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.
The ES argument flies until you look at reality - a lot of PD & FD people are just as out of shape or worse then
CAP members. I'd have no issue with a performance-based gateway, as many departments have today,
but good luck getting that through - not to mention surviving the attrition.
The only way you'll make significant inroads with this is financial incentives.
Uniform allowance, membership fees waiver, or similar - that gets people's attention. Being one more voice in a crowded
room telling members they are unhealthy won't make any difference, other than possibly encouraging them to look elsewhere
with their free time.
Adults already know when they are unhealthy, they wold need to know why it's important in a CAP context, and that context
would have to also include much better enforcement of the regs today for those who choose to ignore them.
We'd need a seismic paradigm shift, not to mention a sudden influx of members to handle the attrition.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 05, 2012, 05:47:48 PM
Adults already know when they are unhealthy, they wold need to know why it's important in a CAP context, and that context
would have to also include much better enforcement of the regs today for those who choose to ignore them.
Wait, are you saying pushing 250 lbs is bad for me!? Since when! ?!!?!!?!111?!
* Modified because I had a change of mind.
I disagree with the fact that CAP as an organization, should have the right to try and get involved with people's personal lives. This is almost like Michelle Obama with her school lunches. If people wanna eat and become over weight, by all means let them. Who in the heck are we to try and tell people what they can and cant do. I keep myself fit, I work out, and I mantain a proper diet. I dont worry about other people, cause I have no right to tell them they need to work out or look a certain way. However, if such a program did exist, it should only be limited to ENCOURAGING, in the sense of the word, and not anything else.
The CAP SAR Ranger program has physical requirements for those wishing to earn rank in SAR and participate in ES, and I think that something like that should be implemented into the GTM Standards. This should take care of the SAR/ES argument, which i agree with. If someone plans on doing SAR/ES, they should be reasonably fit, and be able to respond in an emergency, and not become a liability in the field.
I agree with weight. Can you tell an SM that "Volunteers" their time to be in weight standards? I am losing weight so I can wear the BDUs and AF Uniforms. All good points you guys are making though keep it going this should be an interesting topic.
I think CAP, like BSA, VFD, and VSAR organizations attract a lot of adults with addictive personalities. I am included in this!!! I have known TONS (no pun intended) of senior members who were so involved in CAP you'd think it was their full-time PAID job. Houses look like CAP NHQ and their personal cars are loaded with self-purchased equipment and have the markings of a CAP Corporate SAR vehicle. Yet, they are in the worst shape of their lives. Why? Because they are addicted to CAP and likely addicted to convenient/unhealthy foods that go along with always being on the go...for CAP. When CAP becomes more of a priority than your career, education, family, or health, then YOU have a problem. A problem that is no different than gambling, smoking, alcohol, or eating.
I have been involved with BSA for a whopping 3 weeks now and their adult "leaders" look identical to CAP leaders. Out of the 20 or so adults I've seen, at least 80% are grossly overweight. They look and act exactly like the majority of our seniors, as if they MUST do Scouts. It's almost scary!
I don't think CAP SM's need to be involved in cadet PT or participate. I don't think they should have to take a PT test. But I think, at a minimum, some serious peer pressure from some level needs to HIGHLY encourage fitness and healthy lifestyle habits. As a cadet I pointed and laughed at fat senior members. As a healthy senior member, I question motives and the priorities of obese members who JUST GOTTA DO CAP.
Some argue to an extent that CAP is an organization for those who wish to serve our nation, but are, for some reason, incapable of doing so as part of the armed forces. I'm not sure if that is true, but I like it as an option for those patriots who don't qualify for the military due to age or medical disqualification. I support that 100%.
Leading by example is more than just as part of a ground team, building rockets, or walking around with some flashy rank on your collar. You lead in ALL aspects of mentorship to include financial responsibility, legally, ethically, and through physical fitness and nutrition.
I don't want my son or daughter thinking it's okay to be obese, as long as you're nice and show up on time. No, it is NOT okay.
From a strictly self-preservation point of view (avoiding medical costs to the organization), CAP should have physical fitness requirements for ground team members. Beyond that I don't think CAP has any sort of responsibility in this area.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 05, 2012, 06:29:19 PM
From a strictly self-preservation point of view (avoiding medical costs to the organization), CAP should have physical fitness requirements for ground team members. Beyond that I don't think CAP has any sort of responsibility in this area.
Pour encourager les autres? I agree that I need to get my fat a..bu...tail in shape because as a GTL I can't keep up with the cadets anymore. The youngest GTL we have is 30, and the oldest is 54 and ALL of us are out of shape. I couldn't even pass the land navigation part of SARTECH a few years ago without feeling like my heart was gonna explode. I had taken to walking about 2 miles in the park but when I started working here and there it interfered with my walking schedule. I think I'll start again now that I'm working nights and maybe throw on my field gear after a few weeks.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 05, 2012, 06:29:19 PM
From a strictly self-preservation point of view (avoiding medical costs to the organization), CAP should have physical fitness requirements for ground team members. Beyond that I don't think CAP has any sort of responsibility in this area.
CAP does have them in the Ranger curriculum. What they should be doing is adding them to the GTM program. I dont know why they have not made it a GTM standard yet, because the GTM standards were adapted off of the Ranger standards in the first place.... ???
Quote from: SARMan on October 05, 2012, 06:34:06 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 05, 2012, 06:29:19 PM
From a strictly self-preservation point of view (avoiding medical costs to the organization), CAP should have physical fitness requirements for ground team members. Beyond that I don't think CAP has any sort of responsibility in this area.
CAP does have them in the Ranger curriculum. What they should be doing is adding them to the GTM program. I dont know why they have not made it a GTM standard yet, because the GTM standards were adapted off of the Ranger standards in the first place.... ???
What are these standards? Be able to walk with a pack for X miles?
GT is self-selecting. If someone can't do it, then they probably wont. I could stand to loose around 70 lbs to be in a good "FIT" spot. But at my current weight I can get a lot done, and I can certainly traverse the woods with a pack for a good amount of time. We're not double-timing to a rescue...
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 05, 2012, 06:47:15 PM
Quote from: SARMan on October 05, 2012, 06:34:06 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 05, 2012, 06:29:19 PM
From a strictly self-preservation point of view (avoiding medical costs to the organization), CAP should have physical fitness requirements for ground team members. Beyond that I don't think CAP has any sort of responsibility in this area.
CAP does have them in the Ranger curriculum. What they should be doing is adding them to the GTM program. I dont know why they have not made it a GTM standard yet, because the GTM standards were adapted off of the Ranger standards in the first place.... ???
What are these standards? Be able to walk with a pack for X miles?
GT is self-selecting. If someone can't do it, then they probably wont. I could stand to loose around 70 lbs to be in a good "FIT" spot. But at my current weight I can get a lot done, and I can certainly traverse the woods with a pack for a good amount of time. We're not double-timing to a rescue...
They are actually pretty good fitness requirements. You can find the testing sheets down at the bottom of the page. http://pawg.cap.gov/hawk_mountain (http://pawg.cap.gov/hawk_mountain)
Quote from: Ned on October 05, 2012, 05:35:06 PM
1. Can or should CAP have a role in helping larger seniors improve their health by losing weight and engaging in appropriate exercise?
Yes, CAP can and should have a role in this, but it should be strictly advisory except in cases where operations could be impacted. In other words, weight restrictions for aircrew or adding a day hike with 24 hour gear to the GTM requirements is okay, but dismissing members for being overweight is not.
Quote from: Ned on October 05, 2012, 05:35:06 PM
Do we have a legitimate interest in ensuring that our ES-rated members are able to respond in emergencies?
Absolutely! This helps ensure that our members don't become casualties by exceeding their physical limitations, and shows our partners that CAP is serious about the ES mission.
Quote from: Ned on October 05, 2012, 05:35:06 PM
2. If you think we have an interest in improving the health of some of our members, what form should that take?
An optional program modeled on CAPP 52-18 is the direction I would go. Put the information out there, incentivize participation in some manner (ribbons, squadron awards, t-shirts, etc.), and provide some sort of tracking mechanism so that those interested can participate outside of their regular meetings.
Quote from: Ned on October 05, 2012, 05:35:06 PM
Some sort of optional program, perhaps nutrition advice and weight management counseling?
Advice? Yes, in the form of a properly-vetted publications, but I would be firmly against providing any kind of counseling since there could be issues of legal liability if the counseling leads to a bad result.
Quote from: Ned on October 05, 2012, 05:35:06 PM
Health club discounts?
Why not, but an even better option would be access to AF facilities for those members close enough to take advantage of it.
Quote from: NC Hokie on October 05, 2012, 07:04:12 PM
Quote from: Ned on October 05, 2012, 05:35:06 PM
1. Can or should CAP have a role in helping larger seniors improve their health by losing weight and engaging in appropriate exercise?
Yes, CAP can and should have a role in this, but it should be strictly advisory except in cases where operations could be impacted. In other words, weight restrictions for aircrew or adding a day hike with 24 hour gear to the GTM requirements is okay, but dismissing members for being overweight is not.
Quote from: Ned on October 05, 2012, 05:35:06 PM
Do we have a legitimate interest in ensuring that our ES-rated members are able to respond in emergencies?
Absolutely! This helps ensure that our members don't become casualties by exceeding their physical limitations, and shows our partners that CAP is serious about the ES mission.
Quote from: Ned on October 05, 2012, 05:35:06 PM
2. If you think we have an interest in improving the health of some of our members, what form should that take?
An optional program modeled on CAPP 52-18 is the direction I would go. Put the information out there, incentivize participation in some manner (ribbons, squadron awards, t-shirts, etc.), and provide some sort of tracking mechanism so that those interested can participate outside of their regular meetings.
Quote from: Ned on October 05, 2012, 05:35:06 PM
Some sort of optional program, perhaps nutrition advice and weight management counseling?
Advice? Yes, in the form of a properly-vetted publications, but I would be firmly against providing any kind of counseling since there could be issues of legal liability if the counseling leads to a bad result.
Quote from: Ned on October 05, 2012, 05:35:06 PM
Health club discounts?
Why not, but an even better option would be access to AF facilities for those members close enough to take advantage of it.
:clap: :clap: :clap:
My knee-jerk reaction is a big ol' heck-no, I don't want CAP to become yet another extension of Big Brother.
As I ponder the topic a bit longer I think of flight physicals. All pilots have to pass occasional physicals to keep their medical current. Flying is the carrot to try staying fit enough to fly. Outside of those physicals all pilots are expected to intelligently self-certify every time they fly. Their lives depend on it, along with those of their passengers and anyone else in their path.
Similarly, perhaps a meaningful re-certification process would be wise for the few ES jobs that require physical exertion. For instance: we have an interest in reasonably assuring that a GTL won't become incapacitated or go DRT (Dead-Right-There) out in the middle of nowhere with a bunch of minor cadets. I don't believe we should go beyond performance based standards. If you can do the job with minimal drama we shouldn't spend much, if any, time worrying about your diet or other legal habits outside of CAP. If you can't do the job, you don't get to "play."
At mission base I've seen members of all shapes and sizes. Their fitness has little impact on mission base performance. In fact some of the highest performers I know fall outside of the weight standards for wear of Air Force style uniforms. Doing anything to drive them away would be an unnecessary loss for CAP.
I'm fortunate enough to stay fairly fit and trim, although I could stand to improve my exercise program. I don't need, or want, CAP to point me in the right direction.
Yes, CAP should encourage healthy lifestyles, including maintaining a physically fit and healthy body! What is the harm in this? Now of we get into requiring PT tests, minimum standards, etc., then we'll have a problem. There is no harm (and a lot of good) in encouraging this.
As for how? Let's look at some ways CAP could help members stay/get healthy.
-Many companies have a work/life benefit plan for employees that extends free phone guidance, smoking cessation products, medical referrals, discounts on gym memberships, diet plans, etc. What would be the cost to the corporation to provide a benefit such as this to CAP members?
-How about an optional physical fitness program for seniors? I'm thinking something along the lines of how the Yaeger award works. Do this, this and that and get this award and a ribbon for your rack. There could be breakdowns by age and gender for the requirements, as there are in school and military programs.
-A great way to start (and this is a big pet peeve for me) is to STOP BRINGING DOUGHNUTS to meetings, SAREX's, etc. We tell our cadets to be healthy and eat right, then bring a couple dozen doughnuts to the SAREX at 7 in the morning!!! How about some fresh fruit instead?
-
One of the issues that needs to be considered is what, in CAP, besides the uniform, is affected by members' health?
Beyond being alive to actually participate, I don't see anything we do as any more strenuous then the average american's
day-to-day life. Most of what we do, including flying, is akin to the average office job, and the bivouac's and ground ES are
akin to a hike in the woods. We're not doing death marches or survival readiness.
I do agree on the food - we try and set the example for cadets and then can't even be bothered to be discreet about
the crap we eat. I know plenty of seniors who think it's funny to eat junk food in front of deprived cadets at encampment,
etc. That's not cricket, and we should at least try and present a healthy image within caet eyeshot.
But then again we have members who can't go a week without "a beer after a long day", and leave base to catch up.
Encourage all you want.
The trouble comes in when you start requiring.
Sarman, took a look at the requirements for advanced ranger and its crap. I'm on a phone atm, but can just say that a 'one size fits all' test that has little to do with CAP missions is useless beyond stroking ranger egos.
Quote from: SARMan on October 05, 2012, 06:34:06 PM
CAP does have them in the Ranger curriculum. What they should be doing is adding them to the GTM program. I dont know why they have not made it a GTM standard yet, because the GTM standards were adapted off of the Ranger standards in the first place.... ???
CAP does not have a "Ranger curriculum". Some
Wings have a Ranger Program and curriculum.
Quote from: SARMan on October 05, 2012, 06:34:06 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 05, 2012, 06:29:19 PM
From a strictly self-preservation point of view (avoiding medical costs to the organization), CAP should have physical fitness requirements for ground team members. Beyond that I don't think CAP has any sort of responsibility in this area.
CAP does have them in the Ranger curriculum. What they should be doing is adding them to the GTM program. I dont know why they have not made it a GTM standard yet, because the GTM standards were adapted off of the Ranger standards in the first place.... ???
No. Not true.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Ned on October 05, 2012, 05:35:06 PM
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.
Quote from: Flying Pig on October 05, 2012, 09:23:49 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.
I doubt CAP will have any effect on someones lifesytle.
The military has trouble getting and keeping their people in shape.
Quote from: Ned on October 05, 2012, 05:35:06 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Ned on October 05, 2012, 05:35:06 PM
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...
Quote from: Ned on October 05, 2012, 05:35:06 PM
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.
Quote from: bflynn on October 07, 2012, 09:20:57 AM
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.
"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.
Quote from: A.Member on October 07, 2012, 03:27:40 PMWe 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?
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.
Quote from: bflynn on October 07, 2012, 09:20:57 AM
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.
QuoteIf 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.
QuoteI 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?
Quote from: Ned on October 07, 2012, 09:24:45 PMObviously, 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:
Quote from: Ned on October 07, 2012, 09:24:45 PM
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?
Quote from: Ned on October 07, 2012, 09:24:45 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 08, 2012, 02:02:46 AM
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.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 08, 2012, 02:53:53 AM
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.
^ That's conjecture, not data. I don't fully disagree, but you don't scale programs that require member effort and expense, as well as risk significant attrition based on conjecture.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 08, 2012, 02:53:53 AM
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.
I've seen plenty of shuffling of crews where everyone is within weight. Take three tall guys that wear adult clothing sizes and you've still
got an issue in some of our planes.
I'd be more inclined to suggest that age/frailty is a bigger reason than obesity for our GTX numbers. The last wing I was in had (IIRC) 5 GTLs. Three of them were in rough shape due to their advanced age, and wouldn't consider actually going into the field. Instead, they were also rated as GBDs and stayed at the mission base. So, that left me and one other person that could do GTL, in the entire wing.
Quote from: ProdigalJim on October 05, 2012, 10:20:31 PM
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........
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.
I'm wrestling with the weight issue now myself. I think the H/W standards serve a purpose, and I think a minimum fitness standard would serve a purpose too. We can look at lots of regs and make the argument that they don't add to our capabilities, or guarantee we can perform our missions. So what's one more? I think encouraging fitness among our members is a great idea. I think that a finess standard for ground team participation is a great idea. I don't think we have to run people off if they don't want to do it. We don't run people off for not wanting to cut their hair do we? We don't run people off because they can't be bothered to wear SOME kind of approved uniform to meetings do we? So what harm is there in encouraging a healthier lifestyle for the members?
A couple of months ago, my company rolled out a walking program tied to an informational campaign to raise awareness of what adult fitness means, statistically, and used a team building context to encourage broad participation. The response has been huge, and I have to admit, it's been one of the best health and safety programs I've been involved with at the company, in 24 years, and probably the best program in any organization I've been involved with.
So, voluntary programs that appeal to people in a matter of fact and adult way can be very successful. If we incentivize it and maybe tie it to a unit recognition program, maybe that would be enough. The senior squadron I'm in, mostly pilots, seems pretty fit overall, for the reasons mentioned by most everyone (FAA medical requirements). But how much better could they be if not just weight control was an issue, but actual fitness as well. I cringe when I see pics of pilots who meet H/W standard, but have almost zero muscle mass in the upper body, making their flights suits look particularly baggy. I'd be very interested in a health club partial subsidy as a member benefit, or a discount on a weight loss program (not just weight watchers). Again, we don't have to make people leave, we just might gain something by encouraging better fitness among the membership.
Right Big Shu,,,,walk or jog.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 08, 2012, 03:07:22 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 08, 2012, 02:53:53 AM
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.
^ That's conjecture, not data. I don't fully disagree, but you don't scale programs that require member effort and expense, as well as risk significant attrition based on conjecture.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 08, 2012, 02:53:53 AM
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.
I've seen plenty of shuffling of crews where everyone is within weight. Take three tall guys that wear adult clothing sizes and you've still
got an issue in some of our planes.
I'm not convinced there is a signifigant attrition risk in a program encouraging fitness and a task based fitness standard. If we need data to base program decisions on, then at the very least, we should be soliciting member feedback besides what we get on this discussion board. As far as member time and expense, why not offer a perk to smooth things over? Like time in grade reductions for promotion based on meeting the fitness metric? You still have to have the other pre-reqs, but shaving a month or two off time in grade could be very attractive to newer members. I don't know that a lot of expense is involved anyway. A previous post mentioned how a simple walking program can be very effective in weight loss. If the complaint is time, how much is your health worth? Surely a couple of hours a week to add some years of healthy living is a no-brainer trade off.
Quote from: BigShu on October 08, 2012, 03:34:27 AMhow much is your health worth? Surely a couple of hours a week to add some years of healthy living is a no-brainer trade off.
That's a lifestyle choice unrelated to CAP mission needs and mandates.
CAP should only be concerned with those. If there is actual data that indicates this is an issue, so be it, work the problem. If this is a "people should take better care of themselves" concern, let adults worry about their own health. I'd have no issue with performance-based testing, but that isn't going to health of the average member involved.
I'd hazard that most of the members we're talking about are in the "under 50, lose 50" crowd, and most people who need to drop under 50 pounds
are not going to have limitations that would be impacted by performance-based testing that is real-world to CAP's needs.
The attrition comes when CAP starts pressing people in areas it should stay out of. Yank the ES quals from some members, and "banish" them to
a desk job and they will just go find some other SAR org (assuming they aren't already in 2 as it is).
CAP is not a 24x7 end-to-end situation - they don't provide uniforms, health care, financial compensation, or medical care to their members. When they
do, it would be a different situation, as it is, an organization that has about 48-50 contact hours with the average senior member in a given year should
worry about that more then whether it's members need to move around more.
If anything, the constant uptick in administrative mandates is encouraging people to spend
more time sitting, not less.
Want to actually encourage activity? Ditch the SUI's, CI's, and SAVs for something people actually care about like SARExs and bivouacs. Every
weekend wasted showing off a meaningless file plan is one
less that those members can do things they actually joined for.
Quote from: Ned on October 07, 2012, 09:24:45 PMObviously, 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?
I won't categorically say no but Weight Watchers is probably not the right fit.
I'd take a slightly different approach to promoting these ideas:
- Every Wing Conference should have a voluntary run/walk lead by the Wing Commander. Could be as short as a mile, could be as long as 3 miles. It could be morning, afternoon, or evening - doesn't matter. There needs to be some sort of public recognition associated with it (ideally during a general assembly or something). This idea can be scaled up to the National level all the way down to the squadron level. These conferences should also dedicate some time to discussing member health at some point during the event.
- CAP could have a voluntary "Senior Member Challenge". Seniors from across the country could complete in competition similar to the PT portion of the Cadet Competition. This could all be run from the unit level and aggregated up. PAO's would cover and promote this heavily. If we wanted, I'm sure we could even find a sponsor or two to provide a few awards, t-shirts, etc. for top participants.
- Activities around promoting a healthier senior lifestyle should be promoted in CAP News and Volunteer. To this, recommendations for SAR(EX) snacks, meals, etc. other than donuts and coffee. Perhaps some discounts/coupons for CAP units on some of these items at certain local merchants (this may be a reach in that it requires more involvement/contact outside CAP) .
- Our squadron had several senior members, myself included, compete in events such as Tough Mudder (http://toughmudder.com/) and Warrior Dash (http://www.warriordash.com/) over the past couple years. Our squadron even volunteered at Warrior Dash and earned a fair donation (between $500 - $1,000, I don't recall exactly). Cadets were inspired to take part in future events because of the Seniors. CAP teams for similar events could be encouraged.
- Squadrons could host a fun run/walk. Unfortunately, these types of events have become a dime a dozen so fundraising shouldn't necessarily be a goal. However, our squadron hosted a 5K run/walk and we had participants from several surrounding squadrons. Approx 1/3rd of the participants were Senior Members, including a couple that had never done such an event before. A number of other seniors helped manage the event (timing, water/aid station, course marking, etc).
- Medical Officer could brief about the importance of annual physicals, etc.
These are just a few ideas. They don't require a huge amount of expense or research by CAP or the members but may foster a healthier culture. Some, or perhaps all, could be done in conjunction with the cadet program, if desired (just one more activity to help bond cadets/seniors together).
Again, the approach shouldn't nor does it need to be approached through a new/updated regulation/mandate, although the earlier comment about reducing administrivia is a good one and enters into the discussion as well. The objective also isn't to turn to every member into a "lean, mean, fighting machine" (I don't think anyone is suggesting that).
The goal is to get members thinking about their health and perhaps get them to move the needle in the right direction. I think we might find a fair number of members will nod their head and say, "yeah, I know I should be doing something better or I've though about doing something but..." (we've already seen a glimpse of that in this thread). Perhaps with some encouragement, they can leave the "but" off that statement and actually take a step or two beyond just thinking about it.
Of course, there will always be a fair number of Capt. Bagodonuts out there that won't move a butt muscle regardless but doesn't mean it's not in CAP's best interest to try. The key to any such "program" is to sell members on the benefit to CAP; ie. they must be told and understand why this is good for CAP (there are several). There must be someone at the Wing (or lower) levels to champion such activities, in additon to National.
There is a bunch of good that could come out of this, but even more bad if it is done incorrectly. CAP is not:
A fitness organization
A military service
A extremely high danger tasked organization
Concerned about the health of its members
CAP is:
A high activity organzation at points
A moderately dangerous organization
A organization where a general level of fitness is required to perform a great deal of the field work
Concerned about our safety (to cover its own tail)
So, we cannot call anyone fat body (not literally) without stepping out of our bounds. CAP is not a fitness oriented organization, so there is no major push to make everyone get fit or get out (which'd be horrible). CAP is not like a Fire Department, so our lives are not dependant on our fitness directly in the field. CAP has made no noticable effort to promote true physical fitness, which is why this topic exsist.
CAP is sometimes a high activity, high speed organization, which sometimes require us to move things or do things that are not "easy". CAP is moderately dangerous in some respects, like ES, flightline, and flying duties. Being able to walk a distance, wear relatively light gear, and be mobile is a given for any ground team. But most importantly, CAP is worried about the prior things being safe. Safety=no upset people= no lawsuits= win win.
My point of stating the somewhat obvious is to show where we have a contradictory situation here. We do not want to offend members, but we do not want a lawsuit from Kei Effe-Sei, who passed out and lost her teeth because her body couldn't handle the stresses of being extremely overweight and the stresses she came across.
If someone were to approach this idea seriously, we could argue that it is a safety hazard for CAP not to inform people they need to watch their nutrition because their poor health could translate to poor performance in the physical side of CAP. This would warrant CAP to make an halfway decent attempt at creating some sort of message, warning, or program saying nutrition matters just to cover its own tail.
If this is not approached correctly, negative feelings could make heavier members leave out of frustration with CAP.
If approached correctly, there could be a halfway decent attempt for an overall health message from CAP to its members in the sake of being lawsuit fool proof.
Just food for thought...
Quote from: Eclipse on October 08, 2012, 03:43:45 AM
Quote from: BigShu on October 08, 2012, 03:34:27 AMhow much is your health worth? Surely a couple of hours a week to add some years of healthy living is a no-brainer trade off.
That's a lifestyle choice unrelated to CAP mission needs and mandates.
CAP should only be concerned with those. If there is actual data that indicates this is an issue, so be it, work the problem. If this is a "people should take better care of themselves" concern, let adults worry about their own health. I'd have no issue with performance-based testing, but that isn't going to health of the average member involved.
I'd hazard that most of the members we're talking about are in the "under 50, lose 50" crowd, and most people who need to drop under 50 pounds
are not going to have limitations that would be impacted by performance-based testing that is real-world to CAP's needs.
The attrition comes when CAP starts pressing people in areas it should stay out of. Yank the ES quals from some members, and "banish" them to
a desk job and they will just go find some other SAR org (assuming they aren't already in 2 as it is).
CAP is not a 24x7 end-to-end situation - they don't provide uniforms, health care, financial compensation, or medical care to their members. When they
do, it would be a different situation, as it is, an organization that has about 48-50 contact hours with the average senior member in a given year should
worry about that more then whether it's members need to move around more.
If anything, the constant uptick in administrative mandates is encouraging people to spend more time sitting, not less.
Want to actually encourage activity? Ditch the SUI's, CI's, and SAVs for something people actually care about like SARExs and bivouacs. Every
weekend wasted showing off a meaningless file plan is one less that those members can do things they actually joined for.
Well, I think the fact that Ned started the discussion is an indicator that there's a concern. I think the multiple instances of anecdotal evidence of ES personell availability means there might be a need to dig deeper. I think the confessions of the members who posted saying they feel their physical condition is a personal concern might be a leading indicator of an issue.
I think you gloss over the physical limitations of someone who's less than 50 pounds overweight. Most people close to 50 overweight would be considered morbidly obese on a BMI chart, for what that's worth.
The impression that I get is that many consider CAP a hobby at best, and are only in it for the bling or some other motivation than the missions. So, yes, if commitment to the missions is lacking, I can see people would be inclined to leave if onerous mandates came down on them. But I thought we were talking about a program of encouragement, with perhaps some task based fitness standards. Not Olympic standards, more like, can you walk on a treadmill and carry on a conversation too, standards.
As far as this being just a "people should take better care of themselves" issue, I don't see a downside to any organization I'm involved with expressing a sentiment like that. Why on Earth would anyone get bent by a program suggesting good health is a good thing?
When I was in BSA as an adult leader, we told leaders who smoked to not do it in the presence of the scouts. Adult leaders have to pass a swim test to have full pool priveledges at summer camp! We made sure that alcohol was strictly prohibited on campouts and official encampments. The penalty for it on a national camp was expulsion of the leader, and the potential loss of charter for the troop involved. I won't begin to detail the attention that's paid to youth protection in BSA, but it makes CAP's rules look childish by comparison.
My point is that just starting a program encouraging voluntary adherance to a fitness standard is a laughably low bar. We're supposed to be the go to group for inland SAR, the Air Force Auxilliary, but we worry that simply saying people should take care of themselves will turn off members? Yikes.
I figured the TIG reduction idea would get a rise....
Quote from: Eclipse on October 08, 2012, 03:43:45 AM
The attrition comes when CAP starts pressing people in areas it should stay out of...
This is somewhat an aside but I find the concern around attrition, whether it be related to this topic or a number of others, to be a bit of a red herring. CAP cannot and should not try to be all things to all people (no organization can for that matter). As our mission changes, and it undoubtedly must to some extent as it relates to ES, the organization must change/adopt. Along the way some people will need to make a choice. While the end program may no longer be a good fit for them, it may attract very good candidates that previously were not interested. Point is, the fear of attrition shouldn't necessarily drive decisions for the organization.
The potential for attrition has to be considered any time a major program is implemented. In this case, the risk is pretty high, as you are going to potentially tell members the "thing" they enjoy most is no longer open to them. "Feel free to balance the checkbook and shuffle the personnel files -
you can even be a commander and setup the playground for everyone else, but you can't play yourself anymore." Most of CAP is run and staffed by
members who tolerate the nonsense of running the program specifically so that they can "do" the thing they actually enjoy and joined for.
Ever tell a woman she is overweight? Good luck with that. I've been involved with situations where members were crying because some goof decided
all the aircrews would weigh-in publicly. Seemed like a good idea at the time.
As to anecdotal evidence, that's what it is, and useless to support a national initiative. I've been in about 13 years, and am as active as most in ES both ground and air - I have never once encountered a situation where an overweight member caused a safety or mission-effectiveness issue in the field or in the air. I've encountered plenty of situations where perfectly-"healthy" members, both seniors and cadets, have caused issues because of bad behavior or poor decisions.
You also can't negate the fact that the entire country, as a whole, is 50lbs overweight or less. Call that what you like. CAP will not change that, and that is the demographic from which our members come.
If this is a voluntary program, fine, one more non-mission related piece of buzz to add to the background noise that just wastes member's time and does nothing to actually accomplish the mission, foster growth, or raise our public awareness. We have a well-intentioned monthly safety mandate which has become just one more check-box impediment to participation. This will be on that pile.
BTW - we technically already have a weight program - it's the table in 39-1 that says who can, and cannot, wear the USAF-style uniforms. Considering
how well and consistently that's enforced, how do you think a real-world weight program is going to work?
When is CAP going to pay for my gym membership? Oh they're not? OK, time for the traditional pilot's lunch:
Coke - Snickers Bar - Bag of Chips.
Where is the incentive CAP can use to promote healthy lifestyle? just giving it lip service will accomplish nothing. Trying to impose certain height-weight-fitness standards on the membership will at best cause a serious decline in new member applications, and may well lead to discrimination lawsuits.
Eating lifestyles, as long as the average American thinks fast food is healthy food again not much is going to change. People will complain, buy the diet supplements, crash diet, lose a few pounds and then eat a gallon on ice cream to celebrate.
So what is the answer? There is no easy answer. What can CAP (and we) do?
Plan activities that stress fitness.
Don't lecture, badger, counsel those that are not fit. (Sign I saw in an Army Personnel Office back in the 1970's:
"CAUTION: Your b+++++ (complaining) about my smoking may be hazardous to your health") People tend to be naturally stubborn and resist being told what to do, especially when they are being told to stop doing something they think is enjoyable.
So plan activities that stress fitness and let them decide they are unfit and let them decide they need to do something, and then support them.
Ground Team Land Nav actually in the woods on a 3 to 5 mile course.
Aircrew: dump the tugs, manually move the aircraft into and out of the hangar. Establish "no engine" areas, and state the airplane must be a minimum of 30 feet from any fence or building prior to start, and must be shut down at the same point upon termination. Under the safety umbrella, Water Survival training, post crash training, and even a visit to an altitude chamber.
Again, put the members into situations where they will decide they must change their lifestyle. That is the only way CAP can lead-encourage-push healthier lifestyles
Quote from: Cliff_Chambliss on October 08, 2012, 04:35:55 PMPlan activities that stress fitness.
Don't lecture, badger, counsel those that are not fit. (Sign I saw in an Army Personnel Office back in the 1970's:
"CAUTION: Your b+++++ (complaining) about my smoking may be hazardous to your health") People tend to be naturally stubborn and resist being told what to do, especially when they are being told to stop doing something they think is enjoyable.
So plan activities that stress fitness and let them decide they are unfit and let them decide they need to do something, and then support them.
Ground Team Land Nav actually in the woods on a 3 to 5 mile course.
Aircrew: dump the tugs, manually move the aircraft into and out of the hangar. Establish "no engine" areas, and state the airplane must be a minimum of 30 feet from any fence or building prior to start, and must be shut down at the same point upon termination. Under the safety umbrella, Water Survival training, post crash training, and even a visit to an altitude chamber.
Again, put the members into situations where they will decide they must change their lifestyle. That is the only way CAP can lead-encourage-push healthier lifestyles
I actually agree with this, the challenge is in finding things that actually "challenge" - the stuff above is pretty much already what we do, and well within
the lane of those capable of dressing themselves or actually getting in the airplane.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 08, 2012, 04:44:36 PM
Quote from: Cliff_Chambliss on October 08, 2012, 04:35:55 PMPlan activities that stress fitness.
Don't lecture, badger, counsel those that are not fit. (Sign I saw in an Army Personnel Office back in the 1970's:
"CAUTION: Your b+++++ (complaining) about my smoking may be hazardous to your health") People tend to be naturally stubborn and resist being told what to do, especially when they are being told to stop doing something they think is enjoyable.
So plan activities that stress fitness and let them decide they are unfit and let them decide they need to do something, and then support them.
Ground Team Land Nav actually in the woods on a 3 to 5 mile course.
Aircrew: dump the tugs, manually move the aircraft into and out of the hangar. Establish "no engine" areas, and state the airplane must be a minimum of 30 feet from any fence or building prior to start, and must be shut down at the same point upon termination. Under the safety umbrella, Water Survival training, post crash training, and even a visit to an altitude chamber.
Again, put the members into situations where they will decide they must change their lifestyle. That is the only way CAP can lead-encourage-push healthier lifestyles
I actually agree with this, the challenge is in finding things that actually "challenge" - the stuff above is pretty much already what we do, and well within
the lane of those capable of dressing themselves or actually getting in the airplane.
If these added physical challenges are pretty much what we already do, why do we have the problem with member fitness? I'm surprised to hear that the H/W standard isn't being consistently enforced. Considering how many people talk about needing to get their weight down, you'd think it would be pretty strictly self policed.
I guess the answer to Ned's original question is no, we can't expect more fitness from our members. We can't risk losing people who may or may not be able to meet a fitness standard, because they'll quit if we ask them to. We can't even encourage them to become more fit, because the health of our volunteer force is just none of our business.
It's discouraging to hear all the infighting about any topic that's broached. If we're serious about ES, we need people who are fit for the task. If we're serious about AE, we need to have our educational contacts not look like sausages stuffed in an aviator shirt, and if we're serious about the cadet program providing leaders of the future, we need to do better than "do as I say, not as I do". And we certainly don't inspire confidence in either the public at large, or the Air Force, if our answer to any challenge is we can't do that, people will quit!
Quote from: BigShu on October 08, 2012, 10:04:50 PM
If these added physical challenges are pretty much what we already do, why do we have the problem with member fitness?
That's the point. We don't. At least not from a quantifiable mission-impact perspective.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 08, 2012, 10:22:53 PM
Quote from: BigShu on October 08, 2012, 10:04:50 PM
If these added physical challenges are pretty much what we already do, why do we have the problem with member fitness?
That's the point. We don't. At least not from a quantifiable mission-impact perspective.
Oh, I think its not that it isn't quantifiable, it just hasn't been quantified yet.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 08, 2012, 10:42:55 PMOh, I think its not that it isn't quantifiable, it just hasn't been quantified yet.
Fair enough, "zero"
is a quantity.
It wouldn't even be that hard to do some analysis with existing datasets.
We should have height, weight, and age info for all members in the CAP database. You could fairly easily calculate BMI and use some of the standard guidelines to determine percentages of members that fall into overweight and obese categories. You could also calculate this for all those that are GTM/GTL qualified.
So, we could find out quickly how many of our members could be potential problems and make a judgement call about whether it is worth further investigation or possible action of some kind.
I'd think a finding that 25% of our GT folks were obese (for example) would provoke some stimulating conversations about our actual capabilities. Or, if we found out that 75% of our members age 21-50 (probably the prime ages for GT work) were overweight or obese it would show that we probably could have more GT capabilities if more of our current members were able to participate.
Obviously, such a quick study would have some limitations (who knows how current this info is in the database, for example), but would probably be good enough to illustrate some trends.
And of course height/weight alone aren't the be-all and end-all but is a pretty good general indicator of current health and future health risks.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 08, 2012, 11:51:35 PM
we could find out quickly how many of our members could be potential problems
Potential problems for what?
There has been no insurance risk to CAP presented.
There has been no evidence of any member unable to perform a job.
There has been no explanation, logical or others presented that says that a smaller, leaner CAP would perform our mission better.
I'm not sure what problem you're seeing.
For what it is worth. I was at RSC as a student and the instructor brought up the topic, "quit smoking" and the subject was "legal". Anyways he hit a hot button with me and I quit smoking. That was the best thing I got out of that RSC.
Quote from: bflynn on October 09, 2012, 12:15:37 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 08, 2012, 11:51:35 PM
we could find out quickly how many of our members could be potential problems
Potential problems for what?
There has been no insurance risk to CAP presented.
There has been no evidence of any member unable to perform a job.
There has been no explanation, logical or others presented that says that a smaller, leaner CAP would perform our mission better.
I'm not sure what problem you're seeing.
Uh, thats why you would do the research I suggested -- to find out the potential extent of problems that CAP may face due to having unhealthy members participating in CAP programs.
Incidentally, CAP already does encourage healthy habits for seniors. Articles on this issue show up in the Safety Beacon on a regular basis. Unfortunately, like most of the content of that newsletter they are just copied from other publications without a minutes thought towards customizing them for CAP's needs.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 09, 2012, 12:56:56 AM
Uh, thats why you would do the research I suggested -- to find out the potential extent of problems that CAP may face due to having unhealthy members participating in CAP programs.
Statistical research would tell you nothing about any person's health.
You have already decided that anyone who is overweight is unhealthy and that being overweight impacts their value to CAP. But you haven't proven it, nor suggested a method to prove it. You haven't even suggested an argument about why someone who is overweight cannot perform any particular CAP mission. Except perhaps ground team, but there are many reasons someone couldn't do that - bad knees for example, flat footed, allergies, etc. Having poor cardio endurance is just another in the list.
But I'll stress that weight is not on that list. Take your average NFL football lineman - are they in bad shape? Yet, I'll bet they'll smoke most CAP members in any PT activity you want to put them against.
Quote from: bflynn on October 09, 2012, 02:06:31 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 09, 2012, 12:56:56 AM
Uh, thats why you would do the research I suggested -- to find out the potential extent of problems that CAP may face due to having unhealthy members participating in CAP programs.
Statistical research would tell you nothing about any person's health.
You have already decided that anyone who is overweight is unhealthy and that being overweight impacts their value to CAP. But you haven't proven it, nor suggested a method to prove it. You haven't even suggested an argument about why someone who is overweight cannot perform any particular CAP mission. Except perhaps ground team, but there are many reasons someone couldn't do that - bad knees for example, flat footed, allergies, etc. Having poor cardio endurance is just another in the list.
But I'll stress that weight is not on that list. Take your average NFL football lineman - are they in bad shape? Yet, I'll bet they'll smoke most CAP members in any PT activity you want to put them against.
Ok, so every medical professional that points out the corellation between excess weight and health problems is wrong? We don't need to re-invent the wheel. If the concensus is that excess weight causes physical problems, and that is the concensus, then let's accept it. This isn't global climate change, or flat Earth stuff. It's documented six ways from sunday.
I like a strawman argument as much as the next guy, but did you really suggest that we match professional athletes who are genetically gifted to start with, against a bunch of middle age guys who admittedly don't train or work out much (we'll quit if asked to)? How about we match up, not the average NFL lineman, but those at the end of their careers, who don't match their combine numbers any more. I'll go a 40 yard dash with a 35 year old linemen, and I'm 54. I match up pretty well on the bench press as it is, using combine rules (well, on a machine, not free weight ;)). I'd love to see how many pullups these older giants can crank out.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 08, 2012, 11:51:35 PM
We should have height, weight, and age info for all members in the CAP database. You could fairly easily calculate BMI and use some of the standard guidelines to determine percentages of members that fall into overweight and obese categories. You could also calculate this for all those that are GTM/GTL qualified.
Unless of course the members lie on their eservices h/w in order to justify their wear of AF uniforms...
Quote from: bflynn on October 09, 2012, 02:06:31 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 09, 2012, 12:56:56 AM
Uh, thats why you would do the research I suggested -- to find out the potential extent of problems that CAP may face due to having unhealthy members participating in CAP programs.
Statistical research would tell you nothing about any person's health.
Oh, I think most doctors would say that being overweight or obese does say a lot about a person's health. Would being a few points into the "overweight" BMI category indicate a serious problem as far as CAP is concerned? Probably not. But, if you're in the obese category you've definitely got some serious problems that at the very least are almost certainly going to limit what you can do in CAP.
But, setting that aside for a moment, my point was to suggest a way to determine if this may be a big enough issue (pun intended) that CAP may want to take a look at addressing it -- which was the question that started this thread.
Also, keep in mind that I think many of us, including me, are going a bit beyond the OP's question, so don't get all apocalyptic about the potential consequences of CAP urging members to get and stay healthy.
Quote from: BigShu on October 09, 2012, 02:36:16 AMOk, so every medical professional that points out the corellation between excess weight and health problems is wrong?
It doesn't matter whether they are correct or not, unless you can show
relevance to CAP membership or operations.
CAP's only point of interest in this is mission effectiveness, and by far the vast majority of missions do not involve anything
more strenuous then normal activities for the average person. We have a few HAA's, but we don't do any missions that use those
skills.
We don't ruck 25 miles at double-time.
We don't carry 75lbs of gear into the field.
We don't live for extended periods in austere conditions while under constant threat of imminent death.
Our air operations are done in GA aircraft under generally ideal conditions with a high degree of ORM, and
our ground operations are akin to a hike in the woods with some camping.
The military, and even civilian employers, can usually make the argument that the service or company has invested
large sums of money in training, housing, feeding, and providing benefits to the respective service member or employee,
therefore it is in the service or company's best financial interest to protect their investment, not to mention the cost to the
employer for the health coverage itself.
CAP cannot even stand in that lane, since they do not provide financial compensation, uniforms, or any health
coverage beyond accidental injury.
The only place CAP could plant a flag is mission effectiveness, and real-world experience is going to win over
conjecture and "gut-feeling", because the reality is, beyond "I knew a guy who got really tired, and I think it
was because he was too fat..." there simply is no history of CAP being unable to perform its missions because
of the health of a member(s).
The only place you're going to find this info would be in the 78's, and the majority of 78's are for some derivative
of either dehydration or poor decisions, not because people got 1/2-way into the woods and the
batteries on their Rascal gave out.
Quote from: bflynn on October 09, 2012, 12:15:37 AM
There has been no evidence of any member unable to perform a job.
Not true...but also beside the point.
Healthy lifestyle goes beyond just weight. That's merely one component.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 09, 2012, 02:53:47 AM
The only place CAP could plant a flag is mission effectiveness, and real-world experience is going to win over
conjecture and "gut-feeling", because the reality is, beyond "I knew a guy who got really tired, and I think it
was because he was too fat..." there simply is no history of CAP being unable to perform its missions because
of the health of a member(s).
You argue against conjecture and anecdotal evidence and continue to throw some of you own out there. Nice.
The fact that no one has performed analysis to the issue does not equate to the issue not existing.
Such a program does not require a significant investment in time or money from CAP to be of benefit. Even if one was to say CAP membership loosely mirrors the American public, that would be enough to indicate that CAP members could stand to improve their personal well being. This aligns with programs we already have in place and promote with our cadets. But if you want to sit in the back of a briefing and continue to stuff your pie-hole with donuts, knock yourself out. It shouldn't preclude the organization from trying to influence it's members to improve their well-being.
Quote from: A.Member on October 09, 2012, 03:21:50 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 09, 2012, 02:53:47 AM
The only place CAP could plant a flag is mission effectiveness, and real-world experience is going to win over
conjecture and "gut-feeling", because the reality is, beyond "I knew a guy who got really tired, and I think it
was because he was too fat..." there simply is no history of CAP being unable to perform its missions because
of the health of a member(s).
You argue against conjecture and anecdotal evidence and continue to throw some of you own out there. Nice.
That is not conjecture, that is a statement based on personal, direct experience over the last 13 years in CAP.
There hasn't been a single instance that I am aware of where this would have been an issue, certainly not in my wing.
People get tired, get injured, make poor decisions, and many of our members are overweight. That's life, and that's not
going to change. People smoke, they drink, they eat too many donuts, they text while they drive, they watch Honey Boo-Boo,
and they generally do the minimum they need to to get by, while occasionally excelling and being altruistic. That won't change either.
Our membership demo is the average American, and I don't see that changing any time soon.
Quote from: A.Member on October 09, 2012, 03:21:50 AMIt shouldn't preclude the organization from trying to influence it's members to improve their well-being.
The issue is that CAP doesn't not need more background noise that will be generally ignored, when we have plenty of other holes in the
boat that need plugging.
Until there's a legit cost-benefit to the average member, this will be one more unfunded mandate where people would shake there heads
and point to the 35 other things more important and ask why anyone is using their limited free time to worry about this.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 09, 2012, 03:27:07 AM
Quote from: A.Member on October 09, 2012, 03:21:50 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 09, 2012, 02:53:47 AM
The only place CAP could plant a flag is mission effectiveness, and real-world experience is going to win over
conjecture and "gut-feeling", because the reality is, beyond "I knew a guy who got really tired, and I think it
was because he was too fat..." there simply is no history of CAP being unable to perform its missions because
of the health of a member(s).
You argue against conjecture and anecdotal evidence and continue to throw some of you own out there. Nice.
That is not conjecture, that is a statement based on personal, direct experience over the last 13 years in CAP.
There hasn't been a single instance that I am aware of where this would have been an issue, certainly not in my wing.
Quote from: A.Member on October 09, 2012, 03:21:50 AMIt shouldn't preclude the organization from trying to influence it's members to improve their well-being.
The issue is that CAP doesn't not need more background noise that will be generally ignored, when we have plenty of other holes in the
boat that need plugging.
And off the top of my head, I can site two instances in my shorter career based on personal, direct experience. So, who is right?!
Quote from: A.Member on October 09, 2012, 03:31:50 AM
And off the top of my head, I can site two instances in my shorter career based on personal, direct experience. So, who is right?!
Such as?
Quote from: Eclipse on October 09, 2012, 03:27:07 AM
Quote from: A.Member on October 09, 2012, 03:21:50 AMIt shouldn't preclude the organization from trying to influence it's members to improve their well-being.
The issue is that CAP doesn't not need more background noise that will be generally ignored, when we have plenty of other holes in the
boat that need plugging.
Again, conjecture on your part. Along with some anecdotal evidence you added later.
Addressing issues isn't a mutually exclusive activity. If CAP chooses to act on the idea, it does not mean higher priorities go by the wayside. Don't try and build a mountain out of a molehill here.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 09, 2012, 03:34:44 AM
Quote from: A.Member on October 09, 2012, 03:31:50 AM
And off the top of my head, I can site two instances in my shorter career based on personal, direct experience. So, who is right?!
Such as?
What does it matter? We could sit and cite examples back forth all night. My personal experiences wouldn't constitute an issue any more than yours does. So, that's not really the point, is it?!
Quote from: A.Member on October 09, 2012, 03:36:54 AM
Addressing issues isn't a mutually exclusive activity. If CAP chooses to act on the idea, it does not mean higher priorities go by the wayside. Don't try and build a mountain out of a molehill here.
Yes, it actually is.
Our volunteer cadre has limited time and limited resources. By design, attention in one place means something else isn't getting done, or
isn't getting done
now.
Quote from: A.Member on October 09, 2012, 03:38:02 AM
What does it matter? We could sit and cite examples back forth all night. That's not really the point, is it?
Yes, it really is the point.
This is another "Nomex". In the history of CAP, we've had one, maybe two situations where a Nomex flight suit
actually made a difference, yet we had (or still have), hundreds of members in at least one wing who were mandated
to spend the money for that uniform if they wanted to fly.
Either it's a quantifiable problem, or it isn't. And a story here and a story there doesn't equal a quantifiable problem
in a way which would get the attention of an actuary, let alone cause him to force an action.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 09, 2012, 03:40:24 AM
Quote from: A.Member on October 09, 2012, 03:36:54 AM
Addressing issues isn't a mutually exclusive activity. If CAP chooses to act on the idea, it does not mean higher priorities go by the wayside. Don't try and build a mountain out of a molehill here.
Yes, it actually is.
Our volunteer cadre has limited time and limited resources. By design, attention in one place means something else isn't getting done, or
isn't getting done now.
Now you're simply being obtuse. Of course they aren't mutually exclusive. You're playing an awful lot of stick-um here. Go back and look at some of the ideas presented. Most do not involve any significant drain on resources.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 09, 2012, 03:40:24 AM
Either it's a quantifiable problem, or it isn't. And a story here and a story there doesn't equal a quantifiable problem
in a way which would get the attention of an actuary, let alone cause him to force an action.
Really?! Actuaries, huh? I'm going to go back and read this entire thread. I'm fairly confident that no one other that you has suggested any thing of the sort that would require an actuary. With the exception of a couple, I don't think anyone has even suggested a reg change. Just more stick-um on your part.
As I stated in an earlier post, there will always be a fair number that will won't move a butt muscle to change regardless. Sounds like you'd fall into that group. Doesn't mean others can't/won't benefit.
Quote from: A.Member on October 09, 2012, 03:48:49 AM
Now you're simply being obtuse.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQsrtOOXM-vHehfOzoS_Tk-3m9pocbF-Sq6TO2mWzx6ha_q8t6Z)
Couldn't resist.
^ Awesome.
Quote from: SJFedor on October 09, 2012, 03:54:47 AM
Quote from: A.Member on October 09, 2012, 03:48:49 AM
Now you're simply being obtuse.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQsrtOOXM-vHehfOzoS_Tk-3m9pocbF-Sq6TO2mWzx6ha_q8t6Z)
Couldn't resist.
:D
Quote from: RiverAux on October 09, 2012, 02:50:06 AM
Oh, I think most doctors would say that being overweight or obese does say a lot about a person's health.
Statiscally, my mother is dead. I'll be sure to tell her next weekend when I go visit her.
Statistics cannot address any individual's situation.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 09, 2012, 02:50:06 AM
But, setting that aside for a moment, my point was to suggest a way to determine if this may be a big enough issue (pun intended) that CAP may want to take a look at addressing it -- which was the question that started this thread.
I'll go the other route - assuming there is a problem with weight, how do you propose connecting that with with an individual's ability to do a mission? How much health does it take to operate a radio or sit in an airplane and look out the window / take pictures? Even FAA class-3 medicals would be too much for aircrews because they aren't required (or in most cases allowed) to operate flight controls - they are a passenger in an airplane flying at low altitude. There is more stress on the body in riding in an airliner pressurized to 6-8k.
The only situation I might allow is that someone who isn't fit can't carry a heavy backpack into the field - but we don't do that. We drive a van. We might hike a few miles to get to a crash site in remote regions where there are no roads. Ok, if you want to add a requirement for something like a 5 mile hike carrying 20 lbs for a GT3, I'd buy that....
But anything more is a waste of member's energy....much like this thread...
^^^ this.
While I'd agree this thread has probably gone well past its original intent, I've got to point out that GT is more than 20 pounds on your back for a few miles, at least where I am. My example earlier in this thread, rope-hoisting a Stokes basket with a heavy patient and then caterpiller-ing the whole package out to the road, was not made up...and I saw several members get the huffy-puffies while doing it.
I don't think anybody was *requiring* anything, but merely *encouraging* it. As has been pointed out, the genuinely out of shape self-select into other, equally valuable, mission areas.
We don't do that or train for it, that is not part of the national curriculum.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 09, 2012, 05:15:54 PM
We don't do that or train for it, that is not part of the national curriculum.
Then why did they? Maybe they did their own training. If it helped saved the victims life, then why not?
Quote from: ProdigalJim on October 09, 2012, 05:06:18 PMI've got to point out that GT is more than 20 pounds on your back for a few miles, at least where I am.
Actually, according to the national curriculum, GT work is exactly that and little more.
Quote from: Cool Mace on October 09, 2012, 05:18:53 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 09, 2012, 05:15:54 PM
We don't do that or train for it, that is not part of the national curriculum.
Then why did they? Maybe they did their own training. If it helped saved the victims life, then why not?
"Why" they did is irrelevant. There are things we "do", and things we don't. What we "do" is in the GT book and
reference text, everything else we do not "do".
If individual members or units want to learn things outside the national curriculum, or need to add specialized skills or equipment, so be it - but you don't start changing the national requirements because one unit did things out of the norm and their people got tired.
We don't do ropes, provide medical treatment beyond first aid / buddy care, water rescues, vehicular extractions,
fire fighting, so we don't need the gear, training, or conditioning that these capabilities require.
I never said to change the national reg. But I don't see why encouraging members to live a healthy life style is a bad thing. When it comes to ES, it's a major factor for GTs, even if people don't want to admit it.
We teach cadets, and encourage them to live a healthy life style. Why should it be any different for seniors?
Quote from: Cool Mace on October 09, 2012, 05:53:29 PMBut I don't see why encouraging members to live a healthy life style is a bad thing.
It's not.
It's also not something CAP should spend much time on, because they don't have the authority of purpose in this regard.
I think that "obtuse" was correctly thrown down earlier in the thread.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 09, 2012, 07:18:12 PM
I think that "obtuse" was correctly thrown down earlier in the thread.
On the macro level, we need members to be alive, so encouraging them to be healthy helps that.
However the reality is that we can't just send an email that's says "stop eating" and expect to have any impact whatsoever - therefore,
at a minimum it requires a "campaign" - those take time and money, neither of which we have in extra quantities, especially when you look
at all the seemingly simple things that have been left 1/2 done and undone for the last decade.
A "campaign" isn't going to matter, either. The average member has a doctor, employer, and family, all of whom likely encourage a healthy(er)
lifestyle. If those aren't having an impact, CAP adding to the background noise won't - so we're left with the smoke of a fire no one cares
about, and time and effort better spent elsewhere.
The only way to impact this, and it would be minimal anyway, is through financial or practical incentives which would never be put in place because
of the reluctance towards uncomfortable conversations and attrition.
Practical testing? OK - but that won't get you where you want to be because the majority of the membership, in their current configuration, will
pass with flying colors. You'd shed maybe 10%? And then you risk those people quitting because they can't play anymore. If that's acceptable,
OK by me, but CAP has shown historically that it doesn't like to do that.
Try this:
Enforce the regs
on the books - start weigh-ins for anyone wearing blue. Put a scale at the front door of every meeting and activity and
change the numbers in people's profiles, then take the steps necessary to make them change the uniform they are wearing.
See where that would get you - and those are rules everyone is fully aware of.
You can make it very cheap. Write a pamphlet on a healthy life style that encourages all members to do so. And try something along the lines of 25-50% a YMCA membership.
Short, sweet and to the point. Just add flare! ;)
Quote from: Cool Mace on October 09, 2012, 08:25:10 PMWrite a pamphlet on a healthy life style that encourages all members to do so. And try something along the lines of 25-50% a YMCA membership.
Thank you for making my point.
Who writes it?
Who approves it?
Why is the YMCA chosen instead of 100 other worthy organizations who would benefit from the eyeshare of 60k members?
Who pays for the printing?
Seen 39-1 lately? Last update was 2005. How does this become a priority in front of that?
Printing 60000 full-color pamphlets with mailing would cost somewhere between $5-7000, ultimately wasted on a pamphlet that will go right into the recycle bin for 99% of the members, assuming they read it at all.
That which appears "cheap and easy", becomes expensive from a time and dollar standpoint quickly, and ultimately it's
your dollars.
Not sure how I proved you point.
Assign someone to write it. Maybe someone who falls under this category? Maybe even Ned since he's the one that brought it up? (You know you want to Ned!).
Normal approval, just like anything else.
YMCA was an example, and yes, I see what you're saying. I don't believe members are going to be THAT choosy when it comes to this, as long as it's a nation wide gym. Granted, some members will always complain. But the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few.
The legend says 39-1 is going to be updated (believe it when I see it). Short, simple, to the point pamphlet that someone can write in one, maybe two days for the draft.
Who said anything about printing? This is the 21st century after all. Why not just post it to our handy-dandy website like all the other pamphlets?
:EDIT: Grammar
Quote from: Eclipse on October 09, 2012, 07:57:43 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 09, 2012, 07:18:12 PM
I think that "obtuse" was correctly thrown down earlier in the thread.
Try this:
Enforce the regs on the books - start weigh-ins for anyone wearing blue. Put a scale at the front door of every meeting and activity and
change the numbers in people's profiles, then take the steps necessary to make them change the uniform they are wearing.
See where that would get you - and those are rules everyone is fully aware of.
Ok, so now we've argued ourselves to the point where we aren't talking about new ideas, we can't even enforce long standing, foundational regs because of the implication above. "See where that would get you" obviously means people will leave in droves if we try to prevent them from breaking regulations. If the organization can only keep numbers by letting people pretty much do what they want, as long as they aren't too obvious, or tiptoeing around really nice people who pay their dues on time, but haven't been a mission asset for a couple of decades, what does that say about us as a group? Sounds kind of lame to me. Is this as good as it gets? Sure, we're volunteers, but other volunteer groups expect their rules to be followed. At least the BSA has the stones to toss members who won't get with the program.
Quote from: BigShu on October 10, 2012, 01:55:39 AM
Ok, so now we've argued ourselves to the point where we aren't talking about new ideas, we can't even enforce long standing, foundational regs because of the implication above. "See where that would get you" obviously means people will leave in droves if we try to prevent them from breaking regulations. If the organization can only keep numbers by letting people pretty much do what they want, as long as they aren't too obvious, or tiptoeing around really nice people who pay their dues on time, but haven't been a mission asset for a couple of decades, what does that say about us as a group?
It says we are an all-too-typical volunteer organization, doing the best we can, but allowing our paramilitary heritage and expectations to
shrink away in a thousand cuts of relativism, checkboxes, and "You can't, I won't, you can't make me..."
I have been a vocal proponent of a full-on program reboot where members are held accountable for regs and behavior, and people
treat CAP as a volunteer vocation, not a rec center, but that takes the fortitude to hack a lot of people off, and cannot be done piecemeal.
All the talk of attrition if we try to do anything beyond "Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law", makes me wonder if there has ever been any study of critical mass for the organization. If push came to shove and resources were really scarce, just how many members does it take to field an aircraft, or a ground team? Not just the flight crew, and the actual ground team and backups, but the whole mechanism of standing up a response. There must be a minimum. We seem to be able to fulfill enough missions with 60K members, but there's almost certainly a lot of ghost members in that number. Or people who aren't interested in anything beyond AE, or cadet programs. Just how many folks would it take to be ES mission capable in depth, in all the wings?
We're so terrifed of actually enforcing our rules, or trying to polish up the image of the organization, because it will lead to a huge drain of our best members. Would it really? Would the people most committed to the missions, the true believers, the core go to people leave if we said, hey, we're worried about your health, and you're out of regs on H/W, want to do some pt and improve your chances of watching the grandkids grow up? I just don't see it. Granted, I'm late to the party by a couple of decades, and I haven't done anything to brag about as far as mission activities go. But even as a brand new SMWOG, I wouldn't walk away from this because someone thinks I'd be more healthy, happy and effective if I got down to the H/W standard. I already bought a polo shirt AND the minimum basic corporate uniform, for crying out loud!
As an aside:
Donuts are basically hips in the larvae stage.
Quote from: BigShu on October 10, 2012, 02:16:04 AMWould the people most committed to the missions, the true believers, the core go to people leave if we said, hey, we're worried about your health, and you're out of regs on H/W, want to do some pt and improve your chances of watching the grandkids grow up?
No, but the "true believers" are not your issue. In most wings, less then 1/2 the membership, by my estimate about 25%, do all the heavy lifting,
and the rest are transient - either showing up so irregularly as to not be a factor, or picking and choosing activities and training to the same effect.
As you get more experience, and if you're active outside your unit, what you'll notice is the same couple hundred people doing everything, literally.
The same people are the commanders, staff, operators, and participants at everything - they change hats, sometimes they lead, sometimes they follow, and the pool flows in and out depending on what the activity is, but the core is the same folks.
And that fact hinders growth in all phases and corners, whether its different missions, more missions, or trying to upscale membership numbers,
because in the end, the "more" generally equals "more work for the same people", and people don't scale.
As a tangential example, every wing has a handful of units, sometimes whole groups, that are constantly on the edge of losing their charter -
the only way to fix these units is replace the leadership with knowledgeable commanders who have the fire to make radical change, but because
of the state of the unit / group, there's no one to take those jobs. So what's left is the decision to either let the units just coast on the rails
and hope for lightening, or shut them down and close the opportunities altogether. Etc., etc., etc.
Quote from: BigShu on October 10, 2012, 02:16:04 AMBut even as a brand new SMWOG, I wouldn't walk away from this because someone thinks I'd be more healthy, happy and effective if I got down to the H/W standard. I already bought a polo shirt AND the minimum basic corporate uniform, for crying out loud!
What if they said you can't do the thing you joined to do until you get down to "x" weight? Because that's the only way you'll ever see any real change. You can show up to meetings, do all sorts of adminsitrivia, but don't look at a plane or think about ES until you're back in the zone.
On July 4, 1993 I was on a huge REDCAP for a missing plane somewhere in southern Virginia. In addition to the regular CAP crowd of seniors and cadets, there was this odd group of CAP fellows who called themselves "CAP Rangers". Not Hawk Ranger types, but a special group of VA Wing "Rangers". They wore the WWII era blue and gold RANGER triangle, as in Darby's Rangers triangle thing. Add on a few volunteer SAR groups that were also involved in the search.
The heat and humidity of Virginia on July 4th was rough. This was my first "real" SAR mission as a senior member, at the ripe old age of 21. A good 75% of these people (Rangers and VSAR guys) were out of shape and borderline obese. Within 2 hours of our arrival from DCWG (northern Virginia), 2 CAP senior members and 2 VSAR guys had to be taken out via ambulance due to heat exhaustion.
Our ground teams, totaling about 20 cadets and 5 seniors, were good to go. Not a single one of our seniors was even close to being overweight and all the cadets were in tip-top shape. No casualties from DCWG those couple of days. But a handful of those "Rangers" and granola eating volunteers were biting the dust left and right.
Quote from: Cool Mace on October 09, 2012, 05:53:29 PM
I never said to change the national reg. But I don't see why encouraging members to live a healthy life style is a bad thing. When it comes to ES, it's a major factor for GTs, even if people don't want to admit it.
We teach cadets, and encourage them to live a healthy life style. Why should it be any different for seniors?
I concur :clap:
Quote from: Stonewall on October 10, 2012, 04:05:50 AM
On July 4, 1993 I was on a huge REDCAP for a missing plane somewhere in southern Virginia. In addition to the regular CAP crowd of seniors and cadets, there was this odd group of CAP fellows who called themselves "CAP Rangers". Not Hawk Ranger types, but a special group of VA Wing "Rangers". They wore the WWII era blue and gold RANGER triangle, as in Darby's Rangers triangle thing. Add on a few volunteer SAR groups that were also involved in the search.
The heat and humidity of Virginia on July 4th was rough. This was my first "real" SAR mission as a senior member, at the ripe old age of 21. A good 75% of these people (Rangers and VSAR guys) were out of shape and borderline obese. Within 2 hours of our arrival from DCWG (northern Virginia), 2 CAP senior members and 2 VSAR guys had to be taken out via ambulance due to heat exhaustion.
Our ground teams, totaling about 20 cadets and 5 seniors, were good to go. Not a single one of our seniors was even close to being overweight and all the cadets were in tip-top shape. No casualties from DCWG those couple of days. But a handful of those "Rangers" and granola eating volunteers were biting the dust left and right.
I enjoyed your story. 4th of July is always hot and every other year or so a REDCAP is in progress 8)
Quote from: Eclipse on October 10, 2012, 02:26:36 AM
Quote from: BigShu on October 10, 2012, 02:16:04 AMBut even as a brand new SMWOG, I wouldn't walk away from this because someone thinks I'd be more healthy, happy and effective if I got down to the H/W standard. I already bought a polo shirt AND the minimum basic corporate uniform, for crying out loud!
What if they said you can't do the thing you joined to do until you get down to "x" weight? Because that's the only way you'll ever see any real change. You can show up to meetings, do all sorts of adminsitrivia, but don't look at a plane or think about ES until you're back in the zone.
As long as the guys laying down the law were walking the talk, I'd have to accept it. You have to pay your dues to join any group worth joining. Besides, you have to jump through a lot of training hoops before you get to do what you joined to do. I've got the checkoff sheets printed out, waiting to start filling in to prove it. How different is it to say you can't do ES until you get trained up and you can't do ES until you get slimmed down? Why does everyone knock the administrative tasks? It's no different than playing basketball in college. I had to run a jillion line drills to get my occasional minutes on court. You take the boring with the thrilling.
Quote from: BigShu on October 11, 2012, 01:58:48 AMWhy does everyone knock the administrative tasks?
People don't join an organization like CAP to balance a checkbook, shuffle personnel files, or sit through endless, meaningless inspections, yet many get saddled with these jobs by being promised the fun stuff down the line - they never get there and quit.
Well, if all the folks who don't want to do this administrivia don't take turns doing it, who will? Somebody's got to do it.
Quote from: SarDragon on October 11, 2012, 03:20:07 AM
Well, if all the folks who don't want to do this administrivia don't take turns doing it, who will? Somebody's got to do it.
100% agree, but the idea is we all hold up a corner and the pay-back is doing something fun on occasion.
People who are recruited to fly, or pound the ground, or whatever, don't usually mind taking a staff job to help
keep the wheels turning, but how long would they stay in if they were told that they could no longer get into
a plane or hike in the woods just because of an arbitrary number someone decided was important
(based, as we know, on nothing but conjecture).
We should all "take it for the team", but there's a limit to people's free time, and I know I wouldn't be in uniform
very long if all I was allowed to do was sit for SUI's and shuffle personnel folders. I've reached a point where I
can make a contribution and have fun in the ICP, but you can't get there without first being a field hand,
so that whole lane would be locked out for those members - just about anything besides MSA, FASC, or LSC
requires, with good reason, field experience.
Hi.
My name is John.
And I'm chubby.
:)
Reading through this thread I have come to the conclusion that if the right person from my squadron came to me and said, "You've been here a while now and you do a great job.... I'd really like to see you take that next step and become qualified to wear the AF style uniforms. Here's a pamphlet CAP has been working on, would you like to give it a look? You're doing great and I wouldn't change a thing... but I'd like to see you have the option to wear something you've earned in every other way but one. If you decide to give it a shot just let me know if there is any way I can help or support you. If not, no worries. You're already a great asset in my book."
I think I would take to it pretty well.
I'm not forced. It's not an issue. I'm not being judged.
I'm simply being offered the chance to try another CAP program that will earn me the privlidge to go out and buy more CAP stuff that I can wear.
I know I'm overweight. Someone pointing it out to me isn't going to come as a shock.
For the record I keep going over and under the line.
I have a stomach condition that makes me look pregnant some days too. Ulcerative Collitis. (it also makes me fun at parties after a couple sodas and some bean dip)
It's not an excuse... i can still lose the weight. I just choose NOT to wear the Blues uniform when i look like Stay-Puff even if I am under the H/W limit.
SO... someone hand me the dang pamphlet already. I'd like to try another program to see if I can get/stay far enough below the line to be able to wear any uniform I want.
Quote from: johnnyb47 on October 11, 2012, 02:00:24 PM
I'd really like to see you take that next step and become qualified to wear the AF style uniforms.
Why is wearing the AF uniform the "next step"?
You believe wearing an AF uniform somehow makes one a better volunteer than someone wearing a CAP uniform?
It might be from his point of view. It's not from yours? Oh darn. Doesn't make it wrong.
I would think that losing weight for the health benefits and personal appearance would be enough. I doubt if being able to wear a certain clothing item a few times a month as being that much of an extra motivation.
Quote from: bflynn on October 11, 2012, 03:01:36 PM
Quote from: johnnyb47 on October 11, 2012, 02:00:24 PM
I'd really like to see you take that next step and become qualified to wear the AF style uniforms.
Why is wearing the AF uniform the "next step"?
You believe wearing an AF uniform somehow makes one a better volunteer than someone wearing a CAP uniform?
Negative.
I do, however believe that being forced to wear the CAP uniform and having the choice to wear the CAP uniform are two entirely different things.
How many of us would switch to the AF uniforms tomorrow if we somehow managed to drop the H/W requirements?
Have you considered the fact that those of us in cadet squadrons might actually be more effective volunteers if we could wear the AF uniform? I'd never have to tell a cadet how to wear their uniform again. Once I have it right all they have to do is look at me. I'd never have to tell a cadet how to do a push-up again either if I could do them without feeling self-conscious (ever passed gas durring PT? :) ).
Or maybe my post had something to do with the fact that those in my squadron KNOW I would prefer to be in the AF uniform. I would imagine any squadron-mates who would approach a chubby person with this type of program would likely tailor the conversation for that individual.
From now on I promise to put a disclaimer at the end of my posts like they do in weight loss pill commercials.
(YMMV, not approved by the FDA, not legal in California, may cause anal leakage, not to be confused with other posts by this member, not available in all 50 states and claims made here have not been evaluated by bflynn for political-correctness/fact/smell/etc)
Nah.... I'm jus' kiddin. You alright.
:)
Quote from: johnnyb47 on October 11, 2012, 03:31:47 PM
Quote from: bflynn on October 11, 2012, 03:01:36 PM
Quote from: johnnyb47 on October 11, 2012, 02:00:24 PM
I'd really like to see you take that next step and become qualified to wear the AF style uniforms.
Why is wearing the AF uniform the "next step"?
You believe wearing an AF uniform somehow makes one a better volunteer than someone wearing a CAP uniform?
Negative.
I do, however believe that being forced to wear the CAP uniform and having the choice to wear the CAP uniform are two entirely different things.
How many of us would switch to the AF uniforms tomorrow if we somehow managed to drop the H/W requirements?
Have you considered the fact that those of us in cadet squadrons might actually be more effective volunteers if we could wear the AF uniform? I'd never have to tell a cadet how to wear their uniform again.
Let me phrase the question differently -
Why do you value someone else's uniform over our uniform? You're in CAP, perhaps loyalty says that wearing the CAP uniform is the first choice, not the fallback plan.
Quote from: bflynn on October 11, 2012, 05:51:30 PM
Quote from: johnnyb47 on October 11, 2012, 03:31:47 PM
Quote from: bflynn on October 11, 2012, 03:01:36 PM
Quote from: johnnyb47 on October 11, 2012, 02:00:24 PM
I'd really like to see you take that next step and become qualified to wear the AF style uniforms.
Why is wearing the AF uniform the "next step"?
You believe wearing an AF uniform somehow makes one a better volunteer than someone wearing a CAP uniform?
Negative.
I do, however believe that being forced to wear the CAP uniform and having the choice to wear the CAP uniform are two entirely different things.
How many of us would switch to the AF uniforms tomorrow if we somehow managed to drop the H/W requirements?
Have you considered the fact that those of us in cadet squadrons might actually be more effective volunteers if we could wear the AF uniform? I'd never have to tell a cadet how to wear their uniform again.
Let me phrase the question differently -
Why do you value someone else's uniform over our uniform? You're in CAP, perhaps loyalty says that wearing the CAP uniform is the first choice, not the fallback plan.
Any uniform that can't be worn by all isn't the first choice.
Unfortunately we don't have one of those either.
SO... the uniform that can be worn by the most becomes the first choice.
One could argue that but for a very select few all members have the option of wearing the AF uniforms. They simply make the choice NOT to conform to regulation/requirements.
By design the CAP uniforms are the fallback plan.
Quote from: johnnyb47 on October 11, 2012, 06:20:54 PM
By design the CAP uniforms are the fallback plan.
And I think finally we arrive at the root cause of the whole issue...
Quote from: bflynn on October 11, 2012, 06:39:33 PM
Quote from: johnnyb47 on October 11, 2012, 06:20:54 PM
By design the CAP uniforms are the fallback plan.
And I think finally we arrive at the root cause of the whole issue...
What whole issue? One members post about how I would like to be approached if there was a "healthy senior members" initiative?
I dont have an issue. Perhaps you have a complex over your choice to wear the CAP uniform and feel the need to derail a whole thread over my one comment. :)
Quote from: johnnyb47 on October 11, 2012, 06:20:54 PM
By design the CAP uniforms are the fallback plan.
100% agree.
The corporate variants were / are a necessary evil because members who can't wear the USAF-Styles have to wear "something".
Quote from: johnnyb47 on October 11, 2012, 06:46:51 PM
What whole issue? One members post about how I would like to be approached if there was a "healthy senior members" initiative?
I dont have an issue. Perhaps you have a complex over your choice to wear the CAP uniform and feel the need to derail a whole thread over my one comment. :)
I didn't say that you had an issue - you were merely the last one I quoted. This thread exists because of AN issue.
Nor did I derail a thread, I think I may have posted 3 or 4 times over the course of 6 pages. If I can derail an entire thread with less than one post per page, then you afford me far more power than I afford myself.
I did get an answer for me out of all of this. The AF uniform is venerated over the CAP uniform. Therefore, there is an inherient belief that it is better to be fit and to wear the AF uniform rather than one that is specific to CAP. That is source of the issue - the belief that less weight = better because less weight = wear the AF uniform. The concept of less weight is expressed in exactly one place in CAP regulations and therefore has exactly one outcome for the organization.
That is the source...
Perhaps some of this was obviously apparent to others, but it's a bit of a revelation to me. I'm just surprised at the apparent lack of pride in the organization that our own uniform is denegrated over another organization's uniform.
Quote from: bflynn on October 11, 2012, 10:22:45 PMPerhaps some of this was obviously apparent to others, but it's a bit of a revelation to me. I'm just surprised at the apparent lack of pride in the organization that our own uniform is denegrated over another organization's uniform.
My guess is that second-place status of corporate uniforms comes down to two factors. We silly humans tend to get excited about things that are exclusive versus inclusive. If there is something that not everybody can have, then there is often tension between the haves and the have-nots.
Second, for some folks (I have no idea on the percentages), the USAF-style uniform is a primary motivation for membership in CAP. A number of people on this board have stated that if the AF-style uniforms go away, so will they. For them obviously, it's the USAF-style or nothing, they wouldn't even consider a corporate uniform because as you've discovered, for them it's a "lesser" uniform.
People are certainly allowed to have their preference and opinions, where it becomes unfortunate is when people start forming negative opinions about people purely based on which uniform they are wearing. And don't get me wrong, this definitely goes both ways.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 11, 2012, 02:42:03 AM
Quote from: BigShu on October 11, 2012, 01:58:48 AMWhy does everyone knock the administrative tasks?
People don't join an organization like CAP to balance a checkbook, shuffle personnel files, or sit through endless, meaningless inspections, yet many get saddled with these jobs by being promised the fun stuff down the line - they never get there and quit.
That's your opinion. There might very well be a lot of people who join to be a part of this exciting organization and search for lost people and help during national disasters. They just don't like flying or hiking, or getting out of bed in the middle of the night to respond to a call. Shuffling personel files might be just their cup 'o tea. They still get to wear a uniform, with badges and ribbons. And, they still make a difference, because the mundane back office functions do have to be done. Yeah, I'm dreaming, but I suspect there comes a day when the most committed SAR geek gets tired of the physical challenge, or flunks a flight physical, and then the only way they can contribute is to balance a checkbook. They still get to hang out with the gang, on their own terms.
Quote from: BigShu on October 12, 2012, 12:50:32 AMThat's your opinion.
Yep, based on 13+ years of trying to retain members.
Quote from: BigShu on October 12, 2012, 12:50:32 AM
here might very well be a lot of people who join to be a part of this exciting organization and search for lost people and help during national disasters. They just don't like flying or hiking, or getting out of bed in the middle of the night to respond to a call. Shuffling personel files might be just their cup 'o tea. They still get to wear a uniform, with badges and ribbons. And, they still make a difference, because the mundane back office functions do have to be done. Yeah, I'm dreaming, but I suspect there comes a day when the most committed SAR geek gets tired of the physical challenge, or flunks a flight physical, and then the only way they can contribute is to balance a checkbook. They still get to hang out with the gang, on their own terms.
There might be a lot of things, we can't afford the risk, especially when there's been no evidence that there's a need. There's a Venti on the counter
that says a weight standard that grounded pilots forces a 30% attrition rate within that category the first year, with another 15% the following.
We have a lot of pilots who are interested in nothing but flying, take that away, and they are gone.
You also somewhat missed the point - you can't mix the "BTDT"s with the "never dids" - people who have had their fill of field operations
and age out of their web gear are usually anxious to become REMFS and help the new guys.
People who have never had the chance rarely are interested in doing more office work in their free time - this is one of the reasons
our 1st-year attrition rate is so high - people join based on the brochures and then find they have joined a unit that doesn't do anything
but talk about the "good old days". Further, within our existing curriculum, you can't move into any of the major ICP positions unless
you've had field experience first, so at a minimum we'd have to change the brochures to "Join CAP and get the skinny dudes coffee..."
Quote from: Eclipse on October 11, 2012, 03:40:08 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on October 11, 2012, 03:20:07 AM
Well, if all the folks who don't want to do this administrivia don't take turns doing it, who will? Somebody's got to do it.
100% agree, but the idea is we all hold up a corner and the pay-back is doing something fun on occasion.
People who are recruited to fly, or pound the ground, or whatever, don't usually mind taking a staff job to help
keep the wheels turning, but how long would they stay in if they were told that they could no longer get into
a plane or hike in the woods just because of an arbitrary number someone decided was important
(based, as we know, on nothing but conjecture).
You don't believe its an arbitrary number. The CAP H/W is based on the AF H/W chart. There's no way it's arbitrary. Even if you don't buy the rationale, you know millions were spent coming up with that chart. As to being nothing but conjecture, while experts might disagree on the absolute number, they do agree that weight above that number leads to health problems. Some sooner, some later. But the chain of causation is very well documented, in dozens of studies done over decades. Making the number doesn't guarantee ability or skill, but it increases the odds of success.
Millions were spent adding +10% to the existing USAF chart? A chart that is in excess of 20 years old?
The USAF has not maintained the same program during that time, but ours remained static. They also moved to "fat-boy" programs
and BMI tests, and only recently went back to standards which are so tight that 80% of CAP members could never get near them,
and a fair number of active and reservists struggle to maintain.
Quote from: BigShu on October 12, 2012, 12:59:58 AMMaking the number doesn't guarantee ability or skill, but it increases the odds of success.
Making the number, in a CAP context, means nothing but making the number, because for starters, the chart isn't based on actual CAP ops, it isn't even our chart.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 12, 2012, 12:58:47 AM
Quote from: BigShu on October 12, 2012, 12:50:32 AMThat's your opinion.
Yep, based on 13+ years of trying to retain members.
There might be a lot of things, we can't afford the risk, especially when there's been no evidence that there's a need. There's a Venti on the counter
that says a weight standard that grounded pilots forces a 30% attrition rate within that category the first year, with another 15% the following.
We have a lot of pilots who are interested in nothing but flying, take that away, and they are gone....
People who have never had the chance rarely are interested in doing more office work in their free time - this is one of the reasons
our 1st-year attrition rate is so high - people join based on the brochures and then find they have joined a unit that doesn't do anything
but talk about the "good old days". Further, within our existing curriculum, you can't move into any of the major ICP positions unless
you've had field experience first, so at a minimum we'd have to change the brochures to "Join CAP and get the skinny dudes coffee..."
Those attrition figures sound arbitrary.....like a conjecture! Even if we take them at face value, won't most of those guys be the dead weight you mentioned earlier? If most of the wings only get between 25 and 50% member participation, maybe the overweight pilots who leave weren't doing much anyway. If they were the hot shot multi-hat wearing gung ho members, well, we were looking for pilots when they joined too. There will always be pilots who join for the flying. If the expectation was clear that we need pilots who won't have a cardiac episode in the plane, so much the better. All the overweight pilots out there, they're dreading the flight physical after they get those blood pressure meds, because a special issuance medical isn't a slam dunk. And it gets dicier each time. To me, if we want to solidify the pilot supply, we need to be at least raising the question.
Quote from: BigShu on October 12, 2012, 01:14:45 AMEven if we take them at face value, won't most of those guys be the dead weight you mentioned earlier?
No, these are active pilots we need to keep.
Quote from: BigShu on October 12, 2012, 01:14:45 AM
If most of the wings only get between 25 and 50% member participation, maybe the overweight pilots who leave weren't doing much anyway. If they were the hot shot multi-hat wearing gung ho members, well, we were looking for pilots when they joined too. There will always be pilots who join for the flying. If the expectation was clear that we need pilots who won't have a cardiac episode in the plane, so much the better. All the overweight pilots out there, they're dreading the flight physical after they get those blood pressure meds, because a special issuance medical isn't a slam dunk. And it gets dicier each time. To me, if we want to solidify the pilot supply, we need to be at least raising the question.
You don't just wake up on a Monday and suddenly "decide" this is a risk.
You look at historical data - times when missions went undone, or members were injured or killed due specifically because of a weight or health
related issue. The only data on this is in the '78's, and the '78's won't get you where this thread leads.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 12, 2012, 01:02:21 AM
Millions were spent adding +10% to the existing USAF chart? A chart that is in excess of 20 years old?
The USAF has not maintained the same program during that time, but ours remained static. They also moved to "fat-boy" programs
and BMI tests, and only recently went back to standards which are so tight that 80% of CAP members could never get near them,
and a fair number of active and reservists struggle to maintain.
Quote from: BigShu on October 12, 2012, 12:59:58 AMMaking the number doesn't guarantee ability or skill, but it increases the odds of success.
Making the number, in a CAP context, means nothing but making the number, because for starters, the chart isn't based on actual CAP ops, it isn't even our chart.
The millions have been spent by the AF, trying to find the right approach to ensuring fit airmen. As you state, it's a moving target, and that mirrors society at large. The point is, whatever program is in place is there because there is belief that weight control is very important to military personel. Not so much with volunteer organizations. Personally, I think there would be more interest in CAP if the common example the public sees wasn't either an easy 50# overweight, or 80 years old (never mind the beard and ponytail). What is the 1st year attrition rate, anyway?
Oh, boy.
Gotta agree with Bob on this one. The chart is way out of date, and doesn't really do the job it was intended to do. I seriously doubt that millions were spent, particularly by the DoD. These have been common numbers since I joined the Navy, over 40 years ago.
According to the chart, I'm within standards for the AF. According to my doctor, because of my body makeup, I'm overweight. I agree. I'm working on fixing that.
As for the pilot thing, most of the pilots in my unit are in their 50s, or older, and have broadened a bit as they have aged. These overweight pilots do most of our flying. We had a slow year, and and only flew about 250 hours. The year before we had over 300. If all these heavy guys leave, I'm guessing the airplane would leave, too, because there wouldn't be enough pilots left to fly it the required number of hours.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 12, 2012, 01:23:31 AM
Quote from: BigShu on October 12, 2012, 01:14:45 AMEven if we take them at face value, won't most of those guys be the dead weight you mentioned earlier?
No, these are active pilots we need to keep.
Quote from: BigShu on October 12, 2012, 01:14:45 AM
If most of the wings only get between 25 and 50% member participation, maybe the overweight pilots who leave weren't doing much anyway. If they were the hot shot multi-hat wearing gung ho members, well, we were looking for pilots when they joined too. There will always be pilots who join for the flying. If the expectation was clear that we need pilots who won't have a cardiac episode in the plane, so much the better. All the overweight pilots out there, they're dreading the flight physical after they get those blood pressure meds, because a special issuance medical isn't a slam dunk. And it gets dicier each time. To me, if we want to solidify the pilot supply, we need to be at least raising the question.
You don't just wake up on a Monday and suddenly "decide" this is a risk.
You look at historical data - times when missions went undone, or members were injured or killed due specifically because of a weight or health
related issue. The only data on this is in the '78's, and the '78's won't get you where this thread leads.
Heaven forbid we take an open minded look at the subject without waiting for missions to go undone, or members to croak due to excess weight. When all is said and done, we can only speak for ourselves. Then someone can tally the answers and start moving in the indicated direction. I think a healthy weight awareness program that includes volutary weight reduction information is a splendid idea.
Quote from: BigShu on October 12, 2012, 01:35:17 AMI think a healthy weight awareness program that includes voluntary weight reduction information is a splendid idea.
We have that today.
http://www.nutrition.gov/ (http://www.nutrition.gov/)
Done.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 12, 2012, 01:02:21 AM
Millions were spent adding +10% to the existing USAF chart? A chart that is in excess of 20 years old?
It just so happens that if you're too heavy to wear the uniform based on this 20 year old chart that you'd fall in, or very close to, the definition of "obese" used under the BMI system.
In other words, if can't wear the AF-style uniform due to weight issues, you've got some SERIOUS weight issues.
The issue is >not< who's chart says you're fit or not, the issue is the relevance in a CAP context.
In that context it is only relevant from a mission performance perspective.
Quote from: Ned on October 05, 2012, 05:35:06 PM
1. Can or should CAP have a role in helping larger seniors improve their health by losing weight and engaging in appropriate exercise?
Providing educational information on how CAP members can improve their health is one of the things Health Service Officer do.
Members (and the public) are bombarded with bad health information often endorsed by half-witted celebrities.
For reliable, evidence-based health information online:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CAP_HEALTH_SERVICES/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CAP_HEALTH_SERVICES/) the CAP Health Services Board
http://www.mayoclinic.com/ (http://www.mayoclinic.com/) The Mayo Clinic
http://www.nih.gov/ (http://www.nih.gov/) The National Institute of Health
http://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/patient_101.pdf (http://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/patient_101.pdf) The Joint Commission
or your physician or a Nurse/ Practitioner
Quote from: RNOfficer on October 21, 2012, 09:04:54 PM
Providing educational information on how CAP members can improve their health is one of the things Health Service Officer do.
Has NHQ endorsed this "advice"?
Including accepting liability for its use?
HSOs have less medically-related contact time the most people spend in the waiting room of their GP, and that time does >not< include an exam. Beyond common sense, HSOs should not be offering "advice".
Quote from: RNOfficer on October 21, 2012, 09:04:54 PM
Providing educational information on how CAP members can improve their health is one of the things Health Service Officer do.
Members (and the public) are bombarded with bad health information often endorsed by half-witted celebrities.
So, why would the HSO advice be good? Is CAP going to engage a panel of doctors to come up with the recommendations for members so we're not also bombarded with bad health information from CAP as well? What is the cost-benefit analysis on that, how do we know whether or not CAP gets our money's worth out of it? What is the goal and how do you know when you've accomplished it?
In the end, the only relevant health information for an individual can come from a doctor that has personally examined them. Something that is good advice for one person may be deadly to someone else.
If a person is truly interested, they will find it. If a CAP member REALLY wants to get involved in fitness within CAP, I have an idea.......get your Cadet Programs rating, get HEAVILY involved in cadet programs and push yourself to meet the same standards. When I was DCC, I did the CPFT every month with my cadets. I had just left the Marines so I pretty much beat every one of them at everything ;D THat is the place for it. What was interesting to see though was that as daily civilian life took over, the ability to maintain that intense level of fitness that I had enjoyed as a full time infantryman actually started to fall away. I got the point where I saw my mile times slipping, my sit ups getting a few less every couple of months. It actually bothered me to the point where I was going to go back into the Reserves just as a way to motivate myself to stay in top shape. Living a life of fitness is just that.... it s a lifestyle.
In my opinion, SM's dont need to be bothered with it nor does CAP as an organization need to waste time on the SM side with it.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 21, 2012, 11:43:55 PM
Quote from: RNOfficer on October 21, 2012, 09:04:54 PM
Providing educational information on how CAP members can improve their health is one of the things Health Service Officer do.
Has NHQ endorsed this "advice"?
Including accepting liability for its use?
HSOs have less medically-related contact time the most people spend in the waiting room of their GP, and that time does >not< include an exam. Beyond common sense, HSOs should not be offering "advice".
Usually I don't bother responding to trolls but this is matter of importance.
"Advice" is not the same as "educational information".
Advice is directed at a particular person's particular health problems. Education gives general information that may be applicable to a person's problems.
Telling a person that he should reduce salt intake because it is contributing to his hypertension = advice.
Explaining that limiting salt intake is one of the easiest ways to reduce hypertension = education.
It's a simple distinction, so even you should understand it.
Quote from: RNOfficer on October 24, 2012, 01:07:28 AM
Usually I don't bother responding to trolls but this is matter of importance.
Hahaha...RNOfficer just called Eclipse a Troll. Wow...Way off base.
Holy toledo, this thread is still going?
Wow.
:)
Ned,
this thread inspired me. I have taken some of the thoughts and advice from here (as well as a few other threads with similar topics) and have started on my way to getting in shape.
So thanks for bringing it up.
-Me
Quote from: SARDOC on October 24, 2012, 01:56:35 AM
Quote from: RNOfficer on October 24, 2012, 01:07:28 AM
Usually I don't bother responding to trolls but this is matter of importance.
Hahaha...RNOfficer just called Eclipse a Troll. Wow...Way off base.
How exactly is it off base? Please enlighten us.
Quote from: PHall on October 25, 2012, 01:19:12 AM
How exactly is it off base? Please enlighten us.
While on occasion I have disagreed with Eclipse on issues, I don't believe he is a troll. He is a well informed member of our organization and a frequent poster to this board. A troll is someone who makes trouble just for the sake of making trouble. I don't believe that is the case here at all. I think his post was well intentioned based on his comments on similar threads throughout these boards.
Quote from: SARDOC on October 25, 2012, 01:30:38 AM
Quote from: PHall on October 25, 2012, 01:19:12 AM
How exactly is it off base? Please enlighten us.
While on occasion I have disagreed with Eclipse on issues, I don't believe he is a troll. He is a well informed member of our organization and a frequent poster to this board. A troll is someone who makes trouble just for the sake of making trouble. I don't believe that is the case here at all. I think his post was well intentioned based on his comments on similar threads throughout these boards.
Danke - as usual when people can't make an argument they revert to personal insults.
Hall? Love you man!
Quote from: johnnyb47 on October 24, 2012, 01:51:11 PMHoly toledo, this thread is still going?
It's showing a bit of unraveling, but otherwise still in stitch..
Quote from: Eclipse on October 25, 2012, 01:45:14 AM
Quote from: SARDOC on October 25, 2012, 01:30:38 AM
Quote from: PHall on October 25, 2012, 01:19:12 AM
How exactly is it off base? Please enlighten us.
While on occasion I have disagreed with Eclipse on issues, I don't believe he is a troll. He is a well informed member of our organization and a frequent poster to this board. A troll is someone who makes trouble just for the sake of making trouble. I don't believe that is the case here at all. I think his post was well intentioned based on his comments on similar threads throughout these boards.
Danke - as usual when people can't make an argument they revert to personal insults.
Hall? Love you man!
And when people can't understand an argument, they believe they are being personally insulted.
Quote from: RNOfficer on October 25, 2012, 07:18:51 PM
And when people can't understand an argument, they believe they are being personally insulted.
Quote from: RNOfficer on October 24, 2012, 01:07:28 AM
Usually I don't bother responding to trolls but this is matter of importance.
Quote from: RNOfficer on October 24, 2012, 01:07:28 AMIt's a simple distinction, so even you should understand it.
Which one of the above did I misunderstand?
Quote from: Eclipse on October 25, 2012, 07:28:11 PM
Quote from: RNOfficer on October 25, 2012, 07:18:51 PM
And when people can't understand an argument, they believe they are being personally insulted.
Quote from: RNOfficer on October 24, 2012, 01:07:28 AM
Usually I don't bother responding to trolls but this is matter of importance.
Quote from: RNOfficer on October 24, 2012, 01:07:28 AMIt's a simple distinction, so even you should understand it.
Which one of the above did I misunderstand?
Sadly, you don't understand what you don't understand.
Here's what you did not understand:
"Advice" is not the same as "educational information".
Advice is directed at a particular person's particular health problems. Education gives general information that may be applicable to a person's problems.
Telling a person that he should reduce salt intake because it is contributing to his hypertension = advice.
Explaining that limiting salt intake is one of the easiest ways to reduce hypertension = education.
So then you're just going to ignore the whole calling me a troll and insinuating I am too simple to understand the issue then, and then
do it again?
I understand exactly what the issue is - HSO's who feel frustrated that their professional skills have no meaningful role to play in CAP, and who want to try and involve themselves in preventative medicine, and NHQ which (to date) disagrees with that idea. Members do not need or want unsolicited advice regarding health issues that CAP has no stake in.
CAP does not provide health insurance, so there is no cost benefit.
CAP cannot show any evidence that members' health, on the average or the mean, is any different then the overall demographic of its membership,
nor that it has ever affected mission performance at anything higher then statistical zero.
In regards to this thread, trying to make a distinction between "advice" and "education" is just legalese.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 25, 2012, 08:18:42 PM
So then you're just going to ignore the whole calling me a troll and insinuating I am too simple to understand the issue then?
While I normally agree with you, lately, your tone has been less humanish and more towards the troll side. If you were somebody that has not established themselves, many would be outwardly a troll.
Quote from: RNOfficer on October 25, 2012, 07:53:38 PM
"Advice" is not the same as "educational information".
Advice is directed at a particular person's particular health problems. Education gives general information that may be applicable to a person's problems.
Telling a person that he should reduce salt intake because it is contributing to his hypertension = advice.
Explaining that limiting salt intake is one of the easiest ways to reduce hypertension = education.
So - I think Eclipse gets that - he is a smart man. He, like most of us here, probably have heard this advice before.
Do you understand that he has been asking you and anyone else to justify why CAP should care? What happens if CAP doesn't do what you propose?
Do you also understand you responded in a less than respectful way and implied that he was too simple to understand what you failed to communciate effectively? The responsibility with making sure that a message is understood lies with the sender and analysis of any problem always should grow in increasingly larger cocentric circles centered around your own desk. If you believe he didn't understand your message, then your job is to repeat, not berate.
Siigh.
In an attempt, probably and exercise in futility, to bring this thread somewhat back on topic. CAPR 160-1 sect. C clearly outlines what the duties and expectations of a HSO are. The issue isn't whether you like it or not. It is a CAPR and we are bound to follow it afterall we don't get to pick and choose which regs we support and don't support. And we don't get to choose which programs/members we will support. I personally think the DDR program has been the largest waste of time and money to come along in yrs but as a leader I support it. You don't like HSOs and their duties as outlined in CAPR 160-1 change the reg don't characterize HSOs as useless baggage and a drain on your program. We all bring something to CAP and no single member is worth more than the other.
HSOs clearly have a role to play in CAP in those areas outlined in CAPR 160-1 and one of those areas is promoting a healthy lifestyle.
The reg says what an HSO can do, it doesn't mandate a unit have one.
DDR, on the other hand, is a required component of a a units operations as well as encampments and a few other similar larger-scale activities.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 25, 2012, 09:19:18 PM
The reg says what an HSO can do, it doesn't mandate a unit have one.
No, and you don't have to have many other positions so what is your point? Your antipathy toward HSOs and the HSO program has been clearly demonstrated in mult. threads. Are you letting your personal bias determine how things are done in your AOR? Are you saying that you would refuse to apporve an HSO slot in your AOR?
So, back to the thread. Yes, HSOs have a role in encouraging a healthy lifestyle for senior members.
Quote from: PA Guy on October 25, 2012, 09:32:21 PMAre you saying that you would refuse to approve an HSO slot in your AOR?
Refuse to approve one? No, if a unit CC felt the need to check a box on their roster, so be it, that's their call.
At the unit staff / operations level I have never had a need which would have been filled by an HSO on the basis of their professional skills.
I have, however, had any number of issues where HSOs felt the need to insinuate themselves into situations where they actually had no
particular need to be involved, try to push the line on emergency care, "regs be darned!", or request advanced grade and other
PD credit despite having no track record of CAP service, experience, or knowledge.
At the large activity level, I, like so many other commanders, have had to ride the edge between wanting to provide the best, safest environment
for my cadets and other participants, and the very real and specific regulations regarding what HSOs are, and are
not, allowed to do. Were they not on staff, 911 would have, and
did serve us just fine, and now that NHQ has made it clear that the primary
allowed job of most HSOs is, the most part, verboten, the need for them on staff of activities which are otherwise in urban areas with modern, responsive, emergency medical care becomes even more questionable. As a parent, I want a mobile trauma unit on hot-standby at all times, as an activity or unit commander in CAP, I have
the fiduciary responsibility to follow the regs and protect the corporation as well. In the case of HSOs, this is not always a clear, simple task.
That doesn't mean I don't sympathize with their situation. The medical professionals, lawyers, and clergy, that we regularly solicit for their
specific skills (or who come to us for the same reason), find themselves with little-to-nothing that they can use their skillset for. But that doesn't mean we should be looking to create make-work for them any more then we would do the same for law enforcement, plumbers, or trapeze artists.
The simple fact of the matter is that while we absolutely need more educated professionals in CAP, we just don't need them for their specific skills,
but for their managerial and related general knowledge and attitude.
And we also need more plumbers and trapeze artists.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 25, 2012, 08:18:42 PM
I understand exactly what the issue is - HSO's who feel frustrated that their professional skills have no meaningful role to play in CAP, and who want to try and involve themselves in preventative medicine, and NHQ which (to date) disagrees with that idea.
In regards to this thread, trying to make a distinction between "advice" and "education" is just legalese.
You are completely mistaken in your belief that preventive medicine by HSOs is not supported by National HQ. I suggest that you take the time to read CAPR 160-1 rather than repeatedly writing about something you apparently know nothing about.
Physical fitness, health promotion, environmental protection, and skill and knowledge in providing emergency care are readiness issues. Training at every level must reflect these issues. Since CAP is an integral part of the Air Force family, a program reflecting the foregoing is necessary.
CAP health services' overarching program goal is to assist our entire membership to become and/or remain optimally healthy and fit, and to be skilled in providing
basic emergency care.
I have carefully explained the difference between "advice" and "education". I'm not going to encourage your trollish behavior by explaining again.
I am fine with being provided with information regarding general wellbeing, health and fitness as long as it is presented in a group format to the group as a whole. If a commander believes that the safety program could be expanded to safety & health with periodic presentations on the latter in lieu of or in addition to that week's or month's safety presentation, then so be it.
However, if someone were to specifically address me in regards to what he believes about my personal fitness level, that would be different. But in today's world with so many different types of media warning about the health risks of being obese, smoking, etc. and extolling the benefits of losing weight and exercising, I personally see very little added benefit that a few minutes talk at a CAP meeting will add.
The only area in which I do see value is in regards to flight physiology, fatigue, stress and other related health aspects of human factors as that is not something that you hear or see much about unless you seek it out. However my slightly larger than preferred girth is my business. I hear enough about it from the misses.
Quote from: RNOfficer on October 25, 2012, 10:07:44 PM
Physical fitness, health promotion, environmental protection, and skill and knowledge in providing emergency care are readiness issues. Training at every level must reflect these issues. Since CAP is an integral part of the Air Force family, a program reflecting the foregoing is necessary. CAP health services' overarching program goal is to assist our entire membership to become and/or remain optimally healthy and fit, and to be skilled in providing
basic emergency care.
I guess that reg quote actually answers the question that Ned originally posed that started this thread. CAP already made the decision to promote healthy lifestyles among its members.
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on October 25, 2012, 10:09:59 PM
I am fine with being provided with information regarding general wellbeing, health and fitness as long as it is presented in a group format to the group as a whole.
However, if someone were to specifically address me in regards to what he believes about my personal fitness level, that would be different.
But in today's world with so many different types of media warning about the health risks of being obese, smoking, etc. and extolling the benefits of losing weight and exercising, I personally see very little added benefit that a few minutes talk at a CAP meeting will add.
The former is health education which is what HSOs do. The latter would require diagnosis, which is what HSOs do not do.
However, I believe that you are mistaken in your statement that members have enough exposure through the media. Much of what appears in the media is simply not correct, much of the rest is too preliminary for laypersons to utilize.
Did you see this? The members of my squadron did.
A 12% reduction in cancers, (other than prostate cancer)? That's a big deal.A large clinical trial of nearly 15,000 older male doctors followed for more
than a decade found that those taking a daily multivitamin experienced 8 percent
fewer cancers than the subjects taking dummy pills.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/health/daily-multivitamin-may-reduce-cancer-ri\ (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/health/daily-multivitamin-may-reduce-cancer-ri%5C)
sk-clinical-trial-finds.html
Multivitamin use had no effect on the incidence of prostate cancer, which was
the most common cancer diagnosed in the study participants.
When researchers
looked at the effect of vitamin use on all other cancers, they found a 12
percent reduction in occurrence.
What if certain members of your squadron have medical conditions or are on medications that preclude them from taking multi-vitamins? These are conversations they should be having with their doctors.
EDIT: Also, it's interesting that you say that much of the media is incorrect, and then cite a NY Times article. Do you want to be the one telling people in your squadron which media advice to take and which to ignore? I don't - that is the job of their physician.
Quote from: CAP4117 on October 26, 2012, 12:02:53 AM
What if certain members of your squadron have medical conditions or are on medications that preclude them from taking multi-vitamins? These are conversations they should be having with their doctors.
EDIT: Also, it's interesting that you say that much of the media is incorrect, and then cite a NY Times article. Do you want to be the one telling people in your squadron which media advice to take and which to ignore? I don't - that is the job of their physician.
The HSOs job is only to make you aware of the information. What if anything you decide to do with it is up to
you. No competent HSO is going to suggest you change your medication regimen withour first consulting the health care provider that prescribded the meds to you.
The NYT article was discussing the original reasearch. They were not saying it was their research. It wasn't just some online article advocating coffee enemas or dancing in the moonlight nude.
So at worst an HSO presenting this has done what? Make a group of seniors aware of some new research that they may want to discuss with their health care provider on their next visit? No one is telling you to do anything only providing information that you can do with as you please.
Fair enough, as long as it's really presented that way. Maybe I misinterpreted, but the poster didn't really specify how it was presented to the squadron.
I'm all for HSOs, promoting healthy lifestyles, etc. I would even be in favor of an optional senior member PT program connected with some type of award (as others here have proposed). I appreciate RNOfficer's distinction between advice and education, but it's important to remember that that line can become pretty blurry, depending on how the members decide to use the material and how litigious they decide to be when something goes wrong.
Quote from: CAP4117 on October 26, 2012, 12:02:53 AM
What if certain members of your squadron have medical conditions or are on medications that preclude them from taking multi-vitamins? These are conversations they should be having with their doctors.
EDIT: Also, it's interesting that you say that much of the media is incorrect, and then cite a NY Times article. Do you want to be the one telling people in your squadron which media advice to take and which to ignore? I don't - that is the job of their physician.
A responsible HSO always closes a discussion with "this in only general information; you should consult your health provider for specific health information"
The NY Times is media of course but it's not media that most people read and it's authoritative.
Finally as others have pointed out, it references the research so the reader can view it himself.
You can take it from me though: 15,000 subjects, 10 years, double-blind study, within the limitation cited (only males in study, subjects were health conscious to begin with, few smokers), this is BIG SCIENCE.
Quote from: CAP4117 on October 26, 2012, 03:00:12 AM
Fair enough, as long as it's really presented that way. Maybe I misinterpreted, but the poster didn't really specify how it was presented to the squadron.
I'm all for HSOs, promoting healthy lifestyles, etc. I would even be in favor of an optional senior member PT program connected with some type of award (as others here have proposed). I appreciate RNOfficer's distinction between advice and education, but it's important to remember that that line can become pretty blurry, depending on how the members decide to use the material and how litigious they decide to be when something goes wrong.
I don't know why - but this sparked a semi serious thought -
As long as it's voluntary, non-intrusive and CAP doesn't discriminate against overweight people, then it's fine. But what kind of activity does that leave as permissible?