| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: WoT | |
| U.S. Military: Obesity is a matter of national security | |
| 2010-04-27 | |
| Today Vasti Cedeno will leave for Fort Jackson, S.C., to start nine weeks of Army boot camp. When two of her mentors were killed while serving in Afghanistan, she decided her "life's mission" was to join the Army. But even with her mind made up, her body kept her down. Cedeno weighed nearly 275 pounds. "I was too ashamed to go into the recruiter's office," she said. Cedeno turned it around. Through diet and exercise, the Emerson resident dropped 112 pounds in a year, and she figures to lose more if Fort Jackson combat training stays true to reputation. Military officials hope Cedeno, 27, represents the start of a trend. The scales are not tipping in the right direction for young people, and a new report says the sharp rise in obesity rates has become a matter of national security. Over 9 million young adults -- 27 percent of all Americans ages 17-24 -- weigh too much to join the military, according to the report released last week by Mission: Readiness, a nonprofit group of 130 retired admirals, generals and senior military leaders that promotes health and education for American children. Their findings come on top of a Pentagon report released last year that said 48,000 military recruits had flunked weight standards since 2005. "We also lose upwards to 12,000 young men and young women a year before they even finish up the first term of enlistment," said retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Norman Seip. "That's another person who has been recruited, trained and left because they're not able to maintain standards."
| |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #18 eat food closest to the source and be cognizant of portion size. Add daily exercise - cardio 4-5 times per week plus weight training abt 3 times per week. That's it. Keep regular soda, fried crap or sugar snacks to one day a week. You'll see results in two weeks. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2010-04-27 17:22 |
| #17 Ah yes, the two definitions of metabolism. My default definition is the looser lay version which includes the very inexact factors of mental and environment influences. Personal anectdote, so FWIF. I burn calories like a grease fire (apologies! lot of that does come from years of hard physical exertions) I can go to that famous fast food joint and eat two of them chicken sandwiches with the ham on them. Now, made traditional Beuf Bougenon (used the fat from one ingredient to sautee other ingredients) - one cup of that had me more than satisfied...whats up with that? Could it be that our first line of nutritional awareness is being circumvented (taste/smell=mind) when driving through, or even buffets, like working out before stretching? |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2010-04-27 15:57 |
| #16 The energy for the conversion of glucose into CO2 and H20 is the same for everyone. The energy of conversion of glucose to triacylglyceride (fat) is also the same regardless of how old you are. Apparently, what varies is whether the first takes the precedence, or the second. Thus the final result may be different for Paul and Mary. Paul drinks beer and consumes large bags of fritos while sitting on a sofa and watching his fav sports game (an there is one every time he turns on ESPN). Mary is busy in the kitchen, with kids, in the garden, etc. her feet are tired every night and her dinner portion is a "pigeon" portion in comparison with the heap on Paul's plate. Kids are somewhere in the middle volume. Paul is still a skinny bastid and Mary is still a fat cow. So, chemistry aside, something differs. Don't you agree? |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2010-04-27 15:15 |
| #15 "But the laws of physiology do differ even within the same person in different periods of life. I do agree with your equation." Laws of chemistry do not vary between individuals or with life stage. Yes, people may digest food in their gut to different efficiencies and the fraction absorbed into the blood stream may also differ. Once it is absorbed into the blood the laws of chemistry take over. The energy for the conversion of glucose into CO2 and H20 is the same for everyone. The energy of conversion of glucose to triacylglyceride (fat) is also the same regardless of how old you are. Biochemistry is just chemistry and all the rules of chemistry must apply to all biological systems. No exceptions. |
| Posted by: Chemist 2010-04-27 13:45 |
| #14 Chemist, generally yes. But here is the thing... From age 15 to 36, I could eat vast quantities of food, and my weight stayed at 64kg. I did not have much of fat, a skinny guy I was, so skinny that when I went to swim, it was a hard job not to sink like a stone. Bones, muscles and skin. At 36, things started to change. I finally started gaining weight, which was a boon for swimming. No longer sinking, I was able to float like a seal. 20 years later, I have a beer belly (though drinking beer rarely). Not too bad, I would qualify as overweight at 84kg. I eat less than one third of volume than I did before 36. I drive only when I have to go somewhere over 5 km, else I walk. I am not gaining weight, but also not losing. I don't eat sugar now for 4 years. Not because of weight, but because of some health problems that started to creep in. It was a good move, my vision improved, and my swollen pancreas shrinked. My initial assessment was a borderline diabetes and I think I was right. I don't go doctors unless you pick me up with a crane and deposit me there. Even if you hit me with a truck and I can barely walk, and you are an ambulance medic with experience, I would argue with you that I'll be fine. You'd have to wait till I nearly pass out to get me on the gurney. I know people that eat even less than I and they are gaining weight. Others are losing weight. It varies. I think that it boils down to how much (in percent of intake) processed food one eats. |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2010-04-27 13:27 |
| #13 But the laws of physiology do differ even within the same person in different periods of life. I do agree with your equation. The US is strange in my opinion - I see that for every overweight youngster there is one is dynamite shape. The main diverging factor I notice is the amount of physical activity. I know someone who was overweight but wanted to join. That person hit the weights and track before going in. Unfortunate, and rightly frustrating, to see recruits with the right stuff mentally who just did not have the proper physical education (or in some cases opportunity) during upbringing. Ultimately it comes down to the parenting. I notice a vast difference in mine between those days when the entertainment devices have priority and when physical/mental activity (even just coloring) dominates the day's activities. I also know people whose idea of watching the baby is placing it in a crib with a bottle while they go do other (selfish, not housework) things. And like mom says, unconcern about the ingredients is an issue as well. A nearby city has a number of the fattest poor kids I've ever seen, so I don't know what to make of the food stamp deal. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2010-04-27 12:44 |
| #12 Real simple equation: input = output + accumulation Eat (input) more than you burn (output) and you have a positive accumulation (you get heavier). Input < output and you loose weight. Input = output and you remain the same. I have no use for the whole "my metabolism is different" crapola. The laws of chemistry don't differ for anybody. |
| Posted by: Chemist 2010-04-27 12:00 |
| #11 As Moose suggests, obesity is not the result of overeating, but of food toxicity. The main villains are: 1. Omega-6 vegetable oils. Soybean oil, corn oil, safflower oil, canola oil, and others all promote obesity. 2. Fructose. Sugar, soda. Fructose reacts with omega-6 fats to damage the liver and accentuate their weight gain effects. 3. Wheat/grains/excess carbs. Carbs are fattening, fats are not, because insulin drives weight gain; see Gary Taubes. Also wheat and other grain toxins promote weight gain, thus "beer belly." For weight loss, replace omega-6 PUFA with coconut oil, and cut down on carbs. |
| Posted by: Skunky Angeack7024 2010-04-27 11:33 |
| #10 "We has meat once a week!"--Charles Dickens, in a dialog between factory boys. The speaker is the eldest of a family of several brothers whose work, combined with that of their widowed mother, produces such a remarkable luxury. A meal with a meat entree later in the day, every night of the week, is a recent development. Also, since the work day usually means that we have our main meal late in the day, that may also make a difference in how our bodies process our food. Any ideas, Dr. Steve or other experts? "you don't think there is a correlation between the massive expansion of foodstamp benefits in the 70's and the epidemic of rampant obesity do you?" Having funds available for food does not necessarily mean that people really have enough money to get something good. My neighbors "Juan and Amy" had just enough income, food stamps included, to get beans and pasta for a period of about 6 months. Having funds available does not necessarily mean that the person knows best how to use it. For example, I've had conversations with ladies in the grocery store who don't know the difference between "fruit juice" and "fruit drink". A lady from my church helped mentor some of my neighbors on these issues. Given good information, they made a lot of changes for the better. |
| Posted by: mom 2010-04-27 10:46 |
| #9 But she was also painfully aware she would need to make major changes to her 5-foot-5 frame. And I thought to myself, "Join the Army. It's free." So I figured while I'm here I'll lose a few pounds. You got a six- to eight-week training program here, a tough one. Which is perfect for me. I'm gonna walk out of here a lean, mean, fighting machine. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2010-04-27 10:17 |
| #8 Stop Subsidising Corn Syrup. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, a member of the commission, and former governor of Iowa, has a vested interest in all that corn syrup. A few other very powerful senators, Harkin and Grassley, a farmer, always back the subsidies that go to ADM and other corporate farmers, too. And Anonymoose is also correct that the articial sweeteners in diet drinks the big three soda makers are putting in school trick the body into thinking it is starving when the cells aren't getting the proper nutrients. You not only store everything as fat, but cravings ensue, only to often be satisfied with processed junk food and creating a vicious cycle. I am diabetic and they want me to use natural sweeteners like stevia and cane sugar, real butter, cream, unprocessed seasalt, etc. for that reason and surprise, surprise--my cravings are gone and I've lost weight while my glucose stabilized and cholesterol even went down to acceptable levels. I also have a new hobby--cooking--as I have to cook everything from scratch, including brownies, but I've become an everyday gourmet! |
| Posted by: Lumpy Elmoluck5091 2010-04-27 10:16 |
| #7 Thank you Moose for these valuable insights. I continue to be amazed at the breadth of expertise resident on this site. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-04-27 10:03 |
| #6 There are some villains that cause obesity, that were little suspected until late, because they are somewhat counterintuitive. Heading the list are artificial sweeteners and fructose. They don't just trick the taste buds, they trick the whole digestive system into thinking you have consumed a lot of glucose, so it puts other fats and carbs into storage mode instead of burn mode. Importantly, though some sweeteners are listed as low carb, such as sugar alcohols, this just means that they don't affect the blood sugar level, because they digest further down the digestive tract. But you still get the full dose of carbs. Caffeine also messes with sugar metabolism, by stimulating stomach acid production, so that glucose is metabolized higher up the digestive tract. Then the stimulant kicks in, which tells the brain the metabolism is higher than it should be, so it should slow things down. But the bottom line is that the body is designed to become fat if possible, which makes it easier to gain weight than to lose it. Hundreds of generations living in near starvation will do that to you. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-04-27 09:55 |
| #5 For literally tens of thousands of years mankind struggled just to survive from one gathering and hunting expedition to another, then from one harvest to another. Black and white photos a mere hundred years old, show the rich as fat and well fed and the 'working' and underclass gaunt and skinny. Now for a very rare and unique time in the long history of the species food is abundant and readily available for vast numbers of the population - and people still COMPLAIN. Just pray that the unique environment dependent upon so many variables doesn't alter too quick. Adaptation to environment can be a bitch in a compressed time frame. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-04-27 09:42 |
| #4 just remarked to the wife yesterday "you don't think there is a correlation between the massive expansion of foodstamp benefits in the 70's and the epidemic of rampant obesity do you?" |
| Posted by: abu do you love 2010-04-27 09:32 |
| #3 The first time I went to China, I saw four fat people in a month. When came back and got off the plane, I saw three fat people on the jetway before I even got into the terminal. Stop fucking eating, people. |
| Posted by: gromky 2010-04-27 09:12 |
| #2 ...when you pry it from my cold dead hands. :) |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-04-27 08:09 |
| #1 Stop Subsidising Corn Syrup. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2010-04-27 06:18 |