Plunging physical fitness test scores are even worse.[1] "Fat people don't make good soldiers … they get themselves or others hurt or killed." The US military says 31% of US youth are too fat to serve. 77% are not qualified for one or more reasons.[2]
Only 12% of American male youth who are qualified for the military are not in college.
Think about that. About 2/3 of American male youth are not good enough for either college or the military. That's a high reject rate.
Because the political will doesn't exist. Because being fat is portrayed as a moral failing. Because the Protestant work ethic's[1] virtue of self-discipline extended to health and eating. I guess it's kinda strange to carry the mantle of the protestants without being protestant one's self, yet it happens.
Kind of hard to feel sorry for the richest country in the world when they refuse to spend enough money to take care of their people enough to even meet basic national security standards.
Taking care of them was historically about calorie and nutrientmaxxing. Subsidized calories have worked too well, worldwide, and there's no response to it within the current Overton window.
And these calories are in the water supply? No, the fat people choose to buy and eat that food. I'm on a 700C deficit right now, it's not very fun, but it works because I have the discipline to not order a pizza.
It can be, but so can existing as an ordinary citizen and not devoting your life to activism, abstaining from everything but the most sustainable resources. Some people lose or maintain weight with zero effort, while some have significantly lower TDEEs and experience actual Minnesota-starvation effects, so I disagree. At least make the moral failing not doing the basics, like planned meals with whole foods and some amount of exercise, so it’s fair.
Anyways regardless, morality is irrelevant here. The rest of society would be better off if these people lost weight, and I doubt forcing them would go well, but voluntary GLPs would.
It's much more effective to address the obesity problem on the front end.
We have fast food and junk food advertising targeting kids. Kids are driven to school instead of walking or biking. School lunches are optimized to be cheap not nutritious. Pediatricians have to tap dance around weight. When the Obama Administration tried to push for healthier lunches there was pushback from the right over government bad, from industry over higher costs, and from school districts over costs. Healthier food for kids could not win a durable political coalition!
Why not both? Because we’ve been “addressing on the front end” for a while without results. Making places walkable and getting (especially already obese) kids onto healthy food are things we should be doing, but need more support and take longer than a drug, which admittedly has side effects but seems healthier than waiting.
And Obama’s healthier lunches received pushback because they had some stupid requirements, like reducing salt intake, and poor implementation: maybe not Obama’s fault, but should’ve been addressed, IME students were forced to take a fruit or vegetable they would just throw away, and sometimes the “fruit” were these gross bananas that were simultaneously green and brown/mushy. They also received pushback from kids themselves and their parents.
> It's much more effective to address the obesity problem on the front end.
Is it? GLPs cost literally pennies to manufacture in bulk. The government could easily justify a trillion to just buy the rights and give it away for free and still come out ahead on healthcare cost savings.
Everything your suggesting sounds like a lot of work by comparison.
GLPs require some good dietician advice to be given and followed to be effective, otherwise you are just trading off obesity for an eating disorder. You really have to do both, provide the high protein + high fiber food alternatives and the GLP to make cheating less likely.
Have you taken them? Because I see this “you still need virtue^Wdiscipline” refrain a lot, but it doesn’t match my experience or that of many others I know who use GLP-1s.
For me, I lost 50 lbs not exercising and not actively managing my diet. I felt better and all my biomarkers got better (blood pressure, cholesterol, etc.). Later, I started to exercise and cleaned up my diet because I wanted to. Healthy food just tastes better now, and moving my body is satisfying rather than tiring. They are the closest thing to magic I’ve ever experienced.
I'm talking from direct experience here. Although I'm over 50 (years, not lbs) so that definitely can make my experience different from yours (assuming you are younger, but that's just an assumption, my health/body could also be different).
Also, constipation and muscle loss are real issues. Protein and exercise will help with muscle loss (well, I haven't really started weight training yet, just aerobic), but you need to up your water and fiber intake or you could be in for a very hard time. I'm glad that this didn't happen to you, and that you didn't have to take an emergency trip to the drug store to figure out what an enema was (and how to use it, ouch).
On each ramp I had constipation issues, but they seem to have mellowed as I got used to the dose. The dietician has been really useful, I recommend that anyone who wants to get started with this look into a video consult (no need to attend in person), insurances generally cover the dietician faster than they will your GLP dosage, and they are good at providing solutions to balance out your diet long term if you can't figure it out on your own.
That's not even vaguely true a low dose is effective enough at reducing hungry enough to get slow and steady weight loss and require zero planning or effort on the users part.
The only time you need a dietician is if you want a high enough dose you barely want to eat at all.
Ironically that GLP-1 blocker prescription would potentially make you ineligible. You have to take that pill for the rest of your life, and the military generally doesn't want to deploy combat troops dependent on a consistent supply of non-life saving medications.
The future of warfare is robotic warfare, specifically large volumes of cheap attritionable autonomous munitions.
Human soldiers are legacy technology that do not fare well against drones, for evidence (obligatory NSFW tag):
Check reddit
/r/CombatFootage/
Human soldiers are still used extensively on the battlefield - but are in the process of being replaced by machines.
We have heard this so many times. The future was mechanized warfare, or missiles, or aircraft, or stealth jets. It seems that now in Russia/Ukraine, pretty much all forms of mechanized warfare have been rendered irrelevant and you can't achieve military objectives no matter how many bombing runs you conduct with your planes. And those planes are not safe either. Same goes for Iran. You still need the guys to go in.
Another way to view those conflicts is that (horrible as it is to say) neither side has anywhere near enough missiles to completely disable their opponents.
As a thought exercise, imagine if ukraine had 100k missiles ready in a silo.
> ...neither side has anywhere near enough missiles to completely disable their opponents.
Try the US/Iran war for size then.
I'm not sure what you mean by "completely disable their opponents" - there may not be a country on earth with enough munitions to do this against a competent and resilient adversary - the Vietnam war comes to mind where the US still lost after dropping triple the bombs (by tonnage) of what the entire allied forces dropped during WWII across all theaters
My understanding is that Russia despite falling far from its USSR days, still had multiple times more capacity to make Iskander-s, than the US can make ATACMS (and Iskanders are way better too). The PrSM, the US based successor is just about to enter volume production, and will be years till they can be made by the hundreds.
At least that was the case before Ukraine started blowing up Russian factories. And for the rest of Europe, their capacities are somehow even worse.
And in any case, Russian missiles were a drop in the bucket compared to drones.
So building high performance missiles in a volume needed for sustained conflict is not something any military has managed to do so far.
(Not shilling for any side, just my honest opinion, plz dont dogpile on this, I don't care about any side's national greatness)
"As a thought exercise, imagine if ukraine had 100k missiles ready in a silo."
Imagine if they had air superiority. For some reason people ignore this when analyzing the war in Ukraine. Drones are great for denial (defense). So far they are shit at assaults (offense). Also, drones don't do well in environments with military aircraft. We just don't see that in Ukraine because they are very few aircraft in the skies. The Russians haven't flown into Ukrainian airspace in over 3 years now. They launch their missiles and glide bombs from their side of the border.
Russian autocrats agree. 1.5M Russian casualties in the last 5 years(!) with an unprecedented fatality ratio, but sure, you still need the guys to go in.
> The future of warfare is robotic warfare, specifically large volumes of cheap attritionable autonomous munitions
The robots are made to kill people on the other side until you hopefully win, otherwise political disagreements could be settled via best of 3 CoD games - or chess if you're more traditional. Recruitment of humans is still required for fodder.
Even before that, I feel like the abolition of conscription has changed the stock of American soldiers (who used to be prime-age males from all walks of life), to a much younger cohort where misfits and lower classes were overrepresented.
I think perception of American military strength rests somewhat on the image of the square-jawed, rugged soldier, which was very much a staple of combat propaganda, but used to be more like an embellishment of the truth, rather than outright fiction.
Video games of the 2000s-2010s, like the CoD series, have usually cast this WW2-Vietnam era image onto the GWOT era, with the heroic characters fighting in the middle-east this time. It was kind of surreal to see actual authentic footage of awkward gangly teens wearing the same uniforms.
I don't think so. I think what was meant was what was literally said: that 88% of youth qualified for the military are in college.
66% of youth are not qualified for the military or college, leaving a remainder of 34% that are qualified for the military, college, or both.
X% of youth qualified for college but not the military (qualified for college here meaning attending college, I think.), leaving (34-X)%.
Of those, 88% attend college .88(34-X)%,
leaving .12(34-X)% eligible for recruitment. Which ends up a successful recruiting number like 63.5K, which is from one of the references.
I could be wrong, but it could make sense.
But also, 2/3rds of 34% also leaves a remainder of about 12% (which is a bit coincidental), so maybe what was meant to be said was that only 12% of (all American youth) are (qualified) and not (in college), rather than only 12% of (the qualified) are not (in college.)
Not to downplay the reality of the situation here, but being not qualified in this case just means not being able to walk into a recruiting office and sign a contract without a waiver. The military processes tens of thousands of waivers every year for past legal infractions, tattoo policy exemptions, medical history stuff, etc. Anyone currently taking something like ADHD medication who isn't willing to stop receiving treatment for the condition is ineligible for instance.
It's kind of asinine that one can be demonstrably stable over a long term and do all sorts of things operationally in the intelligence community, but could not even become a 92G (culinary specialist) in the Army.
In high school (in the 90s) I was badgered by military recruiter phone calls. I’m not sure why they were fixated on me, but I had several military in my family (including my mother) and I was a good athlete so maybe that was a part of it. I don’t know. Finally, out of frustration I told one of the recruiters that I was gay (which is not true) and he quickly responded “the modern military takes all kinds” and then I followed up with “and I have asthma.” (which IS true) Click. They never called back after that.
My freshman year cross country course record still stands, 34 years later. I’ve always thought how strange it was that the merest whiff of asthma was disqualifying.
I really have no idea how we (the US) would stand up a meaningful sized army today if a larger war were to break out. Between obesity and the widespread use of psychological medications a huge swath of the population is ineligible to serve.
Sure, then we just need to ensure that any forward fighting force has reliable access to Adderall. Seems reasonable for modern warfare, after all it seems like the Nazis may have been delivering heroine to their front lines.
Animats · · focus · HN ↗
Only 12% of American male youth who are qualified for the military are not in college.
Think about that. About 2/3 of American male youth are not good enough for either college or the military. That's a high reject rate.
[1] <a href="https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/10/10/one-third-youths-too-obese-military-service-study-finds.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/10/10/one-third-you...
[2] <a href="https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/09/28/new-pentagon-study-shows-77-of-young-americans-are-ineligible-military-service.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/09/28/new-pentagon-...
armchairhacker · · focus · HN ↗
dpkirchner · · focus · HN ↗
parineum · · focus · HN ↗
supertrope · · focus · HN ↗
parineum · · focus · HN ↗
[1] <a href="https://nchsdata.cdc.gov/dqs?topic=personal-healthcare-spending&topic_id=111160&subtopic=all-personal-health-care&group=&subgroup=&range=2023-to-2024&estimate=number-of-dollars-in-billions&subtopic_id=610090" rel="nofollow">https://nchsdata.cdc.gov/dqs?topic=personal-healthcare-spend...
[2] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_federal_budget" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_federal_bud...
oklahomasports · · focus · HN ↗
kelseyfrog · · focus · HN ↗
1. <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249628161_The_moralizing_of_obesity_A_new_name_for_an_old_sin" rel="nofollow">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249628161_The_moral...
LadyCailin · · focus · HN ↗
9x39 · · focus · HN ↗
what · · focus · HN ↗
kelseyfrog · · focus · HN ↗
what · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
kelseyfrog · · focus · HN ↗
ThePowerOfFuet · · focus · HN ↗
eudamoniac · · focus · HN ↗
armchairhacker · · focus · HN ↗
Anyways regardless, morality is irrelevant here. The rest of society would be better off if these people lost weight, and I doubt forcing them would go well, but voluntary GLPs would.
V__ · · focus · HN ↗
neutronicus · · focus · HN ↗
supertrope · · focus · HN ↗
We have fast food and junk food advertising targeting kids. Kids are driven to school instead of walking or biking. School lunches are optimized to be cheap not nutritious. Pediatricians have to tap dance around weight. When the Obama Administration tried to push for healthier lunches there was pushback from the right over government bad, from industry over higher costs, and from school districts over costs. Healthier food for kids could not win a durable political coalition!
armchairhacker · · focus · HN ↗
And Obama’s healthier lunches received pushback because they had some stupid requirements, like reducing salt intake, and poor implementation: maybe not Obama’s fault, but should’ve been addressed, IME students were forced to take a fruit or vegetable they would just throw away, and sometimes the “fruit” were these gross bananas that were simultaneously green and brown/mushy. They also received pushback from kids themselves and their parents.
overfeed · · focus · HN ↗
The government is also heavily subsidizing corn, which made corn syrup the cheapest sweetener.
tick_tock_tick · · focus · HN ↗
Is it? GLPs cost literally pennies to manufacture in bulk. The government could easily justify a trillion to just buy the rights and give it away for free and still come out ahead on healthcare cost savings.
Everything your suggesting sounds like a lot of work by comparison.
seanmcdirmid · · focus · HN ↗
ericbarrett · · focus · HN ↗
For me, I lost 50 lbs not exercising and not actively managing my diet. I felt better and all my biomarkers got better (blood pressure, cholesterol, etc.). Later, I started to exercise and cleaned up my diet because I wanted to. Healthy food just tastes better now, and moving my body is satisfying rather than tiring. They are the closest thing to magic I’ve ever experienced.
seanmcdirmid · · focus · HN ↗
Also, constipation and muscle loss are real issues. Protein and exercise will help with muscle loss (well, I haven't really started weight training yet, just aerobic), but you need to up your water and fiber intake or you could be in for a very hard time. I'm glad that this didn't happen to you, and that you didn't have to take an emergency trip to the drug store to figure out what an enema was (and how to use it, ouch).
ericbarrett · · focus · HN ↗
seanmcdirmid · · focus · HN ↗
tick_tock_tick · · focus · HN ↗
The only time you need a dietician is if you want a high enough dose you barely want to eat at all.
_heimdall · · focus · HN ↗
raz32dust · · focus · HN ↗
armchairhacker · · focus · HN ↗
_heimdall · · focus · HN ↗
pgryko · · focus · HN ↗
Human soldiers are legacy technology that do not fare well against drones, for evidence (obligatory NSFW tag): Check reddit /r/CombatFootage/
Human soldiers are still used extensively on the battlefield - but are in the process of being replaced by machines.
torginus · · focus · HN ↗
boredatoms · · focus · HN ↗
As a thought exercise, imagine if ukraine had 100k missiles ready in a silo.
overfeed · · focus · HN ↗
Try the US/Iran war for size then.
I'm not sure what you mean by "completely disable their opponents" - there may not be a country on earth with enough munitions to do this against a competent and resilient adversary - the Vietnam war comes to mind where the US still lost after dropping triple the bombs (by tonnage) of what the entire allied forces dropped during WWII across all theaters
torginus · · focus · HN ↗
At least that was the case before Ukraine started blowing up Russian factories. And for the rest of Europe, their capacities are somehow even worse.
And in any case, Russian missiles were a drop in the bucket compared to drones.
So building high performance missiles in a volume needed for sustained conflict is not something any military has managed to do so far.
(Not shilling for any side, just my honest opinion, plz dont dogpile on this, I don't care about any side's national greatness)
hunterpayne · · focus · HN ↗
Imagine if they had air superiority. For some reason people ignore this when analyzing the war in Ukraine. Drones are great for denial (defense). So far they are shit at assaults (offense). Also, drones don't do well in environments with military aircraft. We just don't see that in Ukraine because they are very few aircraft in the skies. The Russians haven't flown into Ukrainian airspace in over 3 years now. They launch their missiles and glide bombs from their side of the border.
onlypassingthru · · focus · HN ↗
nyczomg · · focus · HN ↗
GuB-42 · · focus · HN ↗
You still need people to occupy the place, take control of objectives, interact with the population, etc... Otherwise, you are just making craters.
An advanced army with appropriate support can make a soldier 10x more effective, but you still need a soldier to begin with.
bliteben · · focus · HN ↗
overfeed · · focus · HN ↗
The robots are made to kill people on the other side until you hopefully win, otherwise political disagreements could be settled via best of 3 CoD games - or chess if you're more traditional. Recruitment of humans is still required for fodder.
torginus · · focus · HN ↗
I think perception of American military strength rests somewhat on the image of the square-jawed, rugged soldier, which was very much a staple of combat propaganda, but used to be more like an embellishment of the truth, rather than outright fiction.
Video games of the 2000s-2010s, like the CoD series, have usually cast this WW2-Vietnam era image onto the GWOT era, with the heroic characters fighting in the middle-east this time. It was kind of surreal to see actual authentic footage of awkward gangly teens wearing the same uniforms.
le-mark · · focus · HN ↗
puzzledobserver · · focus · HN ↗
Without reading your citations, your argument threw me for a loop.
pessimizer · · focus · HN ↗
66% of youth are not qualified for the military or college, leaving a remainder of 34% that are qualified for the military, college, or both.
X% of youth qualified for college but not the military (qualified for college here meaning attending college, I think.), leaving (34-X)%.
Of those, 88% attend college .88(34-X)%,
leaving .12(34-X)% eligible for recruitment. Which ends up a successful recruiting number like 63.5K, which is from one of the references.
I could be wrong, but it could make sense.
But also, 2/3rds of 34% also leaves a remainder of about 12% (which is a bit coincidental), so maybe what was meant to be said was that only 12% of (all American youth) are (qualified) and not (in college), rather than only 12% of (the qualified) are not (in college.)
leodler · · focus · HN ↗
It's kind of asinine that one can be demonstrably stable over a long term and do all sorts of things operationally in the intelligence community, but could not even become a 92G (culinary specialist) in the Army.
raddan · · focus · HN ↗
My freshman year cross country course record still stands, 34 years later. I’ve always thought how strange it was that the merest whiff of asthma was disqualifying.
_heimdall · · focus · HN ↗
neutronicus · · focus · HN ↗
_heimdall · · focus · HN ↗
juanani · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]