Report suggests 3/4 of Canadian Forces personnel are overweight, obese

[mariomike]

But the military can and should take steps to mitigate it.  For example, lose the soft drink fountains in dining facilities. 

I read that in the French Foreign Legion before eating, recruits drink large "field cups" of water, and invert the empty cups on their heads to demonstrate the achievement.

 

[Lumber]

ff topic:

I just realized that his profile name is Sea King "Tacco", and not "Taco"... I've been saying "Taco" in my head this whole time...

The fitness aspect of the PRO DC response has been noted.

Cool!... and?... is that all?... Can you elaborate?

 

[FSTO]

ff topic:

I just realized that his profile name is Sea King "Tacco", and not "Taco"... I've been saying "Taco" in my head this whole time...

Cool!... and?... is that all?... Can you elaborate?

At a NAVRES Command Conference the "First Sea Llyod" said that the fitness of the sailors was an issue in fighting the fire. The 1 hr per day of PT would be enforced in the RCN as a result. I have seen nothing official yet. But at my unit, all of our full time staff use that 1 hr per day. Although we are only 9 in number, I would wager we are one of the fittest FTS in NAVRES.

 

[Lumber]

At a NAVRES Command Conference the "First Sea Llyod" said that the fitness of the sailors was an issue in fighting the fire. The 1 hr per day of PT would be enforced in the RCN as a result. I have seen nothing official yet. But at my unit, all of our full time staff use that 1 hr per day. Although we are only 9 in number, I would wager we are one of the fittest FTS in NAVRES.

Interesting then that he didn't mention fitness once when he visited us back in September.

Well I can't speak for the other NRDs, but you're certainly trumping us.

 

[Stoker]

At a NAVRES Command Conference the "First Sea Llyod" said that the fitness of the sailors was an issue in fighting the fire. The 1 hr per day of PT would be enforced in the RCN as a result. I have seen nothing official yet. But at my unit, all of our full time staff use that 1 hr per day. Although we are only 9 in number, I would wager we are one of the fittest FTS in NAVRES.

From my perspective of currently training sailors to fight fires in the fleet I really haven't seen a problem with sailors fitness levels affecting their ability to carry out a sustained attack on a fire. If anything I found is that its the sailors size with skinny sailors going down due to a heat injury then a larger sailor that carries on.

 

[Eagle_Eye_View]

Recently I've been eating in mess hall, and frankly I must say I've been impressed by the quality and the taste of the food. The mess introduced the "blue menu" which consist of healthy choices. No more burgers, no more pizzas (except veggie one), no more fries etc. They also introduced quinoa, kale, smoothies and use healthier ingredients to cook with. Again I think it's a step forward in the right direction since loosing the belly starts at the kitchen.

 

[Journeyman]

The mess introduced the "blue menu" .... quinoa, kale, smoothies ....

I believe that's the "pink"  menu.   

 

[Eagle_Eye_View]

Maybe, blue/pink. Looks healthy to me.

 

[George Wallace]

At a NAVRES Command Conference the "First Sea Llyod" said that the fitness of the sailors was an issue in fighting the fire. The 1 hr per day of PT would be enforced in the RCN as a result. I have seen nothing official yet. But at my unit, all of our full time staff use that 1 hr per day. Although we are only 9 in number, I would wager we are one of the fittest FTS in NAVRES.

I see you threw down the gantlet as a challenge there....... [

 

[Lumber]

I see you threw down the gantlet as a challenge there....... [

I'm not biting.

 

[FSTO]

I see you threw down the gantlet as a challenge there....... [

It wasn't intentional. ;D

 

[jollyjacktar]

First Sea Lloyd.... just caught that....  :rofl:

 

[MilEME09]

Recently I've been eating in mess hall, and frankly I must say I've been impressed by the quality and the taste of the food. The mess introduced the "blue menu" which consist of healthy choices. No more burgers, no more pizzas (except veggie one), no more fries etc. They also introduced quinoa, kale, smoothies and use healthier ingredients to cook with. Again I think it's a step forward in the right direction since loosing the belly starts at the kitchen.

As a Red Seal chef civi side, and having seen inside CF kitchens. It is my belief that since they do not operate as business's, rather as a operational cost, they want to reduce their food cost (cost of raw ingredients divided by revenue). How do you lower that? you order premade garbage from Sysco or GFS and is quick to cook and ready with little effort. Cooking is not hard, cooking simple is the key, it is something the CF is capable of, however it means more staff in order to make things fresh from scratch, which will use less salt, less processed food.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Using fitness standards as a proper metric is good, problem with the CF is, the bar has been dropped, and I bet there are many in HQ units that haven't done a PT test in years and account for some of the obese and the morbidly obese. It did blow my mind that there was a morbidly obese group in the CF, if your that fat, you should be medically released, along with the obese. Now the new version of the FORCE test also includes a waist measurement which is a good step IMO, but I've never seen action taken for failure. Then again im in the reserves PT failure these days it's a pat on the back, and better luck next time (of course with your retry afterwards)

And again, like many, the fallacy of automatically equating "obesity" with disability or un-fitness; it may be (and most often is) an indicator of unhealthiness, but taken in isolation it proves nothing.  Whether we like it or not the CAF is subject to the same human rights and discrimination legislation as the rest of Canada.  Someone cannot be turfed for being "fat".  Being "fat" is not, in and of itself, valid grounds for dismissal from employment.  A previous poster mentioned the height/weight standards of the USCG and that not meeting them could result in dismissal from the service.  However, one of the stated purposes of that policy is to "Present a sharp professional military appearance".  That is where we differ from the US services.  It is easy for them to legislate appearance when they are exempt from some aspects of their human rights law.

As an example of the results of making "appearance" a factor in the continued employment of a soldier, one can look to Bouchard v. Canadian Armed Forces.  This CHRT decision from 1990 ordered the reinstatement of a previously released cook whose medical category had been lowered to G4O3 due to kidney stones.  As a (possible) sequela, the soldier was also identified as obese.  From a reading of the decision, one could see that significant weight was likely given to the testimony of an officer from the careers shop, who in explaining the process that they went through to determine if the cook could be retained with restrictions, identified that the number of likely positions available were reduced because some of them had a requirement for the cook "to be presentable" (in other words - not a fatty) due to having to serve dignitaries.  While the poor result for the CAF could be due to a lax presentation of its case (luckily, the decision was reversed on appeal when the underlying medical factors were more properly stressed), one can see that inserting "physical appearance" as an occupational requirement does not work.

 

[daftandbarmy]

From a reading of the decision, one could see that significant weight was likely given to the testimony of an officer from the careers shop....

I see what you did there

 

[MilEME09]

And again, like many, the fallacy of automatically equating "obesity" with disability or un-fitness; it may be (and most often is) an indicator of unhealthiness, but taken in isolation it proves nothing.  Whether we like it or not the CAF is subject to the same human rights and discrimination legislation as the rest of Canada.  Someone cannot be turfed for being "fat".  Being "fat" is not, in and of itself, valid grounds for dismissal from employment.  A previous poster mentioned the height/weight standards of the USCG and that not meeting them could result in dismissal from the service.  However, one of the stated purposes of that policy is to "Present a sharp professional military appearance".  That is where we differ from the US services.  It is easy for them to legislate appearance when they are exempt from some aspects of their human rights law.

As an example of the results of making "appearance" a factor in the continued employment of a soldier, one can look to Bouchard v. Canadian Armed Forces.  This CHRT decision from 1990 ordered the reinstatement of a previously released cook whose medical category had been lowered to G4O3 due to kidney stones.  As a (possible) sequela, the soldier was also identified as obese.  From a reading of the decision, one could see that significant weight was likely given to the testimony of an officer from the careers shop, who in explaining the process that they went through to determine if the cook could be retained with restrictions, identified that the number of likely positions available were reduced because some of them had a requirement for the cook "to be presentable" (in other words - not a fatty) due to having to serve dignitaries.  While the poor result for the CAF could be due to a lax presentation of its case (luckily, the decision was reversed on appeal when the underlying medical factors were more properly stressed), one can see that inserting "physical appearance" as an occupational requirement does not work.

While I agree with you that it's not a good standard, I am saying it can be used as part of a larger set of checks to determine a members level of fitness. followed by a remediation program for failure, but eventually if a member is unfit continuously then they should be released as they are unable to complete their duties under universality of service.

 

[Lumber]

While I agree with you that it's not a good standard, I am saying it can be used as part of a larger set of checks to determine a members level of fitness. followed by a remediation program for failure, but eventually if a member is unfit continuously then they should be released as they are unable to complete their duties under universality of service.

On of you is using the term "Fit/Unfit" and the other is using the term "Fat/Lean" but you're both assuming you're talking about the same thing, but you're not.

You're both right.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I think the opportunity to deploy operationally is a good motivator to get in shape and be fit. 

Personally since being told we may deploy to Africa I've been waking up early to get an extra hour long run in and do an extra gym work out over lunch or after work every day, on top of regular PT.

 

[Ostrozac]

If being skinny is a priority, then shouldn't we all start heavily smoking? (Although I suppose nicotine gum in the ration packs makes more sense, in an insane way.)

On a serious note, the US Army aggressively tape-tests people for body fat. Which works for them, but in Canada shouldn't we first sort out recruiting and retention before we consider something that would encourage trained troops out the door and simultaneously discourage civilians from entry?

I guess a bronze/silver/gold Skeletor patch for multiple years spent slim is out of the question?

 

[QV]

Another issue that contributes to an appearance of frumpiness in the CAF which is not discussed much is age.  Our military is old.  When I look at Americans or British they seem to have a much younger force.  We are more like a second public service.  CRA 60? - maybe if your a general...  But not a Sgt or Maj. 

We should have an up or out policy and caps on age or service years for certain ranks.  Normal progression should result in max service of 22 years - make room for younger fitter leaner soldiers. We should recruit no older than 30 but aim for 18-23 as the target age.  I'm sure there is a charter violation with age discrimination, but there needs to be exceptions for a combat capable force.