# The worlds fattest professional military



## Armymedic (3 Jul 2007)

This is anecdotal, as there is no way I could, nor anyone would actually put up numbers to prove or disprove my observations.

It has been my observation over the last yr that CF members of every element and trade, are by largely (pun intended) bigger then our NATO counterparts. Not to say were are or not as fit as other NATO forces, just we seem to fill out uniforms a little more then most.

I do know our IMPs carry more calories per 24 hrs than any NATO military. Also in our messes, from a cook NCO who handles this stuff, we do get more $ per person per day for food than all NATO allies.

As the military has always been a microcosm of society, does this mean Canadians are getting fatter then our western allies? Or is our professional military getting soft.....

around the midsection?


----------



## Haggis (3 Jul 2007)

*Pow*

Is that the sound of a can of worms being opened? 

... or a button popping....?    ;D


----------



## 3rd Herd (3 Jul 2007)

And the government supplied the opener. Watched any of the news lately on the "Fat Crisis"


----------



## Greymatters (4 Jul 2007)

Nasty news!

I thought a US study last year showed they had the fattest soldiers?


----------



## Armymedic (4 Jul 2007)

They probably just have more...10% of all the US military, is still larger then all of ours.


----------



## 1feral1 (4 Jul 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> Nasty news!
> 
> I thought a US study last year showed they had the fattest soldiers?



Just come here, plenty of buttons to burst with the velocity of a bullet.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Kiwi99 (4 Jul 2007)

I agree. Walk around any base, or unit and there are always the 'heavier folk'.  But are they a minority or majority? Depends where you look really.  Guess thats what happens when we fail to do proper fitness testing bi annually.  When failing a PT test  seems like no big deal because nothing happens to the individual.  They still get to deploy on operations.  Fitness testing needs to come back, the soldier has to be responsible for thier own fitness and health.  And if they fail the fitness tests, remedial PT.  If that fails to improve...see ya.  But that doesn't really meet the 'please everybody and be kind' mentality that has prevailed in the CF.  If ya don't meet the standard, ya don't get the job.  Simple really.  Maybe thats why it doesn't  work.


----------



## Rowshambow (4 Jul 2007)

Yes Kiwi, a proper test should be done, and people do just ignore it! I think the BFT is a joke, if you watch one, most of the over weight people have no problem carrying around a few extra pounds, but if you did say a coopers type test you would have a lot of people on remedial pt!


----------



## CdnArtyWife (4 Jul 2007)

I was just thinking that about the BFT, as I have a friend and neighbor, who is larger than I ever was at 9 months pegnant, who passed his BFT with no issues...but I'd hate to see the guy have to do a fitness assessment similar to that which my personal trainer puts me through every three months. 

There are many "larger than life" people who can huff a ruck for 13k in under 2h, but how far can they run without collapsing? 

I've heard many complaints around here regarding the innefficiency of the beep test, but from having witnessed a few I noticed that as the levels move upwards it does get tougher. It seems to me to be at least a little better at determining the fitness level of a person at least on the cardiovascular level.

That is my opinion and I am on the outside looking in. 

I like that this thread is there...it is "food" for thought.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (4 Jul 2007)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Just come here, plenty of buttons to burst with the velocity of a bullet.


So, do you have to take a personal weapons test before you are issued trousers?


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jul 2007)

At my age and with my waistline   ushup:  I really hesitate to get involved, but:

1. The CF, like many other organizations, needs *standards* for employability;

2. Standards must reasonably reflect the conditions of employment; and

3. Standards need *NOT* be monolithic.

Do we really need a 50 year old CPO1 electronics technician based in Ottawa to be able to perform a range of physical tasks as well as a 20 years old infantry private in Petawawa?  Why?  We certainly don’t ask the private to perform to the same ‘professional judgement’ standards as that CPO1.  Do all 20 year olds have to be equally fit: does the finance clerk need the same fitness level as the combat engineer?

For many of the 40-someting and 50-something majors and colonels in headquarters the working day is 10+ hours long; lunch is ‘brown bagged’ at the desk; there are no sports afternoons or PT periods – fitness has to compete with the briefcase brought home, to be nibbled at while trying to help the kids with homework.  I’m not asking you to sympathize with staff officers but you ought to understand why so many could use either new trousers or a posting back to a field unit – which is not going to happen when one is 45+.  Do we really want to boot our most experienced staff planners and technical experts out on to civvie street just because they work too hard in a sedentary environment – trying to make things better for the sailors and troops in the fleet/field?

By all means let’s have standards which promote reasonable, occupation related levels of fitness and good health.  Let’s set very, very high fitness standards for those likely, even just possibly having to go into combat; let’s set – and provide time and facilities for – standards which promote good health and good staff work (a sound mind does, indeed, work best in a sound body) amongst those likely to spend the rest of their days behind desks.


----------



## Haggis (4 Jul 2007)

Edward, we have age and gender weighted reasonable standards right now.  Still we have too many folks not meeting them.

As an NDHQ staff weenie, I have seen the detrimental effects of NDHQ life on fitness.  Too many times the CF member is working for a civilian who only sees an hour of productivity walking out the door when a member goes for PT. The civilian insists that fitness is a member's personal responsibility and therefore fitness should be maintained on personal time.

For that reason I heartily cheer the CDS's 2007 Direction to Commanding Officers, particularly paragraph 2203.5 which states (in part) that "the manta of 'PT on your own time' is to be eliminated".

Even so, there are many in HQs of all levels that use this as an excuse to not even attempt to do PT.  They are the ones who should be targeted.  Leave those alone who at least make the effort.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (4 Jul 2007)

The military may just be an indicator or marker of trends in civilian life - people tend to get heavier as they age. And CF issnt a young organisation.

Have a look at this "The general population is aging as is the CF Regular Force population. At the end of 1996, the majority of service members were in the 30 to 40 year old bracket and less than one-third were under the age of 30" reference http://www.internationalmta.org/1998/9837.html

This is probably the same trend seen in the General Public Service "The age profile of federal Public Service employees is reversed from that of 15 years ago, when employees in the 25 to 44 age bracket comprised 60% of the work force, and fewer than 30% were over 45. The current distribution is the opposite: more than half of all public servants are now over 45. Currently, about 10% of public servants have 30+ years of pensionable service and approximately 8% are eligible to retire. Approximately one in five employees in the federal Public Service are forecast to leave by 2009-2010. Replacing these workers, and the knowhow they represent, is a key challenge for the federal government. " http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/default.asp?Language=E&Page=InformationResources&Sub=Publications&doc=14report2007/Annex2_e.html

I remember a CF Maple Leaf Article on this from 2003 (can't find the ref at present) which had the same stats, but also added the surprising one that these numbers are reversed in the US military, Two thirds being under age 30.

What some on this thread have seen is a lot of younger slimmer but not necessarily any fitter or any better skilled coalition soldiers who they may have met on their tour. 

And these same troops will get beefier as they age, the beefieness can be controlled by *LEADERSHIP,* sensible eating, phys-ed etc as has been proved over and over.

So for all you tough guys - see you when your kids are 11 - and you're looking for a bigger pair of pants


----------



## Greymatters (4 Jul 2007)

I recall in the past that every time they tried to institute a rigid physical testing standard it got shot down pretty quick. The only ones who have succeeded in this are the infantry, but they have a bona fide requirement for fitness that really cant be challenged (except the BMI test, it wasnt very relevant).


----------



## Armymedic (4 Jul 2007)

This really is not about physical standards. There are many soldiers who carry 20-30 extra pounds who can easily meet the exceeded standards for the express test. Other then as a minimum fitness standard, the BFT alone is not enough.

But this is more of a over eating issue.


----------



## kincanucks (4 Jul 2007)

How many more threads do we need to discuss this?


----------



## Greymatters (5 Jul 2007)

I think we are applying the motto at the bottom of your post...   ;D

If its redundant, then Mod, lock'er up!


----------



## FascistLibertarian (5 Jul 2007)

Just a note from a stats point of view.
Canada could have the most over and under sized people.
And the CF could come in dead average for size.


----------



## Kiwi99 (5 Jul 2007)

If ya don't like the thread...don't read it.  I am sure there are some threads that others think are a waste of time, but they don't bother reading them.  Let people discuss what they want, hence the forum enviroment!


----------



## Bert (5 Jul 2007)

Kiwi I think this is a sample of what Kincanucks is referring.   The first few pages were entertaining 
but then it became discussed to death.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37780.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/36394.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/1406.0.html


----------



## Greymatters (5 Jul 2007)

Ah but look at the dates: the topics cover 2004 to May 2006.

Is that it?  Its been done, so no one's allowed to talk about it now?  This is a viewpoint that many of the newer members are objecting to.  They still want to comment on it and bring in their own viewpoint on the subject.  Its part of why we/they are here.


----------



## Armymedic (5 Jul 2007)

Well perhaps it is time we stop talking about it here, and begin a up swell of change. 

Make this an issue during your CO's hour.


----------



## kincanucks (5 Jul 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> Ah but look at the dates: the topics cover 2004 to May 2006.
> 
> Is that it?  Its been done, so no one's allowed to talk about it now?  This is a viewpoint that many of the newer members are objecting to.  They still want to comment on it and bring in their own viewpoint on the subject.  Its part of why we/they are here.



Listen Princess no one is telling that you can't talk about whatever it is. However, if you read the previous threads on this subjest they always disintegrate into a crap fest and are a complete waste of bandwidth. Also, those who like to complain about others should look at themselves in a mirror more often.


----------



## Greymatters (5 Jul 2007)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> Listen Princess no one is telling that you can't talk about whatever it is. However, if you read the previous threads on this subjest they always disintegrate into a crap fest and are a complete waste of bandwidth. Also, those who like to complain about others should look at themselves in a mirror more often.



True, it does degenerate after a while doesnt it?


----------



## the 48th regulator (5 Jul 2007)

Locked,

For the worlds most useless topic.

PM me if you have a relevent post.

dileas

tess


----------

