Navy lowers weight standards so obese women can stay in the service.

[Borillar]

When did they start measuring body fat for the Navy? We didn't have that problem in the '60s. Must be what they put in the chow.

We didn't have that in the 70's either. I remember lots of big fat chiefs when I was in. The only time I had to pass a PT test was in boot camp. Didn't have to worry about that shit out in the fleet.

They had it in the 80s and 90s. If you got too fat, they put you in a program for overweight people. If you were unable to get your weight down, you were discharged from service. They were tired of fat fucks making the Navy look bad, plus fat people arent good swimmers so its a safety issue.

Safety issue? First, fat floats better than muscle. But more important, if their ship sinks in the Atlantic, do you think anyone will be swimming to shore?

It doesn't matter if it floats "better". You still need good cardio to stay afloat for long periods in the ocean. Fat people don't have good cardio.

As for surviving a sinking ship, yes they do that sometimes. A marine once tread water for 3 days in the ocean without a life vest. No fat ass is going to accomplish that, and generally speaking you don't need to swim ashore.. . you just need to swim long enough for a rescue chopper or another ship to find you.

In Basic Training you are taught to use your clothing for floatations.

Yeah, although now the working uniforms are blue camo BDU's. Guess they want you to blend in with the water if you go overboard. Brilliant!

 

[WinterBorn]

We didn't have that in the 70's either. I remember lots of big fat chiefs when I was in. The only time I had to pass a PT test was in boot camp. Didn't have to worry about that shit out in the fleet.

They had it in the 80s and 90s. If you got too fat, they put you in a program for overweight people. If you were unable to get your weight down, you were discharged from service. They were tired of fat fucks making the Navy look bad, plus fat people arent good swimmers so its a safety issue.

Safety issue? First, fat floats better than muscle. But more important, if their ship sinks in the Atlantic, do you think anyone will be swimming to shore?

It doesn't matter if it floats "better". You still need good cardio to stay afloat for long periods in the ocean. Fat people don't have good cardio.

As for surviving a sinking ship, yes they do that sometimes. A marine once tread water for 3 days in the ocean without a life vest. No fat ass is going to accomplish that, and generally speaking you don't need to swim ashore.. . you just need to swim long enough for a rescue chopper or another ship to find you.

In Basic Training you are taught to use your clothing for floatations.

Yeah, but that takes a lot of cardio. Your pants work as a floatation device for maybe a minute or two, then you have to go through the exercise of slamming them into the water as hard as you can, and it usually takes a couple attempts to do it right.

A minute or two? Mine stayed inflated for almost 30 mins.

And BMI does not equate to fitness.

 

[Godboy]

They had it in the 80s and 90s. If you got too fat, they put you in a program for overweight people. If you were unable to get your weight down, you were discharged from service. They were tired of fat fucks making the Navy look bad, plus fat people arent good swimmers so its a safety issue.

Safety issue? First, fat floats better than muscle. But more important, if their ship sinks in the Atlantic, do you think anyone will be swimming to shore?

It doesn't matter if it floats "better". You still need good cardio to stay afloat for long periods in the ocean. Fat people don't have good cardio.

As for surviving a sinking ship, yes they do that sometimes. A marine once tread water for 3 days in the ocean without a life vest. No fat ass is going to accomplish that, and generally speaking you don't need to swim ashore.. . you just need to swim long enough for a rescue chopper or another ship to find you.

In Basic Training you are taught to use your clothing for floatations.

Yeah, but that takes a lot of cardio. Your pants work as a floatation device for maybe a minute or two, then you have to go through the exercise of slamming them into the water as hard as you can, and it usually takes a couple attempts to do it right.

A minute or two? Mine stayed inflated for almost 30 mins.

And BMI does not equate to fitness.

I bet they were boot camp issues which are completely full of starch. No one uses that much starch after bootcamp.

Plus, your 30 minute claim seems a bit far fetched to me, though I also said a minute or two, which is probably more like 5-10 minutes.

 

[rightwinger]

Women are now allowed to have 36% body fat, while men must be under 26%. It should be 10% and the same for both sexes.

WORLD | Navy eases body fat standards in effort to retain sailors | Michael Cochrane | March 14, 2016

march 14 2016 Navy Petty Officer Lentoyi White, 26, feared she’d be dismissed from the service after twice failing the Navy’s body composition assessment (BCA), which measures body fat percentage. But in January, the Navy loosened its body fat restrictions for both men and women, giving White and thousands of other sailors another chance to stay in the Navy.

“I am very grateful for a second chance with this new policy,” said White, a single mother with a 5-year-old daughter. White has gone from 212 pounds to 188 and is optimistic she’ll pass this spring under the new standards.

Under the Navy’s previous standards, sailors had three chances to pass the BCA before being considered for dismissal. But now, the 2,400 sailors who failed all three will get another shot to pass the BCA under the new standards this spring.

The Navy’s old policy allowed for 22 percent body fat for males ages 17-39, and 33 percent body fat for females ages 17-39. The new standards increase the maximums to 26 percent for men and 36 percent for women, but those percentages are considered by many health experts to be in the obese category. According to the American Council on Exercise, a man with more than 25 percent body fat is considered obese. For women, 32 percent body fat counts as obese.

I thought men and women were supposed to be treated equally according to Liberals? Seems that only applies when it comes to benefiting not meeting a standard.

Yes, they are. But ignoring differences in the physiology is simply stupid.

Women have tits

It adds to your biomasso

So you do admit men and women are unequal?

Do I need to explain the birds and the bees?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

I agree with you for combat roles, if women want to be in combat, they need to pull their weight like the men, or they are the weak link. But applying an unfair standard, unfair because women aren't as naturally strong as men, to every MOS ultimately results in fewer women being given the opportunity to serve. So many positions in the military simply don't require that much physical strength.

How can applying the SAME standard to both sexes be unfair??? If women are allowed to have 36% body fat, then that should apply to men also.

Everyone agrees some jobs don't need superb fitness, but then the standards have to be reduced the same for both sexes. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

I didn't say inferior. I said different. But I can see why you would have to rewrite what I said.

You say women should be held to LOWER standards than men so yes, you are saying women are inferior. THINK, you miserable man-hating wretch.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

There really isn't a reason for these strict standards. There aren't too many really physically demanding jobs in the Navy. As long as you can do the job and can haul ass fast enough to get to your duty station during General Quarters.

yes yes yes. But the standards have to be the same for both sexes and that is NOT being done here. Never has been done. Women have always been held to lower standards and yet they demand equal pay!!! THINK

No they don't HAVE to be the same. By the way, grooming standards and dress standards are not the same for men and women either. This is because MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT! I feel like I'm talking to a raging idiot.

 

[Borillar]

There really isn't a reason for these strict standards. There aren't too many really physically demanding jobs in the Navy. As long as you can do the job and can haul ass fast enough to get to your duty station during General Quarters.

yes yes yes. But the standards have to be the same for both sexes and that is NOT being done here. Never has been done. Women have always been held to lower standards and yet they demand equal pay!!! THINK

No they don't HAVE to be the same. By the way, grooming standards and dress standards are not the same for men and women either. This is because MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT! I feel like I'm talking to a raging idiot.

That's because you ARE talking to a raging idiot.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

No they don't HAVE to be the same. By the way, grooming standards and dress standards are not the same for men and women either. This is because MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT! I feel like I'm talking to a raging idiot.

So what happened to your feminist claim that men and women are equal and have to get equal pay for the same job. If the men meet higher job standards shouldn't they be paid more?? THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

That's because you ARE talking to a raging idiot.

Got that right. These brainless liberals like "saint michael" talk and talk about equal treatment when they really want special treatment for women. They insist men and women get equal pay but the men must be held to tougher standards!!!

 

[WinterBorn]

I agree with you for combat roles, if women want to be in combat, they need to pull their weight like the men, or they are the weak link. But applying an unfair standard, unfair because women aren't as naturally strong as men, to every MOS ultimately results in fewer women being given the opportunity to serve. So many positions in the military simply don't require that much physical strength.

How can applying the SAME standard to both sexes be unfair??? If women are allowed to have 36% body fat, then that should apply to men also.

Everyone agrees some jobs don't need superb fitness, but then the standards have to be reduced the same for both sexes. THINK

Because the bodies are different. The BMI is designed to determine whether someone is overweight. A female body carries more fat, even if the female is physically fit.

 

[initforme]

If they are that stringent then nobody should join. Big deal.

 

[Conservative65]

Women are now allowed to have 36% body fat, while men must be under 26%. It should be 10% and the same for both sexes.

I thought men and women were supposed to be treated equally according to Liberals? Seems that only applies when it comes to benefiting not meeting a standard.

Yes, they are. But ignoring differences in the physiology is simply stupid.

Women have tits

It adds to your biomasso

So you do admit men and women are unequal?

I admit that a man and a woman, with the same fitness levels will have different percentages of body fat.

Not what the question asked retard.

 

[WinterBorn]

I thought men and women were supposed to be treated equally according to Liberals? Seems that only applies when it comes to benefiting not meeting a standard.

Yes, they are. But ignoring differences in the physiology is simply stupid.

Women have tits

It adds to your biomasso

So you do admit men and women are unequal?

I admit that a man and a woman, with the same fitness levels will have different percentages of body fat.

Not what the question asked retard.

The question, as asked , was stupid. Unequal? In what relevant way? Hell, for that matter, are all people of either gender equal?

In the context of the topic, your question was too vague and idiotic.

 

[rightwinger]

I agree with you for combat roles, if women want to be in combat, they need to pull their weight like the men, or they are the weak link. But applying an unfair standard, unfair because women aren't as naturally strong as men, to every MOS ultimately results in fewer women being given the opportunity to serve. So many positions in the military simply don't require that much physical strength.

How can applying the SAME standard to both sexes be unfair??? If women are allowed to have 36% body fat, then that should apply to men also.

Everyone agrees some jobs don't need superb fitness, but then the standards have to be reduced the same for both sexes. THINK

Because the bodies are different. The BMI is designed to determine whether someone is overweight. A female body carries more fat, even if the female is physically fit.

Women have curves
Women have boobs

It means they are different than men. Just because those things add to biomass is not reason to exclude them
Its the fucking Navy....not like they actually have to run anywhere
Most ships are only 100-200 yards long

 

[Conservative65]

I agree with you for combat roles, if women want to be in combat, they need to pull their weight like the men, or they are the weak link. But applying an unfair standard, unfair because women aren't as naturally strong as men, to every MOS ultimately results in fewer women being given the opportunity to serve. So many positions in the military simply don't require that much physical strength.

How can applying the SAME standard to both sexes be unfair??? If women are allowed to have 36% body fat, then that should apply to men also.

Everyone agrees some jobs don't need superb fitness, but then the standards have to be reduced the same for both sexes. THINK

Because the bodies are different. The BMI is designed to determine whether someone is overweight. A female body carries more fat, even if the female is physically fit.

Yes, they are. But ignoring differences in the physiology is simply stupid.

Women have tits

It adds to your biomasso

So you do admit men and women are unequal?

I admit that a man and a woman, with the same fitness levels will have different percentages of body fat.

Not what the question asked retard.

The question, as asked , was stupid. Unequal? In what relevant way? Hell, for that matter, are all people of either gender equal?

In the context of the topic, your question was too vague and idiotic.

Matter of opinion about the question. What's isn't vague is your stupidity. You claim that my question was vague and idiotic yet you chose to provide an answer. That makes you an idiot.

Liberals constantly clamor about men and women being equal. For the most part, it centers around the benefit side and what one gets. When it involves women being held to the same equal standard, in other word giving, the concept of equality no longer matters. In other words, getting equal = good. Giving equal = bad.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

That's because you ARE talking to a raging idiot.

Got that right. These brainless liberals like "saint michael" talk and talk about equal treatment when they really want special treatment for women. They insist men and women get equal pay but the men must be held to tougher standards!!!

He was calling you the raging idiot, dumbass.

 

[WinterBorn]

The Navy has a long history of adjusting standards to maintain readiness.

I agree with you for combat roles, if women want to be in combat, they need to pull their weight like the men, or they are the weak link. But applying an unfair standard, unfair because women aren't as naturally strong as men, to every MOS ultimately results in fewer women being given the opportunity to serve. So many positions in the military simply don't require that much physical strength.

How can applying the SAME standard to both sexes be unfair??? If women are allowed to have 36% body fat, then that should apply to men also.

Everyone agrees some jobs don't need superb fitness, but then the standards have to be reduced the same for both sexes. THINK

Because the bodies are different. The BMI is designed to determine whether someone is overweight. A female body carries more fat, even if the female is physically fit.

Women have tits

It adds to your biomasso

So you do admit men and women are unequal?

I admit that a man and a woman, with the same fitness levels will have different percentages of body fat.

Not what the question asked retard.

The question, as asked , was stupid. Unequal? In what relevant way? Hell, for that matter, are all people of either gender equal?

In the context of the topic, your question was too vague and idiotic.

Matter of opinion about the question. What's isn't vague is your stupidity. You claim that my question was vague and idiotic yet you chose to provide an answer. That makes you an idiot.

Liberals constantly clamor about men and women being equal. For the most part, it centers around the benefit side and what one gets. When it involves women being held to the same equal standard, in other word giving, the concept of equality no longer matters. In other words, getting equal = good. Giving equal = bad.

Absolute nonsense. And since the topic is about % of body fat by gender, the physiological differences are relevant. Just because I will not make a blanket statement about whether men and women are unequal in all ways is stupid.

The Navy (and the military in general) has a long history of adjusting standards to maintain readiness.

There was a time when judges gave convicted criminals a choice of jail or military service.

The US Submarine service requires perfect color vision. When there was a shortage of certain ratings, they removed that restriction for those ratings.

If women can perform their duties, and maintain their readiness, at a higher % of bodyfat, then the adjustment is made to keep well trained, good people.

 

[WinterBorn]

This chart shows ideal body fat percentages. It shows women have significantly more body fat at the same levels of fitness as men.
Ideal Body Fat Percentage Chart: How Lean Should You Be?

And this shows the physiological differences between the genders:
"Gender Differences in Fat Storage
It is well established that women generally have a higher percentage of body fat than men. A healthy range of body fat for women is 20-25%, and a healthy range of body fat for men is 10-15% (Robergs and Roberts, 1997). A body fat percentage over 20% for men or 30% for women is considered an indication of obesity. Body fat distribution varies among individuals and is a determinant of cardiovascular risk. Some people carry more of their body fat in and around the abdominal area. This type of fat deposition is called android, or apple body type and is most characteristic among males. The android body type is associated with a higher risk for cardiovascular disease. The body type most common among females is the gynoid, or pear body type. This body type is characterized by fat stores in the hip and thigh region (Robergs & Roberts, 1997). The scientific explanations for the dramatic difference in body fat distribution between men and women are largely unknown, although differences in hormones, hormone receptors, and enzyme concentrations play a contributing role. These possible mechanisms are discussed later in the section on epinephrine and lipolysis. See Sidebar 1 for two ways to determine your client’s body type and risk of cardiovascular disease."
from: Gender Differences in Fat Metabolism


So, for a man, having 25% body fat is a sign of obesity. Whereas a woman with 25% body fat is in the healthy range.

 

[Conservative65]

The Navy has a long history of adjusting standards to maintain readiness.

I agree with you for combat roles, if women want to be in combat, they need to pull their weight like the men, or they are the weak link. But applying an unfair standard, unfair because women aren't as naturally strong as men, to every MOS ultimately results in fewer women being given the opportunity to serve. So many positions in the military simply don't require that much physical strength.

How can applying the SAME standard to both sexes be unfair??? If women are allowed to have 36% body fat, then that should apply to men also.

Everyone agrees some jobs don't need superb fitness, but then the standards have to be reduced the same for both sexes. THINK

Because the bodies are different. The BMI is designed to determine whether someone is overweight. A female body carries more fat, even if the female is physically fit.

So you do admit men and women are unequal?

I admit that a man and a woman, with the same fitness levels will have different percentages of body fat.

Not what the question asked retard.

The question, as asked , was stupid. Unequal? In what relevant way? Hell, for that matter, are all people of either gender equal?

In the context of the topic, your question was too vague and idiotic.

Matter of opinion about the question. What's isn't vague is your stupidity. You claim that my question was vague and idiotic yet you chose to provide an answer. That makes you an idiot.

Liberals constantly clamor about men and women being equal. For the most part, it centers around the benefit side and what one gets. When it involves women being held to the same equal standard, in other word giving, the concept of equality no longer matters. In other words, getting equal = good. Giving equal = bad.

Absolute nonsense. And since the topic is about % of body fat by gender, the physiological differences are relevant. Just because I will not make a blanket statement about whether men and women are unequal in all ways is stupid.

The Navy (and the military in general) has a long history of adjusting standards to maintain readiness.

There was a time when judges gave convicted criminals a choice of jail or military service.

The US Submarine service requires perfect color vision. When there was a shortage of certain ratings, they removed that restriction for those ratings.

If women can perform their duties, and maintain their readiness, at a higher % of bodyfat, then the adjustment is made to keep well trained, good people.

The adjustment is made to appease.