branches of the military. Self report data show that approximately 60 percent of active-duty women exercise regularly. Anecdotal evidence shows that compliance with provision of duty time for fitness training is command dependent.

The performance of personnel on military fitness tests does not correlate well with their performance on task-specific performance tests or tests of the strength required for MOSs that demand heavy and moderately heavy lifting and carrying capabilities. Military researchers have recommended the adoption of task-specific performance tests, such as those used in the civilian sector; general and task-specific strength training; and where possible, task redesign.

Performance by military women on strength tests is correlated with higher body weight and associated FFM.³ Because of higher FFM, women who exceed the weight-for-height standard during basic combat training may perform better on tests of strength than their thinner counterparts; however, women who exceed weight-for-height standards achieve slower run times (a measure of endurance capacity) than women who are in compliance with the weight standards. The maintenance of an appearance standard that promotes lower weight for height thus presents a dilemma for promotion of optimum physical readiness, especially for the more physically demanding (strength-requiring) MOSs.

It was not possible to obtain outcome data on any of the military weight management programs or information on how a representative sample of military sites administers their programs. Comparison of the programs as described in the regulations with current recommendations for civilian weight loss and management programs suggests that greater contact with nutrition professionals and nutrition education, increased emphasis on incorporating fitness and other lifestyle changes, and establishment of long-term maintenance programs may be necessary to ensure success of the programs.

Assessments of the nutritional status and food intake of active-duty women have been limited to small studies of women in temporary training and field settings. Results of these studies suggest that because the nutrient density of operational (field) rations and military dining hall menus is based on an average daily energy intake of 3,600 kcal, reliance on operational rations or dining hall offerings may make it difficult for women to obtain the recommended levels of calcium, iron, and folic acid while balancing energy intake with expenditure; moreover, the MRDAs have not been modified since 1985 and are based on the 1980 Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs). A large-scale nutritional survey of active-duty women in garrison and deployed throughout the world has recently been completed, and a study of energy expenditure in active-duty women is in progress.

Evidence also suggests that chronic dieting or frequent crash dieting to comply with weight standards may compromise women's nutritional status and fitness level. It is difficult at this time to ascertain the prevalence of disordered eating (as characterized by behaviors ranging from repeated crash dieting and/or chronic restrained eating to chronic starvation and/or cycles of bingeing and purging) among active-duty women. Survey data suggest that the percentage of active-duty women who perceive themselves to be overweight is high and exceeds the percent who actually are overweight. Evidence suggests that self-perception of overweight is linked to chronic dieting. Several small surveys have attempted to assess the percentage of active-duty personnel

Front Matter (R1-R16)

Executive Summary (1-24)

1 Introduction (25-32)

2 Body Composition (33-60)

3 Physical Fitness Policies and Programs (61-86)

4 Weight Management (87-108)

5 Nutritional Concerns of Military Women (109-126)

6 Pregnancy and Lactation and Postpartum Return-To-Duty Fitness (127-156)

7 Conclusions and Recommendations (157-170)

Appendixes (171-172)

A Workshop Summary, Agenda, Participants, and Abstracts (173-252)

B Practices and Policies Tables (253-262)

C Military Occupational Specialty Classification Tables (263-280)

D Search Strategy for Literature Review (281-284)

E Civilian Inquiry Letter and Table of Responses (285-290)

F Abbreviations (291-294)

G Bibliography (295-334)

H Biographical Sketches (335-338)

Index (339-352)