Should CAP Even Consider Encouraging Healthy Habits for Seniors?

Started by Ned, October 05, 2012, 05:35:06 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Eclipse

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.

"That Others May Zoom"

jimmydeanno

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. 

If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. - Winston Churchill

BigShu

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.


BigShu

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.

Eclipse

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.

"That Others May Zoom"

A.Member

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 and Warrior Dash 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.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

AngelWings

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...

BigShu

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....

A.Member

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.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

Eclipse

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?

"That Others May Zoom"

Cliff_Chambliss

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
11th Armored Cavalry Regiment
2d Armored Cavalry Regiment
3d Infantry Division
504th BattleField Surveillance Brigade

ARMY:  Because even the Marines need heros.    
CAVALRY:  If it were easy it would be called infantry.

Eclipse

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.

"That Others May Zoom"

BigShu

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!

Eclipse

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.

"That Others May Zoom"

RiverAux

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. 

Eclipse

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.

"That Others May Zoom"

RiverAux

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. 


bflynn

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.

Private Investigator

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.