Overweight CAP members in AF-style uniforms poll

[abdsp51]

Honestly I have seen more violations with the Corp uniforms than I have with the AF style. 

[Blues Brother]

If I could accurately guess peoples weight by looking at them,  I would not waste that skill at CAP meetings,  I would be using it where I could make the real money, in the carnival.

[RiverAux]

No one is claiming that they're going to be able to tell if you're within a few pounds of the weight limit.  However, it is really obvious when someone is obese -- which is pretty much what it takes to get outside the height/weight limits for CAP.  [these limits match up pretty well with standards definitions of obese using BMI criteria]

[SarDragon]

Comparing H/W and BMI is essentially useless.

I currently weigh 189. That is within the AF H/W limit listed in the 39-1. My BMI is 27.3, which puts me in the overweight category. I have a bit of a belly (38" waist), but when I tell folks that I need to lose weight, no one seems to agree.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Honestly I have seen more violations with the Corp uniforms than I have with the AF style.

Do you mean H/W violations, or just wearing them incorrectly, dirty, bad badging, etc?

I did not think there could be H/W violations with those orders of dress.

I believe the only violation I have seen is the G/W being worn with the AF blue windbreaker and CAP rank slides.

[PHall]

Honestly I have seen more violations with the Corp uniforms than I have with the AF style.

Do you mean H/W violations, or just wearing them incorrectly, dirty, bad badging, etc?

I did not think there could be H/W violations with those orders of dress.

I believe the only violation I have seen is the G/W being worn with the AF blue windbreaker and CAP rank slides.

I've seen them worn dirty (i.e. stain on the shirt), wrong name tag, no belt, and just plain wrong.
Of course these were people who could probably screw up jeans and a t shirt...

[RiverAux]

Comparing H/W and BMI is essentially useless.

I currently weigh 189. That is within the AF H/W limit listed in the 39-1. My BMI is 27.3, which puts me in the overweight category. I have a bit of a belly (38" waist), but when I tell folks that I need to lose weight, no one seems to agree.

Well, BMI IS based on your height and weight.

You are actually below the obese level now.  But since you didn't give your height, its hard to tell where you fit on the CAP chart, but I bet that the max CAP weight for your height is going to come out in the obese category for someone of your height. 

Some examples from near your weight zone:
5'5 max CAP weight is 186 which is BMI of 30.9 = obese
5'6" max CAP weight is 191 which is BMI of 30.8 = obese
5'7 max CAP weight is 197 which is BMI of 30.9 = obese

The point is that anyone who doesn't meet the CAP standards is going to be OBESE, not just a few pounds overweight.  It is not difficult to spot obesity in America these days -- you know it when you see it.

[SarDragon]

I left out the word 'charts' after 'Comparing H/W and BMI'.

I'm 5'10". By the olde AF H/W chart, I max out at 194#, and on the CAP chart at 213#. The BMI for 213# is about 30.5, as you state, in the obese category.

My point was that, according to the olde, and outdated, AF chart, someone with my height and weight is within standards. According to the new standards, that is not the case. Numbers do not always relate to appearance.

[abdsp51]

Honestly I have seen more violations with the Corp uniforms than I have with the AF style.

Do you mean H/W violations, or just wearing them incorrectly, dirty, bad badging, etc?

I did not think there could be H/W violations with those orders of dress.

I believe the only violation I have seen is the G/W being worn with the AF blue windbreaker and CAP rank slides.

No sir the violations I see are things like long sleeve shirt no tie and hard rank on the collar of the G/W.

[PA Guy]

Honestly I have seen more violations with the Corp uniforms than I have with the AF style.

Many people who wear the G/W use it as an excuse to look like a ragbag. The G/W should be worn to the same standard as the AF style. The problem is no one jerks them up short because "it is just a corp. uniform".

[PA Guy]

Well, BMI IS based on your height and weight.

You are actually below the obese level now.  But since you didn't give your height, its hard to tell where you fit on the CAP chart, but I bet that the max CAP weight for your height is going to come out in the obese category for someone of your height. 

Some examples from near your weight zone:
5'5 max CAP weight is 186 which is BMI of 30.9 = obese
5'6" max CAP weight is 191 which is BMI of 30.8 = obese
5'7 max CAP weight is 197 which is BMI of 30.9 = obese

The point is that anyone who doesn't meet the CAP standards is going to be OBESE, not just a few pounds overweight.  It is not difficult to spot obesity in America these days -- you know it when you see it.

Using BMI as an indicator of obesity/underweight is not sound from a medical standpoint. It is a 19th cent. formula designed for population studies and is inappropriate for individual diagnosis. It does not account for disease, muscularity, malnutition, frame etc. BMI ranges are only valid for use as statistical catergories and the ranges can vary from country especially in Asia. The insurance industry likes it because it makes the work of their actuaries easier and the medical communtiy likes it because it is easier than actually examining someone. FWIW

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Good night nurse...some of the violations of (mis)wearing of the G/W uniform are bloody hideous.

Hard rank on the collars?  The only place where we're permitted to wear hard rank is on the BBDU hat.

"Wrong name tag?"  What are they wearing, the blazer nameplate?



Even though I don't like the uniform personally, when I do wear it, I wear it right; i.e., making sure it's clean (I'll say this for it - it's easy to just throw in the wash, rather than having to dry-clean like my AF blue uniform), ribbons are clean (a brief blast of Scotchgard helps with that), no "Irish pennants," shoes shined, etc.

If we just had an authorised, uniform headgear, I'd like the uniform better.

As it is, though, there is no excuse for treating any of our uniforms like that...sets a very bad example for those observing us.

[RiverAux]

According to the new standards, that is not the case. Numbers do not always relate to appearance.

What new standards?  CAPs are the same as always.

Using BMI as an indicator of obesity/underweight is not sound from a medical standpoint.

That may be, but its irrelevant to the conversation.  There are not many people who are going to fall into the obese category using BMI that are going to be in compliance with CAP height/weight standards.  As far as I know, neither CAP or the AF have used these standards for any sort of medical reason -- they use them because most of the time, someone who doesn't meet them looks fat and sloppy, and they don't want someone that looks fat and sloppy.  The AF (but not CAP) has other tests to determine medical health and fitness.

[Devil Doc]

Its not my Fault my Spoon and Fork made me Fat. Lets ban Spoons and Forks, so obesity will not be so prevelant.

[Walkman]

According to the new standards, that is not the case. Numbers do not always relate to appearance.

What new standards?  CAPs are the same as always.

I think he was referring the fact that the AF no longer uses H/W standards.

[Eclipse]

This has absolutely nothing to do with the health of members. This is 100% about appearance. We need to insure we are clear on this point.

The simple fact is that 60-70+% of the adult membership will never, ever, fall within the CAP standards for wear of the USAF style uniform.
Some for a few pounds, some for legitimate medical obesity, but mainly because they are "normal" Americans who have "real" jobs
and for whom CAP is a few-hour-a-month diversion from "real" life.  They have no mission-centric reason to care about their weight,
and the constant nagging about appearance standards is simply a negative draw on their spirit and initiative to continue membership.

The very pool we pull from, for the skills we seek out most, pilots, comm guys, IT people, professionals, and even police / fire people
are primarily sedentary occupations with no specific need to be concerned about physical ability beyond being able to find a chair that
won't collapse under your own weight.

So what happens?  People are people, and they do "what they have to".  Since the USAF doesn't actually care what we wear,
and there is no imperative from the national leadership to establish standards and uniform prescriptions, people fall back to lowest common
denominator, and we wind with whole units in nothing but golf shirts, and in some cases, not even those are worn properly. (Gray sweatpants
with white aviators in formation?  Seen it, and much worse).

The above being an undeniable fact, which is not going to change, I again say we need to start asking difficult questions that have straightforward
answers and then take the steps necessary to correct the situation.

But at the least, let's stop kidding ourselves about >why< we are where we are, or that this has anything to do with health concerns
about the membership.

[rframe]

Gray sweatpants with white aviators in formation?  Seen it, and much worse.

Sexy!  That should be a recruiting poster!

[Майор Хаткевич]

I was at a great TLC course this past weekend. There were 11 students and here is the breakdown of both days:

5 in Polos, 2 in Blues, 4 in G/Ws.

The activity was said to be G/Ws or Blues ONLY.

Upon seeing polos and asking the staff (All in Blues), this changed the next day:
7 in polo, 1 in blues, 3 in G/Ws.

One of the 3 G/Ws was in a polo the day before, so two G/Ws switched to polos.

While I have no issue with polos for classes, it's always a bit disappointing to see people not follow the UOD for...whatever.

I got something out of the course, and had 3 squadron mates there as students and the Squadron commander as an instructor in day 1. But the uniform thing....bleh.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

If we just had an authorised, uniform headgear, I'd like the uniform better.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: X 100,000

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Since the USAF doesn't actually care what we wear

Please clarify.  I thought that the whole point of the H/W kerfuffle was about the USAF caring how we look in the blue uniform.

we wind with whole units in nothing but golf shirts

When I joined the infamous flying club senior squadron, and first butted heads with the segment of our membership who could care less about looking good in a uniform, and who think we should not even be wearing the AF uniform, most of them, when they bothered with uniforms at all, wore golf shirts.

Some of it was probably because of H/W issues, but I think most of it was because it was cheap and easy.  You don't have to observe C&C's (something universally disliked in this unit) in a golf shirt (or at least it was so thought), and since golf shirts don't carry rank you don't have to worry about that either.  I was in that unit for two years, and there were many members whose rank I never learnt (most, I think, were "second lieutenants for life") because it was never worn.

One member who came in after I did asked me why I "bothered" with the AF uniform when it was so much "easier" and "cheaper" to just get a golf shirt.  Said member also did not own either the required blues or G/W.

I think the "cheap and easy" factor is predominant among those who are "golf shirt only," along with the not wanting to bother with C&C's if they can avoid it.