# CF Health and Lifestyle Information Survey Results - We are fatter & we drink



## old medic (25 Jan 2011)

Canadian soldiers fatter and drinking more: survey
The Canadian Press
25 January 2011




> HALIFAX — Canadian Forces personnel are getting fatter, more sedentary in their work, less physically active and becoming heavier drinkers, according to a new military study.
> 
> The Health and Lifestyle Information Survey also found that members are still reluctant to seek out mental health care services for fear that it will hurt their military careers, despite several new Defence initiatives to reduce stigma about the afflictions.
> 
> ...


----------



## Armymedic (25 Jan 2011)

Becoming heavy drinkers?


----------



## PMedMoe (25 Jan 2011)

Rider Pride said:
			
		

> Becoming heavy drinkers?



Yeah, too late for that, eh?


----------



## Armymedic (25 Jan 2011)

This survey is yet another brick in the wall we medical clinicians use to try to keep our members healthy. Hence the reasons they ask about drinking, smoking etc, on your medicals. This study was posted by milnews a while back.

See the attached PDF file re: the causes of death of CF members.



			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Part of me thought this might go better in the Mental Health thread, but the study covers more than just that - mod squad, feel free to shift as you see fit.
> 
> This, from the _National Post_:
> Full study attached (9pg PDF)



http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=93100.0;attach=31623


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Jan 2011)

So is this "news" from a study that's been out there for 9 months?


----------



## Armymedic (26 Jan 2011)

No, the study was about the cause of death, the survey was about the quality of life. Opposite ends of the same candle.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Jan 2011)

Thanks for that.


----------



## McG (26 Jan 2011)

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1224065.html

I have done a google search and cannot seem to find the source document.  Does anyone know where it is at?  I would be interested to see if the obesity statistics were based on individual self-assessments, BMI calculations from measurements provided by respondents, or some other mechanism?

I recall a survey from a number of years back (it may have been the 2004 predecessor survey mentioned in the article) in which members were asked to rate their fitness level.  It later turned out that many service personnel perceived "fit" and average fitness to be much more athletic than is reality in Canada, and so the results were skewed to suggest a greater than actual number of service personnel with sub-adequate fitness.

I do believe we have a fitness problem in the CF, but I am also skeptical of the statistics presented without any underlying explanation of the mechanism which identified the overweight and the obese.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (26 Jan 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1224065.html
> 
> I have done a google search and cannot seem to find the source document.  Does anyone know where it is at?  I would be interested to see if the obesity statistics were based on individual self-assessments, BMI calculations from measurements provided by respondents, or some other mechanism?
> 
> ...



Found one, but sure if this is the source doc you are looking for..... CFHS Health and Lifestyle Information Survey


----------



## Armymedic (26 Jan 2011)

That would be the one, as there hasn't been one since.


----------



## McG (26 Jan 2011)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Found one, but sure if this is the source doc you are looking for.....


That is it, and according to Chapter 9 the survey used the height and weight of respondents to calculate BMI.  So, these results will have skewed results to suggest a higher than actual number of fat overweight pers because it lumps in all the pers with high BMI due to muscle mass.


----------



## Occam (27 Jan 2011)

From this morning's Halifax Chronicle Herald:


----------



## riggermade (27 Jan 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> That is it, and according to Chapter 9 the survey used the height and weight of respondents to calculate BMI.  So, these results will have skewed results to suggest a higher than actual number of fat overweight pers because it lumps in all the pers with high BMI due to muscle mass.



I remember in the 80's when the military was cracking down on people with a high BMI....there was no accounting for the fitness just the BMI so if you lifted weights and were muscle bound then your BMI was high


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jan 2011)

riggermade said:
			
		

> I remember in the 80's when the military was cracking down on people with a high BMI....there was no accounting for the fitness just the BMI so if you lifted weights and were muscle bound then your BMI was high




Very true, back in the late 80s and into the 90s I had three senior people in my directorate (all Navy, by the way) (not all at the same time) who were "muscle bound" but not, by any stretch of the imagination fat or, in any way, unfit. But I had to spend hours and hours writing memos and attending meetings in order to prevent some retard from convening a Carer Medical Review Board or worse. It was a colossal waste of my (very bloody valuable) time and, as far as I could see, the whole BMI thing served no purpose except to provide employment for useless people doing useless "work."

I believe we you all need to "look fit" - and that means, _inter alia_, no rolls of fat around the face and belly, and so on, but, it is more important that you *are fit* and that is not a matter of appearances - it can and should be tested.


----------



## Hambo (27 Jan 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I believe we you all need to "look fit" - and that means, _inter alia_, no rolls of fat around the face and belly, and so on, but, it is more important that you *are fit* and that is not a matter of appearances - it can and should be tested.



You can carry fat around your stomach, and anywhere else, and still be perfectly fit.

Looks =/= performance.

Within reasonable limits, who cares how someone looks if they can meet or exceed the fitness standards?


----------



## FSTO (27 Jan 2011)

Drinking more? BS. I remember when I joined that bar hours were a guideline and the rampant drinking while at sea. Now the bar hours are strictly enforced and very few (except the Log O  ;D) drink at sea.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Jan 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It was a colossal waste of my (very bloody valuable) time



On the other hand, there's something to be said for keeping senior personnel busy and otherwise occupied... GOBIs are a continual source of amusement and unintended consequences.


----------



## Jed (27 Jan 2011)

Too bad there isn't a complementary study showing that the CF average age is increasing and that the members are smoking less and are more productive on the job and are better prepared to deal with the stupidity of 'Politically Correct' reports.


----------



## Chilme (30 Jan 2011)

If you look closely at the results you will noticed a few things:

1) The results are compared to the 2000 and 2004 study results and doesn't take into account anything prior to that time.

2) There is an increase in CF pers that are low on the fitness scale, while at the same time there are more people considered to be highly fit.  Moderate fitness levels have gone down and therefore people seem to be choosing to be more fit  or simply a lazy slob.

3) Just under 50% of the injuries have been attributed to an improper warm up before activity.

4) a significant amount of injuries are a results of overtraining and imbalanced training programs. Often a results of "When in doubt run/ruck" or "Cpl Bloggins, you're in charge of PT today. Go!"  Unit's need to harass their fitness sections to produce well balanced and varied training to avoid chronic injuries.


----------



## Navalsnpr (30 Jan 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> From this morning's Halifax Chronicle Herald:



Funny... While in KAF, when the Tim Horton's was out of Donuts, there was virtually no line up. The demographic that appeared to be missing was all of the US Soldiers.... and the occasional Dog Handler bringing their service dog in for a timbit!!


----------

