If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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). |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"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). |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Propeller for aircraft engine ground test | Guy Deraspe | Home Built | 0 | July 21st 04 04:41 AM |
FAA Knowledge Test Results | Richard Moore | Instrument Flight Rules | 4 | October 12th 03 07:10 AM |