if they weren't carrying their ID or wearing their dog tags.

Even now, as a civilian, I look at all the REMF's that get on the bus with their shirt untucked and the top 3 buttons open and I want to bitchslap them so hard they will have my handprint on their cheek for the next 3 weeks, minimum. It really gets me goat...

You have just described most clerks , who thought they were soldiers the reason they were clerks and usually the great unwashed and scruffy bastards was because they didnt measure up as soldiers ,and never could ,snidey useless bastards

**ShawnG** · 29 Apr 10, 13:56

I still hate the fact that we are the only military on the planet who can't grow facial hair other than a molestache.

Sure, sure it prevents a proper seal on a Pro-Mask--but if there is a suspected NBC environment in CONUS? That would suck.

**Officer of Engineers** · 29 Apr 10, 14:34

Sorry, with the exception of the Assualt Pioneers, the Canadians are also not allow facial hair.

**ShawnG** · 29 Apr 10, 14:36

Well Sir, it stinks for the both of us then!

)

**bigross86** · 29 Apr 10, 14:39

We're allowed a beard, but it's a pain in the ass to get one.

Used to be you could only get a beard for religious reasons or medical reasons (if you broke into a rash whenever you shaved, for instance). Then the law passed that whoever wants a beard is allowed to have one, but you need a Major in your chain of command's approval. Our battalion Master Sergeant had another idea: No beards. If we bugged him long enough and were persistent, he would eventually let us grow a beard, since it was army regs, after all...

He was home sick for about a month due to heart problems, and the HQ Sergeant took over as Battalion sarge for the duration. The amount of beards in the unit nearly tripled...

**Maxor** · 29 Apr 10, 14:57

Originally Posted by bigross86

My pet peeve was soldiers who didn't have their uniform squared away. If their shoes weren't polished, if their pants weren't tucked into their boots (or have rubber bands to give the illusion), if they weren't carrying their ID or wearing their dog tags.

Even now, as a civilian, I look at all the REMF's that get on the bus with their shirt untucked and the top 3 buttons open and I want to bitchslap them so hard they will have my handprint on their cheek for the next 3 weeks, minimum. It really gets me goat...

Wow gross, you have really hit on something that I strenuously disagree with. Who gives a flying hoot if the aircraft maintainers, or mechanized infantryman's boots are polished? Why should the boots be polished ever in an infantry unit? Blousing straps on pants especially the hook/rubber band ones decrease surface circulation and don't have any real effect of keeping semi ridged foreign objects out of the pants? I get basic uniform inspections to ensure that they are clean and in good repair, I get having everything right and shiny polished on dress uniforms, but having ironed and starched every day wear uniforms with the pockets sewn shut, the buttons on them removed, elastic bands sewn into the bottoms, and patent leather boots that you are afraid to get dirty to do you job piss me off and make the rest of the unit that isn't part of the whole dog and pony show work harder. Dress and appearance is nice, but alot of the military is dirty work and if you have guys changing out of their uniform to do their day to day job something is wrong. If keeping up the dress and appearance requires making the uniform unsuitable for field use something is wrong. As for not having proper ID that is a serious problem and those guys do need bitchslapped.

**ShawnG** · 29 Apr 10, 15:57

Originally Posted by Maxor

Wow gross, you have really hit on something that I strenuously disagree with. Who gives a flying hoot if the aircraft maintainers, or mechanized infantryman's boots are polished? Why should the boots be polished ever in an infantry unit? Blousing straps on pants especially the hook/rubber band ones decrease surface circulation and don't have any real effect of keeping semi ridged foreign objects out of the pants? I get basic uniform inspections to ensure that they are clean and in good repair, I get having everything right and shiny polished on dress uniforms, but having ironed and starched every day wear uniforms with the pockets sewn shut, the buttons on them removed, elastic bands sewn into the bottoms, and patent leather boots that you are afraid to get dirty to do you job piss me off and make the rest of the unit that isn't part of the whole dog and pony show work harder. Dress and appearance is nice, but alot of the military is dirty work and if you have guys changing out of their uniform to do their day to day job something is wrong. If keeping up the dress and appearance requires making the uniform unsuitable for field use something is wrong. As for not having proper ID that is a serious problem and those guys do need bitchslapped.

Field soldiers, I can understand, but in Garrison I expect all my soldiers to look professional. Now the ACU helps with everything because we have suede no-polish boots, non-iron uni's, and are authorized to wear our Patrol caps instead of Berets. To be honest, in the field, as long as you don't smell like a foot for a prolonged period of time, I'm fine with dirty.

**bigross86** · 29 Apr 10, 16:18

I should have clarified. My beef is when they are on Class A's and are heading home. On base we wear our utilities or tanker's Nomex jumpsuits. However, even on base we need to shine our shoes every morning, even if they will get covered in mud 13 seconds after we polish them. For morning inspection they need to be polished.

When we're on maneuvers, we don't need to polish them, but we still shave every single day. Showering is optional and is usually not available, anyway...

As for the rubber bands, we usually just put the rubber bands under the pants and then put them over the top of the boot, so it doesn't cut off any circulation. That we need to do even on maneuvers.

If you've got someone who wears their Class A's every day and go home every day they should always have a squared away uniform, and as a general rule they never do.