# is height  and fat and muscel a bad thing in the infantry



## fly boy 45 (19 Aug 2005)

i was wondering if height and fat and muscel was bad thing in the infantry beucase i might pic that to join but i havae all those i weigh about 240 and i was wondering if that would screw me over some how?

regard:matt


----------



## the 48th regulator (19 Aug 2005)

here is a bit of advice..

patience...

You have already started two other threads that could answer your question.

Wait for an answer brother.

dileas

tess


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 Aug 2005)

Big guys in the infantry  --  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/1905.0.html

Big guy going for infantry training?  --  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/17777.0.html

Infantry Build  --  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/2064.0.html

 is there any weight limits for the infantry?  --  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21198.0.html
*
SEARCH PAGE*  -  http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=search;advanced


----------



## paracowboy (19 Aug 2005)

height and muscle are pretty much a good thing in any endeavour. Fat, not so much.

Before we go any further, you have a couple of threads going, asking questions. I'd like to ask you a few, in order to provide better answers. How old are you? When you say height, etc, what are the specifics? What are/were your grades like in High School? Are you mechanically inclined? And the most important one: do you like camping? (Don't bother answering that one, it's a gag.)


----------



## devil39 (19 Aug 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> height and muscle are pretty much a good thing in any endeavour. Fat, not so much.
> 
> Before we go any further, you have a couple of threads going, asking questions. I'd like to ask you a few, in order to provide better answers. How old are you? When you say height, etc, what are the specifics? What are/were your grades like in High School? Are you mechanically inclined? And the most important one: do you like camping? (Don't bother answering that one, it's a gag.)



And I've seen some lads, described as fat, do quite well at 9500 ft and wearing 100 lbs.  I will admit that they were aerobically fit, because they used to run with me on a 10km run.  Not the fastest lads in the company, but hard soldiers.


----------



## paracowboy (19 Aug 2005)

devil39 said:
			
		

> And I've seen some lads, described as fat, do quite well at 9500 ft and wearing 100 lbs.   I will admit that they were aerobically fit, because they used to run with me on a 10km run.   Not the fastest lads in the company, but hard soldiers.


good on them. Are you suggesting that being fat is a good thing, either for military fitness or general health? Or are you supplying the "exception that proves the rule"? Or well, actually what are you saying? I don't see where you are going with this.

I still stand by height and muscle being good things, fat being a bad thing. (In generalities, of course, without entering a debate on good cholesterol, etc).


----------



## Infanteer (19 Aug 2005)

Being "hard" is a mental thing - Devil is right that some big guys will outlast "gym-bunnies" or "gazelles" when it comes to getting the job done.

However, I generally look at fat as "extra baggage" - something akin to the bug bar and the melmac cup; shit the Ops150 list makes you carry around but really doesn't do you any good.  A big guy who is a hard soldier definitely wouldn't hurt himself by losing 20 lbs and still being hard.


----------



## devil39 (19 Aug 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> good on them. Are you suggesting that being fat is a good thing, either for military fitness or general health? Or are you supplying the "exception that proves the rule"? Or well, actually what are you saying? I don't see where you are going with this.
> 
> I still stand by height and muscle being good things, fat being a bad thing. (In generalities, of course, without entering a debate on good cholesterol, etc).



I would say Paracowboy, that you can't always judge the book by the cover.  I have always aimed to train troops to be aerobically fit, and have always trained for weight load training well above the requirements for the BFT.

I took troops from Winnipeg at 400 ft above sea level, and 4 days later they were humping rucks at 9'500 ft in Afghanistan.  Body type is not the prime requirement.  

Alll I am saying is that you don't discriminate against the odd troop who doesn't fit the model of fitness.  Give them a chance.  Because at 10,000 feet you are all sucking wind, and some of the large lads are carrying large loads.

Skinny 140lb troops don't generally carry 120lb rucks.  I've watched my troops weigh in at 120lb rucks quite regularly.


----------



## NavComm (19 Aug 2005)

This is turning into an interesting read  Aerobically fit sounds like what most instructors I've met are going for. Not this seemingly prevalent attitude that everyone is a wimp who can't run like a gazelle whilst packing the rest of the herd on his macho shoulders.

The armed forces need all sorts of people. Not just some guy's ideal of the 'soldier'. Every CF member should be fit and able to carry their own, but the minimum standards are set for a reason. Those who don't excel at running might be very strong in other areas....carrying heavy loads...or logistics...or getting food to the troops on time...

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## devil39 (19 Aug 2005)

NavComm said:
			
		

> This is turning into an interesting read  Aerobically fit sounds like what most instructors I've met are going for. Not this seemingly prevalent attitude that everyone is a wimp who can't run like a gazelle whilst packing the rest of the herd on his macho shoulders.
> 
> The armed forces need all sorts of people. Not just some guy's ideal of the 'soldier'. Every CF member should be fit and able to carry their own, but the minimum standards are set for a reason. Those who don't excel at running might be very strong in other areas....carrying heavy loads...or logistics...or getting food to the troops on time...
> 
> Just my 2 cents.



NavComm.... Don't get too excited.  The general CF and Army standard are so far removed from reality as to be completely useless.

In the Infantry, we train so far above the requirement of the 13 km march as to make it almost completely irrelevant.  It is a very poor standard.

After I conducted a 13km ruck march, for three consecutive weeks, we began to understand  the reality of our requirements.


----------



## paracowboy (19 Aug 2005)

devil39 said:
			
		

> I would say Paracowboy, that you can't always judge the book by the cover.


   


> Alll I am saying is that you don't discriminate against the odd troop who doesn't fit the model of fitness.   Give them a chance.   Because at 10,000 feet you are all sucking wind, and some of the large lads are carrying large loads. Skinny 140lb troops don't generally carry 120lb rucks.   I've watched my troops weigh in at 120lb rucks quite regularly.


well, of course. I realized that a decade ago. I've worked alongside men with less-than-svelte physiques enough to know better than to make snap judgements. I've had men in my section who couldn't begin to keep up on a run, but could carry an Iltis. You make it sound as though I were attacking someone. I had said that height and muscle are generally good, and fat is generally bad.

Gazelles are fine, but they generally don't have the body mass to hump a serious ruck. Body builders are often useless on any Ex lasting longer than a week, because they're they don't train for endurance, and they have such low bodyfat they freeze. 

But, fat is not good. The human body needs a certain level to function properly, but once you get above that, it's extremely bad. Fat on your frame and fat in your arteries. Bad. Any troop that is carrying too much fat on him will always do better if he loses it. He will perform better and he will feel better. 
A tall soldier has it easier because there are times when his stride can carry him through when shorter men are struggling. That's why I have so much respect for my friends who are shorter than I.
A muscular soldier has it easier because he can carry haevier rucks easier than a slight man. He can outlast gazelles at difficult tasks (trench digging, for instance), and can handle himself better in a melee.
A fat troop has to fight his own body. It wants to quit, it has no energy, it makes his already difficult task even harder.

So, height is good, muscle is good, fat is bad.


----------



## devil39 (19 Aug 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> well, of course. I realized that a decade ago. I've worked alongside men with less-than-svelte physiques enough to know better than to make snap judgements. I've had men in my section who couldn't begin to keep up on a run, but could carry an Iltis. You make it sound as though I were attacking someone. I had said that height and muscle are generally good, and fat is generally bad.
> 
> Gazelles are fine, but they generally don't have the body mass to hump a serious ruck. Body builders are often useless on any Ex lasting longer than a week, because they're they don't train for endurance, and they have such low bodyfat they freeze.
> 
> ...



At times, fat will keep you alive.     I failed to feed my troops for 12 hours in the most inhospitable terrain known to man.   

At 8,000 ft you cannot ingest enough calories to keep your weight up even given rations.   Any time I went on Ops I would lose 10 - 15 lbs.

Paracowboy, fat isn't bad.   Obesity, is bad.  A lack of physical fitness is bad.  Lack of willpower is bad.


----------



## paracowboy (19 Aug 2005)

Devil, I'm not advocating every troop have a 2% bodyfat average. If you like we can discuss precisely how much fat a man should carry on his frame in order to be able to draw on the reserves it will need, or we can debate the exact 'mix' of cardio, weight resistance, and rucksackmarchig is required to equal the perfect PT program, or we can debate the psychological implications of obesity/lack of fitness and how they tie in to a lack of will power.
But, in this youngster's case, we can make some safe assumptions and go on some generalities, until we get more definitive information from him. If he's asking about height, fat, and muscle, specifically, chances are good that he's tall, fairly athletic, but carrying more fat than he's comfortable with. So, (barring his having some sort of eating disorder) the short answer I provided is still accurate. To get through Basic training and then Battle School, his height will be an asset, any muscle he's carrying will be an asset, fat will be a hindrance.


----------



## Springroll (19 Aug 2005)

I am curious about how much fat someone can carry on themselves.
Women, naturally, have more fat than men(breasts, larger booties etc) so where would a female fall in the grand scheme of things army-wise?

I know I am very strong, can carry a heavy load and not whine and cry, but most of that is my own will power. I am not as fit as I should/could be, I know I will be there soon, but I am not there now. I know that I can walk until my legs fall off, I know I can handle alot of pain, but I still can not do 15 push ups...lol

Where would I fall?? 
Am I considered fat and lazy by those standards because I am not fit? 

As long as everyone is working as a team and gets what needs to be done, don, then who cares. Every person needs to be able to at least pull their own weight, and if they can not, boot them out(of give them a midnight wake up call ) JMO


----------



## paracowboy (19 Aug 2005)

Springroll said:
			
		

> I am curious about how much fat someone can carry on themselves.


Springroll, this is not a question I am willing to answer. Perhaps one of the medical pers will do so, but it's out of my lane. (And I assume you mean how much you can carry before it becomes a health hazard, right?) If you're concerned, I suggest you see a doctor and ask her.



> Women, naturally, have more fat than men(breasts, larger booties etc) so where would a female fall in the grand scheme of things army-wise?


right about here:





> I...can carry a heavy load and not whine and cry, but most of that is my own will power...I know that I can walk until my legs fall off, I know I can handle alot of pain





> Am I considered fat and lazy by those standards because I am not fit?


 everyone seems to be making some assumptions here about the word "fit" and what it means. "Fit" in the military means able to meet the standards and the demands of your trade. "Fit" does not mean triathlete, bodybuilder, power lifter, or spandex-clad frolicking gym-trollop (Bless them all!). No one should expect every soldier, sailor, or airman to look like products of the NAZI genetic breeding program (fewer CF members wearing CADPAT muumuus would be good, though). Some guys is greyhounds, some guys is great danes, some guys is like me: lazy ol' hounds that only move off the porch when they gots to, but can always get the job done.

Have I cleared up any misconceptions as to my meaning in the last couple pages?


----------



## Springroll (19 Aug 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> No one should expect every soldier, sailor, or airman to look like products of the NAZI genetic breeding program (fewer CF members wearing CADPAT muumuus would be good, though). Some guys is greyhounds, some guys is great danes, some guys is like me: lazy ol' hounds that only move off the porch when they gots to, but can always get the job done.
> 
> Have I cleared up any misconceptions as to my meaning in the last couple pages?



This section cleared it up for me, thank you.  :-*


----------



## DrSize (19 Aug 2005)

I have seen pictures and videos of some of the people on BMQ etc and I think the CF should take a new approach to helping these future soldiers.  Instead of offering unhealthy food for the meals they should provide healthy meals such as (chicken breasts, rice, sweet potatoes, broccoli, fish, lean beef, egg whites, oatmeal, fruit in the morning for fuel etc)  by having unhealthy food unavailable members will be forced to eat this food and as a result will see drastic drops in bodyfat.

In a way it could be somewhat of a fat camp.  Every member would come out with a lower % bodyfat then when they went in.  Especially with morning PT 3-5x a week.  However healthy food is expensive and unhealthy food is cheap so this will never happen


----------



## Britney Spears (19 Aug 2005)

> I have seen pictures and videos of some of the people on BMQ etc and I think the CF should take a new approach to helping these future soldiers.  Instead of offering unhealthy food for the meals they should provide healthy meals such as (chicken breasts, rice, sweet potatoes, broccoli, fish, lean beef, egg whites, oatmeal, fruit in the morning for fuel etc)  by having unhealthy food unavailable members will be forced to eat this food and as a result will see drastic drops in bodyfat.
> 
> In a way it could be somewhat of a fat camp.  Every member would come out with a lower % bodyfat then when they went in.  Especially with morning PT 3-5x a week.  However healthy food is expensive and unhealthy food is cheap so this will never happen



Sir, I'm afraid you don't have the slightest fsucking clue on what you are talking about. Maybe you should actually visit a real base before spouting this kind of BS?


----------



## DrSize (19 Aug 2005)

I have spoke to people that have gone to BMQ and they have said for food there are french fries, pizza, desserts etc....who the heck eats desserts anyways

Also if anyone ate a clean diet they would have a low percent bodyfat no matter what their genetics unless they had thyroid issues or soemthing like that.  I see pictures of members in the CF and a large percent have a very high % bodyfat from what I have seen


----------



## mdh (19 Aug 2005)

> spandex-clad frolicking gym-trollop



Paracowboy - I had no idea you'd seen me working out - next time you see me working out - don't be shy - come over and introduce yourself   ;D

cheers, mdh


----------



## Springroll (19 Aug 2005)

DrSize said:
			
		

> I have spoke to people that have gone to BMQ and they have said for food there are french fries, pizza, desserts etc....who the heck eats desserts anyways



There are always healthy options available at most bases as well as what you meantioned above and the healthy options have been there since at least 1997(probably longer). They always have fruit available, a variety of yummy wraps, and by what my hsuband told me, back when he did basic they had NO fried foods, it was baked(which is lower in fat). He also confirms that back then there were ALWAYS healthy options available.


----------



## paracowboy (19 Aug 2005)

DrSize said:
			
		

> I have spoke to people that have gone to BMQ and they have said for food there are french fries, pizza, desserts etc....who the heck eats desserts anyways
> 
> Also if anyone ate a clean diet they would have a low percent bodyfat no matter what their genetics unless they had thyroid issues or soemthing like that.   I see pictures of members in the CF and a large percent have a very high % bodyfat from what I have seen


there are plenty of healthy options. Those who fail to choose them are simply exercising that lack of willpower that Devil spoke of earlier. Maybe wait until you've actually been to a Base kitchen next time, as Britney said?

Now, a caveat to my earlier post: I've seen just as many fatbodies use the "I can't run, but I can hump all day" routine and then fall out of a ruckmarch within a klick, as I have those who can actually hump a smaller dude into the ground.
The CF, the Army, the Infantry, your unit, and your sub-unit will all have certain minimum standards of physical fitness they expect you to maintain. Failure to keep up with your section on PT is failing to keep up with your section, whether it be a run, ruckmarch, or drinking contest. (For a true workout, combine all three!) Now, no matter what your body type, whether primarily endomorph, ectomorph, or mesomorph, you are going to find certain activities easier than others. That does not mean it's an excuse to *not attempt * to improve in the areas you have trouble with. If you (_consistently_) can't stay with your section on runs, you won't keep up with them on a section attack or in OBUA. If you can't stay with them on a ruck march, you won't stay with them on an advance to contact. Either way, you will let them down, and that may very well get one of them killed in an actual theatre.
I have never been the fastest guy in my section, the strongest guy, or able to hump the most weight the furthest/fastest. But, I was always there with the main body in every activity. That's what your section needs from you. They need to know that they can rely on you to NEVER QUIT and always be there.

So, once again I say: fat is still bad, height is still good, muscle is still good. 
If you have too much of the first, work on losing it. If you haven't enough of the second, no biggie, it's just gonna make you harder than tall guys. If you haven't enough of the last, work on building it up.

mdh,
I was going to, but I got a sudden attack of performance anxiety. You just looked so HOT!


----------



## DrSize (19 Aug 2005)

I guess my post and the point I was trying to make wasn't clear.  I am well aware there are healthy alternatives but you give a fat kid a choice between a doughnut or a sweet potato and what do you think he is going to choose????  A little extreme but my point I was trying to make is to get rid of all the unhealthy foods and you will see a much leaner more productive workforce.

By fueling your body properly and having less bodyfat you are more alert, more confident, have more energy, and overall feel much better.....


----------



## Lima_Oscar (19 Aug 2005)

Springroll said:
			
		

> I am curious about how much fat someone can carry on themselves.



Fat (or lipid) is an important part of your body.   The many different types of fat in your body at an organic level include triglycerides, phosopholipids, steroids, vitamins, etc. and they are use for insulation, energy storage, and so on.   In a lean adult, fat should make up of 18-25% of his/her body mass.

However, at a clinical level, it is impossible to tell the exact make up of fat, protein, etc in the body at an organic level.   Therefore we use different tools to measure your nutrition status: body mass index, anthropometric measures, and blood work.   

You can find informatin about body mass index on page 8 of your Physical fitness guide:
http://www.recruiting.forces.gc.ca/media/pdf/physical_fitness_en.pdf

Anthropometric measures:
If you remeber the Homer Simpson episode where Homer had a heart attack and Dr. Hibert was doing the "jiggling test"...anthropometric measures are something like that---we measure triceps' skin-fold thinckness, etc. 

Blood work:
We measure many things in blood work but to determine if you are hyperlipemia (too much fat) we look at your triglycerides and cholesterol level.

All these measurements have to occur over time...and only your physician can tell you if you have the right body composition.

Hope that helps.


----------



## -rb (19 Aug 2005)

DrSize said:
			
		

> I guess my post and the point I was trying to make wasn't clear.   I am well aware there are healthy alternatives but you give a fat kid a choice between a doughnut or a sweet potato and what do you think he is going to choose????   A little extreme but my point I was trying to make is to get rid of all the unhealthy foods and you will see a much leaner more productive workforce.
> 
> By fueling your body properly and having less bodyfat you are more alert, more confident, have more energy, and overall feel much better.....



If a fat kid doesn't have the will power to choose a healthy meal, what makes you think he's going to have the intestinal fortitude to get in great shape or for that matter overcome any other obstacles put in front of him? IMHO I don't think the CF needs to hold hands every step of the way...there's got to be a driving force from within the individual to get the job done, whatever it may be, keeping up on PT, eating more veggies instead of dessert etc etc.

cheers.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (19 Aug 2005)

DrSize said:
			
		

> I am well aware there are healthy alternatives but you give a fat kid a choice between a doughnut or a sweet potato and what do you think he is going to choose????



Then the fat kid needs to learn some self-control or get the hell out of the army!    :-X


----------



## muskrat89 (19 Aug 2005)

.. and you are not seeing the other posters' points. Your message will be taken better when you speak from experience, not based on what you have seen or heard. I've seen guys flying helicopters.. I'm not hanging out in the Air Force section offering my opinions...




> but you give a fat kid a choice between a doughnut or a sweet potato and what do you think he is going to choose?



The entire military mindset is based on honour, accountability, and personal responsibility - all are a function of choice. I can choose to give up when I'm tired, too... If round-boy decides to shove donuts into his face, then he's letting his unit down, the same as if he wasn't keeping up   on an Advance to Contact. Pastries and mashed potatoes are there for the skinny guys   

*This coming from one who spent 13 years as "one of the heavy ones that managed to always keep up"   Now, admittedly, I'm just fat


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (19 Aug 2005)

DrSize said:
			
		

> I have seen pictures and videos of some of the people on BMQ etc and I think the CF should take a new approach to helping these future soldiers.   Instead of offering unhealthy food for the meals they should provide healthy meals such as (chicken breasts, rice, sweet potatoes, broccoli, fish, lean beef, egg whites, oatmeal, fruit in the morning for fuel etc)   by having unhealthy food unavailable members will be forced to eat this food and as a result will see drastic drops in bodyfat.
> 
> In a way it could be somewhat of a fat camp.   Every member would come out with a lower % bodyfat then when they went in.   Especially with morning PT 3-5x a week.   However healthy food is expensive and unhealthy food is cheap so this will never happen



Every single base/camp mess I have eaten on, 99% of the meals have been chicken, rice, potatoes, broccoli, fish and yes, even fruit in the morning.
Get a clue.

Yes, there are all kinds of treats available to those that want them.Too bad though, the CF is NOT a fat camp, and soldiers may eat what they please.If they think they are too fat and should stop eating pies for lunch everyday in the gagetown mess, then stop eating pies everyday for lunch in the gagetown mess.It's not our job to babysit and regulate what everyone eats.

Common sense.We're all adults.We've all passed the aptitude test and considered semi-intelligent people.

Mod Edit - Mckenzie, chill out


----------



## DrSize (19 Aug 2005)

Why don't you get a clue and learn how to read .   I said I KNOW there are healthy alternatives but by getting rid of the unhealthy foods people would not have the option.





			
				jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> Every single base/camp mess I have eaten on, 99% of the meals have been chicken, rice, potatoes, broccoli, fish and yes, even fruit in the morning.
> Get a clue.
> 
> Yes, there are all kinds of treats available to those that want them.Too bad though, the CF is NOT a fat camp, and soldiers may eat what they please.If they think they are too fat and should stop eating pies for lunch everyday in the gagetown mess, then stop eating pies everyday for lunch in the gagetown mess.It's not our job to babysit and regulate what everyone eats.
> ...



Mod Edit - Personal attack removed


----------



## DrSize (19 Aug 2005)

I also said I know this will never happen, it was just some food for thought if it was the perfect world.  And if the CF got rid of the unhealthy alternatives I can guarantee the work force would be a much leaner one


----------



## alexpb (19 Aug 2005)

lol, calm down calm down. Don't start calling people names...

This thread was very good until the last few replies, they started to make me giggle.

People should eat responsibly and take care of themselves with proper exercise. If people choose to go to BMQ and not eat right, thats there problem, and it will be there problem when they fail. 

As it was said before, the CF isnt there to hold your hand. You are the one making the choices, but you have to have enough self-control to say "hey, im hungry, but i dont need to eat french fries. All i need is an apple to fill my hunger for now". Thats the way i think of it.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (19 Aug 2005)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> .. and you are not seeing the other posters' points. Your message will be taken better when you speak from experience, not based on what you have seen or heard. I've seen guys flying helicopters.. I'm not hanging out in the Air Force section offering my opinions...



I am basing my message on my (admittedly very limited) experience: people who lack self-control are not an asset - or has this changed?  Oh, I see it hasn't as you've gone on to re-iterate the point you just flamed me for making! 





> The entire military mindset is based on honour, accountability, and personal responsibility - all are a function of choice. I can choose to give up when I'm tired, too... If round-boy decides to shove donuts into his face, then he's letting his unit down, the same as if he wasn't keeping up  on an Advance to Contact.


----------



## muskrat89 (19 Aug 2005)

Galt - relax. You posted as I was replying. My response was directed at Drsize


----------



## muskrat89 (19 Aug 2005)

OK - Now that the dust has settled. Let's stay on topic, and keep the barbs, digs, and slams down. This isn't usually such an emotional topic   ???

Let's keep it professional. Debate hard, but debate politely   :-*

Thanks in advance


----------



## Fry (19 Aug 2005)

I'm 6'0, 190lbs. Think I should lose /gain?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (19 Aug 2005)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Galt - relax. You posted as I was replying. My response was directed at Drsize



[emilylitellavoice]Oh, well that's a little differant ...  Ne-ver-mind.[/emilylitellavoice]

My apologies: "I'm holding on too tight ... I'm over the edge ..."


----------



## Infanteer (19 Aug 2005)

First off, it doesn't matter what you put in the mess - if you fill it with broccoli and tofu, the troops that want the fat pills will head to the CANEX and get a bag of smarties and a pop (BTDT   :-X).

Fry, don't worry about your height to weight ratio - everybody's body is a bit different.   Just work on being the fittest mofo you can be and you'll do fine.

Finally, WRT Devil and Paracowboy's comments, I feel that they are both right (from personal experience).   Will, determination, and sheer guts are often what makes the difference (the essence of being "hard).   A little jelly-belly isn't going to hold a guy back if he is Jules Winnfield incarnate.   However, like Para says, you do yourself no harm if you "soup yourself up" by hardening up and shedding some of that excess baggage.   It is 90% mental and 10% physical, but it is much easier if you don't have to dedicate some of that mental to thinking about the 10%.

Infanteer


----------



## Island Ryhno (19 Aug 2005)

Fry said:
			
		

> I'm 6'0, 190lbs. Think I should lose /gain?



I think you should lay off the booze fat ass   ;D Long time no see Fry old buddy! Ok so you need fat in your diet, and you need a little fat on your frame. Excess fat is murderous on a frame, I used to be in really good shape, I got hurt, laid up for about 2 years and put on alot of fat, I'm paying for that now, like an sob. When I run, it's messy, but you know what, at 5'10" at least I run. The human body is the most amazing machine/technology in the world. We can actually adapt to anything, I was in good shape, then in round shape and now I'm leaning towards good shape again.   Below is a chart of recommended body fat percentages for age in males. Also some of you guys are insinuating that the military and particularly the combat arms (Esp Infantry) is a bastion of healthy people, being able to run, does not make you healthy. The infantry guys on here should know, f*ck alot of us/them live on chicken wings, beer and smokes. Drive the mind, the body will follow. It's all about having the jam to never give up.

Males age range Too Little   Healthy range   Overweight   Obese 
20-30yrs                Below   8%       8 - 19%          19 - 25%    over 25% 
31-40yrs                Below   8%       8 - 19%          19 - 25%    over 25% 
41-50yrs                Below   11%    11 - 22%         22 - 27% over 27% 
51-60yrs                Below   11%    11 - 22%         22 - 27% over 27%


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 Aug 2005)

DrSize said:
			
		

> I also said I know this will never happen, it was just some food for thought if it was the perfect world.  And if the CF got rid of the unhealthy alternatives I can guarantee the work force would be a much leaner one



Only if you also added a method to force them to remain on base and consume only the healthy food.


----------



## NavComm (19 Aug 2005)

devil39 said:
			
		

> NavComm.... Don't get too excited.   The general CF and Army standard are so far removed from reality as to be completely useless.
> 
> In the Infantry, we train so far above the requirement of the 13 km march as to make it almost completely irrelevant.   It is a very poor standard.
> 
> After I conducted a 13km ruck march, for three consecutive weeks, we began to understand   the reality of our requirements.



Oh I know. And I'm sure infantry trains differently than naval reserve. The requirements of the infantry job would demand that.

I just spent a weekend at an army unit working with infantry men and believe me, I knew if the chips were down, those guys could outrun, out pack and out shoot me anyday and I was glad to be with them. They were soldiers and they were in top physical condition. I was tasked to do the same work they did. However, those lads were fighting fit and it would take me a bit of time to get anywhere near their level of fitness (if I ever could attain it).

I'm only saying that different jobs require different skills and not everyone is going to be a super runner with biceps as big as my thigh. Those small wirey individuals may have a lot to offer the CF too. Those fighting fit men are what keep the rest of us safe to do the other jobs that need doing.


----------



## Fry (20 Aug 2005)

Island Ryhno said:
			
		

> I think you should lay off the booze fat ***   ;D Long time no see Fry old buddy! Ok so you need fat in your diet, and you need a little fat on your frame. Excess fat is murderous on a frame, I used to be in really good shape, I got hurt, laid up for about 2 years and put on alot of fat, I'm paying for that now, like an sob. When I run, it's messy, but you know what, at 5'10" at least I run. The human body is the most amazing machine/technology in the world. We can actually adapt to anything, I was in good shape, then in round shape and now I'm leaning towards good shape again.   Below is a chart of recommended body fat percentages for age in males. Also some of you guys are insinuating that the military and particularly the combat arms (Esp Infantry) is a bastion of healthy people, being able to run, does not make you healthy. The infantry guys on here should know, **** alot of us/them live on chicken wings, beer and smokes. Drive the mind, the body will follow. It's all about having the jam to never give up.
> 
> Males age range Too Little   Healthy range   Overweight   Obese
> 20-30yrs                Below   8%       8 - 19%          19 - 25%    over 25%
> ...



Hey man... yeah I probably should stop the boozin a bit, I don't be at it a big lot though... LoL.


----------



## Springroll (20 Aug 2005)

NavComm said:
			
		

> Those fighting fit men are what keep the rest of us safe to do the other jobs that need doing.



In most cases they are also very nice to look at too... ;D


----------



## NavComm (20 Aug 2005)

Springroll said:
			
		

> In most cases they are also very nice to look at too... ;D



Well of course that goes without saying   And when you're just sitting waiting to hurry up, you get to do a whole lot of gazing!


----------

