well, you do need all your kidneys...
also, apparently GEDs don't qualify - you need to have gotten the high school diploma on the first round.
I'd like to see a breakdown of what percentages are disqualified by what requirements. Sexual orientation has got to be a rather small percentage of the total pool. The most mutable one is fitness level, I would think, but I don't know what they're talking about, and mere out-of-shape/soft is something training is supposed to address. It must refer to more intractable physical problems than that.
Perhaps someone can tease the headline stat apart with some googling, but it doesn't seem that surprising. Almost no one has a hish school diploma at age 17 (depends on your burthday and graduation date.) That's 12% of your pool right there. The percent of people who ever graduate high school is 70 something, so that's another .25 * .88 = ~20% of the pool that's out. Fitness is probably another big one, if they use something like BMI then we've all heard about how over half of people are overweight by that rather inaccurate standard.
Basic training, which traditionally has been an important tool in weeding out the inept and unfit, has been made less difficult. "You'll get guys who have never run a mile," an Army spokesman told USA Today in a story that ran last July. "Rather than throw them out, we said, 'Let's change the training so we don't injure them.'"
2- to enlist, a man (I don't know the standards for women, but they're a little lower) must be able to run an 8:30 mile, do I believe 13 consecutive pushups, and 20 situps. (The 13 and 20 numbers may be slightly off -- I'm reciting from memory. But that's the general idea. And I know the 8:30 is right.) If you can't do this you are considered unfit to enroll in basic training. Obviously you'd have to be pathologically unfit to fail to meet these standards, but it wouldn't suprise me if some 18-24 year olds couldn't.
Asthma and it's ilk are probably bigger factors. There's been an explosion in asthma incidence over the last few decades, and you can't get anywhere near the armed forces if you've ever had it.
4- the 8:30 mile requirement in 5 is current -- I took it from the recruiting materials of a good friend who is in the process of enlisting.
3- I forgot there are weight requirements, too. I don't know whether they're based on BMI or what (I think they are), but whatever they're based on I'm sure they weed out quite a few.
1- if a GED instead of a diploma is your only shortfall, they will almost certainly waive you in.
We had one or two fat guys in basic training; I remember dropping back to try and help when one was in distress, running with full equipment. But not many, now that I think of it, and that was the draft army, nearly forty years ago.
Following on 8, though, you're probably right that they aren't counting waivers for this 3 in 10 statistic, so GED's wouldn't make the cut.
Here's a book on the fitness standards.
"The top five medical disqualifiers accounted for 53% of the total medical disqualifications from May 2003 to April 2005: excessive BMI and body fat (23.3%), use of marijuana (12.6%), mental health (6.1%), lower extremity injury (5.8%), and diseases of the lungs (5.3%).
Max BMI varies by service, 27.5 for army to 31 for marines. If you fail BMI, they'll still consider you if your body fat % is acceptable, so obese (by BMI) Russell Crowe could still enlist. Alas, I fail by 2 pounds for the army.
I'm actually not surprised at all, on the basis of the 8:30 mile. That's a standard that I'd expect anyone healthy to be able to get to pretty fast (like, a week or two of making an effort) but a lot of kids are sedentary enough that I'd expect them to have trouble running a mile at all, regardless of at a reasonable rate of speed.
Max BMI varies by service, 27.5 for army to 31 for marines.
I would have expected the Marines to have the more rigorous standard. May I say that the Marines have the finest PR department in the world, and that the army needs to raid the Marines' PR talent pool?
I'm finding it disturbingly difficult to find online the phyiscal standards I refenced in 5, which were written in plain english in my friend's recruiting materials. In my hunt, however, I did find these standards of medical fitness, cha[ter 2 of which contains the physical standards for enlistment. (But, again, it's all in medical terms, rather than in terms of the basic tests, ie. 13 pushups and an 8:30 mile.) These standards are pretty comprehensive. Here are the Genitalia Fitness Standards for Enlistment:
2-14. Genitalia
a. Female genitalia.
(1) Current or history of abnormal uterine bleeding (626.2), including, but not limited to menorrhagia, metrorrhagia,
or polymenorrhea, is disqualifying.
(2) Current unexplained amenorrhea (626.0) is disqualifying.
(3) Current or history of dysmenorrhea (625.3) that is incapacitating to a degree recurrently necessitating absences
of more than a few hours from routine activities is disqualifying.
(4) Current or history of endometriosis (617) is disqualifying.
(5) History of major abnormalities or defects of the genitalia such as change of sex (P64.5), hermaphroditism,
pseudohermaphroditism, or pure gonadal dysgenesis (752.7) or dysfunctional residuals from surgical correction of these
conditions is disqualifying.
(6) Current or history of ovarian cysts (620.2), when persistent or symptomatic is disqualifying.
(7) Current pelvic inflammatory disease (614), or history of recurrent pelvic inflammatory disease, is disqualifying.
Current or history of chronic pelvic pain or unspecified symptoms associated with female genital organs (625.9) is
disqualifying.
(8) Current pregnancy (V22) is disqualifying until 6 months after the end of the pregnancy.
(9) Uterus, congenital absence of (752.3), or enlargement due to any cause (621.2) is disqualifying.
(10) Current or history of genital infection or ulceration, including but not limited to herpes genitalis (054.11) or
condyloma acuminatum (078.11), if of sufficient severity to require frequent intervention or to interfere with normal
function, is disqualifying.
( 1 1 ) C u r r e n t a b n o r m a l g y n e c o l o g i c c y t o l o g y , i n c l u d i n g , b u t n o t l i m i t e d t o u n s p e c i f i e d a b n o r m a l i t i e s o f t h e
Papanicolaou smear of the cervix (Pap smear) (795) excluding Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) (079.4) or confirmed
Low-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion (LGSIL) (622.9), is disqualifying. For the purposes of this regulation,
confirmation is by colposcopy or repeat cytology.
b. Male genitalia.
(1) Current absence of one or both testicles, either congenital (752.89) or undescended (752.51) is disqualifying.
(2) Current epispadias (752.62) or hypospadias (752.61), when accompanied by evidence of urinary tract infection,
urethral stricture, or voiding dysfunction, is disqualifying.
(3) Current enlargement or mass of testicle or epididymis (608.9) is disqualifying.
(4) Current orchitis (604) or epididymitis (604.90) is disqualifying.
(5) History of penis amputation (878.0) is disqualifying.
(6) Current or history of genital infection or ulceration, including, but not limited to herpes genitalis (054.13) and
condyloma acuminatum (078.11), if of sufficient severity to require frequent intervention or to interfere with normal
function, is disqualifying
(7) Current acute prostatitis (601.0) or chronic prostatitis (601.1) is disqualifying.
(8) Current hydrocele (603.0), if large or symptomatic, is disqualifying.. Left varicocele (456.4), if symptomatic, or
associated with testicular atrophy, or vericocele larger than the testis is disqualifying. Any right varicocele (456.4) is
disqualifying.
c. Current or history of chronic scrotal pain or unspecified symptoms associated with male genital organs (608.9) are
disqualifying.
d. History of major abnormalities or defects of the genitalia, such as a change of sex (P64.5), hermaphroditism,
pseudohermaphroditism, or pure gonadal dysgenesis (752.7) or dysfunctional residuals from surgical correction of these
conditions is disqualifying.
I've wondered if we're going to see a conflict between Bush Co.'s "we must appease the agriculture and food producer special interests" beliefs and "OMG -- we can't find enough kids fit enough to join the Army!" I mean, we hear a lot of empty rhetoric about making good food choices and being active but I figure we'll know recruitment has gotten really bad when they actually start doing something about it.
15 apropos of nothing, except I'm intrigued by the idea of genitalia fitness standards.
(1) Current absence of one or both testicles, either congenital (752.89) or undescended (752.51) is disqualifying.
But what if the absence is neither congenital nor undescended, but due to previous service in the Ottoman army?
I don't think they're planning to be around for long enough for that to be a problem. Doing something about general fitness levels in society wouldn't be likely to have much effect that would show up in recruitment in the next two years.
It is kind of stunning the effect required physical exercise has on a population -- visiting my JAG buddy from law school on Army bases is kind of disorienting; all the people you see look nice in a vaguely anachronistic kind of way. And then you realize that everyone in sight looks at least reasonably fit, regardless of age. (And none of the men have hair long enough to comb, but that's a different issue.) Taking the kids to a recreational pool at Fort Knox last summer was a fascinating experience in visibly low body-fat.
17, 18: I suppose it's important to know that all of our men in uniform have two testicles and a penis, and all women have uteri.
I'm actually not surprised at all, on the basis of the 8:30 mile. That's a standard that I'd expect anyone healthy to be able to get to pretty fast (like, a week or two of making an effort) but a lot of kids are sedentary enough that I'd expect them to have trouble running a mile at all, regardless of at a reasonable rate of speed.
Just dropping in to say really? When I was in jr. high gym class we'd spend every day for three weeks first running 1/4 of a mile, then three weeks at a half mile, then three quarters of a mile, then finally, one day, we'd run a mile. I never got below 9:32, but I suppose maybe I would have if we ran more than one mile. It doesn't seem like it was something that would just happen after a week or two. Recently I took 12 minutes to run a mile on the treadmill, and it certainly isn't like I haven't been doing a lot of cardio lately.
unspecified symptoms associated with female genital organs (625.9) is disqualifying.
That's a bit all-encompassing.
Why do you need a uterus to be a woman in the army?
(Can anyone write a good punchline to that joke?)
But were you really trying for speed, rather than setting a pace that you could keep going at for a long time? I bet if you spent a week or two sprinting, rather than doing long steady cardio workouts, and wanted to make the standard badly enough to leave yourself collapsed at the finish line, that you could get down to an 8:30 mile in a couple of weeks.
(I'm a really slow runner; I am entirely familiar with jogging 12 minute miles. But one 8:30 mile isn't that far away from anyone who can do a couple of 12 minute miles.)
Why must LB continually reify oppressive standards? WHY?!?!?!
21- really? Walking a a reasonable pace will get you a mile in 15 minutes. If you exercise regularly at all, I bet you could set the treadmill on pace for an 8:30 mile and complete it. You might have to push yourself and be out of breath at the end, but I really don't think your legs or lungs would just completely give out on you. (Unless one or the other has a legitimate medical problem.) I say this having just run the experiment on a friend who is *completely* out of shape and totally sedentary, who on seeing the 8:30 mile requirement was *sure* he couldn't enlist in the army even if he wanted to, without some preparatory training. But he got on a treadmill and made it, much to his surprise. (Though he was pretty sore the next day.)
26 had poor tone -- it was not meant to imply that you're out of shape, so much as that I bet you're in better shape than you realize, at least in this regard.
15 apropos of nothing, except I'm intrigued by the idea of genitalia fitness standards
Often talked-of here, but never in those terms.
Well, right now I'm not trying for speed, but in junior high the 9:32 mile was the speed that would leave me totally collapsed; believe me, the embarrassment of having us all lining up by our scores on all the fitness tests every day was plenty motivating, and I would have loved to have moved up in line, and that was the best I ever did under that regime; usually I'd be above 10 minutes, not for lack of trying. I don't know if I had two of those 12 minute miles in me, though I probably could have done a bit more than I did.
I like the phrasing here: [h]istory of penis amputation (878.0) is disqualifying.
It sort of suggests that it could be more than a one-time event.
29: What gives out - your lungs or your legs?
26 see 29. Maybe, but I sure couldn't do it in jr. high. I'm sick now; maybe I'll try when I get better.
You could amputate it bit by bit! What fun!
I like the phrasing here: [h]istory of penis amputation (878.0) is disqualifying.
It sort of suggests that it could be more than a one-time event.
"Whatever I do, it keeps growing back bigger than before."
Yeah, I bet you're a lot stronger/faster than you were in junior high. You make a certain amount of profit from being full grown.
To put this in some perspective, the army takes guys who can barely hit an 8:30 mile and after a few weeks of basic training makes them able to run two-miles in 16:36 (the minimum standard for young guys to pass basic training). Admittedly, those are a grueling few weeks, but still.
31: I don't remember from junior high, just that I really couldn't do any more than I did. And lately I haven't been killing myself that way, so I don't know, but I didn't feel like I could have run two miles at that pace. When I'm better I'll try running and try to be observant of what's going on.
Being reasonably fit and having attempted an 8:30 mile just yesterday, I'm going to weigh in on the side of, not so easy!!! I tried it 'cause I was thinking along LB's lines that with a little effort and determination, I should be able to. I remember breaking 7 minutes in high school with much effort and wheezing. An 8:30 mile is roughly 7 mph on the treadmill and despite much effort and wheezing was way beyond me. I bet I could (can?) get there with a couple months effort, but definitely not in a week or so.
Of course, that might be very different if I were still between 17 and 24....
confirmed Low-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion
This sound like something out of a Lovecroft story. I have no idea what it is, but I don't want it anywhere near my genitalia!
You just don't like the word "Squamous". I bet if I told you you had at least five meati in your head you wouldn't like the sound of that either.
39: Eh, you don't think that a couple of weeks of working on it -- say, alternating one day of running for a half-hour at whatever speed you can keep going for that long at, with a day of doing speed intervals, would get you pretty close? But I don't know about the effects of age past the mid-thirties; training might be a lot slower.
Granted, the 8:30 mile is for men. But I don't think I could do it. I'm in good shape right now. I can go out and run 4-5 miles.
But I seriously don't think I can keep up an 8:30 pace for a mile. Complete with collapsing afterwards. I'm curious as to what the mile-time is for women to get in.
39: I'm curious how long you went and, like I asked Tia, what exactly gave out? Your description of the effort makes it sound like it was your lungs more than muscles that gave way. Have you ever been tested for exercise-induced asthma?
43 - this is a grounded statement, too. I know what 7 mph feels like on a treadmill. I know I can't keep it up for more than a minute or two.
Furthermore, the fastest mile I've ever done - as a strapping young high school lass - was 8:15. So 8:30 is pretty close to my personal best, ever.
at least five meati in your head
AAAAAAAAIiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeee!
43- sorry, I don't know. Young women must do two miles in 19:42 (at a minimum) in order to pass basic training, but that's after weeks of training.
Well Jesus H. Christ you women probably can't do a pull-up either, can you? I give up.
When I was a ridiculously fit young woman, I ran a 6:30 mile once. I bet I could get through basic training---but only if they let me not do pull-ups.
43: If you can run 5 miles, I'd be stunned if you couldn't do one at 8:30. I'm being irritating about this because I'm genuinely slow for my fitness level -- even when I'm in fairly good shape, in that I can run for 40 min or so without stopping, the speed I gravitate toward is pathetic. Six miles an hour is pushing myself, and I'm much happier a little slower. I'm really not speedy at all.
But when, out of boredom, I've tried working on speed, I've found that getting faster over fairly short distances is pretty easy -- just because a 10 min. mile feels difficult and laborious doesn't mean that you don't have another gear available to kick into if you make yourself do it, and a mile is short enough to gut it out rather than having to really sustain an effort.
49- There aren't pull-up requirements in any branch of the armed forces other than the marines, I'm pretty sure.
Just close your eyes and think of England. It's only 8-and-a-half minutes. You can endure anything for that long.
47: Working backwards from the men's standard, the women's entry standard is probably around a ten minute mile -- a little slower than the two mile end of basic pace.
OT, but this is painful for me. I used to be able to cruise at 5:40, but now I can barely run at all because of injuries, aging, and weight gain. I had my cardiovascular pretty good on a machine 6-7 years ago, but I can't do any high-impact at all.
50: Well, I do like to believe that I'm stunning.
I'll try it in the next week or so - going out to a track and timing myself. I think it'll be at best the brink of my ability.
When I was considering the 18X enlistment option, I training to hit top score on the 17-21 chart. It's not an insane level or anything. I'm probably still close on the pushups and situps, but haven't been running much lately so I doubt I could pull off the 2 mile time.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army/a/afpt.htm
Agree that 5:40 is hard core; can you at least push pedals?
Recently I took 12 minutes to run a mile on the treadmill
I can walk a mile in around 12 minutes. I normally set the treadmill at the gym for around 13 minute mile and then set it to a steep gradient, and walk at that pace.
Can't run for shit though, due to shin splints.
When I was 18 though I could have done a mile in 6 minutes, easy. And I could have done 100 sit-ups no problem. I'd have struggled with the push-ups though depending how quickly they wanted them done, I sucked at them then and I suck at them now.
How serious a crime do you have to commit to be disqualified?
57- 71 consecutive pushups is pretty tough. I couldn't come close.
Running speed/efficient use of oxygen varies a lot between people, so extrapolating from personal experience isn't much help. Some people can train very hard just to get to where others are after long periods of being sedentary.
59 - yeah, but how tall are you? I can't walk much past 3.7 mph or so.
62- I prefer to think of it simply as a failure of willpower on the part of those who don't measure up.
I did do 12 (real) push-ups at a fitness assessment last week, though!
Thanks ttaM and gswift, I was getting really frightened there for a while. When I've gone a few months without a single cardio workout, my starting workout to get back into shape will be 3 miles in 24 minutes, on changing gradients. I have always sucked at longer distance running, so my mile has never been much below 6:30.
Gswift, I can't get behind the username/password on that site you linked, so how do they test for those sit-ups and push-ups numbers? Are those the most you can do in a minute or is it the highest number you can do sequentially at a set pace?
66- I'm pretty sure the test is just doing them consecutively without rest, with a two-minute upper time limit. If you give out before two minutes are up, you're done. Again, 71 pushups is impressive.
So I've been doing some running (with increasing regularity, but never really more than four days a week) since September, and can currently do 4 miles on a treadmill (with at least a 1.0% incline the entire time) in about 31:15. Prior to starting I wasn't in good shape at all.
62: this is basically what I was trying to suggest in my first comment. I'm dubious that it's possible to say how long it should take me to get to an 8:30 mile at my current 6-8 hour level of weekly exercise. I think it's different for different people. Running also makes me feel sick to my stomach, even when I haven't eaten for three hours before. I doubt I'll ever be able to motivate myself to tolerate it enough to get to an 8:30 mile when there are other things that cause way less suffering
There's a decent description on wikipedia. Basically you've got two minutes, and have to meet the proper form. There's a way to "rest" during push ups, but it's not great.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Physical_Fitness_Test_(APFT)
When I use to jog a lot in college in my early 20s my normal morning run was about 3 miles and I tended to do that in somewhere between 25 and 30 minutes. Which was a comfortable training pace for me . I didn't really like to run much faster.
Push-ups, I could probably just about struggle out 10 at the moment. And the most I could ever do was around 30. I've always found them hard. Even (not now) when my upper body strength was otherwise OK.
I can push pedals fine. I should probably start.
I have no desire to exercise anymore, and i used to love it.
69: Tia, I assume? It could be. I was mostly being bombastic about it because, as I said above, I've got a pretty strong and well supported self-image as a slow person, and was surprised by finding that putting on more speed over short distances wasn't particularly hard when I started deliberately training for it.
42: Well, I suppose mostly I doubt that I could commit to working on it daily. Though I do have recurrent good intentions of trying. If I manage to live up to my good intentions this time, I will report back.
44: Yeah, it was probably heart/lungs more than muscles, though my legs were ever so slightly gelatinous when I finished. Maybe I'll look into that exercise-induced asthma thing -- I'm always fond of having a handy excuse for my weakness.
74: (And I'm still slow -- the period in which I was fooling around with trying to run faster was a couple of years ago, and I haven't been running much since then.)
Push ups, like benching, is all about the triceps. Practice them with a closer grip and you'll get your triceps used to it. I'm also about the "right" size to pull off certain things. In my experience, really big dudes have a rougher time with these tests. Small to medium sized seems to be better for the task.
Generally (and I know this does not speak to enlistment criteria) you would be amazed what 8 weeks of basic training does to get you in shape. Even if the fitnes standards seem hard to some, almost everyone can pass the physical fitness test once they have worked at getting in shape.
57- 71 consecutive pushups is pretty tough.
A lot of it is a matter of learning the right form and training for it. When they changed the test to include pushups in the early 1980's, I was in a panic because it was almost impossible for me to meet the minimum, even though I was at that time in pretty good shape overall (running a lot, including a marathon).
However, over the years I worked at it and got pointers on the form that made it much easier to do pushups that met the Army standard, and during the last five years of my career, always got the maximum possible score on the pushups. So, not as hard as it seems.
Yeah, my father, when reminiscing about his Army days, will occasionally bitch about that. The sort of body-weight exercises they do are all about your strength to weight ratio, and the square-cube law means the smaller you are, the easier they are. All of the people who were impressive in PT were little wiry guys; Dad, being more of the ox-like type, found this irritating.
I have to try it again to be sure, but I think it's a global sense of illness about running that bothers me and makes me stop more than any particular thing. When I ran that mile in 12 minutes, according to the calorie counter thingie I'd burned 120 or something (how does it know, anyway?) and I felt sick and had to take about twenty minutes to recover. I can spend 40 minutes on the elliptical, burn 450 calories according to the calorie counter thingie, feel good afterwards, and hop off to yoga while I'm still sweaty.
Agreed with 77 and 79. I'm also that same slim build that works really well for pull-ups, push-ups and climbing, which is why none of the strength requirements looks too bad. Still, I can't offhand remember doing more than about 50 push-ups in a row before, but my bench press has always been oddly weak.
The fitness issue is the big disqualifier, and as has been pointed out, can be overcome.
60. Adam, IIRC a misdemeanor must be waived, a felony can not.
While on active duty I regulary scored a 300 on the PFT. 17:25 over 3 miles, 20 pull ups and 120 sit ups in 2 minutes. All in a row, pull ups first, then sit ups, then the run. But it took a long time to get that fit, and that was a long time ago.
re: 77 and 79
Yeah, I'm a fraction over 200lbs. A lot of those things are hard for me partly because I'm moving a lot more mass. I can't do pull-ups worth shit either.
And yeah, I need to work on my triceps -- I've been back in the gym weight training since the new year, for the first time in several years.
On the other hand, I can do all kinds of other agility things -- I can throw dozens of consecutive kicks to head-height or do fancy turning spinning kicks. Things that require quite a bit of lower body strength and good balance and co-ordination. And I don't find sit-ups particularly hard.
I natter entertainingly on the Internet.
How serious a crime do you have to commit to be disqualified?
"I don't know. What kind of crimes you got?"
I can glare at sarcastic people on teh internets.
Wiry guys were much better at pullups and ladder-walking, as you would expect, but I don't remember much difference in pushups. Form matters a lot, I think I found it easily; I used to do pushups with my dad.
There was a lot of running in boots, before dawn and after dusk, all the time. But I think hiking and marching were the big conditioners. I had gone on long hikes, 18-20 miles, with my very militaristic scout troop, so it wasn't that hard for me. I marveled at the difference really good boots made; both the clothing and the food were better than I was used to.
Max BMI varies by service, 27.5 for army to 31 for marines.
High BMI is a benefit for marines, who have to be able to float ashore.
In the British Army, IIRC, the recruits have to do a mile and a half in 10 minutes 30 seconds. (That's a mile in 7 minutes, then another half mile). The maximum time goes up as you get older, but that's the time for, I think, 17-24 years old. There are also tests for situps and pressups in 2 minutes - don't know the acceptable levels for those.
The other big test is the Combat Fitness Test - eight miles in one hour and 55 minutes, carrying 55 pounds load plus water and a weapon; or the Airborne CFT, which is only 40 pounds load, but for ten miles, in one hour 50 minutes. A lot depends on the course. Some bases have a flat course. Some have hills. Some have shingle beaches.
On the treadmill issue - remember, if you don't use an inclined treadmill, it's actually easier than running at the same speed on the ground.
#30: It sort of suggests that it could be more than a one-time event.
Perfectly possible, if you have a history of doing it to other people. However, I think this could undermine morale in a combat situation - so they're right to rule it out.
89: That's actually rather impressive. When I try that sort of thing, I find that I'm mostly just snarling at my monitor, which really isn't the same.
re: 88
Serious question. What's to stop everyone called up for a potential draft just saying they're gay?
95 - have you ever heard "Alice's Restaurant"?
95: You'll have to ask Cpl. Klinger about that.
re: 94
Can you not feel the gaze of my beady eyes from under beetled brow?
When I try that sort of thing, I find that I'm mostly just snarling at my monitor, which really isn't the same
Comes through, though.
95: It might help out your case if you eye up the cute recruiter. Yet more proof that tasteful package-glaring helps in any and all situations.
Every few years I tell myself I'm going to take up running (my father runs six nights a week and has for the past 24 years...well, actually, he's down to four nights a week these past couple of years, but then he's over sixty years old) and I try for a while, and then I stop. I hate it. It's boring and uncomfortable and I hate flopping about.
I've often wondered whether I'm just built wrong for running, since I have short legs and weird hips, and even when I run enough so that it's not too physically taxing it never gets to be comfortable.
And it's not that I mind vigorous exercise--I ride my bike a lot up the dreaded Lake Street/Marshall hill, for example, and I'd much, much rather do that than run.
95: Nothing, but they're close enough to dropping the requirement that if it turned into a problem, they would in a heartbeat.
Wow, has the conversation moved on since I started writing my previous comment! You people need to slow down.
If you cycle so much, why do you want to run?
46: Close, but you want to aim more for an Ia! Ia! kind of thing. With regular training you'll get all the way up to fhtagn! much faster than you think.
People, comment 12!
"The top five medical disqualifiers accounted for 53% of the total medical disqualifications from May 2003 to April 2005 . . . use of marijuana (12.6%)
That right there. Cha-ching! Civilian life for almost everyone.
Do you think that's an actual failed drug test at the time of the physical, or it's just a yes answer to "have you ever smoked pot?"
Anyway, a great vehicle for social change- 1) Start a war. 2) Plan pporly so you run short on troops. 3) Get lots of people to claim whatever social condition you want accepted under federal law. (I smoked pot! I have a non-violent criminal record! I'm gay! I perform abortions!) 4) Condition becomes accepted under federal regulations.
110- they ask the question, and also test. Trust, but verify.
(Incidentally, marijuana and other light drug use is another item that you'll almost always be granted a waiver for, if that's all you've got "wrong" with you.)
107: Because running is Virtuous! Moral! Difficult! Uncomfortable! Bicycling is fun, so while I may be building up my legs and lungs I am letting my character deteriorate.
My father gets a big kick out of denying himself things, and I grew up seeing him go running when he had a cold or was really, really tired, or would then need to stay up late to make time for something he had to finish. So I have this deepseated feeling that a mature adult should do horrible, unpleasant exercise because that's what adults do and if you don't do it you aren't really grown up.
112 gets it exactly right. Frowner's father sounds very wise.
In fact, he was the one who changed the family name to "Frowner", to encourage stern moral discipline.
Actually, I think more of John Stuart Mill's upbringing.
I also think of bursting into tears when I accidentally broke a fancy beaker in seventh grade science class because I would have to pay for it and that would require asking him for money which would require explaining how I'd been so careless.
Even among odd people, my immediate family is odd. And stern.
On the other hand, they're also exceedingly politically liberal. A classic Frowner pere intellectual position is this: "Marijuana should be legal because it's more or less harmless and using it is a personal choice; however, only a base person with no self-control or self-respect would ever smoke marijuana. But if we ever meet such an unfortunate, we will be kind and sympathetic, because such a person must have a very lamentable life."
116: Actually, I don't think that anecdote was clear...my first thought when I felt the beaker break in the sink was "But my father will say that while other people are careless, Frowners don't make that type of mistake! I'm a failure as a Frowner!"
Is your last name Keillor, by any chance?
No, although on my mother's side we are stern Scandinavians. We are stern German Lutherans on my father's side.
Those mixed marriages always turn out badly.
As I've said before, the new Egyptian indie movie "Sweet Lands" is about a mixed marriage of that type.
116: Heh. Now I know we aren't actually related. The Breath family is made up of Frowner-wanna-be's: "Yes, decent people are disciplined, and careful, and self-denying, and self-controlled. Oh, look, something shiny! Mmm. Chocolate." We end up in a steady state of relaxed, hedonistic self-loathing.
Threadjack back to genitalia: Any scholar publishing a book called Oragentialism: Oral Techniques in Genital Excitation may be said to have contributed something to the sum total of human happiness.
This and much more, about the man who coined the phrase "make love not war," touching on several subjects we're discussing right now, is at today's outstanding McClemee:
http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2007/02/14/mclemee
121: Well, I was going to point out that I am a changelling, possibly from your family, since I'm a chronic lazybones who is none-the-less tormented by guilt about my slackness. And my first word was "shiny".
Back in the day when I was on the track team I ran a 4:56 mile and a 10:53 2-mile. I don't even want to know what my current mile time is, though, I'm in terrible shape these days.
Actually, that was 1600 and 3200 meters, respectively. So my real mile/2-mile times are a few seconds slower.
I'm pretty sure the elliptical calorie count lies. There's no way it burns 350 calories in a half hour.
For a decently quick running pace, you'd burn around 100 calories per mile (roughly, it depends on the person and the exact rate you're going), so that doesn't seem completely implausible.
Maybe, but running three ten-minute miles seems to take a lot more out of me than ellipticalling for half an hour.
Yeah, I really don't believe in what low impact cardio machines tell you you're doing (barring my beloved erg, which would never lie). After having a Stairmaster once tell me that I'd climbed the Empire State Building, I decided that Stairmasters were stupid. If I had climbed the ESB, I would have been puking rather than mildly sweaty.
The wattage output on cardio machines are weird too. On the elliptical I am 'running' at a steady 100 watts which is enough to keep my heart rate up around 150 or so. On the recumbent bike machine, I need to be pounding it flat out and generating 200 watts or more to even get my heartrate above 130.
There's seems no relationship between the watt output being generated and the perceived effort.
130: If the instruments are actually measuring generated power, then the efficiency of the machine itself is quite relevant. Aren't recumbent bikes supposed to be one of the most efficient designs around for converting human effort to motion?
I think you're probably right. Which makes the watt output only useful across time on the same machine, rather than across machines.