Health, Fitness and Wellbeing Profile

The Health, Fitness and Wellbeing profile provides people with a very good idea of how well the various systems of the body are functioning, particularly the

•      the mind

•      autonomic nervous system

•      immune system

•      digestive system

•      circulatory system

•      elimination system

•      musculo-skeletal system.

On this profile a good score is a low score.

The score of a normal, fit and healthy human being is less than 20. Higher scores are symptomatic of dysfunction of one or more body systems. People with low levels of fitness and high levels of stress usually score well over 100.

For people with a score of more than 80, the ‘background noise’ of their life is becoming louder and louder. It is hard to concentrate on your work when body systems are dysfunctional. We know a fit and healthy group when we see the majority of scores below 40. This was not the case with this group.

By and large higher scores are usually a reflection of

• low levels of fitness

• an inability to deal with what life and work are serving up to people.

Remember, it is not what happens, but how we deal with what happens that determines our level of stress. 

Classification of average scores: Excellent - less than 40. Good - 41 - 50. Reasonable 51-60. Poor - over 60.

This profile is described as poor. The average score was 61. Anyone scoring more than 80 is putting up with a lot of 'background noise'.

Health Climate Survey

Based on scores received in the Health, Fitness and Wellbeing profile we've compiled a Health Climate Survey. Scores on each item have ranked - the higher the score the worse the problem. We added the scores for each item. The results appear in the table below.

Musculo-skeletal Risk factor Profile

The Tern Point Musculo-skeletal Health Risk Screen profile looked at a range of parameters including mobility, strength and flexibility and whether people are training to keep themselves strong and flexible. The musculo-skeletal risk factor profile is comprised of a mix of 7 objective and 3 subjective assessments.

• Current musculo-skeletal condition

• Closeness to ideal weight

• leg strength

• Abdominal strength test

• Upper body strength test

• Hamstring flexibility as measured by an ability to reach forward to past one's toes

• Buttock flexibility as measured by an ability to sit up straight with legs crossed

• Shoulder function

• Strength training behaviour

• Flexibility training behaviour.

A score of 70% is attainable by those who have a regular and systematic training program. Those scoring less than 70 are not doing sufficient in the way of strength and flexibility exercises. They are therefore exposing themselves to a high risk of musculo-skeletal dysfunction. (It would be bizarre for a workplace to offer to pay the rehabilitation costs of people who were not keeping themselves strong enough or flexible enough to do their job without succumbing to musculo-skeletal dysfunction, wouldn't it?)

A good score on this profile is a high score.

   

	Not a particularly good result. In a corporate setting we'd recommend that those scoring less the 6 attend a prehab/rehab program, for their own benefit and that of the organisation.		For a group this is a fair score. With around 10 exceptions, people were fairly close to their ideal weight.
	With 5 exceptions, leg strength was good.		Generally speaking, front of body strength was good. 7 people couldn't do 1 situp. This puts them in the grave risk of lower back pain category.
	Generally speaking, upper body strength was good. 6 people couldn't do i pressup. One of the best predictors of risk of lower back pain is the ability to do pressups.		20% of people couldn't touch their toes. Lower back pain goes with poor hamstring flexibility.
	25% couldn't sit up straight with legs crossed and hands clasped behind their back, without falling over. A major cause of lower back pain is tight buttock muscles.		With 10 exceptions, shoulder function was good.
Three people had a good strength training program. No-one had a good flexibility training program.   It's usually the case that few people have a regular strength and flexibility program. The group needs to put in train a regular and systematic training program, on site, that includes   1.  specialist prehab and rehab sessions for those at serious risk and those already dysfunctional and on compo   2.  daily strength and flexibility sessions in the workplace for everyone.
Average score: 65. This is one of the better scores that we have seen. 27 people scored over 70/100 - which is a good result. People scoring less than  40 pose a grave risk to the organisations workers compensation arrangements.