USAF axes the bicycle aerobics test

That's because the weights in the regs are BOGUS. If they want to stick to
some standard, they at least ought to review what the standard is, or should
be.

Les


Doctors are always giving NCO's weight waivers. General Jumper, as part
of
his new program, says that doctors and staff don't get a vote, only the
chain
of command gets a vote (who I'm sure will weigh the doctors opinions).

The doctor was appalled that a 6'2" person should be 178. He said I should
be at 200. Of course that was a while ago and I am definately at or above
200 now.

Les

"Jughead" wrote in message
.21...
"Les Matheson" wrote in
news:xZYWa.1969$ug.552@lakeread01:

Don't laugh. For years I had to watch my weight as the max for my
height 6' 2" was 218, ideal was 176 and I hovered around 205 all the
time. Then I got sick and lost a lot of weight. With exercise to
recover, I got down to 178 when I weighed in at Brooks when I went to
get back on flying status. The first thing the flight surgeon told me
was "you need to gain about 20 pounds." The doctors didn't even
believe the weights in the regs.

I'm just about the same height as you (74½" = 221 max). I weighed about
180
much of the 4 years I was on active duty. I thought I looked quite healthy
at the time and felt healthy as well. Once I got to AFRC, I made it up to
about 200-205 as well. I wasn't the least bit happy with the way I looked
and all of my friends and family who who remember the 180lbs me would all
comment on how "fat" I was starting to look. I'm still in AFRC, but have
since cut down on the food intake, picked up on the water consumption and
exercising (especially basketball games during lunch breaks), and am just
getting back to a hair below 190. I look a lot better than I was looking,
but I still think I looked better at 180 than I do now.

Not sure why that flight surgeon would think you should gain 20lbs after
seeing you at 178. I suppose that would be okay if you keep the fat
percent
down and gain all of the 20lbs in muscle weight. But being of medium build
and not having any real fascination with being more muscular, I'd be
perfectly happy with being at 180 myself.

"Les Matheson" wrote
The doctor was appalled that a 6'2" person should be 178. He said I should
be at 200. Of course that was a while ago and I am definately at or above
200 now.

He probably meant 20 pounds of muscle, not fat. 20 pounds of muscle
can be easily achieved in 10 weeks (legs, back, and arms).

He probably meant 20 pounds of muscle, not fat. 20 pounds of muscle
can be easily achieved in 10 weeks (legs, back, and arms).


Yeah with steroids. Gaining 20 pounds of muscle in 10 weeks is barely possible
for professional athletes and they can afford to pay dieticians and trainers
and literally devote their full off season time to putting on 20 pounds of lean
muscle mass. The closest I've come to serious muscle weight gain since I exited
puberty was a 4 month tour on Diego where I all I did was eat, lift and work
about 4.5 days a week. End result was a gain of about 6-7 pounds of muscle
weight. Even with the Mark McGuire method ("healthy" portions of creatine, next
best thing to andro which can't be taken by USAF aircrew), we had guys gain
just over 10 pounds in 4 months, but with creatine, at least a third of that is
water weight which will be gone within days of your last dose.

To put this back on subject, I'm pleased with the new weight ROE. I've only
been at or below my max allowable weight for my first year and a half on active
duty, and thats because I was scared there would be serious consequences if I
exceeded it. I was a shell of my former self and much less healthy. Once I
realized it was ok to exceed my max allowable weight (requirning a simple
measurment test to insure I was; "under fat"), I got back in the gym. Now, age
and increased responsibilities at work (ie less time during the week to
exercise) have conspired to throw about 5-7 pounds of "waste" around my mid
section, but I still believe my overall health (strength, endurance and
flexibility) is better now than when I showed up at Minot with circles under my
eyes, little energy and the strength to barely bench my own weight
(exaggeration, but not too great). Every year I head on over to the hospital
for my tape test (which, on another note is the most unscientific method of
determining body mass I've ever seen). From now on I'll be able to just simply
have my commander look me over. My life just got easier.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Doctors are always giving NCO's weight waivers. General Jumper, as part of
his new program, says that doctors and staff don't get a vote, only the chain
of command gets a vote (who I'm sure will weigh the doctors opinions).

Yeah, what would doctors who personally attend patients know about their health.

"BUFDRVR" wrote
He probably meant 20 pounds of muscle, not fat. 20 pounds of muscle
can be easily achieved in 10 weeks (legs, back, and arms).


Yeah with steroids. Gaining 20 pounds of muscle in 10 weeks is barely possible
for professional athletes and they can afford to pay dieticians and trainers
and literally devote their full off season time to putting on 20 pounds of lean
muscle mass.

Did I write that :-)

I was probably thinking about his recovering from a serious illness where he lost
a lot of muscle mass.

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 02:04:31 GMT, "C Knowles"
wrote:

Basically the Air Force has axed the last of General McPeaks crap,
and is back online to the days before his social engineering (and
uniform engineering).

It's not the last- we still have composite wings and a business suit for a
uniform.

Composite wings serve a purpose; but they should be *rare* exceptions
to the rule.

As for the "business suit", I have no problem with it. Airmen
shouldn't be wearing it in most jobs anyway; the Army has already
shown that the BDU is a good all-around uniform, and does not look out
of place in an office including a wing commander's office.

For places where the BDU might be unsuitable, there are other uniform
choices that will serve -- everything from the traditional Class A for
office work to work uniforms including flight suits and medical
whites.

If another 400 people are pushed out the gate
for being too fat, then at least 400 people will have failed in their
duties as leaders (and all that entails career-wise).

I'll speak to this as someone who was "pushed out the gate for being
too fat"; turned out I was developing Type 2 diabetes, but that's
beside the point.

The armed forces need people who are physically fit. Each service has
its own requirements and testing methods, but in general every person
in uniform has to be physically capable of doing most jobs in any
environment -- that includes traveling on foot and engaging in (or
evading) an enemy on the ground. Physical standards can be measured
on a pass/fail basis simply and with improvised or simple-to-build
equipment.

I went through basic training with the Army, not the Air Force; every
training company had a horizontal ladder and a few other pieces of
equipment in its company area, and every training cadre member knew
one or more measured routes for the morning run. The training center
(mine was Fort Campbell) had ranges for proficiency (as opposed to
mere physical conditioning), and a central physical testing site for
the final "graduation" test.

Oh, each battalion had a building set up as a sort of gymnasium -- the
inclined ramps were built from lumber and painted olive drab, the mats
were old cot mattresses, the weights were various sized cans filled
with measured amounts of concrete or gravel. But we trainees only
used this "battalion gym" when weather prevented the usual pushups,
situps, low-crawling and other normal fitness activities outdoors.
(The cadre could use it anytime, of course.)

I didn't pass the "graduation" PT test the first time, or even the
second; I wound up in Special Training Company working on my running
until I could bring up my speed. Even in Special Training Company we
didn't use specialized gear for workouts or testing; mostly we ran and
did pushups, same as before.

The post gymnasium (and those at every post or base where I served)
was nicely equipped with specialized equipment, of course. But the
point is, the services don't need high-tech gear to measure basic
physical fitness, or even to correct most deficiencies. Lay out a
cinder track, mark off every road in one-mile increments, make sure
every barracks has at least one horizontal ladder in back.

Something else that might be beneficial would be optional uniforms
like the Air Force's old Combination 6 (I think that's what it was
called) -- Class A dress slacks and an Air Force Blue long-sleeved
shirt (worn with a necktie) that was tailored to look good only on
those with very little body fat. Fatties like me need not bother.
Neither should bodybuilders for that matter, since too much upper-body
development looked a bit grotesque in that particular uniform. (Those
with really wide shoulders or bulging biceps should probably stick
with either blues or some variety of work uniform.) Eliminate,
redesign or ban from everyday wear any uniform that conceals more than
an acceptably low amount of fat around the middle, so that overweight
is noticed (and corrected) before it exceeds standards.

Granted, some people are actually physically fit but don't fit the
stereotypical image. I knew a few guys (mostly wrestlers and weight
lifters) in both the Army and Air Force whose "fat look" was actually
powerful muscles under a thin layer of fat; as long as they could meet
standards in the annual physical fitness tests (which I suppose the
services still require) they stayed off the "fat lists". Soldiers in
combat units didn't have much of a problem anyway, since they proved
their physical prowess through routine training; it was big guys in
"soft" jobs who usually attracted (or deserved) fitness-scrutiny from
commanders.

So, if someone cannot meet the standards it's the leader's fault and the
leader should be punished? Ridiculous. That's what leads to "leaders"
covering up for their failed troops, or pushing them off on others. Some
people simply will not or cannot maintain standards, whether weight,
drinking, performance, etc. While leaders should make every attempt
practical to bring these folks up to speed, at some point they become more
trouble than they are worth. At that point it's time to boot them out. If
someone is overweight and no one is taking action, that's a failed leader.

I couldn't say it any better myself ... I know because i tried.

None of this means that service members who fail to maintain military
standards can't continue to be effective as clerks, mechanics, or most
other jobs (excepting combat). But if they can't, or won't, meet
military standards it's time for them to leave the military.

___
Walter Luffman Medina, TN USA
Amateur curmudgeon, equal-opportunity annoyer

In message , Walter Luffman
writes
As for the "business suit", I have no problem with it. Airmen
shouldn't be wearing it in most jobs anyway; the Army has already
shown that the BDU is a good all-around uniform, and does not look out
of place in an office including a wing commander's office.

I work with Navy and RM at the moment. Navy shore working rig (whatever
the correct designation is) is black trousers, white shirt with rank
tabs (short sleeved, open-necked, for summer; long sleeved with a black
tie for winter), and ID pass. Probably more comfortable than the RM's
summerweight combats in the current heatwave (if only because the RM
don't roll the sleeves of their combat shirts), but having worn
lightweight Soldier 95 myself it's good kit and more comfortable than
most "smart civvies".

Certainly when you work in a warfare centre, you don't bat an eye at
someone in a combat suit. Back when I was (part-time) Army, "working
dress" was lightweight trousers, GS or KF shirt[1], and pullover... once
enough personnel collapsed from heatstroke, "summer rig" would be
approved which meant you could lose the wool sweater, but had to roll
your shirtsleeves to pass the RSM's inspection. It's good to see things
have improved.

(As a civilian analyst I'm allegedly supposed to be wearing a tie, but
I'm there to work not to suffer )


We could do with some crabs for balance & info, but until we get them I
don't know what they do for working rig at a shore command.

For places where the BDU might be unsuitable, there are other uniform
choices that will serve -- everything from the traditional Class A for
office work to work uniforms including flight suits and medical
whites.

Places where "working dress" is unsuitable should be rare and require
justification, IMHO.

big snip of cogent & sensible arguments about fitness - no argument,
just didn't want to bin it unremarked

I couldn't say it any better myself ... I know because i tried.

None of this means that service members who fail to maintain military
standards can't continue to be effective as clerks, mechanics, or most
other jobs (excepting combat). But if they can't, or won't, meet
military standards it's time for them to leave the military.

Trouble is, the scope for a lot of those clerk & office jobs is
shrinking, as is the opportunity to divert an officer who's done well
but hit a ceiling to an operational analysis job, because force numbers
are under a lot of pressure and civilians _are_ cheaper than servicemen
for office jobs (raw salary's a lot less, and civilian staff only get
relatively expensive when you deploy them overseas and/or put them on
defence watches or... in offices it's a clear cost saving)

I know what my "military equivalent rank" is and roughly what my
"military equivalent" earns compared to me. I'm jealous but I wouldn't
swap jobs casually - they generally don't get that money for nothing.[2]


Walter Luffman Medina, TN USA
Amateur curmudgeon, equal-opportunity annoyer

[1] GS shirts were fairly heavy green cotton, but otherwise good for
what they were. KF shirts were woven from a mixture of donkey wool and
machine-shop shavings, thick enough to deflect bullets (or so it felt),
and would not take a crease even if you scorched the damn things -
making "neatly creased sleeves" impossible in summer.

Today's soldiers wear what I'd call a "tropical combat shirt" in summer;
I could only get away with it on exercise and had to buy it myself, for
them it's working dress. Lucky bar-stewards... but I'm glad they're more
comfortable & practical than me. That's progress.


[2] And that assumes you buy into civil-service grades equating to
military rank at all, which I don't. I'd outrank the captain of many RN
warships by that standard, which is certainly and clearly a load of
********; or rank alongside an Army battalion commander, which is even
more testicular in nature to me.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

Well, speaking of uniforms, has anyone seen the new Air Force blue/grey BDU?
Seems the powers that be are tired of being mistaken for soldiers. Didn't
we have blue fatigues once upon a time?

Les


"Walter Luffman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 02:04:31 GMT, "C Knowles"
wrote:

Basically the Air Force has axed the last of General McPeaks crap,
and is back online to the days before his social engineering (and
uniform engineering).

It's not the last- we still have composite wings and a business suit for
a
uniform.


As for the "business suit", I have no problem with it. Airmen
shouldn't be wearing it in most jobs anyway; the Army has already
shown that the BDU is a good all-around uniform, and does not look out
of place in an office including a wing commander's office.

For places where the BDU might be unsuitable, there are other uniform
choices that will serve -- everything from the traditional Class A for
office work to work uniforms including flight suits and medical
whites.

"Les Matheson" wrote in message
news:UilYa.9329$ug.988@lakeread01...
Well, speaking of uniforms, has anyone seen the new Air Force blue/grey
BDU?
Seems the powers that be are tired of being mistaken for soldiers. Didn't
we have blue fatigues once upon a time?

Les



Here at Robins, we're going to be one of the test bases. I've yet to see
anyone in them, but I've got my eyes peeled. The article on the AF site
mentions a new T-shirt, a 3-button job with US Air Force embroidered on one
side, and our name on the other. (Sigh) So much for squadron t-shirts in
uniform. Also, I wonder about stripes. Are they going to change the colors
to blend with the new uniform?

I seem to remember the blue fatigues were worn by missile crews. The
Thunderbirds still wear blue, with the large t-bird logo on the back.

MSgt (sel) Peter Vierps
116 AMXS