Should CAP Even Consider Encouraging Healthy Habits for Seniors?

[RiverAux]

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. 

[RiverAux]

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. 

[bflynn]

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.

[BigShu]

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.

[Майор Хаткевич]

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...

[RiverAux]

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. 

[Eclipse]

Ok, 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.

[A.Member]

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.

[A.Member]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

It 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.

[A.Member]

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.

It 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?!

[Eclipse]

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?

[A.Member]

It 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.   

[A.Member]

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?!

[Eclipse]

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.

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.

[A.Member]

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.   

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.

[SJFedor]

Now you're simply being obtuse.

Couldn't resist.

[Eclipse]

^ Awesome.

[A.Member]

Now you're simply being obtuse.

Couldn't resist.

[bflynn]

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. 

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...