BCA Navadmin

[CommodoreMid]

Oh I definitely believe you in terms of this was the easy button. It will be super interesting to see if the Navy makes public the differences in BCA failures compared to the old method and, of those who fail, how many can get outstanding low to pass overall. I do agree with raising that bar compared to where it was before on the excellent. Excellent really isn’t that hard to get. Outstanding does require some sort of fitness baseline.

 

[Spekkio]

What I'm saying is that if they wanted to do easy mode to test for health risks...

Step 1: height/weight only. If you are less than or equal to BMI of 25, you pass. Otherwise, go to step 2.

Step 2: Height to waist ratio less than or equal to 0.50. If yes, pass. If no, go to step 3.

Step 3: Oustanding low or heigher on all PRT exercise scores (run or swim required). If yes, BCA is waived. If no, fail BCA.

Again, I can't find any website that says one can reliably calculate bodyfat percentage by using the methodology in the new BCA.

For all its faults, the older methodology of height / weight -> rope and choke (without single-site measurement) was better than whatever this monstrosity is. The allowances for being overweight are higher than ever.

 

[number9]

What I'm saying is that if they wanted to do easy mode to test for health risks...

Step 1: height/weight only. If you are less than or equal to BMI of 25, you pass. Otherwise, go to step 2.

Step 2: Height to waist ratio less than or equal to 0.50. If yes, pass. If no, go to step 3.

Step 3: Oustanding low or heigher on all PRT exercise scores (run or swim required). If yes, BCA is waived. If no, fail BCA.

Again, I can't find any website that says one can reliably calculate bodyfat percentage by using the methodology in the new BCA.

For all its faults, the older methodology of height / weight -> rope and choke (without single-site measurement) was better than whatever this monstrosity is. The allowances for being overweight are higher than ever.

I don't really have a dog in this fight either way, but isn't BMI itself a pretty outdated (and mildly controversial) metric?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index#Limitations

 

[Spekkio]

I don't really have a dog in this fight either way, but isn't BMI itself a pretty outdated (and mildly controversial) metric?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index#Limitations

It's controversial among laypeople who don't want to admit they could lose weight.

It's still widely used by the medical community, including the CDC. It's logged in your medical chart and term life insurance will use it (among other things) to determine your premiums. That's because BMI is quick, cheap, and accurate.

There is a 0.88 correlation factor between BMI above 25 and early heart disease risk. You can do better (0.9) with WtH ratio, but BMI is good enough for the vast majority of the population.

The reason it's used by public health is that you can easily erase the benefits of using other methods through measuring error and / or they require expensive equipment. I think that a lot of sailors will think they're good under the new system with at-home measurements only to find out they squeezed the tape too much.

The main disconnect among critics is that BMI is a measure of health risk and doesn't care how someone looks in the mirror.

Measuring WtH ratio in people who are over 25 BMI eliminates almost all the error. But the Venn diagram of people with a BMI over 25 and a WtH ratio of 0.5 or less is probably about less than 2-5% of the population.

 

[number9]

It's controversial among laypeople who don't want to admit they could lose weight.

It's still widely used by the medical community, including the CDC. It's logged in your medical chart and term life insurance will use it (among other things) to determine your premiums. That's because BMI is quick, cheap, and accurate.

There is a 0.88 correlation factor between BMI above 25 and early heart disease risk. You can do better (0.9) with WtH ratio, but BMI is good enough for the vast majority of the population.

The reason it's used by public health is that you can easily erase the benefits of using other methods through measuring error and / or they require expensive equipment.

The main disconnect among critics is that BMI is a measure of health risk and doesn't care how someone looks in the mirror.

Measuring WtH ratio in people who are over 25 BMI eliminates almost all the error. But the Venn diagram of people with a BMI over 25 and a WtH ratio of 0.5 or less is probably about less than 2-5% of the population.

Appreciate the detailed response - thank you!

 

[JBM]

Curious about your experience on that. My understanding is that service connected hearing loss is assessed from original baseline thresholds, and you won't get a rating unless your hearing loss is fairly severe. The reason Occ Health wants to rebaseline is so they can assess recent trends to see if there's something in your hearing protection approach that can be tweaked, which isn't all that useful for those of us in aircraft already wearing all the available PPE.

I think this is accurate. I’ve been seeing several AGMs for rebaselining recently from th docs at NASWI. By resetting the threshold they can not only try to determine what works for individuals, but also gather data on where the losses occurred. I.e. working on the flight deck or in a land-based unit. Not fund to send up those mishaps