PDA

View Full Version : Marine Corps open Infantry school to females



Peter1469
09-21-2013, 11:23 AM
Although, if any of them pass, they won't be assigned to infantry units until there are enough qualified female infantrymen (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20130824/CAREERS02/308240009/Marine-Corps-open-infantry-training-enlisted-women)- to include officers. And so far 6 for 6 female officers failed the basic officer infantry course. Interestingly, they are using the male PT standards for the females at the infantry school.

On a side note, one woman in my officers basic course maxed the PT test on the male scale.


The Marine Corps will allow enlisted women to participate in basic infantry training beginning this fall as part of ongoing research to determine what additional ground combat jobs may open to female personnel.


New female enlisted Marines will volunteer for spots in the service’s Infantry Training Battalion, mirroring a related effort allowing new female lieutenants to enroll in the Corps’ Infantry Officer Course (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20130708/CAREERS/307080018/Grunt-school-test-Women-accept-one-Corps-most-grueling-challenges), according to an official planning document obtained by Marine Corps Times. Titled “Assignment of Women in Combat Units,” the document is dated Aug. 16.

oceanloverOH
09-21-2013, 11:39 AM
Thanks for posting that, Peter. I'm pleased the USMC hasn't modified the physical training requirements from those that men must meet to qualify. There should be no special considerations, it's INFANTRY. For those women that can handle the tough physical requirements....you GO for it, sister!

:applause:

The Xl
09-21-2013, 11:41 AM
As long as the standards are not bent, I see no problem with this.

Singularity
09-21-2013, 11:45 AM
Agreed with everyone who has said "Open the door wide open, to anyone who can meet the un-adjusted standard."

Peter1469
09-21-2013, 11:48 AM
As long as the standards are not bent, I see no problem with this.

Traditionally in the military there has been different standards based on sex. Army PT standards: (http://usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fitness/apft-standards) You can look through the various links and see the difference in standards between male and female.

Singularity
09-21-2013, 11:51 AM
Traditionally in the military there has been different standards based on sex. And for the purpose of general service, that makes sense, for the same reasons it would be foolish to integrate, for example, the NBA with the WNBA.

However, there should be no doubt: Women ought to serve in the infantry, but only those who can keep up with the boys.

The Xl
09-21-2013, 11:53 AM
Traditionally in the military there has been different standards based on sex. Army PT standards: (http://usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fitness/apft-standards) You can look through the various links and see the difference in standards between male and female.

I don't exactly agree with that. I don't think standards should be brought down to fit anyone in.

Peter1469
09-21-2013, 11:55 AM
And for the purpose of general service, that makes sense, for the same reasons it would be foolish to integrate, for example, the NBA with the WNBA.

However, there should be no doubt: Women ought to serve in the infantry, but only those who can keep up with the boys.




Agreed. I only provided a link that shows current army standards for male and female PT tests.

The Xl
09-21-2013, 11:57 AM
And for the purpose of general service, that makes sense, for the same reasons it would be foolish to integrate, for example, the NBA with the WNBA.

However, there should be no doubt: Women ought to serve in the infantry, but only those who can keep up with the boys.




I agree with this. Just as I'd feel that if their was a woman exceptional enough to play in the NBA, that she should have that opportunity.

Peter1469
09-21-2013, 11:58 AM
I don't exactly agree with that. I don't think standards should be brought down to fit anyone in.

Well, to be fair, in many jobs in the military the PT standards are not as important as in the combat arms. If we used the male PT standards for all women in the army, we would have very few women serving. And with out all volunteer force, that would be a problem. Our Army cannot operate without females.

The Xl
09-21-2013, 12:01 PM
Well, to be fair, in many jobs in the military the PT standards are not as important as in the combat arms. If we used the male PT standards for all women in the army, we would have very few women serving. And with out all volunteer force, that would be a problem. Our Army cannot operate without females.

I meant jobs where strength, fitness, and athleticism is paramount.

Singularity
09-21-2013, 12:13 PM
I agree with this. Just as I'd feel that if their was a woman exceptional enough to play in the NBA, that she should have that opportunity.
It's not a matter of skill in that case, but biology. A infinitesimally select few women can dunk at the professional level ... or even college (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/03/25/why-cant-women-dunk/).

However, in units like the infantry, raw athletic potential is only a part of the job and that's just in the realm of physical characteristics.

The Xl
09-21-2013, 12:16 PM
It's not a matter of skill in that case, but biology. A infinitesimally select few women can dunk at the professional level ... or even college (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/03/25/why-cant-women-dunk/).

However, in units like the infantry, raw athletic potential is only a part of the job and that's just in the realm of physical characteristics.

Well, not every elite basketball player needs to have LeBron James level athleticism. 2 time MVP Steve Nash wasn't the quickest or best jumper, but he was unbelievably skilled. I suppose it's not inconceivable that an amazingly skilled woman could somehow find her place in the NBA.

But I see your point.

Mister D
09-21-2013, 12:26 PM
barbarism.

Libhater
09-21-2013, 01:51 PM
I wonder if the test standards have changed since my induction into the Army in 1970. I was skinny as a rail at 5' 10" and 138 lbs, but the guys who didn't pass the test were those overweight ones who couldn't knock out 3 pushups. Of course, once we got to the induction ceremonies there were at least 4 guys who refused to raise their right hand to accept the terms of induction. I don't know what happened to those guys who pleaded conscientious objector status for failure to fight in a war, for I never saw them again. No women were there, and I didn't see one enlisted female my entire time in the service. We did have our share of Doughnut Dollies and USO chicks, but there were no females in any combat unit that I had seen, and I'm not so sure if any of my platoon cohorts would have wanted a female sharing a foxhole with them.

Adelaide
09-21-2013, 02:58 PM
barbarism.

Why's that?

I think it's great - they should have to meet the exact same standards as the men physically.

Mister D
09-21-2013, 03:03 PM
Why's that?

I think it's great - they should have to meet the exact same standards as the men physically.

I just don't think it's civilized to put women in combat unless it's unavoidable and it almost always is. I'm sure some perceive this as a great step forward for human rights and equality. I don't.

Adelaide
09-21-2013, 03:06 PM
I just don't think it's civilized to put women in combat unless it's unavoidable and it almost always is. I'm sure some perceive this as a great step forward for human rights and equality. I don't.

But I don't understand why it's uncivilized.

The Xl
09-21-2013, 03:08 PM
I just don't think it's civilized to put women in combat unless it's unavoidable and it almost always is. I'm sure some perceive this as a great step forward for human rights and equality. I don't.

No one is forcing the them to serve, and the women in question would be physically up to par with the men.

I don't see the problem.

Alyosha
09-21-2013, 03:11 PM
No one is forcing the them to serve, and the women in question would be physically up to par with the men.

I don't see the problem.

They have lower physical standards for female than males in the marines, and those women who've been deployed to combat zones have come back just torn up physically.

We'll learn the hard way

The Xl
09-21-2013, 03:14 PM
They have lower physical standards for female than males in the marines, and those women who've been deployed to combat zones have come back just torn up physically.

We'll learn the hard way

I don't agree with lowering standards.

Cris Cyborg, female mixed martial artist, is probably stronger and certainly more fit than your average 160 lbs marine. The point being, there are capable females out there.

Adelaide
09-21-2013, 03:15 PM
They have lower physical standards for female than males in the marines, and those women who've been deployed to combat zones have come back just torn up physically.

We'll learn the hard way

It's been discussed in the thread, but they aren't using lower physical standards in this case (and they absolutely shouldn't). Equal opportunity for the position isn't the same as preferential treatment to reach a gender quota. Anyone arguing for equality in the military for women would be an idiot to suggest the standards for women should be lower - that puts their life at risk, it puts the people they serve with at risk, and ultimately could put all missions and operations at risk.

Mainecoons
09-21-2013, 03:19 PM
Sorry, I'm from the old school. We don't agree with putting women in harm's way like this.

I realize that the U.S. culture doesn't protect its children very well these days either, so this latest development should come as no surprise.

The Sage of Main Street
09-21-2013, 03:21 PM
Someone is trying to get the Marines to stop wearing dress blues and start wearing blue dresses.

Alyosha
09-21-2013, 03:23 PM
I don't agree with lowering standards.

Cris Cyborg, female mixed martial artist, is probably stronger and certainly more fit than your average 160 lbs marine. The point being, there are capable females out there.

I don't know about that. She's pretty fit and strong, but does she have the endurance over a 7 month deploy. Physiology doesn't lie.

We'll see tho.

The Sage of Main Street
09-21-2013, 03:24 PM
It's not a matter of skill in that case, but biology. A infinitesimally select few women can dunk at the professional level ... or even college (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/03/25/why-cant-women-dunk/).

.

Is that why the Women's NBA's motto is: "Dykes Don't Dunk"?

Mister D
09-21-2013, 03:25 PM
Sorry, I'm from the old school. We don't agree with putting women in harm's way like this.

I realize that the U.S. culture doesn't protect its children very well these days either, so this latest development should come as no surprise.

Me too.

Adelaide
09-21-2013, 03:26 PM
Sorry, I'm from the old school. We don't agree with putting women in harm's way like this.

I realize that the U.S. culture doesn't protect its children very well these days either, so this latest development should come as no surprise.

A woman's life is not worth more than a man's.

The Xl
09-21-2013, 03:27 PM
I don't know about that. She's pretty fit and strong, but does she have the endurance over a 7 month deploy. Physiology doesn't lie.

We'll see tho.

Her training camps for fights are pretty ridiculous. She's probably capable. She's not the norm, but there are anomalies out there, and I don't see why they shouldn't have the opportunity.

The Sage of Main Street
09-21-2013, 03:27 PM
They have lower physical standards for female than males in the marines, and those women who've been deployed to combat zones have come back just torn up physically.

We'll learn the hard way

Because we've trying the soft way as we slowly turn into mush.

Mister D
09-21-2013, 03:29 PM
But I don't understand why it's uncivilized.

I don't think women should be put in harm's way. Any society that does so has lost its way. You may find that sentiment patronizing and sexist whereas I see it as honorable and decent.

Mister D
09-21-2013, 03:34 PM
A woman's life is not worth more than a man's.

no one suggested otherwise. I know the relentless logic of equality and "liberation" ultimately demands the blurring of any distinction between the sexes. That doesn't mean I'm going to pretend I see anything positive in it.

Adelaide
09-21-2013, 03:37 PM
I don't think women should be put in harm's way. Any society that does so has lost its way. You may find that sentiment patronizing and sexist whereas I see it as honorable and decent.

Have you seen the statistics on rape and domestic abuse lately? Heard about state governments defunding organisations aimed at assisting victims and potential victims? But you have a problem with actually training women to fight and learn to defend themselves and their country?

Paperback Writer
09-21-2013, 03:37 PM
A woman's life is not worth more than a man's.

No, it is not, but it also shouldn't cost a man his life, either. Very few women have the physical strength and long-term endurance for a combat post or the stomach for it. I'm liberal on many things until it reaches silliness. If the military had clauses where people could easily leave service early, I'd be more inclined towards this so that if a female in the unit or males in the unit felt unsafe they could voluntarily leave, but it's not so. Now, we'd put political ideology about gender nullification over that of common sense and human physiology and that's just ridiculous, imo.

Women have the ability to serve and become pilots and other more physically apt and suitable roles. Wanting to be infantry is not a need especially when you can serve in other ways where you physical body does not play such a major role. Pilots, for example, are equalised by the plane and still fulfill a combat role.

Mainecoons
09-21-2013, 03:42 PM
Very well put. And the actual combat troops are a small part of the overall force. There are plenty of places for women to serve on an equal basis.

This whole business is about PC and about the unique form of nuttiness American liberalism has fallen into, IMO. As you say, it has reached silliness.

Peter1469
09-21-2013, 03:42 PM
Under the current Army PT test, for the 2 mile run this is the male standard. (http://usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fitness/male-2-mile-run-standards) This is the female standard. (http://usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fitness/female-2-mile-run-standards) So for a female (17-21) to pass the run, she must do 2 miles in 18.54. A male has to do just to 15.54 to pass.

For situps the army has made it pretty equal.

For pushups (17-21) (2 minutes), this is the male standard. (http://usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fitness/male-pushup-standards) 42 pushups in 2 minutes (I think that is kind of pitiful, but that is the current minimum). For females it is 19 to pass (http://usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fitness/female-pushup-standards).

Mister D
09-21-2013, 03:43 PM
Have you seen the statistics on rape and domestic abuse lately? Heard about state governments defunding organisations aimed at assisting victims and potential victims? But you have a problem with actually training women to fight and learn to defend themselves and their country?

I'm not sure what rape and domestic abuse have to do with my position. I also have no problem training women how to fight. I do have a problem with deliberately exposing females to violence. I'm sorry you have a problem with that.

Mister D
09-21-2013, 03:43 PM
Under the current Army PT test, for the 2 mile run this is the male standard. (http://usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fitness/male-2-mile-run-standards) This is the female standard. (http://usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fitness/female-2-mile-run-standards) So for a female (17-21) to pass the run, she must do 2 miles in 18.54. A male has to do just to 15.54 to pass.

For situps the army has made it pretty equal.

For pushups (17-21) (2 minutes), this is the male standard. (http://usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fitness/male-pushup-standards) 42 pushups in 2 minutes (I think that is kind of pitiful, but that is the current minimum). For females it is 19 to pass (http://usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fitness/female-pushup-standards).

That's pathetic. I do 30 in less than 40 seconds.

Adelaide
09-21-2013, 03:44 PM
No, it is not, but it also shouldn't cost a man his life, either. Very few women have the physical strength and long-term endurance for a combat post or the stomach for it. I'm liberal on many things until it reaches silliness. If the military had clauses where people could easily leave service early, I'd be more inclined towards this so that if a female in the unit or males in the unit felt unsafe they could voluntarily leave, but it's not so. Now, we'd put political ideology about gender nullification over that of common sense and human physiology and that's just ridiculous, imo.

Women have the ability to serve and become pilots and other more physically apt and suitable roles. Wanting to be infantry is not a need especially when you can serve in other ways where you physical body does not play such a major role. Pilots, for example, are equalised by the plane and still fulfill a combat role.

I agree with you for the most part, but that's because the physical standards being the same and the training being the same means that women should be capable of doing what they're getting into if they even qualify to begin with.

Adelaide
09-21-2013, 03:50 PM
I'm not sure what rape and domestic abuse have to do with my position. I also have no problem training women how to fight. I do have a problem with deliberately exposing females to violence. I'm sorry you have a problem with that.

You brought up that women shouldn't be put in harms way and that it means society is basically hitting a new low. I brought up those other issues because women are already in harms way when it comes to society. Giving opportunity and experience to women in the armed forces isn't a low for society. If any woman even qualifies for infantry, she'll get the experience and training she needs to be as safe as the men. Of course, that's assuming that they won't water down the training or refuse to kick out women who can't hack it - that would be necessary.

Peter1469
09-21-2013, 03:55 PM
That's pathetic. I do 30 in less than 40 seconds.

I do 30 in 30 seconds :wink: For two minutes these days I tap out at around 70. My best was 101.

Mister D
09-21-2013, 03:58 PM
You brought up that women shouldn't be put in harms way and that it means society is basically hitting a new low. I brought up those other issues because women are already in harms way when it comes to society. Giving opportunity and experience to women in the armed forces isn't a low for society. If any woman even qualifies for infantry, she'll get the experience and training she needs to be as safe as the men. Of course, that's assuming that they won't water down the training or refuse to kick out women who can't hack it - that would be necessary.

With the blurring of distinctions between the sexes I'm not surprised respect for women is lost particularly among the lower classes. You shouldn't be either. Again, I do have a problem with deliberately exposing females to violence. I'm sorry you find that unacceptable.

The Xl
09-21-2013, 03:58 PM
Even the marine fitness test isn't much, frankly. Not for a dedicated athlete, anyhow.

Mister D
09-21-2013, 04:00 PM
I do 30 in 30 seconds :wink: For two minutes these days I tap out at around 70. My best was 101.

:grin: I was being modest. I never timed myself but I can certainly do 30 in under 40. The standard you posted is for someone out of shape, IMO.

Adelaide
09-21-2013, 04:03 PM
With the blurring of distinctions between the sexes I'm not surprised respect for women is lost particularly among the lower classes. You shouldn't be either. Again, I do have a problem with deliberately exposing females to violence. I'm sorry you find that unacceptable.

Women who are applying and trying to become infantry are doing so autonomously. If they want to fight for their country in that position, it's their decision assuming they meet qualifications. They're putting themselves in a position to potentially be exposed to violence, but to do so for their country and with training to hopefully limit the chance of being hurt. I see nothing wrong with that - their choice, and hopefully if any women qualify they'll be properly trained.

Peter1469
09-21-2013, 04:03 PM
:grin: I was being modest. I never timed myself but I can certainly do 30 in under 40. The standard you posted is for someone out of shape, IMO.


I posted the minimums. The links have the scale.


In truth, doing push ups that fast isn't as good for you as doing them slow. You can build much more muscle that way.

Paperback Writer
09-21-2013, 04:07 PM
I agree with you for the most part, but that's because the physical standards being the same and the training being the same means that women should be capable of doing what they're getting into if they even qualify to begin with.

Many of the basic training relies on the ability to pass tests at the end of a 3 month boot camp, not in the field deployment. There is an article by a female marine who was on a combat deployment and she said for the first month she did just fine, by the time she returned her body was done for whilst her male counterparts were still "well". What they can do in the short term requiring strength is lost over time because their bodies are not built for that level of human endurance testing.

This social experimentation has already been surpassed by science in the fields of evolutionary biology and human physiology. We don't need to waste money experimenting so that some women can get what they want and a special interest group feels heard. It's bloody war. War is not supposed to be for equal opportunity. You're there to kill people!

Women can get their chance to kill people but in appropriate roles where they don't get their comrades killed. Women, for example, for their ability to withstand g-forces better than their male counterparts do well as pilots. Let them kill people from the air and save money on training that most of them will wash out of anyway. I realise that women want to be the badasses that they see in movies but it shouldn't be at the expense of the mission or their male counterparts.

Unless, as I've said the men have an easy out clause of their contracts.

Mister D
09-21-2013, 04:08 PM
Women who are applying and trying to become infantry are doing so autonomously. If they want to fight for their country in that position, it's their decision assuming they meet qualifications. They're putting themselves in a position to potentially be exposed to violence, but to do so for their country and with training to hopefully limit the chance of being hurt. I see nothing wrong with that - their choice, and hopefully if any women qualify they'll be properly trained.

I do and humanity has largely shared my sentiments from time immemorial. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Mister D
09-21-2013, 04:09 PM
I posted the minimums. The links have the scale.


In truth, doing push ups that fast isn't as good for you as doing them slow. You can build much more muscle that way.

True. Same with weights.

Adelaide
09-21-2013, 04:13 PM
I do and humanity has largely shared my sentiments from time immemorial. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Right, and women hardly have a good track record historically with how they've been treated. But yes, I don't think that we are ever going to agree on this.

Codename Section
09-21-2013, 04:18 PM
As a male marine who has been both regular infantry 0311 and special ops 0317 with 4 deployments to combat zones, I do appreciate my fellow fms but I wouldn't want to be on a 7 month combat deployment with one of them outside the wire/hot zone. I've known some seriously badass tough fms who could kick the average guys ass, but they don't have the endurance. I barely had it and I'm 6 ft 2 and build like brick wall. It was 125 degrees in Iraq and you have 80 lbs of equipment on. Women's frames are different, where they carry weight is different.

As I've said, I appreciate them wanting to serve but I don't think we need to put men in danger so they can shoot people.

I think this trial period by the marine corps is to show people that women aren't meant to serve, not to actually let them serve and I think that's an expensive way to wage a PR campaign.

Just my two cents.

Mister D
09-21-2013, 04:18 PM
Right, and women hardly have a good track record historically with how they've been treated. But yes, I don't think that we are ever going to agree on this.

As I noted above, this will do nothing positive in shaping how men perceive women. It's likely to have a negative effect. Yes, there really isn't much point in discussing it further. I said my peace.

Peter1469
09-21-2013, 04:18 PM
True. Same with weights.

true, although you can - say with bench press- explode up and come down really slow. I suppose the same is true with push ups.

It is best to mix things up to confuse the body.

Codename Section
09-21-2013, 04:19 PM
Also, in Afghanistan I was there with female Canadian and British soldiers and they were literally dying from the intensity and while they were in combat zones and occasionally had to discharge their weapons they were not under extensive fire or the rigors of setting up an ambush.

Mister D
09-21-2013, 04:20 PM
true, although you can - say with bench press- explode up and come down really slow. I suppose the same is true with push ups.

It is best to mix things up to confuse the body.

My strength training is light in the Summer. Heavier in the Winter. My runs will become more about maintenance as the cold weather arrives. I'll give the slow technique a try.

Codename Section
09-21-2013, 04:20 PM
Even the marine fitness test isn't much, frankly. Not for a dedicated athlete, anyhow.

It is not. It's just a starting point, and the Army's isn't even as strict as ours. You only leave basic as a "boot". Marines don't get tested until deployed.

Paperback Writer
09-21-2013, 04:23 PM
Right, and women hardly have a good track record historically with how they've been treated. But yes, I don't think that we are ever going to agree on this.

How is saying they shouldn't endanger men with their lack of endurance treating them badly? Is telling men they cannot have children treating men badly? Physiology just "is".

Peter1469
09-21-2013, 04:26 PM
My strength training is light in the Summer. Heavier in the Winter. My runs will become more about maintenance as the cold weather arrives. I'll give the slow technique a try.

I have to limit my runs to no more than twice a week- and more often once. Too much airborne crap for the body. So I am focusing on weights.

Peter1469
09-21-2013, 04:29 PM
Also, in Afghanistan I was there with female Canadian and British soldiers and they were literally dying from the intensity and while they were in combat zones and occasionally had to discharge their weapons they were not under extensive fire or the rigors of setting up an ambush.

I wasn't in Afghanistan but was in Iraq a couple of times. During the occupation phase it wasn't long hard infantry duty. More like convoys getting shot up. Several women did amazing things and two earned the silver star for what they did in combat.

Mister D
09-21-2013, 04:30 PM
I have to limit my runs to no more than twice a week- and more often once. Too much airborne crap for the body. So I am focusing on weights.

My brother messed up his knees too. Sucks.

I run the equivalent of a marathon every week. Weighed in at 129 today. I'm solid and wiry but I'm hoping to gain 8-10 pounds this Winter.

Paperback Writer
09-21-2013, 04:30 PM
As a male marine who has been both regular infantry 0311 and special ops 0317 with 4 deployments to combat zones, I do appreciate my fellow fms but I wouldn't want to be on a 7 month combat deployment with one of them outside the wire/hot zone. I've known some seriously badass tough fms who could kick the average guys ass, but they don't have the endurance. I barely had it and I'm 6 ft 2 and build like brick wall. It was 125 degrees in Iraq and you have 80 lbs of equipment on. Women's frames are different, where they carry weight is different.

As I've said, I appreciate them wanting to serve but I don't think we need to put men in danger so they can shoot people.

I think this trial period by the marine corps is to show people that women aren't meant to serve, not to actually let them serve and I think that's an expensive way to wage a PR campaign.

Just my two cents.

And this is also my point, none of the males who are in the marines feel safe. Safety trumps and ought to trump desire every time. The lads in the military are under contract that they cannot get out of. Playing social experiment with their safety is just wrong. I'm all for equal rights. They have the equal right to serve in the military. They do not have the right to endanger others.

Peter1469
09-21-2013, 05:14 PM
My brother messed up his knees too. Sucks.

I run the equivalent of a marathon every week. Weighed in at 129 today. I'm solid and wiry but I'm hoping to gain 8-10 pounds this Winter.

Dude you are getting too light. Try high intensity interval training as opposed to steady state cardio. Look at pictures of sprinters and marathon runners.

Mister D
09-21-2013, 05:20 PM
Dude you are getting too light. Try high intensity interval training as opposed to steady state cardio. Look at pictures of sprinters and marathon runners.

I look like a sprinter, actually. Muscular arms, legs, and chest. I think you may be right though. I also need to eat more. Thinking of going Paleo but with beans.

Peter1469
09-21-2013, 05:41 PM
I look like a sprinter, actually. Muscular arms, legs, and chest. I think you may be right though. I also need to eat more. Thinking of going Paleo but with beans.

How tall are you? I am 70", 192 pounds and 15% body fat.

Mister D
09-21-2013, 05:45 PM
How tall are you? I am 70", 192 pounds and 15% body fat.

5' 7". I look good but I'm a little light I guess.

Peter1469
09-21-2013, 06:05 PM
5' 7". I look good but I'm a little light I guess.

Yes 129 is too light for 5'7". Weight training, more protein, less steady state cardio, high intensity interval training 2x per week.

Mister D
09-21-2013, 06:10 PM
Yes 129 is too light for 5'7". Weight training, more protein, less steady state cardio, high intensity interval training 2x per week.

I already moved on the protein part. Made wild boar stew today. Chorizo and 16 bean soup for lunch this coming week. It's actually pretty hard to get the level of protein people suggest. You really have to plan.

Peter1469
09-21-2013, 06:13 PM
I already moved on the protein part. Made wild boar stew today. Chorizo and 16 bean soup for lunch this coming week. It's actually pretty hard to get the level of protein people suggest. You really have to plan.

That is true. I use supplements. But quality ones.

Mister D
09-21-2013, 06:14 PM
That is true. I use supplements. But quality ones.

Such as? I will look for them.

Peter1469
09-21-2013, 06:23 PM
Such as? I will look for them.

I will PM you. I don't want to be seen as pitching for certain products

The Sage of Main Street
09-23-2013, 01:23 PM
As a male marine who has been both regular infantry 0311 and special ops 0317 with 4 deployments to combat zones, I do appreciate my fellow fms but I wouldn't want to be on a 7 month combat deployment with one of them outside the wire/hot zone. I've known some seriously badass tough fms who could kick the average guys ass, but they don't have the endurance. I barely had it and I'm 6 ft 2 and build like brick wall. It was 125 degrees in Iraq and you have 80 lbs of equipment on. Women's frames are different, where they carry weight is different.

As I've said, I appreciate them wanting to serve but I don't think we need to put men in danger so they can shoot people.

I think this trial period by the marine corps is to show people that women aren't meant to serve, not to actually let them serve and I think that's an expensive way to wage a PR campaign.

Just my two cents.

In the Old Corps, we called them BAMs: Broad Ass Marines.