CAP Height/Weight Standards for Uniform wear and BMI

[Gunner C]

But Curt was the most obvious.  The military will change history to make it conform to the current norms.

[Prospector]

I find it ironic that there is a generic arbitrary "+10%" to the whole weight allowance. If you do the math, the "+10%" is not a constant across all height / weight table entries, it is a variable that results in an unfair advantage to those people who have a starting max weight that is higher.

What I mean is that if you just "add 10%" to the maximum weight, you get a result that is something like this sample:

If your AF max weight is:                  then your CAP max weight is:                    difference is:
100                                               110                                                      10
200                                               220                                                      20
300                                               330                                                      30

So, in reality a person who is very petite will not have as much leeway in terms of weight gain as a person who has a very large frame before they are over the limit. The irony here is that weight alone is a constant due to gravity being a constant and each pound of weight equals a certain amount of constant excessive calorie intake to achieve per person regardless of frame.

Let's just say that it takes 100 calories to create 1 pound of weight. In this case, the person who is allowed 10 pounds can overeat 1000 calories before going over, and the person who is allowed 30 pounds can overeat 3000 calories before going over.

So, the poor sod who weighs in the 100 pound category but who likes to eat just as much as the 300 pound sod is actually penalized for his low starting weight.

My opinion: The policy parameters should directly promote the achievement of the policy's ultimate goal.

In this case, the policy should be written so as to promote a "pleasing and proper military image", not just inhibit a generic "fat person" from wearing a specific type of uniform.

Since each person is an individual, with an individual size and shape, and fitness level, it should be left up to either the Squadron Commander, or a review panel of squadron officers to determine whether or not the person is "fit" to wear the uniform.

Of course, since we are dealing with the military here, remember they make policy based upon mass consumption and ease of understanding and enforcement. Given this mindset, a blanket 10% overage seems logical and impartial.

Just my 2 cents.

[Nick]

Easier solution is to use BMI.  Just make an across the board rule that if you have more than 30% (or whatever), you're out of the AF uniform.

[Spike]

^ So weigh-ins before each meeting?  Then do I break the donuts out for those that did not "bust" BMI??

[RiverAux]

Easier solution is to use BMI.  Just make an across the board rule that if you have more than 30% (or whatever), you're out of the AF uniform.

As I noted in the original post in this thread, there is an uncanny correlation between the max allowable CAP weights and the cut-off between Overweight and Obese using the BMI system.  Obviously that is accidental since those charts came out well before BMI caught on.

Of course, BMI is nothing but a height-weight chart in disguise. 

[Nick]

Of course, BMI is nothing but a height-weight chart in disguise.

You're exactly right.  But if saying "AF weight + 10%" is going to be argued as an inconsistent scale, then use a BMI percentage which fluidly accounts for the shift in height AND uses "standard weight status categories that are the same for all ages and for both men and women." (BMI for Adults:  http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi)  I think 30% (the benchmark for obesity) is a pretty darn fair measure, so...

For example:
A male member is 5'00".  The AF MAW is 153.  The CAP MAW is 168.  30% BMI is 153 (15 pounds below MAW).
A male member is 5'05".  The AF MAW is 169.  The CAP MAW is 186.  30% BMI is 180 (6 pounds below MAW).
A male member is 5'10".  The AF MAW is 194.  The CAP MAW is 213.  30% BMI is 209 (4 pounds below MAW).

But, on the flip side:
A female member is 5'00".  The AF MAW is 136.  The CAP MAW is 150.  30% BMI is 153 (3 pounds above MAW).
A female member is 5'05".  The AF MAW is 150.  The CAP MAW is 165.  30% BMI is 180 (15 pound above MAW).
A female member is 5'10".  The AF MAW is 173.  The CAP MAW is 190.  30% BMI is 209 (19 pounds above MAW).

Yes, it tightens up the parameters for adult males a bit, but assuming the average height of an adult male is 5' 9", we're talking a pretty negligible difference... and like I said, it satisfies the argument about the weight + 10%.

^ So weigh-ins before each meeting?  Then do I break the donuts out for those that did not "bust" BMI??

I would say no.  But, it is a commander's responsibility to ensure members adhere to uniform and grooming standards (as applicable for the uniform worn), so I would say commanders reserve the right for spot checks on the members that appear to be out of standards.

[Eclipse]

A bit?

You're suggesting that senior members with no PT program, magically exceed military weight standards?

Also, who's BMI do we accept, because there's a lot of opinion out there on this and many fluctuate by 5+ points.

[Grumpy]

Yee Gads, there's just nothing that's simple around here, is there?

[Rotorhead]

Yee Gads, there's just nothing that's simple around here, is there?

It should be this simple: if you look overweight, don't wear the USAF-style uniform.

Sadly, there are plenty of senior members who obviously exceed the standards (no need to actually put them on a scale--appearance tells the tale) who don't comply with the regs.

[Nick]

Which goes back to the CAPM 39-1 commander's responsibility to enforce dress and appearance standards.

[Eclipse]

Which goes back to the CAPM 39-1 commander's responsibility to enforce dress and appearance standards.

"Look presentable and professional at all times."

Perhaps this should be the simple standard, and it appears to work for most other services with similar missions and relationships.

[RiverAux]

Which goes back to the CAPM 39-1 commander's responsibility to enforce dress and appearance standards.

"Look presentable and professional at all times."

Perhaps this should be the simple standard, and it appears to work for most other services with similar missions and relationships.

Sorry, but this is basically how the CG Aux does it and believe it or not they're worse than CAP.  Since they don't have a firm standard like we do, its all in the eye of the beholder and there isn't really anyone with any authority to enforce such things. 

We need a firm standard of some kind that can be enforced by our commanders.  Whether it is a height-weight chart of BMI or something else doesn't matter as long as there isn't any wiggle room in it. 

[PHall]

Which goes back to the CAPM 39-1 commander's responsibility to enforce dress and appearance standards.

"Look presentable and professional at all times."

Perhaps this should be the simple standard, and it appears to work for most other services with similar missions and relationships.

Sorry, but this is basically how the CG Aux does it and believe it or not they're worse than CAP.  Since they don't have a firm standard like we do, its all in the eye of the beholder and there isn't really anyone with any authority to enforce such things. 

We need a firm standard of some kind that can be enforced by our commanders.  Whether it is a height-weight chart of BMI or something else doesn't matter as long as there isn't any wiggle room in it.

How about we get some Commanders that actually will enforce the standards.
The problem we have right now isn't a lack of standards, it's a lack of enforcement of the standards.

[billford1]

A lot of commanders see the over the weight limit people but they also see their attendance and the work that gets done. I wouldn't drive those folks away with ultimatums.

[Nick]

A lot of commanders see the over the weight limit people but they also see their attendance and the work that gets done. I wouldn't drive those folks away with ultimatums.

You don't have to drive it away.  You just have to remind them that there are other uniform options available if they aren't concerned about weight standards.

[Prospector]

Precisely why we should only have one set of dress uniforms. I'm not advocating for any particular style, just that we settle on one only and drive on.

Too many choices isn't necessarily a good thing.

[notaNCO forever]

Precisely why we should only have one set of dress uniforms. I'm not advocating for any particular style, just that we settle on one only and drive on.

Too many choices isn't necessarily a good thing.

I don't see anything wrong with two dress uniforms service uniform if you meet weight grooming standards and corporate uniform for those that don't meet the standards or don't want to wear the service dress. Their is no need to have 10 different uniform combos though.   

[Nick]

I don't see anything wrong with two dress uniforms service uniform if you meet weight grooming standards and corporate uniform for those that don't meet the standards or don't want to wear the service dress. Their is no need to have 10 different uniform combos though.

I remember the good 'ol days...
Service Dress or Blazer Combination
Short-sleeve/Long-sleeve Duty Uniform or Aviator Shirt
BDUs or Polo Shirt
AF Flight Suit or Blue Flight Suit

Yep.  Them were the days.

[SarDragon]

Let's take the "Way Back Machine" to 1968. We had 10 combinations available, including the utilities, blazer, and flight suit.

Fast forward to 1987, and we had 12 combinations.

Without doing a detailed count past the previous post, and filling in the gaps, I'd say we have around 12 or so combinations toady. They're just apportioned differently. No real big differences in numbers. In all of these, I have no allowances for tie or no tie. Taking that into account would increase the numbers universally.

YMMV.

[Gunner C]

Let's take the "Way Back Machine" to 1968. We had 10 combinations available, including the utilities, blazer, and flight suit.

Fast forward to 1987, and we had 12 combinations.

Without doing a detailed count past the previous post, and filling in the gaps, I'd say we have around 12 or so combinations toady. They're just apportioned differently. No real big differences in numbers. In all of these, I have no allowances for tie or no tie. Taking that into account would increase the numbers universally.

YMMV.

But, in 1968, many of these combinations were seasonal.  1505s were only worn ~April-September.  There were two seasonal types of mess dress (although they may have not come into being until 1969) - white jacket worn ~April-September and black jacket (all other times).  There were two flight suits, orange and green, and a couple of different styles/fabrics of blues.  Yes, there were fatigues (not in wide use), and a couple of other combinations that that slip my mind right now.  To tell you the truth, I don't remember anyone wearing the blazer, outside of IACE, where I think it was limited to.