The School Health Education Profile Study (SHEP) biannually assesses comprehensive school health education programs and policies throughout the U.S. This investigation reports on a pilot set of questions designed to assess middle and high school level “Lifetime Fitness for Health” (LFH) courses (i.e., primarily lecture-lab or classroom-based courses focused on wellness-related topics) in Oregon. The aim was to gather information regarding the availability of such courses in the state, as well as the breadth of material covered in these courses. Eleven questions were embedded within the “Lead Physical Education Specialist Module” of the 2002 SHEP survey. The survey was distributed to a representative sample of 365 middle and high schools in the state. Surveys were completed “...by the person who knows the most about how physical education is provided throughout all grades at your school.” The first question asked whether an LFH course was offered, and 129 school representatives responded to this question. Of those, 30 indicated it was required, 20 indicated it was an elective, 58 did not offer such a course, and 21 did not know. The remaining questions assessed topics covered in these courses. Inclusion of the topics queried (in rank order) were: in-class physical activity participation (96.8%), fitness assessment (96%), flexibility training (95.6%), aerobic training and target heart rate (94%), exercise and stress control (91.1%), equipment instruction (88%), muscular training (87.8%), personalized fitness program design (81.2%), nutrition as related to health and fitness (76.1%), and behavior change strategies (e.g., goal setting, self-monitoring) (60.5%). Two significant differences were observed between those offering required vs. elective courses, with personalized fitness program design covered by 71.4% versus 95%, respectively (c2 = 4.25, p<.05); and behavior change strategies covered by 80% versus 33.3%, respectively (c2 = 9.53, p<.01). LFH-related content is included in national and state standards for physical education. Additionally, seven states and the Department of Defense Dependent Schools mandate such courses at the high school level, as do a number of colleges and universities. Thus, it is important to initiate dialogue regarding both the inclusion and developmental scope and sequence of these courses across grade levels. This study also provides baseline data on the status of LFH curricula in Oregon schools from which trends may be monitored. Supported by the Oregon Department of Education and OAHPERD.Keyword(s): curriculum development, health promotion, wellness/disease prevention