More from Prevention: Healthier Fast Food. We call the men and women who lived through and fought in World War II the "greatest generation. Without immediate intervention, for the first time in modern history, we will start to see a reduction in life span.
In order to fully understand why we are now experiencing an epidemic of obesity , diabetes, and other chronic diseases, it's useful to take a look back to the genesis of the fast-food, sedentary culture that's responsible for our failing health. The better we understand the origins of our toxic lifestyle, the better the chance that we can turn things around.
Our problems really began as long ago as at the Vienna World's Fair, where a dazzling new invention called the steel roller mill was debuted. Though no one realized it at the time, this machine would herald the age of "refined grains. Next came two seemingly unrelated innovations that proved to be true game changers: the home refrigerator and the family car. By , home refrigerators were fairly commonplace, which meant that people could stock up on food instead of shopping every day.
By the s, food could be transported long distances in refrigerated trucks or railway cars. This meant that people didn't need to shop locally for fresh food.
Small corner markets were replaced by larger grocery stores. And once the family car became commonplace by the s, no one even needed to walk to that store. And the march of technology continued. The shelf life of already-bad-for-you baked goods became further extended with partially hydrogenated oils known as trans fats, which became widespread starting in the s.
Canned goods, packaged foods, and frozen TV dinners became available. And it wasn't long before the quality of the family dinner began to change dramatically, thanks to the advent of the fast-food restaurant.
Labor-saving devices—and the digital revolution—only compounded the problem, as we consumed more calories and burned off fewer of them. Which brings me to the robotic lawn mower. Generations ago, when grass had to be cut, you took out a machete and hacked it down.
It was grueling work. The manual cylinder mower in the nineteenth century saved time but still took a fair amount of muscle—until it yielded in the twentieth century to the power mower that practically moved itself, followed by the tractor mower that allowed you to sit while mowing the grass. Today, you can do the job without even leaving the house. If you don't believe me, just Google "robotic lawn mower.
The effects of the fast-food, sedentary culture have become clear. We've known for many years how obesity, metabolic syndrome, and diabetes damage the cardiovascular system. But it's only recently that we've begun to appreciate how other organs are adversely affected. An analysis of 97 studies, published in the New England Journal of Medicine , found that diabetes is associated with an increase in the number of premature deaths from nonvascular diseases such as pneumonia and other respiratory diseases, renal disease, liver disease, endocrine disorders, neurological diseases such as Alzheimer's, and even suicide.
It is also associated with premature deaths from many forms of cancer, including liver, pancreatic, ovarian, colon, bladder, lung, and breast, among others. And in a study from Sweden, published in the journal Neurology , 8, twins who had their height and weight checked when they were in their early- to mid-forties were evaluated for dementia when they were in their seventies to early eighties.
Those with a history of being overweight or obese at midlife were more likely to suffer from dementia later. So after I've given you all this bad news about the unintended health consequences of our modern lifestyle, you may think that I'm about to recommend that we all return to the forest and live like hunter-gatherers. Actually, nothing could be further from the truth.
First of all, I enjoy living in my air-conditioned home, watching football games on high-definition TV, surfing the Web, and doing almost all of my shopping online. And second, we generally live better—and longer—due to technology think medical advances and sanitation.
About this product. Make an offer:. Stock photo. New other : Lowest price The lowest-priced item in unused and unworn condition with absolutely no signs of wear. Buy It Now. Add to cart. Make Offer. Release Date: Sku: See details - Combat Fat! Sold by mercantilemporium About this product Product Information Provides an eight week diet and exercise program that focuses on the percentage of body fat as the leading indicator of health rather than body weight.
We all know it's no fun being shot at, but there is a huge difference in taking fire from a MG42 at meters in salt water and sand then there is taking fire from a RPK at meters when wearing body armor head to crotch.
There is also a difference in shooting semi aimed bursts and rapid semi auto fire and holding your M4 over a wall spraying 30 rounds into the world around you. I do agree though that ammo is not the weight to cut from a troops gear. An old saying in Vietnam was not to carry another can of Sardines but to carry another box of loose ammo or another magazine…..
Well you saw it on YouTube you must be an expert. Didn't have full auto M4s issued to units until And there's a difference between being shot at from M away and being shot at from 5 M down a hallway from a fully auto AK. I would give these kids sacrificing their lives a little more credit. Have seen plenty of these kids shot and blown into bits despite being armored "head to crotch. My first comment is a little tongue-in-cheek, but you identified the best addition to the current transport lineup in your article: the mule.
Able to go pretty much anywhere infantrymen can go. New technology is not always the answer…. My second has more to do with organization. The fact that the infantryman has to carry such a ridiculous load SO OFTEN says more about inadequate organization at multiple levels mission planning, operations, tactics, etc.
Oh man, exactly what I was thinking. During WW2 and post war, militaries were so eager to get rid of pack animals. It's honestly a bit of a mistake. Sure they require immense amount of water and food, but they are invaluable to a army's mobile logistics train. Trucks are limited to road or hard surfaces in general. Tracked vehicles are less limited, but more fuel hungry. And all vehicles are still limited by rocky terrain or dense forestry.
Instead of a mechanical mule that is loud, require trained technician… horses, camels and mules are better. Camels and mules are actually the best pack animals, better than horses. Keeping pack animals for tactical level logistics would be very helpful.
Trucks can be long distance base to base. But when troops are moving out from base or from their encampment, only pack animals will keep up. This is not a new problem. When I jump today I carry pounds of high-tech, light equipment. How about ammunition instead? During the Revolutionary War, lightly-equipped, fast moving colonials, using asymmetric guerrilla warfare tactics, defeated marching ranks of British infantry further bogged down by supply wagons.
Have we become the equivalent of a 17th century Army? Yeah I'd say the 17th century equivalent is true. In modern flavor. Too slow to move. Too massive of an organization to change to new tactics when required to win. Put the generals in the front lines with the troops and the paper pushers will change what needs changing. Marine Officers has been able to meet the requirement, so why should we lower the standards to accommodate females.
Your reply is so off base. Nothing about all of this is about females. Stop it. Yes they were at the beginning of the article, go back and open your pretty little snowflake eyes hunny. The point is still missed tho, the main point is not about accomodating females, its about lowering ridiculous overweight issue that happens on infantries.
Its just happens to quote one retired soldier suggestion that mention about this ridiculously heavy load hinders females participants in Marine's Officer test, which is agreed by other male former military man that also regards this standard as unrealistic, and lowering this will not just benefiting servicewomen, but servicemen as well.
They Marine's Officer are able to pass this of course, but why we should hang in this unrealistic standard that will harmfull to both soldier's condition and operations in the future? Why should we burden our troops just to fulfill our unnecessary machismo standard? We training troops, not masochistic donkeys. Rez pounds is not unrealistic, especially for troops that are specialized in crew-served heavy weapons like mortars, machine guns and rocket launchers.
I was in a weapons platoon and carried loads of up to lbs at times. In addition to a standard rifleman's load, I carried 2 or 3 rockets that weighed 14 pounds each. There were guys with heavier loads than me. Ali, your statement is from a year or so ago,but get off the female part okay. If the Marine Corps fines that officer's need to carry this load, so be it. No Monday Morning Quarter backing okay.
No, females are not equal. They can't run as fast as men talking enlisted women not track stars , they aren't as strong hence muscle strength and endurance is lower.
There are plenty of jobs for women that put them on the battle field or air space over the battle field. But ground pounding maybe just isn't the one thing for them. Tanks, choppers, mortars, etc. Yes, to better and lighter equipment!!
You should think before you type. Your political correctness is foolish. As a former infantryman the idea that woman can perform as well as men is a joke not to mention hygiene issues. Also sexual distractions. Woman cant do what men can do. That is ridiculous nonsense. Including woman in a real combat unit will without a doubt reduce combat effectiveness. Dont they already have enough to worry about!
Preach it. Seems it's just more of a conspiracy against women to keep them from being physically equal to men…lol. Oh, wait. Biology dictates that. I feel we have become too relent on tech as a solution to our problems. Like Bradleys and hmmvws today, exos and mules will go down in the future. What cannot break is the infantryman, he must be able to take the weight carried by the machine and move forward without its help. The radios consume countless batteries and no solar panel, or NATO slave module, can keep up with the demand.
We need to train leaders to use brevity and reduce their EM signatures, the byproduct of this being survivability and extended battery life. For sustaining the warfighter, I would argue we pamper our infantrymen too often. The answer is reduce the size and creativity of the MRE when patrolling.
MREs have countless ounces of unnecessary weight. They have remained the same cubic center meter dimensions they did a decade ago and have reduced superficial weight through removing some cardboard packaging. Focus soldiers food intake on fuel for patrolling and not the contents of the meal. These are only two ideas, not the absolute best answers, but what I would attack before spending money in our budget constrained environment on something that might not solve the problem.
Decent points but it's already standard practice to field strip MREs and take only the basics unless we're operating from a vehicle. The discussion on the correct load for a soldier to carry is fair enough. Virtually all women have failed at this task in military tests and in civilian fire departments. The latter have been pressured to lower standards and some have. Foreign military forces like those of Canada, require the test be performed with someone of comparable weight.
This artificially makes it possible for women to succeed. The bottom line is that there are more strength-endurance issues in all branches of the military than just the fighting load carried by the infantry. This article has nothing to do with females being allowed in the infantry. Reducing the weight on any soldier or Marine is beneficial, regardless of gender.
Oh yeah is the response to lb load? Dumb, dumber , dumbest. We spend endless time and dollars training our soldiers and providing them with superior skills and then overload them to the point those skills are negated.
The questions of combat load require two things, discipline and moral courage. Not on the part of the grunts but on the part of the commanders. Tell us, commander, why are heavier casualties acceptable to you? Because the infantry must close with and destroy the enemy not be a pack mule. If the unit needs something, have it freaking delivered via the myriad machines that we are blessed with.
Grunts will always have to hump but their commanders are to protect them from stupidity not encourage it. Go talk to the troops that had to Ruck that pounds under fire. Many are on disabilities today with back injuries. They are furious and would have given up pounds or more of mostly useless side and rear armor. They liked the flak jackets for urban. They liked the armor when sitting in vehicle turrets. They all complained too much to carry. What has changed is ceramic and metal plate armor.
It weighs a ton. Yes it's way better and lighter than previous generations. It still weighs a lot. Why are they carrying soft gel pistol protection armor?
The gel everywhere else armor won't stop a Russian 7. To adjust for winds or gravity. Dear God… Reload the ammo brass case spent on training in US. Double the training time on shooting range for all enlisted. Same costs. Better performance on infantry accuracy. Spread the training sessions out because the shooting skill is perishable.
That is SAD. Many complaints of "expert marksmen" failing to hit barn at 40 yards on first deployment. Stop equipping CQB red dots on mountainous long range environments with no cover. ACOG or better yet a variable zoom scope!!!! But someone who has more range time with iron sights will shoot better than any multi thousand dollar optic dude who has only shot rounds or less. The enemy uses Russian PKM. It's lighter than a FN and uses heavier ammo.
It has slightly more range than 7. The enemy has packable mortars. They have reliable reloadable RPGs. Need to equip more Carl Gustavs squad level. Blow hole in mud hut. Reload-able high explosive lobber. Bring back infantry mortars. Screw treaties. This is war. Our grunts are being out ranged by enemy not following treaty. And it doesn't take an Apache or Cobra to always save our grunts. They need more tools and weapons to select for what THEY feel is necessary.
Let the troops equip what they want. That's right. That's how special forces role. And they learn to adapt different weapons for different missions. That way they aren't overburdened with unnecessary shit. You guys give our guys single shot AT weapons. The enemy has learned the range limits and slow mobility of our soldiers. The army never approved the hk21E. It was the lightest 7. Oh it's not has operated. It had no gas system to clog. It's a belt fed machine gun the weight of an average sniper system.
Why complain???? No let the poor grunt carry a tank mounted FN Bravo crew served weapon firing same round at lbs. I'm not even military and I can pick better gear than these jerks do. First off. Listen to troops. Let troops pick what they want and what they need.
Then you will win. Here's an idea. Pick up enemy weapons and use their freaking ammo caches they bought… Because you can't always get resupplied. The Fins slaughtered the Russians that way. They were too poor to buy much ammo.
Why are you lugging tow missile launchers up a mountain side? By foot. When the enemy tanks don't climb said hills?
0コメント