Active Duty Obesity Statistics

[winterg]

We have a serious problem here in the US with rising obesity rates and it is getting worse. And it is becoming an issue for our Active Duty military as well. While we usually only talk about weight issues here in a uniform thread, I think it is a frank discussion that needs to be had everywhere on how we can revive a more health concious culture in today's society. 

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/and-the-fattest-us-military-service-is

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

[LSThiker]

We have a serious problem here in the US with rising obesity rates and it is getting worse. And it is becoming an issue for our Active Duty military as well. While we usually only talk about weight issues here in a uniform thread, I think it is a frank discussion that needs to be had everywhere on how we can revive a more health concious culture in today's society. 

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/and-the-fattest-us-military-service-is

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

Careful there, you are now borderline body shaming.

This has been talked about for quite some time now.  There is a decent amount of information regarding this very concern in both primary journals and tertiary websites (note: I do not necessarily hold the same views nor endorse the organizations/articles/sources posted here for your information):

A talk given by Dr. Leary, Defense Health Board (pdf file link)
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0ahUKEwjYheK4qdDPAhUl2oMKHccNBe4QFgg1MAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.health.mil%2FReference-Center%2FPresentations%2F2013%2F11%2F18%2FDecision_Brief_Obesity&usg=AFQjCNGJbSJvH_SaFjqJ2bMHJam6iez0BQ&bvm=bv.135258522,d.amc&cad=rja

A 2015 primary paper in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (impact factor 2.4)
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/2/1174

A USAToday report back in 2009:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-02-09-obesity_N.htm

A 2008 report in Military Medicine (impact factor 0.77) regarding this:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5256769_The_Prevalence_of_Overweight_and_Obesity_among_US_Military_Veterans

A 2010 report on Phys.org regarding 25% of applicants are denied due to obesity
http://phys.org/news/2010-10-military-applicants-denied-due-obesity.html

[winterg]

That is one of the issues. Any talk about obesity is somehow seen as demeaning.  I know I have wrestled with the middle age bulge since I hit the big 4-oh and I know it isn't easy.  But if we don't talk about, the prophecy of Wall-E will come sooner than we think. 

Looking forward to perusing those articles when I get home LSThiker. 

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

[etodd]

You can't watch TV for more than a few minutes without some AD or PSA telling us how out of shape we are. We get bombarded with it in magazines, newspapers and TV as well.

Point being ... the 'message' is already out there and everyone know the problem and knows what to do.

But for 90% its all about will power. And its just too easy to 'put it off until tomorrow'. Again and again.

Folks need a specific reason. For me, I'm headed to the AME the end of this month to renew my 2nd class medical. Having that looming over my head helped me lose 30 pounds in the last 4 months. After the medical ... I may go celebrate with lots of BBQ ribs.  Then in two years have to take it off again. LOL

[Spam]

A data point: if someone is meeting the mission based fitness requirements for their assigned job, ideally I should not care if they're male, female, black, white, straight or not... or fat.

The work that my teams did in cockpit and crew systems design through the 90s and 00s showed that anthropometry and strength, and strength and endurance, were not as strongly correlated as you'd think for a range of combat tasks (Dr. Joe McDaniel of ASC was the coauthor with us of the applicable MIL-STD). This of course doesn't speak to the long term health issues for vets.

Anecdotally, I just returned FRI from a meeting with a few tier 1 guys and their aviators, of whom the majority were, lets say, "large and in charge". One CW5, who has a no kidding 39 years active service, has the belly of an 18 year old - actually two or three of them put together. More of a pony keg than a six pack. He, like his brother large soldiers there, is a highly decorated combat vet who can walk the walk despite having some on board reserves.  I've gone running with him, and he runs me into the dirt despite having a tight t shirt. Three months ago, I watched four of these guys run three miles in ACUs and boots in the Alabama summer heat to meet us for lunch at a Five Guys (they earned the calories).

So, my takeaway is that obesity is not always a mission kill, and it is not necessarily a willpower failure, and the data is descriptive but not necessarily predictive of job performance.

V/r
Spam

[Luis R. Ramos]

At my first Encampment, the other TAC officer--that time senior members assigned to cadet flights were called TACs--was over the USAF tables. In fact he had been discharged for that reason. He was 35 or 40. He told me that during a run, he had to carry his NCO supervisor weapon and others carry her. His claim that she was fitter than him per the USAF yet she could not accomplish the run w/o help.

Later during an activity several cadets were playing throwing water at each other. All of a sudden one of the 17 or 18 year old cadets dumps a cooler full of water on that man. And both start chasing each other. The cadet was not caught by the older guy, but he was always within a finger of getting caught. Despite the cadet having an initial 5-foot start in the run. A 35 or 40 year old running as fast as a 17 or 18 year old.

Bottom line?

Agreeing that body fat, weight, and height measurements are not always the best measurements of member mission capabilities.

[Live2Learn]

Bottom line?

Agreeing that body fat, weight, and height measurements are not always the best measurements of member mission capabilities.

BMI anyone? 

The debate over what is, is not "healthy" body fat amounts is similar to some of last year's discussion on the aviation boards when the FAA suggested BMI was the tool to catch sleep apnea in the bud. 

[etodd]

..... measurements of member mission capabilities.

There you go.  Make physical stats part of task guide requirements for particular SQTR sheets:

Ground Team members who may need to hike up and down steep rocky hills in very hot or cold and rainy conditions ... high physical fitness requirements.

Mission Base radio ops and similar ... no height/weight physical requirements.

Mission Scanners, Airborne Photographers, and Observers ...no height/weight physical requirements as long as PIC determines W&B is OK.

Etc., etc.

[abdsp51]

We have a serious problem here in the US with rising obesity rates and it is getting worse. And it is becoming an issue for our Active Duty military as well. While we usually only talk about weight issues here in a uniform thread, I think it is a frank discussion that needs to be had everywhere on how we can revive a more health concious culture in today's society. 

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/and-the-fattest-us-military-service-is

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

Not  a valid source for information and political propoganda to support your pseudo senior pt program.

[winterg]

We have a serious problem here in the US with rising obesity rates and it is getting worse. And it is becoming an issue for our Active Duty military as well. While we usually only talk about weight issues here in a uniform thread, I think it is a frank discussion that needs to be had everywhere on how we can revive a more health concious culture in today's society. 

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/and-the-fattest-us-military-service-is

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

Not  a valid source for information and political propoganda to support your pseudo senior pt program.

Thank you for your feedback, although I do not have any such program.  Nor is there any politics in this post. 

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

[abdsp51]

We have a serious problem here in the US with rising obesity rates and it is getting worse. And it is becoming an issue for our Active Duty military as well. While we usually only talk about weight issues here in a uniform thread, I think it is a frank discussion that needs to be had everywhere on how we can revive a more health concious culture in today's society. 

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/and-the-fattest-us-military-service-is

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

Not  a valid source for information and political propoganda to support your pseudo senior pt program.

Thank you for your feedback, although I do not have any such program.  Nor is there any politics in this post. 

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

Really anyone can do a search and see posts of you pushing for one and using the presidents one as a pseudo one.  Try again.... And frankly this is something that needs to be discussed between a person and their doctor along with all the health information. 

And bottom line people have to want to eat healthier and until eating healthier starts tasting better and becomes cheaper than the alternatives it won't. 

[winterg]

We have a serious problem here in the US with rising obesity rates and it is getting worse. And it is becoming an issue for our Active Duty military as well. While we usually only talk about weight issues here in a uniform thread, I think it is a frank discussion that needs to be had everywhere on how we can revive a more health concious culture in today's society. 

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/and-the-fattest-us-military-service-is

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

Not  a valid source for information and political propoganda to support your pseudo senior pt program.

Thank you for your feedback, although I do not have any such program.  Nor is there any politics in this post. 

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

Really anyone can do a search and see posts of you pushing for one and using the presidents one as a pseudo one.  Try again.... And frankly this is something that needs to be discussed between a person and their doctor along with all the health information. 

And bottom line people have to want to eat healthier and until eating healthier starts tasting better and becomes cheaper than the alternatives it won't.

Your passive aggressive comments aside.  Me and fellow CAP members encouraging each other and anyone else who wants to participate in the Presidents Physical Fitness program, or whatever it is called now, is not mrant to be a pseudo CAP Physical Fitness program. Should we have one? I think so. And I don't think it's that's a bad thing. But your remarks are trying to make it sound like I am pushing an agenda and that is not the case. I would  recommend that if you do not like the discussion, just don't participate in it.

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

[abdsp51]

Your passive aggressive comments aside.  Me and fellow CAP members encouraging each other and anyone else who wants to participate in the Presidents Physical Fitness program, or whatever it is called now, is not mrant to be a pseudo CAP Physical Fitness program. Should we have one? I think so. And I don't think it's that's a bad thing. But your remarks are trying to make it sound like I am pushing an agenda and that is not the case. I would  recommend that if you do not like the discussion, just don't participate in it.

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

And you will use any form of propaganda even information from a invalid source to advance your agenda.  You are pushing an agenda and that is clear to see.  If you don't like my comments don't read them. 

You advocate a mandated senior program when there is no desire nor need for one.  You use any type of data from and source regardless of credibility to further that ad-vocation. 

If you can't accept or take a counter view point then don't post anything that opens you up to it. 

[winterg]

I have never advocated a mandatory Physical Fitness program for senior members.  Please do not accuse me of things I have not done, sir. I have, however, frequently said a voluntary fitness program for senior members, not tied to any promotions, would be beneficial.  Please tell me how that makes me the bad guy with the evil agenda please. 

As for the source, please provide evidence that Military Times is not a trustworthy source for information and I will be happy to amend my OP with that caveat.

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

[Spaceman3750]

Ground Team members who may need to hike up and down steep rocky hills in very hot or cold and rainy conditions ... high physical fitness requirements.

You might be surprised. At the end of the day it's just walking. Most people can put one foot in front of the other. Not all areas have these conditions either.

In my experience, most adults will know their limits and know when to call it quits. No reason to draw a line where none is needed.

[abdsp51]

I have never advocated a mandatory Physical Fitness program for senior members.  Please do not accuse me of things I have not done, sir. I have, however, frequently said a voluntary fitness program for senior members, not tied to any promotions, would be beneficial.  Please tell me how that makes me the bad guy with the evil agenda please. 

As for the source, please provide evidence that Military Times is not a trustworthy source for information and I will be happy to amend my OP with that caveat.

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

The Military times had never been a trustworthy source of information just like Military.com or any other social media or media outlet claiming ties to the military.  They report a skewed version of things that occur and rarely provide anything else outside of entertainment.  So provide something with a little more to it than the  Military times.

[winterg]

I have never advocated a mandatory Physical Fitness program for senior members.  Please do not accuse me of things I have not done, sir. I have, however, frequently said a voluntary fitness program for senior members, not tied to any promotions, would be beneficial.  Please tell me how that makes me the bad guy with the evil agenda please. 

As for the source, please provide evidence that Military Times is not a trustworthy source for information and I will be happy to amend my OP with that caveat.

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

The Military times had never been a trustworthy source of information just like Military.com or any other social media or media outlet claiming ties to the military.  They report a skewed version of things that occur and rarely provide anything else outside of entertainment.  So provide something with a little more to it than the  Military times.

Sorry. That sounds like opinion. 

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

[Spam]

..... measurements of member mission capabilities.

There you go.  Make physical stats part of task guide requirements for particular SQTR sheets:

Ground Team members who may need to hike up and down steep rocky hills in very hot or cold and rainy conditions ... high physical fitness requirements.

Mission Base radio ops and similar ... no height/weight physical requirements.

Mission Scanners, Airborne Photographers, and Observers ...no height/weight physical requirements as long as PIC determines W&B is OK.

Etc., etc.

If you were to delete the "height/weight" references, I'd be on board with that as a GTL/GBD, especially since it is a legal requirement of NIMS resource typing that CAP isn't observing at all (see below references). I wouldn't want to leave behind any motivated person who was "too" skinny, short, tall, or fat, (or too old/too young) IF they could keep up and pull their weight. For those that can't, this is why we have graduated standards (e.g. UDF).


Even then, I'd still use ORM to assign members to physically appropriate field tasks. I've had smart guys who, overhearing me brief two Ground Teams to scale two foggy ridgelines to search along an approach middle and outer marker, 'fessed up that they didn't feel physically able to assume such taskings (for which honesty I was filled with admiration - some less experienced men would have foolishly rushed forward in pride to failure, and to burden their fellow volunteers).


A good idea in theory at least for the nascent curriculum project. Providing position based guidance to qualification based on expected physical job tasks seems reasonable to me Most of the other volunteer SAR and VFD units I know do so - in accordance with NIMS, which we don't currently do. (emphasis added below)


V/r
Spam

https://www.fema.gov/nims-frequently-asked-questions


Q: What is a credential?
A: The terms "credentialed" and "credentialing" mean having provided or providing, respectively, documentation that identifies personnel and authenticates and verifies the qualifications of such personnel by ensuring that such personnel possess a minimum common level of training, experience, physical and medical fitness and capability appropriate for a particular position.

Q: NIMS Credentialing Guidelines: Who does it apply to?
A: By law, 6 U.S.C. § 320, NIMS Credentialing Guidelines are mandatory for each federal department and agency with responsibilities under the National Response Framework to ensure incident management personnel, emergency response providers, other personnel (including temporary personnel) and resources likely needed to respond to a natural disaster, act of terrorism or other manmade disaster are credentialed. They are voluntary and highly encouraged for federal legislative and judicial branches, state, local, tribal, private sector partners and non-governmental organizations.



MODIFIED to add examples from the fema.gov position descriptions/typing aids of what "credentialing" within the SAR working group job title criteria:

SAR Job Title 35: Wilderness Search and/or Rescue Technician
Description: A Wilderness Search and/or Rescue Technician is a member of a Wilderness SAR Team who searches for and rescues
those in trouble in urban/suburban as well as other environments.45
R E Q U I S I T E C R I T E R I A
The table below lists minimum requisite criteria, based on existing protocols and standards, for a Wilderness Search and/or Rescue
Technician to participate in the NIMS Integration Center's National Emergency Responder Credentialing System.
Physical/ Medical Fitness
Minimum physical fitness standards as required by the AHJ, such as:
• MRA 105.1 Fitness
• CO WSAR Fitness
• NWCG Pack Test "Arduous"
• MCSOMR/CAMRA Mountain Rescue Specific Physical Ability Test
(MRSPAT)
• NIMS WSAR Type II and IV Fitness

[Eclipse]

Based on the above two paragraphs, CAP certainly does this today.

[abdsp51]

I have never advocated a mandatory Physical Fitness program for senior members.  Please do not accuse me of things I have not done, sir. I have, however, frequently said a voluntary fitness program for senior members, not tied to any promotions, would be beneficial.  Please tell me how that makes me the bad guy with the evil agenda please. 

As for the source, please provide evidence that Military Times is not a trustworthy source for information and I will be happy to amend my OP with that caveat.

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

The Military times had never been a trustworthy source of information just like Military.com or any other social media or media outlet claiming ties to the military.  They report a skewed version of things that occur and rarely provide anything else outside of entertainment.  So provide something with a little more to it than the  Military times.

Sorry. That sounds like opinion. 

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

Sorry that's fact.  Neither the "Military Times" or "Military.com" are credible sources of information in regards to anything having to deal with the DoD.  Sorry but you need something better than them. 

[winterg]

I have never advocated a mandatory Physical Fitness program for senior members.  Please do not accuse me of things I have not done, sir. I have, however, frequently said a voluntary fitness program for senior members, not tied to any promotions, would be beneficial.  Please tell me how that makes me the bad guy with the evil agenda please. 

As for the source, please provide evidence that Military Times is not a trustworthy source for information and I will be happy to amend my OP with that caveat.

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

The Military times had never been a trustworthy source of information just like Military.com or any other social media or media outlet claiming ties to the military.  They report a skewed version of things that occur and rarely provide anything else outside of entertainment.  So provide something with a little more to it than the  Military times.

Sorry. That sounds like opinion. 

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

Sorry that's fact.  Neither the "Military Times" or "Military.com" are credible sources of information in regards to anything having to deal with the DoD.  Sorry but you need something better than them.

I posted this article for discussion. If you have a study or proof that the information contained in it is incorrect, by all means, please post it.  It will add to the discussion. 

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

[abdsp51]

I posted this article for discussion. If you have a study or proof that the information contained in it is incorrect, by all means, please post it.  It will add to the discussion. 

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

And that is what you are getting,  you just don't like it.

[winterg]

I posted this article for discussion. If you have a study or proof that the information contained in it is incorrect, by all means, please post it.  It will add to the discussion. 
Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

And that is what you are getting,  you just don't like it.

I've been following the thread on my phone so it is entirely possible that I missed something.  Please point out to me where anything in my original post was proven wrong?  While there was some excellent anecdotal evidence that not every person has the same physical fitness ability regards to weight, which I agree with, I do not see anything that says the information in the posted article is inaccurate or untrustworthy.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Quote from my message where I am criticizing overweight people.

Quite the contrary.

I am stating that it does not matter if you are overweight, you can still do the mission.

So in effect, I did say something nice.

[Eclipse]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE0u1Ph3KDk

[SarDragon]

sarster's post was removed as inappropriate. PM sent.

Let's keep this civil.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Eclipse-

I posted a message, someone answered criticizing me for the contents of my message.

Whoever he was, he misread the message completely. Basically I stated that the measurements, weight limits, etc. are not true indicators of the capabilities of people that measure more than what the limits of said tables.

This person posted info from my CAPF101, and ended stating "If ya don't have anything nice to say, don't say it."

I overreacted, and in my reply posted something not so nice but removed that last sentence as I considered it inappropriate.

Whomever it was, needs glasses or guidance on interpreting reading, as what I stated in the message, was nice!

[SarDragon]

Folks, this is NOT the fourth grade playground. Please keep it civil and relevant.

[stillamarine]

I have never advocated a mandatory Physical Fitness program for senior members.  Please do not accuse me of things I have not done, sir. I have, however, frequently said a voluntary fitness program for senior members, not tied to any promotions, would be beneficial.  Please tell me how that makes me the bad guy with the evil agenda please. 

As for the source, please provide evidence that Military Times is not a trustworthy source for information and I will be happy to amend my OP with that caveat.

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

The Military times had never been a trustworthy source of information just like Military.com or any other social media or media outlet claiming ties to the military.  They report a skewed version of things that occur and rarely provide anything else outside of entertainment.  So provide something with a little more to it than the  Military times.

Sorry. That sounds like opinion. 

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

Sorry that's fact.  Neither the "Military Times" or "Military.com" are credible sources of information in regards to anything having to deal with the DoD.  Sorry but you need something better than them.

Funny. When I was on AD everyone read the Military Times and pretty much accepted what it said......of course that was before google and internet tough guys.

[etodd]

Ground Team members who may need to hike up and down steep rocky hills in very hot or cold and rainy conditions ... high physical fitness requirements.

You might be surprised. At the end of the day it's just walking. Most people can put one foot in front of the other. Not all areas have these conditions either.

In my experience, most adults will know their limits and know when to call it quits. No reason to draw a line where none is needed.

Yep. That was my point I was getting to.  As volunteer CAP members, we are not swimming miles to shore, climbing cliffs and going into battle.

People that are out of shape, already know it. They don't need CAP 'brass' telling them so. They already know. If they want to look good in their blues, they lose weight. If they don't care or are unable, they won't.

Physical condition is rarely related to our missions. And when it is, as others have stated here, its up to the IC to assign folks to particular jobs that can perform them safely.

Just my two cents.

[CAPAPRN]

The gold standard for a credible source is peer reviewed articles. All scientific journals that claim to publish factual material take submitted articles and subject them to expert peer review. While I like Military Times and read it's online portion, I do not use it for research purposes. In fact, a lot of us stopped believing it as a credible source when they started telling us how much money we made in comparison to civilians (this is back in the 70's and 80's) when they would compare living in an open bay barracks with the expense of a standard apartment, and then "credit" our income by the amount of the rent, while conveniently forgetting to credit us with overtime and a myriad of other pays we did not enjoy in those days. Military Times serves a journalistic purpose, not a research one.

[Fubar]

In my experience, most adults will know their limits and know when to call it quits. No reason to draw a line where none is needed.

We have different experiences. The only three times I've ever seen an EMS response (two ground ambulances, one air ambulance) to CAP missions were for CAP members who failed to know their limits. Frustratingly, everyone else knew they were exceeding their limits but didn't say anything because they didn't want to hurt the feelings of the individual. Two cases were for guys who were simply out of shape, one was for a guy who probably flew with the Wright Brothers at some point.

[LSThiker]

The gold standard for a credible source is peer reviewed articles. All scientific journals that claim to publish factual material take submitted articles and subject them to expert peer review.

While we would like to believe that is true, it is not.  Not all scientific journals use a peer-reviewed process.  Even those that do, it is varied process.  Not all reviewers are experts in that field.  I know some of my articles were reviewed by people that did not any experience in my field or even a tangent field.  I have been asked to review articles that I have no experience in that field as well.  Normally, I turn those down (more because of laziness than anything else), but I know others do not.  I have seen PhD students reviewing articles as well as MS-level researchers.

This is why impact factors are important.  However, not even that is completely reliable after you just browse "Retraction Watch" and see how many high impact journal articles are retracted.  Case in point is the Wakefield article which should have been shot down in the peer review process due to poor statistics.  Unfortunately, it was not. 

As Carl Sagan would say "science is more than a body of knowledge.  it is a way to skeptically interrogate the universe".   I have mentioned on here several times that what separates scientists from people that have studied science is the amount of critical thinking and analysis one does.     

[Майор Хаткевич]

In my experience, most adults will know their limits and know when to call it quits. No reason to draw a line where none is needed.

We have different experiences. The only three times I've ever seen an EMS response (two ground ambulances, one air ambulance) to CAP missions were for CAP members who failed to know their limits. Frustratingly, everyone else knew they were exceeding their limits but didn't say anything because they didn't want to hurt the feelings of the individual. Two cases were for guys who were simply out of shape, one was for a guy who probably flew with the Wright Brothers at some point.

Yea, people are prone to overestimating their own abilities. That's how we get "I know I'm over the limit for AF uniforms, but I can pull off the look". They don't however, and others can see it.

[RogueLeader]

In my experience, most adults will know their limits and know when to call it quits. No reason to draw a line where none is needed.

We have different experiences. The only three times I've ever seen an EMS response (two ground ambulances, one air ambulance) to CAP missions were for CAP members who failed to know their limits. Frustratingly, everyone else knew they were exceeding their limits but didn't say anything because they didn't want to hurt the feelings of the individual. Two cases were for guys who were simply out of shape, one was for a guy who probably flew with the Wright Brothers at some point.

Yea, people are prone to overestimating their own abilities. That's how we get "I know I'm over the limit for AF uniforms, but I can pull off the look". They don't however, and others can see it.

That's also where a good GTL stands up and says: No, you are not fit for this mission, and you are not coming with me.

I always evaluate who I call for a ground action, depending on the specifics to the mission. 

[etodd]

I always evaluate who I call for a ground action, depending on the specifics to the mission.

Sounds like you are lucky to be in a very large squadron, where you have multiple folks ready to go on notice and so you can pick and choose, and not just get whoever happens to be available..

[PHall]

I always evaluate who I call for a ground action, depending on the specifics to the mission.

Sounds like you are lucky to be in a very large squadron, where you have multiple folks ready to go on notice and so you can pick and choose, and not just get whoever happens to be available..

If whoever happens to be available can't do the mission then you still don't take them.  We don't need to "rescue the rescuer'.

[RogueLeader]

I always evaluate who I call for a ground action, depending on the specifics to the mission.

Sounds like you are lucky to be in a very large squadron, where you have multiple folks ready to go on notice and so you can pick and choose, and not just get whoever happens to be available..

Here's the thing.  I don't.  In our unit, I have a total of 4 GTM's.  On an actual mission, I have to pull from other units.  That being said, I use the authority I have to make the calls as to who trains for what in my squadron.  If a member doesn't have what it takes- mental, emotional, or physical ability to train for a particular task, I don't allow them to train, and my Squadron Commander backs me up. 

If whoever happens to be available can't do the mission then you still don't take them.  We don't need to "rescue the rescuer'.

That's just it.  There are members that are qualified that I will take on certain missions but not on others.  There are certain members that I don't ever foresee calling for a ground action.  For example, if I have to hike Laramie Peak (East Central Wyoming) again, I'm going to pick the more physically fit members.  As some background, the areas around Laramie Peak is around 4,300' AGL.  The highest trail head is Friendship Park, Elevation 7,300'  The top of the trail is about 10'500 AGL, and the trail is about 5 miles to the top. The trails go from nice and easy, to rough as you go up.  The terrain is rough: boulders 6-8'+ in diameter, and challanging to  cross and search.

I can easily put a lot of members on a search area in Wheatland WY (28 miles from Laramie Peak, Elevation 4'770ish) for a missing person and be ok.  That is not the same for Laramie Peak.

What would it do if I took members that were not capable to handling the assigned mission?
1) Get members hurt
2) Take us out of the mission
3) Expend other resources
4) Damage our reputation with the controlling authority (the County Sheriff controls all SAR in WY)
5) Extra paperwork to deal with the incident

Call me crazy, but if a member can't walk 1.5 miles in 30 minutes with their gear on level, improved surfaces, you don't have what it takes to do SAR here in Wyoming.  Typically, here in Wyoming, people don't get lost in easily accessible places.  You have to know your people, you have to know the area your are operating in.  Otherwise, you are begging for trouble. Telling someone that they are good to go for a mission when you know they aren't is not a courtesy.  It is a violation of respect, integrity, and excellence.  That does not mean that you are rude about it, I know I've had my issues, but it does mean that you step up and make those decisions and you be honest about it with them.  I respect that they want to go and serve, I also show them respect by being honest about why my decisions are what they are.  I show integrity by not lying to them- it can be easy to tell them that they're GTG and cross your fingers (and pray that nothing bad will happen.)  I demonstrate Excellence by selecting the Team using good ORM decisions based on the specifics at hand.

I would much rather be honest and tell the customer that we aren't capable of taking that particular assignment.  I would also like to do my level best to not put members in a situation that they are very likely to end up in the hospital, or worse- the morgue.

[USACAP]

I am not sure we can do that - have an adult conversation about anything in #America2016.
Everything is political now. 
The US military is presently obsessed with denying the sexual dimorphism inherent in the human race.
Standards can only be lowered now, never raised nor improved.

...how we can revive a more health concious culture in today's society. 

[Live2Learn]

As for the source, please provide evidence that Military Times is not a trustworthy source for information and I will be happy to amend my OP with that caveat.

...

The Military times had never been a trustworthy source of information just like Military.com or any other social media or media outlet claiming ties to the military.  They report a skewed version of things that occur and rarely provide anything else outside of entertainment.  So provide something with a little more to it than the  Military times.

...
Sorry. That sounds like opinion. 

Times 3. 

It doesn't take much effort researching medical journals to discover higher rates of diabetes, heart disease, stroke, etc., etc., associated with obesity.  I suppose one could also argue that smoking is "good" or at least "harmless" - and be on equally tenuous ground based on a very large volume of  medical research. 

[JC004]

We talk about this in the Selective Service System.  There's A LOT....A LOT....of people who are not qualified to join the military, or in our case, draft.

[SarDragon]

As someone who was actively involved in the draft a whole bunch of years ago, qualifications/standards for induction varied from month to month, and even week to week, depending on quotas. Quotas get met - the bar goes up; quotas not get met - bar goes down. The same thing happened for other enlistment type fields, particularly Army helicopter pilots. The variable standard was mostly vision for them.

[PHall]

As someone who was actively involved in the draft a whole bunch of years ago, qualifications/standards for induction varied from month to month, and even week to week, depending on quotas. Quotas get met - the bar goes up; quotas not get met - bar goes down. The same thing happened for other enlistment type fields, particularly Army helicopter pilots. The variable standard was mostly vision for them.

Yeah, if you were correctable to 20/20, you were good to go.

[SarDragon]

At a couple of points in the  Vietnam War timeline, you didn't even need to be fully corrected.

Sent from my phone.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Date of Registration: 5/21/2008

A few days past 90 days two months past the 30 day period after turning 18, but these days it doesn't seem like there is an active push to get men registered...I read about it, and did it online, myself.

Now that I'm over 26, guess my lotto days are over.

[RogueLeader]

I am not sure we can do that - have an adult conversation about anything in #America2016.
Everything is political now. 
The US military is presently obsessed with denying the sexual dimorphism inherent in the human race.
Standards can only be lowered now, never raised nor improved.

...how we can revive a more health concious culture in today's society. 

Fortunately, most of the people in my AOR understand and live the Core Values, and understands the limitations that they have.  The mutual respect goes along ways.  In those few cases where they don't want to hear that they aren't qualified for a GT Mission- its odd that their phone never rings.  Weird.