A Comparison of the Meal, Ready-to-Eat VIII with Supplemental Pack and the Ration, Cold Weather Consumed in an Arctic Environment
Neither the Meal, Ready-to-Eat (MRE) nor the Ration, Cold Weather (RCW) has demonstrated any clear nutritional advantage when comparing one against the other. A Supplemental pack containing popular foods added to the latest version of the MRE (MRE VIII) has been shown to increase energy intake. This...
Main Authors: | , , , |
---|---|
Other Authors: | |
Format: | Text |
Language: | English |
Published: |
1990
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA229412 http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA229412 |
Summary: | Neither the Meal, Ready-to-Eat (MRE) nor the Ration, Cold Weather (RCW) has demonstrated any clear nutritional advantage when comparing one against the other. A Supplemental pack containing popular foods added to the latest version of the MRE (MRE VIII) has been shown to increase energy intake. This study compares the MRE plus a Supplemental Pack with the RCW to assess whether either or both provide the nutritional support required by military personnel working in an arctic environment. The subjects were two companies of light infantry taking part in an 8-day field exercise in Alaska. Activity levels of both groups were similar. Fluid intake was generally good. The results of this study indicate that both rations are similar in terms of their nutritional intake and ability to maintain hydration status but neither group consumed sufficient calories to meet the MRDAs and maintain body weight. A decision on which ration to use must, therefore, depend on the logistical and tactical scenarios. Keywords: Meal, Ready-to-Eat; Ration, Cold weather; Supplemental pack; Nutritional intake. |
---|