Should CAP Even Consider Encouraging Healthy Habits for Seniors?

[Flying Pig]

There are LE and EMS agencies that cant even get people motivated to stay in shape with financial incentives.  And those people are out there on a daily basis and see first hand how their big bellies affect their performance and wont even whip it into shape.

I doubt CAP will have any effect on someones lifesytle.

[Stonewall]

I'd like to make a comment in regards to weight vs. fitness level.

Last month I ran a PT test for 9 Airmen in their early 20s.  Waist sizes varied from 28" to 33".  These were SKINNY Airmen.  Many would consider them "fit", however of the 9 Airmen, 3 failed the PT test.  1 on the push-ups and 2 on the  1 1/2 mile run.  That's a 1/3 failure rate.  Just because you are skinny does not automatically make you physically fit.

These kids devour junk food and snort energy drinks ALL DAY LONG and while they are very skinny, they are WEAK to the bone.  One kid, age 24, ran the 1 1/2 miles in 14 minutes!!!!  14 minutes?  I'm 40 and 6 seconds away from a 9 minutes flat.  The kid that failed the push-ups weighs in at 150, yet he couldn't do more than 27 push-ups? 

Skinny does not always equal fit!

A guy with a few extra pounds on him who works out regularly is a hell of a lot healthier than a skinny dude with poor nutritional habits and zero time pounding pavement.

[Flying Pig]

When I was in the Marines I had an issue with a Marine who was to be discharged for being to big.  He was a wrestler, ran a consistent lower end Marine Corps 2nd class PFT.  But he always failed his weigh ins.  Now, keep in mind the dude was solid muscle, no issues whatesoever as a Marine.  He was discharged for being "overweight".  Probably one of the most gross incompetencies I ever witnessed during my time in the service.  I actually vividly remember NCOs telling him to just stop working out and "get skinny"!  He was a big fitness person and repeatedly tried explaining that not working out wouldnt make him slim down.  The guy was in tears as he packed his gear and signed out for the last time. 

[ProdigalJim]

I agree with the sentiment. I also agree that it should probably be voluntary. However, that said...

1) ES, particularly ground-team, *can* present momentarily physical stress. I have pictures of us doing a litter carry out of a ravine in March. Patient plus Stokes was coming close to 300 lbs., and after using a three-to-one advantage rope system to haul him UP, we had to do the caterpillar to get him the remaining 450 yards through the woods to the road. I see a legitimate need for doing a task/skill-based PT for ES work...kinda like my FD wants to see how much we can carry, drag, chop, etc.

2) Volunteers can be "peer fitness counselors" and do so effectively without the Legal system imploding. Again, in my very large urban Fire Dept. (85 percent career, 15 percent operational volunteers), there are peer fitness counselors on each shift in each house. Literally someone in every work group gets signed off to be the guru...not a tester ot a tattler, just someone to help out the stragglers.

3) I've seen career firefighters sent off to work in Logistics for the rest of their career because they couldn't pass the PT. It was humane and a good way to keep their "tribal knowledge" while getting them off the foreground. I don't dispute that there are LE and EMS agencies whose members are obese and won't change even with financial incentives. My point is simply that this is not a universal condition, and I can say that at least in my FD, they are taking it seriously.

4) In CAP, our version of item #3 above is the enormous range of tasks that need doing in CAP: Comms, IT, Logistics, Mission Base, IC, Marshaller, etc., in ES alone. Plus there's tons of work to do in AE and in the Cadet program. We can be very inclusive there. EVERYONE has a place.

5) There is certainly precedent for a minimal fitness standard. As has been noted elsewhere, if you can't get your FAA medical, you can't fly. We don't kick those people out of CAP...we make 'em ICs, or FROs, or you name it. As a GTM1 who is also a NFPA-certified Firefighter II, ALS provider and with some tech rescue under my belt, I can endorse the idea of a minimal fitness standard for GT work. Not SEAL Team Six/007/survive-on-twigs-for-six-weeks hardkewl BadA**...just reasonably able to carry loads for long times in the woods and statistically unlikely to be DRT with cadets.

[lordmonar]

I don't have to tell any of the regulars here that one of the most  frequent (and passionate) discussion topics here involves the height / weight restrictions for the AF-stye uniforms and the resultant "parallel track" of corporate uniforms that has resulted.  (To be fair, grooming issues are also part of that discussion.)

We have spoken at length about fairness and appearance issues.  Clearly, some of us have some very strong opinions in this area. 


So here's a question:

Assuming for a moment that our senior member population mirrors Amercians in general when it comes to nutrition and weight issues (IOW, a significant percentage are larger than they should be for health purposes):


1.  Can or should CAP have a role in helping larger seniors improve their health by losing weight and engaging in appropriate exercise?

Is that none of CAP's business?  Is even comtemplating such a thing a slippery slope on the road to a "Nanny Leadership Model"?

Do we have a legitimate interest in ensuring that our ES-rated members are able to respond in emergencies?

Do we have a legitimate interest in helping our seniors in improving their health in general?

2.  If you think we have an interest in improving the health of some of our members, what form should that take?

Some sort of optional program, perhaps nutrition advice and weight management counseling?

Mandatory screening, followed by confidential referal to weight managment resources in the community?

Health club discounts? 

Some sort of screening followed by a kind of AF-like Weight Control Program that has a goal of progressive and continuous improvement?

Something else?

Discuss.

For Question 1.....yes CAP should take a health interest in some of our members.  GT members and Pilots specifically.  For the rest I don't see a favorable cost/benifit analysis......with anything beyond "healthy living tips".

For Question 2.....for GT members......the PT test used by Hawk Mountain or some of the other GSAR agencies should suffice....and a requirment to have periodic physicals (steal the BSA or High Schools athletic physical forms) with some medical standards....like no high blood presure, history of heart diseas, seizers, ect as disqualifiers for field work (they can still be trainers).  For pilots we need to maybe....I say Maybe.....require class II physicals.  I have seen too many people fly way beyond where it was safe....because they were able to get an "easy" doctor to sign their Class III. 

Beyond that......we got too much stuff to do as it is, with safey compliance, PD levels, and all the other BS we have to do day to day....not to mention actually training for ES and running our squadrons.  Heck even manditory weigh ins would take 1-2 hours and would take hours more of tracking paperwork and entering data.

I like the intentions behind the idea.....but unless the idea was to force out all the fat and fuzzies.....I don't see any benifit to the various CAP programs beyond what I said in point 1 above.

[lordmonar]

There are LE and EMS agencies that cant even get people motivated to stay in shape with financial incentives.  And those people are out there on a daily basis and see first hand how their big bellies affect their performance and wont even whip it into shape.

I doubt CAP will have any effect on someones lifesytle.

The military has trouble getting and keeping their people in shape.

[AirDX]

1.  Can or should CAP have a role in helping larger seniors improve their health by losing weight and engaging in appropriate exercise?

No.  Hell, no.  I am overweight.  I don't like it.  I see my doctor routinely.  She bugs me about it.  I see my AME for a flight physical.  He bugs me about it.  I listen to them.  If CAP starts bugging me, if I have to listen to some half-baked "peer counselor", I'll flip.  So... no.

[Walkman]

I've got mixed feelings about this. Some rambling thoughts...

I met a SM in her 80s in air ops during a wing exercise. The ABD was dealing with something or another and she winked at me and told me "That's why I'm not an IC anymore". Are we going to make her and her generation do PT? I'm sure she's been a faithful CAP volunteer for decades. We don't want to lose that.

On the other hand, someone that's 100+ pounds overweight and can't walk a mile without keeling over probably shouldn't be on a ground team, either. That really puts the mission in jeopardy.

ES is really the only area where any sort of regulation would fit. There's nothing that prevents someone in poor health from being an outstanding leader of cadets, or reaching great heights in AE. Just because a member can't pass a PT test doesn't mean they have less value.

I've been working hard to lose the weight I gained to get back into my blues & BDUs. I'm right on the edge, some days I'm a little over, some days I'm under. It hasn't leveled out yet to be under all the time. So this issue is on my mind a lot.

We are a para-military organization, so the idea of a top-down directive really shouldn't be a culture shock to anyone. Regs are regs.

Something like this would have to be written just right. We don't want to lose valuable people.

[A.Member]

Absolutely, CAP should encourage a healthy lifestyle for all members.   In some ways we already do.  Senior members are rewarded with the privilege of wearing an AF-style uniform, if they like. 

We certainly don't need a new regulation to encourage this.  Encouraging voluntary participation in PT activities is a start.  This can be done jointly with cadets.  I've PT'd along side cadets to show them that "old" guys can do it to...it shows solidarity but is also a challenge to them.  We've done joint activities like volleyball, touch football, boot hockey, etc.  Our squadron did a 5K run.  We got people out that had never run that far before.  It's a start.   And there were no donuts involved at any point!  Speaking of which, the donut (ie fat pill) eating culture shouldn't be promoted/worn like a badge of honor either.  If you've worked with cadets for any length of time, you know very well what their impression is of some senior members (hint:  it's not favorable).  We indeed lead by example.

[bflynn]

1.  Can or should CAP have a role in helping larger seniors improve their health by losing weight and engaging in appropriate exercise?

Is that none of CAP's business?  Is even comtemplating such a thing a slippery slope on the road to a "Nanny Leadership Model"?

Do we have a legitimate interest in ensuring that our ES-rated members are able to respond in emergencies?

Do we have a legitimate interest in helping our seniors in improving their health in general?

Short answer no. 

Long answer - Senior members are adults.  It can be difficult to stand by and watch someone else do something that you believe to be "non-optimal", but you cannot be the arbitrator of what is best for them.  By the definition of best, only an individual can choose that for themselves.  Your values are not someone else's values and forcing yours over theirs crosses the line into the category of evil.  That word is selected with a very deliberate definition that I will explain privately to anyone who wishes to hear it. 

The core principle of Respect requires that you honor their choice.  Anything else shows a lack of Respect in that you believe their choice to be wrong.

If healthy life styles is the goal, then why stop at exercise?  Why not prohibit sodas, coffee and playing computer games?  Perhaps inspection of personal living spaces is in order to ensure no safety hazards exist, proper ventalation, temperature is correct, etc...but as you said, the slippery slope...

2.  If you think we have an interest in improving the health of some of our members, what form should that take?

Some sort of optional program, perhaps nutrition advice and weight management counseling?

Mandatory screening, followed by confidential referal to weight managment resources in the community?

Health club discounts? 

Some sort of screening followed by a kind of AF-like Weight Control Program that has a goal of progressive and continuous improvement?

I don't think any of these are effective.  Mandatory steps would only cause people to leave the organization; in my experience, including using the compulsion of the military, mandatory weight loss programs have never worked.  Since we don't even have that much power over others (think about that), mandatory weight would result in a few individuals losing weight, but most failing to qualify and therefore being forced out of the organization.  I think that's a fail.

Optional progams would be duplicating efforts that are already freely available.  If an individual is not taking advantage of those today, they will not begin taking advantage of them later.  The effort put into these programs may be better directed toward something more mission oriented.

At most I would see some kind of partnering program for CAP to work with a program such as weight watchers, but I'm not sure what CAP could offer to them...if it's money, then it's not partnering, CAP is just another customer.

[A.Member]

By the definition of best, only an individual can choose that for themselves.  Your values are not someone else's values and forcing yours over theirs crosses the line into the category of evil.  That word is selected with a very deliberate definition that I will explain privately to anyone who wishes to hear it. 

The core principle of Respect requires that you honor their choice.  Anything else shows a lack of Respect in that you believe their choice to be wrong.

We can respect their choice to not maintain their physical well being.  As stated, it is their choice.   However, respect is a two way street and those persons must also respect the team around them in understanding that someone in poor physical condition is a liability when trying to perform a more physically demanding mission, such as ES.   The last thing needed on a mission is a medical from one of our own to contend with.  It becomes an ORM issue.  And remember, no is forced to do anything here, we're all volunteers; so the slippery slope-"Nanny Leadership" example doesn't apply.  There are other organizations out there.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

"Encouragement" as opposed to "shaming" could be a good thing.

However, if it is presented in blanket arguments without taking into account the circumstances of the individual...you're looking to very likely tick not a few people off.

[Eclipse]

We can respect their choice to not maintain their physical well being, as stated, it is their choice.   However, respect is a two way street and those persons must also respect the team around them in understanding that someone in poor physical condition is a liability when trying to perform a more physically demanding mission, such as ES.   The last thing needed on a mission is a medical from one of our own to contend with.  It becomes an ORM issue.  And remember, no is forced to do anything here, we're all volunteers; so the slippery slope-"Nanny Leadership" example doesn't apply.  There are other organizations out there.

ORM is based on statistical probably and risk management, you have to prove a risk based on more then a hunch in order for it to be
relevant.

This is the same argument made in CAWG about Nomex, except there's no actual evidence from a CAP perspective beyond one or two anecdotal examples which may, or may not even be relevant.

CAP members, on the whole, are "normal", meaning some are fit, some are not, and they all do what they can, with no
evidence in a CAP context that there are any "issues".

If Jim Fixx were leading a ground team, would he be considered a liability or an asset?

[MSG Mac]

CAP actually does have a "Medical Officer" who is supposed to be promoting healthy life styles to the membership. However unlike the Chaplain, Safety, and Legal officers, we very rarely see or hear from him. 

[Ned]

It can be difficult to stand by and watch someone else do something that you believe to be "non-optimal", but you cannot be the arbitrator of what is best for them.  [. . .]  Your values are not someone else's values and forcing yours over theirs crosses the line into the category of evil.   

The core principle of Respect requires that you honor their choice.  Anything else shows a lack of Respect in that you believe their choice to be wrong.

Part of the problem is that there is more than one slippery slope leading off this particular mountain. 

It is not too hard to imagine some "non-optimal" behaviors that can not be tolerated by CAP, regardless of my personal values.  Drinking at the meeting, showing up to work with cadets with a strong odor of alcohol, coming to a meeting while suffering from a communicable disease, conducting a personal business using the CAP internet connection, wearing a CAP uniform to promote a personal business or to advance the interests of others, being a heroin addict even if one doesn't "use" during the meeting, buying cigarettes for a 19 year old cadet, etc.

There are clearly times when the Core Value of Respect may not be as helpful as we would like.

If healthy life styles is the goal, then why stop at exercise?  Why not prohibit sodas, coffee and playing computer games?  Perhaps inspection of personal living spaces is in order to ensure no safety hazards exist, proper ventalation, temperature is correct, etc...but as you said, the slippery slope...

Like I said, I hear you on the slippery slope issue, but it is intersting to note that many schools and businesses do in fact prohibit the sale of sodas and energy drinks on the premises, and restrict the playing of video games.  Certainly we do that sort of thing for the cadets and staff at encampment routinely.  In CAWG, at least, seniors are currently forbidden from having personal alcoholic beverages in their personal quarters during encampment.

I don't think any of these [things suggested as possible measures to hel seniors control their weight]  are effective.  Mandatory steps would only cause people to leave the organization; in my experience, including using the compulsion of the military, mandatory weight loss programs have never worked.  Since we don't even have that much power over others (think about that), mandatory weight would result in a few individuals losing weight, but most failing to qualify and therefore being forced out of the organization.  I think that's a fail.

Optional progams would be duplicating efforts that are already freely available.  If an individual is not taking advantage of those today, they will not begin taking advantage of them later.  The effort put into these programs may be better directed toward something more mission oriented.

At most I would see some kind of partnering program for CAP to work with a program such as weight watchers, but I'm not sure what CAP could offer to them...if it's money, then it's not partnering, CAP is just another customer.

As some of you know, my spouse is the benefits manager for a large Silicon Valley company, and works the same sort of issues.  Insurance companies currently offer better rates for companies with a given percentage of their employees with a BMI below a certain level.  Some companies charge smokers a surcharge for their health insurance and are considering doing the same thing for large employees.

Obviously, CAP can't create that kind of financial incentive, but we could do at least one of the things you suggested - a partnership with Weight Watchers or a similar organization.

Is that worth exploring?

[Private Investigator]

Obviously, CAP can't create that kind of financial incentive, but we could do at least one of the things you suggested - a partnership with Weight Watchers or a similar organization.

Is that worth exploring?

Yes sir.   :clap:

[Eclipse]

As some of you know, my spouse is the benefits manager for a large Silicon Valley company, and works the same sort of issues.  Insurance companies currently offer better rates for companies with a given percentage of their employees with a BMI below a certain level.  Some companies charge smokers a surcharge for their health insurance and are considering doing the same thing for large employees.

Not "insurance companies" health insurance companies, and generally only when either the company or the covered individual chooses to allow
a much more intrusive level of information be provided regularly to the company (just like the devices Progressive wants people to install in their
cars to "lower" their rates).  We don't provide, nor are we in any way involved with the health insurance of our members - we don't even mandate they
have it, so what would the benefit to the member be (beyond health), to get involved in something like that?

Obviously, CAP can't create that kind of financial incentive, but we could do at least one of the things you suggested - a partnership with Weight Watchers or a similar organization.

Is that worth exploring?

No.  No one in CAP is going to join Weight Watchers, which can be pretty expensive, because there's a CAP logo on the collateral.

The more I think about it, the more this becomes an initiative which would result in zero tangible benefits to CAP as an organization.  There is
no information whatsoever that poor health is in any way impacting mission performance, and until that can be shown, there's no intersection for
CAP to be legitimately involved, beyond the general "we need live members, so be healthy so you'll be alive.

Just like religion, CAP does not have the contact hours for this to be a concern they should be involved in.

[Jill]

Bottom Line...walk or jog at least 30 - 45 mintues.  Hit the pavememt at least 4 times a week.  Up hill.  My heart Dr tells me everytime..."What a pleasure it is to see someone take care of themself.

[Jill]

Flying Pig
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,494

     Re: Should CAP Even Consider Encouraging Healthy Habits for Seniors?
« Reply #20 on: October 05, 2012, 05:23:49 PM »   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are LE and EMS agencies that cant even get people motivated to stay in shape with financial incentives.  And those people are out there on a daily basis and see first hand how their big bellies affect their performance and wont even whip it into shape.

Won't even whip it into shape.  Robert, you could have not said that any better than that.  I know Viet Nam Vets who are so lean.  Hats off to working the heart muscle.

[RiverAux]

There is
no information whatsoever that poor health is in any way impacting mission performanc

Oh, I don't know about that.  I think it is indisputable that the number of current senior members that could potentially participate in the ground team program is being restricted by the limitations of those that are overweight or out-of-shape.  If more of the people we had were in shape, more of them could be active participants.   Of course not all of these folks would consider ground team work if they were in shape, but it is certain that many of them haven't got involved because they recognize that they couldn't be effective team members.

And I do think mission performance is being limited when planes can't fly with a full crew because a third person would put you over the weight limit.  If all our aircrew members were close to being within recommended weights this wouldn't be an issue at all.  I have personally seen time spent at mission base shuffling crew members around so that you could have a full crew without busting the weight limits.