# US military says US kids are too fat to fight



## Makalakumu (Apr 20, 2010)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36664612/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/?GT1=43001



> WASHINGTON - School lunches have been called many things, but a group of retired military officers is giving them a new label: national security threat.
> 
> That's not a reference to the mystery meat served up in the cafeteria line either. The retired officers are saying that school lunches have helped make the nation's young people so fat that fewer of them can meet the military's physical fitness standards, and recruitment is in jeopardy.
> 
> A new report being released Tuesday says more than 9 million young adults, or 27 percent of all Americans ages 17 to 24, are too overweight to join the military. Now, the officers are advocating for passage of a wide-ranging nutrition bill that aims to make the nation's school lunches healthier.



You know, for years and years, people like me have been working our schools and have been saying that kids are out of shape and that their health is at risk.  As soon as the military comes in and says that these kids can't fight, they are national security risk, then it becomes time to do something.  

Sigh, throw out the PE teachers and lets bring in some drill instructors.  If the military is the only thing that can motivate our government institute better programs for our children, we might as well just send our kids to military school and quit pretending that the MIC doesn't exist and doesn't really run the show.



> 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.



:duh:



> 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.
> 
> ...



:hb:

Oh well, I guess the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  Still, now it's a problem?  When the kids are too fat to go to war?  

*takes a deep breath*

The satirist in me is having a hard time controlling himself.  

Your thoughts?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 20, 2010)

build wider tanks.


----------



## chaos1551 (Apr 20, 2010)

In every country we invade and export democracy to, we should also export the FDA.  Drag them down to our level.

Er.. wait, did you want a serious thought?  Let's put everyone in the country on a diet.  It's a new trend, something that might catch fire like FenFen or Mini Thins.  I have a catchy name for this diet.  It's called the Quit Eating So ****ing Much Diet.  It's coupled with limiting your couch time to a mere four hours a day (down from eight or more).

So simple.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 20, 2010)

Excuse me while I bang my head and do some push ups while repeating, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

This is one of those little issues that is sooooo ****ing frustrating, because it's like a tiny minutia detail of a larger picture don't want to look at.

I know you got a bunch of drooling brainwashed zombies out there who are like, "You're god damned right kids are too damned fat.  If they can't go to war, what damned use are they to this country!"

This article is sounds like a Monty Python skit.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Apr 20, 2010)

"Get rid of the gym teachers and bring in drill instructors?" They already did half of that equation, guess which part??

 Use to be gym every day for an hour, now, its maybe an hour a week, plus no recess, plus junk food in the lunchroom, what did everyone think was going to happen????

Up here, if i recall correctly, the military has a pre enrolment course, designed to get you in shape before basic training. How sad is that??


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 20, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36664612/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/?GT1=43001You know, for years and years, people like me have been working our schools and have been saying that kids are out of shape and that their health is at risk.  As soon as the military comes in and says that these kids can't fight, they are national security risk, then it becomes time to do something.



I have no doubt the reports are true.  However, one of the prices of freedom is that the government does not get to dictate how people chose to live their lives.  It's nobody's business but the kids and their parents.



> The satirist in me is having a hard time controlling himself.



Hard for me to tell where you were being satirical in your response, so clue me if I'm misunderstanding you.

My thought is that people who believe the government's job is to *provide* instead of *promote* the general welfare always deny that they want to tell people how to live, and then they proceed to state how people should be made to live; by law, if necessary.  Example above (whether you were being tongue-in-cheek about it, I could not tell).

As we progress further down the rabbit hole of state-managed health care, the impetus will be on the state instead of the insurance companies to control costs by controlling behavior.  Rather than 'encouraging' healthy behavior, the citizens will cry out for mandated healthy behavior, since we'll all have to be paying into the system and costs are tied to the health risks people create for themselves.  When one can't opt out of paying their share of the expenses, one has the right to demand some form of control over costs.


----------



## CoryKS (Apr 20, 2010)

In twenty years, our military will consist of wifi-controlled warbots.  These kids will be waging war from a barca-lounger computer rig with a fridge filled with Dr. Pepper and Mountain Dew, and they will be the deadliest force on the planet because these fat bastards have been honing their skillz since they were five.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Apr 20, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> In twenty years, our military will consist of wifi-controlled warbots. These kids will be waging war from a barca-lounger computer rig with a fridge filled with Dr. Pepper and Mountain Dew, and they will be the deadliest force on the planet because these fat bastards have been honing their skillz since they were five.


 
Hey I'm not fat (yet, anyway) and I've been dumping quarters into Area 51 since middle school.  

On a more serious note, this "report" is coming from a group of retired military officers, and the article even states that military quotas are currently sufficient, even with Iraq and Afghanistan.  I respect these officers for their service, but part of me thinks this just a case of bored retirees griping about "kids these days".  

And I agree with Mr. Mattocks, even if the younger generation's eating habits could put a hinder on military recruiting, implementing a public health regiment is too high a price to pay for a remedy.


----------



## blindsage (Apr 20, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I have no doubt the reports are true. However, one of the prices of freedom is that the government does not get to dictate how people chose to live their lives. It's nobody's business but the kids and their parents.


Except parents don't decide what food is available to eat in the schools, the state does.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 20, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Hard for me to tell where you were being satirical in your response, so clue me if I'm misunderstanding you.



I would prefer to see parents telling their schools that they want healthy food and PE programs rather then the government coming down and doing in the name of increasing our nation's fighting ability.  When it comes to schools, I'll come down the side of freedom for parents and kicking the government out of the business, to the point where they only write the checks.

The ironic thing for me is that in the system we have now, appealing to all of the positive reasons for promoting healthy food and exercise don't seem to matter.  As soon as the kids are too fat to fight, we'll that's when the system moves.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 20, 2010)

blindsage said:


> Except parents don't decide what food is available to eat in the schools, the state does.



Only when parents abdicate.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Apr 20, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> I would prefer to see parents telling their schools that they want healthy food and PE programs rather then the government coming down and doing in the name of increasing our nation's fighting ability. When it comes to schools, I'll come down the side of freedom for parents and kicking the government out of the business, to the point where they only write the checks.


 
Mayhaps a side issue, but if the government is writing the checks, you don't see a problem with not giving the legislature a say in the matter?  Taxation without representation and all that fun stuff?


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 20, 2010)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Mayhaps a side issue, but if the government is writing the checks, you don't see a problem with not giving the legislature a say in the matter?  Taxation without representation and all that fun stuff?



It's a side issue, but I think a system of local, state, and federal grants for education would stimulate the diversity of schools that we need for diverse learners, especially if they take a hands off approach.  Taxation without representation is another issue unrelated to this.  Ultimately parents should have the ability to choose the kind of school they want their kids to go to.

Back on topic, does anyone else think that this article more properly belongs in the Onion?


----------



## Gordon Nore (Apr 20, 2010)

blindsage said:


> Except parents don't decide what food is available to eat in the schools, the state does.



I'll dig up the source, but some twenty years ago, high school cafeterias (can't remember if it was Boulder or Denver) were turned over to McDonalds. Yes, McDonalds. Now, at the time, McDs was ineligible for funding under the National School Lunch Program in the US. Students who could not afford meals worked part time behind the counters to earn their lunch. These included, according to reports at the time, special needs kids and young mothers.

At the same time, Pizza Hut made inroads into federally subsidized school lunch rooms by having its meat substitutes declared not to be meat by Congress. If it's not meat, it doesn't have to meet federal meat federal inspection guidelines of the FDA. Similarly, here in Toronto, one school board at the time negotiated a deal with Pepsi to put pop machines in school in exchange for $$$.

Why hire nutritionists, pay kitchen staff school board rates with a union and a pension, when you can bring in hourly workers under a profit-based model? 

That kids are heavy. No big surprise to me, especially working in the inner-city. Moms and dads doing shift work, shaking hands at the door, afraid for their children to go into the community after dark. I know parents who are at home in the evenings who are afraid to venture out to a community centre. Apart from what kids eat and how much gym they get, we've got a generation of kids who are virtual shut-ins.

When I was a kid, the reason that I wasn't fat had less to do with my gym program than other factors. I ate meals, not snacks. I didn't belong to organize sports, but it was no big deal to hop on my bike, go down to the ravine and go for a hike.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 20, 2010)

Eh. Whatever it takes.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 20, 2010)

Anybody see any of Jamie Olivers Food Revolution?

http://www.jamieoliver.com/campaigns/jamies-food-revolution


----------



## Big Don (Apr 20, 2010)

blindsage said:


> Except parents don't decide what food is available to eat in the schools, the state does.


So, then, it is the government's fault?


----------



## CanuckMA (Apr 20, 2010)

Diet and lifestyle.

I was in Israel last month. Toured the country for 2 weeks. At one point somebody in our group remarked that while there are overweight Israelis, we've never seen anyone truly obese. 

The diet is rich in fruits and veggies. Not a lot of red meat, but a good amount of turkey.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 20, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Eh. Whatever it takes.



No kidding right!  I missed the political wind here.  I should have put on my best Col. Ripper voice and argued, "how in the hell do you expect us to fight these commies when all of these kids are fat and can hardly walk up a flight of stairs!"

"It was a communist conspiracy to fatten us up and slow us down!"

LOL!

No more limp-wristed liberal talk from me about "healthy foods" and "exercise".  We need men and we need soldiers in todays world!


----------



## Bruno@MT (Apr 21, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I have no doubt the reports are true.  However, one of the prices of freedom is that the government does not get to dictate how people chose to live their lives.  It's nobody's business but the kids and their parents.



That depends. If the schools are funded with public money, I guess that one of the conditions for getting the money would be that it is spent according to some guidelines. This is also the norm for other things, like how no government should go near anything that even hints towards abortion.


----------



## David43515 (Apr 21, 2010)

That`s the problem though, most public schools don`t get all thier funding from the govt anymore. Many of them have signed exclusive contracts with Pepsi and Coke to allow only one or the other to be sold in thier vending machines. The drink companies get a group of loyal customers from an early age, and in return they buy things like TVs and supplies for the school. They look like heroes for "giving back to the community", and they get a tax break for thier donation, and in the meantime the kids are slowly groomed to be loyal to a particular brand.


----------



## blindsage (Apr 21, 2010)

Big Don said:


> So, then, it is the government's fault?


Yes, partially.


----------



## Blade96 (Apr 26, 2010)

i ate crap when i was a kid and teen. The reason why I wasnt fat was because i was a free-range child and teen who was gone all the time with the other kids in the neighboorhood for example playing street hockey.

and as a teen gone all the time with the few friends I did have.

concentrating on food but food is just part of it.

that and i dont think the military should be poking their nose in thinking 'potential recruit'Think 'potential recruit' when the kids are teens. 

It just makes the country also sound like warmongers as well. To me, anyway.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 26, 2010)

The military is noticing the high-percentage of "fatbodies" who can't make it into their basic training companies because they are so out of shape. It was a problem back when I enlisted and has been getting worse every year.

And remember:



> School lunches have been called many things, but *a group of retired military officers* is giving them a new label: national security threat.


 
It's a special interest group...not "The Army".


----------



## pmosiun1 (Apr 26, 2010)

This is either too funny or too sad.


----------



## MBuzzy (Apr 26, 2010)

Well, one of the biggest concerns in the active duty military right now is inability to pass PT tests and overweight people.  I don't agree with these people saying kids being fat is a problem because they can't fight.  Kids being overweight is a problem because they are unheathy and the school food system sucks.  BUT, in the end, the military is a microcosm of the rest of the country.  If we have that problem within the military, it is obvious that it is a problem outside.  particularly something like this.  If people can't stay fit when they have a mandatory fitness program, how can people outside the military do it?  It is a serious problem either way and should be solved one way or another.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 26, 2010)

I notice the enthusiasm to blame the meals served at public schools.

One might consider that first of all, that is one meal out of three.

Second of all, children don't have to eat the meals served in public schools, they can bring their lunch.

Third, it's the parent's responsibility.

So when we say let's blame the public school system for feeding our kids crap, what we might want to do instead is look in the mirror (parents) and think about why your kids eat crap.

Maybe it's not somebody else's fault all the time.  Maybe it's yours.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 26, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Maybe it's not somebody else's fault all the time.  Maybe it's yours.



However, the school does have their own responsibility for actively making things worse.  Not all responsibility must be placed in one spot - everyone gets their share.

Also, do you have kids, or remember what it was like in the lunch room?  The kids with healthy lunches from home were the ones desperately trying to pawn off their carrot sticks for a hamburger or some chocolate milk.  Kids are individuals, and a parent can only do so much short of standing over them and making sure they eat the healthy lunch they brought and not trade it for something else.

Again, the school can at least avoid actively making the situation worse.

Also, this is as good a spot as any for this rant.  Again, the argument you bring up involves scrupulous personal choices for everyone involved to combat a systemic problem.  You know very well that not every single person is going to make the "right" choice.  This applies to eating healthy, not being a racist and refusing to hire minorities, or any other systemic issue.  Not everyone will do or even want to do the right thing.  So to avoid degrading everyone's life, we propose systemic solutions to systemic problems that doesn't involve everyone acting in the same way that we know they won't.  Hence anti-discrimination laws.  Or fines for letting your dog poop all over the place.  Or CPS for when you as a parent really screw up.  You can point fingers and assign responsibility all you want, but that does nothing to fix the issue.

On that note, the schools should stop accepting fast food contracts to let McDonald's and Taco Bell feed the kids a "healthy" lunch.  They can stop actively making things worse.  They can stop making all the options bad ones so that everyone must behave in the right way to make the outcome decent.  Because we know that won't happen.


----------



## Satt (Apr 26, 2010)

Does it really matter if the kids are too fat? At some point in the future aren't we going to fighting wars like a video game? I say in that case recruit ALL the fatties!
:shock:

...all joking aside...when I was in the US Navy, we sat around a lot, but you HAVE to be able to move quickly and FIT into SMALL spaces!
%-}


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 26, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> However, the school does have their own responsibility for actively making things worse.  Not all responsibility must be placed in one spot - everyone gets their share.



School boards are run by elected officials, often concerned parents.  And as I said, parents can choose to allow their children to eat school lunches or not.  It is all on the parents, I believe.



> Also, do you have kids, or remember what it was like in the lunch room?  The kids with healthy lunches from home were the ones desperately trying to pawn off their carrot sticks for a hamburger or some chocolate milk.  Kids are individuals, and a parent can only do so much short of standing over them and making sure they eat the healthy lunch they brought and not trade it for something else.



That goes to upbringing.  _"I can't control what my child does"_ not only doesn't really fly, even courts don't accept it as an excuse (for example when people sue parents for the acts of their minor children).



> Again, the school can at least avoid actively making the situation worse.



School is run by the school board.



> Also, this is as good a spot as any for this rant.  Again, the argument you bring up involves scrupulous personal choices for everyone involved to combat a systemic problem.  You know very well that not every single person is going to make the "right" choice.  This applies to eating healthy, not being a racist and refusing to hire minorities, or any other systemic issue.  Not everyone will do or even want to do the right thing.  So to avoid degrading everyone's life, we propose systemic solutions to systemic problems that doesn't involve everyone acting in the same way that we know they won't.  Hence anti-discrimination laws.  Or fines for letting your dog poop all over the place.  Or CPS for when you as a parent really screw up.  You can point fingers and assign responsibility all you want, but that does nothing to fix the issue.



I don't agree.  Since concerned parents can take control over what their kids eat - or run for school board and control what is fed to them - I fail to see how it is a societal problem.  It seems to me that a lot of parents simply don't want responsibility for their own failures.



> On that note, the schools should stop accepting fast food contracts to let McDonald's and Taco Bell feed the kids a "healthy" lunch.  They can stop actively making things worse.  They can stop making all the options bad ones so that everyone must behave in the right way to make the outcome decent.  Because we know that won't happen.



Ask the school board, they control the contracts.  If you're a parent and you're not on the school board or even attending meetings....


----------



## sfs982000 (Apr 26, 2010)

Reading through alot of the comments on this post there have been a lot of great points brought up.  I have to say that as a military member myself I took it upon myself to prepare myself as best as I could for the training that awaited me. I feel that it ulitmately comes down to the individuals.  What I mean by that is if you have a kid that is considering military service, that kid has a responsibility to themselves to research the minimum physical requirements and begin preparing themselves.  I knew that my cardio needed improvement prior to leaving for basic training so I got off my butt and started running.


----------



## Archangel M (May 15, 2010)

It isn't just the military thats noticing this:

*Officials:  More recruits failing physical fitness*




> When the Jackson Police Department tried to recruit new officers this  spring, more than a third of the applicants were not able to pass the  initial physical fitness test.The city's police academy's initial  fitness exam includes push-ups, a 1 1/2 mile run, an obstacle course  and a flexibility test, Deputy Police Chief Gerald Jones said.


----------



## Ken Morgan (May 15, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> It isn't just the military thats noticing this:
> 
> *Officials: More recruits failing physical fitness*


 
Ok, is it just me, or should you not be prepared for the job "interview"?

If you want to be a cop or in the military and you don't have enough brains to be in shape before you do the PT test...then good, you're too dumb to be in either group. Darwin wins again.


----------



## Haakon (May 15, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> It isn't just the military thats noticing this:
> 
> *Officials:  More recruits failing physical fitness*



The Washington State Patrol is seeing the same thing.

http://www.kndu.com/global/story.asp?s=12408385



> Washington State Patrol holds tryouts that nearly a third fail
> 
> ...the new WSP physical fitness test. For a 25-year-old male, it's  29 pushups, 39 sit ups, and a mile and a half run in under 13 minutes.
> 
> Nearly a third of these men and more than half of women will fail this test, leaving fewer recruits for troopers to choose from.



I agree with Ken, people should be better prepared for the physical part of the testing. All of the requirements are published online, it's not difficult for someone to test themselves to see if they can do it, if not then hit the gym or track until you can.


----------



## Ken Morgan (May 15, 2010)

My son's best friend joined the navy and my nephew joined the army six months ago, they ran every day and hit the gym every day so they wouldn't get killed during basic. Common sense to me.


----------



## shihansmurf (May 19, 2010)

Its interesting that when you're in Recruiting school you're told that only about 3 in 10 are qualified for military service. Now, I thought it was a bunch of B.S. at the time but now into my 3rd month of recruiting I have to eat a bit of crow on that one. 

Most of the people that come into the office get DQ'd for education, law violations, and other causes, however I have to send a lot of folks away to loose weight. Point is, there are many reasons people are not eligible to serve and to call the obesity problem a threat to national security is silly. 
Irrespective of my personal views on weight control, I think that the choice to conduct ones eating and exercise habits as one sees fit is up to the individual. If a person really wants to wear the uniform they will make the neccessary changes to accomplish that goal, if not then odds are they're not the type of people that we want serving in the first place.

As an aside, my son takes his lunch to school because I don't approve of the crap that they feed the kids. I know that taking an active interest in your children and actually parenting is an antiquated notion nowadays, but I'm forced to wonder if more parents did so, how serious of a childhood obesity problem would we have?

Mark


----------



## sfs982000 (May 19, 2010)

shihansmurf said:


> Its interesting that when you're in Recruiting school you're told that only about 3 in 10 are qualified for military service. Now, I thought it was a bunch of B.S. at the time but now into my 3rd month of recruiting I have to eat a bit of crow on that one.
> 
> Most of the people that come into the office get DQ'd for education, law violations, and other causes, however I have to send a lot of folks away to loose weight. Point is, there are many reasons people are not eligible to serve and to call the obesity problem a threat to national security is silly.
> Irrespective of my personal views on weight control, I think that the choice to conduct ones eating and exercise habits as one sees fit is up to the individual. If a person really wants to wear the uniform they will make the neccessary changes to accomplish that goal, if not then odds are they're not the type of people that we want serving in the first place.
> ...


 
Very well put.  It's funny to see how many parents don't take an active part in the raising and well being of their children and yet are the first ones that point the finger when something goes wrong.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 19, 2010)

sfs982000 said:


> Very well put.  It's funny to see how many parents don't take an active part in the raising and well being of their children and yet are the first ones that point the finger when something goes wrong.



It's an entire generation, as far as I can tell.

_"They feed our kids crap, that's why they're sick and fat!"_

OK, so pack them a lunch and don't let them eat the crap.  And try to remember, it's one meal a day that they eat at school.  What are you serving them for breakfast and dinner?  What exercise are you making sure they get?

_"Our kids don't listen to us, they do what they want to!"_

Then you are a lousy rotten parent and no mistake.
_
"We can't control what the schools serve to our kids!"_

Every public school system is controlled by a local school board (in the US) and parents can run become board members.  In some locations, the local boards BEG people to get involved, to no avail.  Anyone who is not willing to become a board member can still attend school board meetings and make their opinions heard.  There is the PTO or PTA or any number of organizations that influence school boards and the rules and contracts regarding what the kids get fed at school.

But no, everything is someone else's fault.  The government is too powerful, the lobbies are too powerful, they kids are too powerful, nobody will do what parents actually want.  Woe is them.

And what cure do they want?  They want the too-powerful government to FIX things by, get this, MAKING MORE LAWS to force people to eat good food and get more exercise!  Yes, the solution to government run amok is to hand them more power and control over our lives.  Brilliant.


----------

