No fatties allowed...how does the Navy reduce the displacement tonnage of its sailors?

[Spekkio]

@Spekkio mainly boiling it down to men vs women. Individuals can have wide variances in their BMR explained more by body composition, genetics, or age than gender.

Gender plays a large role. You can see this in TDEE calculators (which unfortunately almost universally over-estimate calories burned from exercise).

Like, I'm glad you think it's impressive that influencer can bench my body weight but so can my 14 year old son who started lifting in March. With very rare exceptions, the amount of work (energy) expended by an equivalently trained male will far exceed what is expended by a female.

BMR as a function of body composition vs gender is a chicken or the egg conversation. While individuals of like gender / body composition may vary somewhat, ultimately, there's not enough difference from the average in BMR to matter in people who are not diagnosed with medical disorders by a healthcare professional.

 

[Spekkio]

I 100% guarantee you that I could take a set of identical twins, give them the same average calorie intake over a month but vary their type and time-varying rate of calories given for each (e.g., steady for one, feast-famine other), and they'd weigh differently at the end.

Mostly plays into athletic performance. Eating the right stuff generally makes you feel better, workout harder, and recover faster... effects which get magnified over 30 and definitely over 40. Coincidentally, also why going no / low carb is often counter-productive.

Although there are many, many professional athletes with notoriously bad diets, we shouldn't use genetic freaks as a benchmark.

 

[ChuckMK23]

 

[Spekkio]

I do not like our reliance on pharmaceuticals to treat obesity and obesity related illnesses that can be treated conservatively. I think that the 'more important than AI' thing would be a comprehensive public health policy to combat obesity... which would include financial penalties in the form of increased insurance premiums for being overweight and obese.

The Navy can do a lot better to lead this problem.

 

[number9]

I do not like our reliance on pharmaceuticals to treat obesity and obesity related illnesses that can be treated conservatively. I think that the 'more important than AI' thing would be a comprehensive public health policy to combat obesity... which would include financial penalties in the form of increased insurance premiums for being overweight and obese.

The Navy can do a lot better to lead this problem.

Former First Lady Obama tried to get people to eat vegetables and people pretty much lost their minds. I don't think this country has an appetite* for a public health campaign that comes from the government...

* Pun not intended but totally intended

 

[ChuckMK23]

I do not like our reliance on pharmaceuticals to treat obesity and obesity related illnesses that can be treated conservatively. I think that the 'more important than AI' thing would be a comprehensive public health policy to combat obesity... which would include financial penalties in the form of increased insurance premiums for being overweight and obese.

The Navy can do a lot better to lead this problem.

It's our food supply. What we feed our sailors while deployed is toxic coupled with poor working and living conditions.

Increasingly I think it's a combination of the above and genetics.

The US Navy as an institution sucks when it comes to care for its people - especially sailors from low social/economic class.

I think Senior Navy leaders making it about will power and character are a joke themselves.

Advanced pharmaceuticals are the only hope in my humble opinion.

 

[Spekkio]

It's our food supply. What we feed our sailors while deployed is toxic coupled with poor working and living conditions.

Increasingly I think it's a combination of the above and genetics.

The US Navy as an institution sucks when it comes to care for its people - especially sailors from low social/economic class.

I think Senior Navy leaders making it about will power and character are a joke themselves.

Advanced pharmaceuticals are the only hope in my humble opinion.

I would agree with you that the 28 day menu needs an overhaul. It's an elementary school lunch menu from the 1970s. I'm especially a fan (sarcasm) of the 1-2 punch on Saturdays - cheeseburgers and fries for lunch (with no salad / soup option because it's not popular) over pizza and wings for dinner. The CNO said he is trying to tackle this one, but competing with this is the combat logistics concern in a near-peer fight.

But there are measures the Navy can take besides that which are quick. Some of which may be very unpopular.

For starters, I think you get 80% the way there by setting the BCA standards at 26 BMI, and then doing a WtH ratio of < 0.51 for people who are over. You can lift heavy things to get built-fat after EAOS. Then you set the fitness standards at good low to pass in every event with FEP, good medium to pass without FEP. Review / standardize the bike to a timed distance event instead of a calorie count. There will be a lot of belly aching about how that's too hard to pass, but it's really not. Part of this needs to be a revamp of fitness at boot camp because it's currently producing some rather rotund sailors.

This creates a forcing function for triads to give a shit about making sure their sailors pass the PRT, because right now everyone knows you don't have to exercise to get a probationary and the BCA is a joke. PT standards are like any other standards - you do the training required to meet them.

You could go USMC style - command PT in-port / ashore at 0530 or 0600 every weekday, no exceptions. Only personnel who score excellent medium or better on all PRT events are exempt. Ships shall ensure this does not conflict with duty section turnover or other military duties. Create an accountability system for exercise underway. Boo hoo, you're in the military and that comes with mandatory exercise.

I think bringing in a nutritionist for a GMT as part of the 12-week notice would help. Eat your fruits and veggies.

Beyond that, we could look at things like banning energy drinks / soft drinks on ships, getting rid of vending machines on ships / installations entirely, or banning the sale of alcohol on-installation. You could get rid of desserts on ships with a stroke of a pen and no added logistics cost.

I think GLP-1 is a last resort if all of these measures get exhausted and prove to be untenable.

 

[Spekkio]

Former First Lady Obama tried to get people to eat vegetables and people pretty much lost their minds. I don't think this country has an appetite* for a public health campaign that comes from the government...

* Pun not intended but totally intended

Well intentioned, but poor execution. You don't have to tell people exactly what to eat, and mandating a certain diet in schools without the associated funding was sure to fail. Plus we generally don't like when Uncle Sam meddles in education.

But what we could do is sponsor ads for healthy foods (think "got milk" and "incredible egg" commercials, but also for fruits / veggies / chicken / fish). We can run anti-alcohol ads and ban pro-alcohol ads, similar to tobacco. We can run anti-junk food ads. We can raise health insurance premiums for people who are overweight or obese. We can make the purchase eligibility for SNAP match WIC in all 50 states. We can leverage the AMA to prohibit invasive surgeries and medications for obesity-related illnesses in patients under 70 unless they lose weight. We can institute mandatory monthly physical fitness tests in PE and tie that to actual grades, along with additional standards for nutrition and health classes. "It's 10pm, do you know where your children are" can become "It's 8pm, did you walk a mile today?"

I realize there are a lot of lobby and special interest groups in all of the above that would cry foul... in particular the healthcare / health insurance and alcohol lobbies.

 

[Swanee]

which would include financial penalties in the form of increased insurance premiums for being overweight and obese.

The interesting thing here (in the USA) is that high obesity rates is linked to lower socioeconomic status due to things like food deserts and food insecurity- where the only things available are cheap, high fat, high sugar content, empty foods. These are the same people who don't carry insurance, or if they do, are largely insured by tax payers.

I agree than an ounce of prevention costs way less than a pound of cure, but the current administration, and the voters who voted them in, don't seem to care.

 

[MIDNJAC]

The interesting thing here (in the USA) is that high obesity rates is linked to lower socioeconomic status due to things like food deserts and food insecurity- where the only things available are cheap, high fat, high sugar content, empty foods. These are the same people who don't carry insurance, or if they do, are largely insured by tax payers.

I agree than an ounce of prevention costs way less than a pound of cure, but the current administration, and the voters who voted them in, don't seem to care.

Well they certainly don't want to have to pay a penny more for it in taxes. But they want us to look good so they can feel safer I guess. I do think there is a lot more health mindedness going on with this newest generation of kids. At least as a gross generalization. I'm sure the socioeconomic factors you mention are still very much in play, but at least on the O side, I see a lot of lifestyle differences between when I was a cone and now. Which is a good thing.

 

[Spekkio]

The interesting thing here (in the USA) is that high obesity rates is linked to lower socioeconomic status due to things like food deserts and food insecurity- where the only things available are cheap, high fat, high sugar content, empty foods. These are the same people who don't carry insurance, or if they do, are largely insured by tax payers.

This is often stated, but is objectively false.

Junk foods and pre-prepared meals are some of the most expensive items in the grocery store. Most fresh produce is dirt cheap, although there are some money traps (I'm looking at you, grapes). Frozen produce is where you start to get expensive. Walmart Supercenters sell cheap, fresh produce all over the country. I guarantee you can find items like potatoes, rice, corn, tomatoes, broccoli, green beans, apples, oranges, and bananas everywhere for extremely low cost whereas a large bag of Doritos cost about $7 (after tax) - that $7 can buy a week's supply of bananas, apples, or broccoli for a family of 4.

Not to mention the exponentially more expensive cost of getting McDonald's or KFC instead of whipping up a quick meal. I also can't prove it with a study, but I tend to notice that the vice for obese men seems to be copious amounts of alcohol with way too large portions of red meat and bacon while for women it seems to be iced coffee or frappuccinos with way too many desserts. For kids, it's because mom and dad put too much junk food, frozen dinners, and ice cream in the house... all of which are expensive, optional food and drink items. When the kids say "I'm hungry" it's okay to say "great, dinner will be in 2 hours. Have an apple."

People are electing the perception of convenience over money. Hence why I think aggressive ad campaigns would go a long way. I also think that it's more likely that people are shopping like their parents, and maybe in the 1970s-1990s it was true that instant mashed potatoes, hamburger helper, and frozen hot dogs were the cheapest way to feed a family so like father/son, like mother/daughter... but it's not true anymore.

 

[Spekkio]

Well they certainly don't want to have to pay a penny more for it in taxes.

I wouldn't be so fast to stand up the 'they' boogeyman. I think that the majority of the public can get behind a comprehensive anti-obesity campaign, as long as you don't make the mistake of directly dictating what people eat.

I think that the drag on it is that fiscal hawks will scoff at spending federal dollars on it while Democrats are bought out by big health and big pharma. You would need another 'compassionate conservative' campaign to rally Republicans behind it like Bush 43 rallied the GOP behind education, and that's not going to happen anytime soon.

So pushing GLP-1 it is.

 

[phrogdriver]

This is often stated, but is objectively false.

Junk foods and pre-prepared meals are some of the most expensive items in the grocery store. Most fresh produce is dirt cheap, although there are some money traps (I'm looking at you, grapes). Frozen produce is where you start to get expensive. Walmart Supercenters sell cheap, fresh produce all over the country. I guarantee you can find items like potatoes, rice, corn, tomatoes, broccoli, green beans, apples, oranges, and bananas everywhere for extremely low cost whereas a large bag of Doritos cost about $7 (after tax) - that $7 can buy a week's supply of bananas, apples, or broccoli for a family of 4.

Not to mention the exponentially more expensive cost of getting McDonald's or KFC instead of whipping up a quick meal. I also can't prove it with a study, but I tend to notice that the vice for obese men seems to be copious amounts of alcohol with way too large portions of red meat and bacon while for women it seems to be iced coffee or frappuccinos with way too many desserts. For kids, it's because mom and dad put too much junk food, frozen dinners, and ice cream in the house... all of which are expensive, optional food and drink items. When the kids say "I'm hungry" it's okay to say "great, dinner will be in 2 hours. Have an apple."

People are electing the perception of convenience over money. Hence why I think aggressive ad campaigns would go a long way. I also think that it's more likely that people are shopping like their parents, and maybe in the 1970s-1990s it was true that instant mashed potatoes, hamburger helper, and frozen hot dogs were the cheapest way to feed a family so like father/son, like mother/daughter... but it's not true anymore.

It's a very real thing in many cases, though I would submit that the problem is time and energy just as much as money. You go to places like the Eastern or Western Districts of Baltimore, and there are no grocery stores in walking distance, only sketchy convenience stores. So it's a long walk plus a train ride or a taxi/Uber to get a decent selection at a decent price. If you work a menial or manual labor job with an irregular schedule and have small kids, I doubt you're getting a sitter for hours so you can go grocery shopping. And are you really going to spend an hour cooking from scratch every night after doing a job like that, when you only have a couple hours between getting home and going to bed, then getting up early to do it again.

Same situation but replace it with a Dollar General and probably having a (crappy) car, but with longer drives in rural areas.

I know many here may say "Tough shit! Those people need to get some self-discipline!" Maybe, but it's one thing to say that when you're living in a world that supports you and gives positive examples of the products of sustained discipline. Many people don't live in that world.

Is that the whole problem? No. There's a lot more. But there's a lot more behind poor people not eating healthy than many middle-class people acknowledge. And let's be honest, no group in America is as healthy as it should be, given our level of industrialization.