How do you define "healthy" in an individual?

whierd

There are a lot of back and forth arguments about Clean Eating vs IIFYM. One of the points of contention is the Clean Eating argument that eating "healthy" foods makes you healthier overall.

But how do you actually measure health? Fitness can be measured by strength, distance ran/cycled/swam/etc and has pretty decent measurables. But health seems to be more ambiguous to some.

For me, health can be measured by weight, body fat percentage, blood pressure, cholesterol levels, resting heart rate, etc. And of course, there is appearance.

The problem therein is that people who eat what some people would consider "unhealthy" are able to achieve normal to stellar levels in all of these categories.

So what measurables should be used to define health?

highervibes

Mine would be weight (but if someone is losing weight, but still overweight - ahem- ME! lol) I would not count that against them.

My personal criteria would be cholesterol levels and ratios, triglycerides, blood glucose or A1C, blood pressure, vitamin D status, magnesium levels, iron .... you know.... stuff you can measure.

MoreBean13

For me, healthy is body fat %, general feeling of health, no disease markers (high BP, for example), ability to run 5-10k at any time without it being overwhelming or leaving me needing recovery, and ability to do any daily activity required of me at any time without hindrance (install a window air conditioner, pull my bodyweight up to a second floor balcony if I get locked out of my house, sprint to catch my dog if she escapes, ride my bike to work if my car breaks down, etc etc etc)

taunto

I am neither a IIFYM or "clean eater". I eat whatever in moderation but the only number I really eye is my calories all the while trying to eat some junk food and also some nutritious food and try to incorporate protein as much as possible.

For me, healthy is not just physical but mental too. I know from past experience I cannot be strictly clean eater. I cannot not eat junk food. I have to have some. Its good for my mental health to be able to eat whatever I want (with some control). Healthy for me have been and always will be the ability to move around better. I love being able to climb stairs of a 10 story building and barely break a sweat. I like having the ability to run after my 3 years old nephew while he's on his bike speeding through. That to me means healthy. Peace of mind and body.

Mr_Knight

I don't see the point of strong separation. IMO you can't be "healthy" unless you're fit.

whierd

I don't see the point of strong separation. IMO you can't be "healthy" unless you're fit.

Define fit.

Mr_Knight

Depends on individual goals, etc. Fit for me is not the same as fit for a Tour de France rider.

There are some baselines we could probably agree on - a minimum degree of cardiovascular fitness as demonstrated by the ability to regularly run moderate distances, a degree of strength as demonstrated by the ability to perform a specific set of bodyweight exercises, etc.

Hildy_J

It's been well documented that eating an inadequately nutritious diet leaves people more prone to disease, in both the short and the long term.

Shellz31

It's been well documented that eating an inadequately nutritious diet leaves people more prone to disease, in both the short and the long term.

+1

whierd

It's been well documented that eating an inadequately nutritious diet leaves people more prone to disease, in both the short and the long term.

Which diseases?


And I'm specifically talking about how you measure health. Actual measurables. As in, you must fit this criteria to be considered in the "healthy" class.

Take a scenario of two people. One eats "clean". The other eats what the first person believes is "processed junk". Both are hitting their calorie goal, their macros, and all of the micronutrients they need. A third person has to determine which of the first two is more healthy than the other but doesn't have any idea what they eat. How does that third person measure their health?

3dogsrunning

In. For science.

Achrya

In, because I really really want to know.

anemoneprose

Which diseases?

Most? A solid immune system should be able to cope with the more ordinary bacterial & viral onslaughts, acute & chronic stressors, etc. Some portion of vulnerability to/protection against chronic lifestyle diseases (diabetes, atherosclerosis, etc, even dementias) can also be attributed to exercise. Mood disorders, too.

Fitness s/b for as morebean put it the functions of daily life.

I like the WHO's definition of health, which looks at the person in a 'biopsychosocial' context: "Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity."

whierd

Which diseases?

Most? A solid immune system should be able to cope with the more ordinary bacterial & viral onslaughts, acute & chronic stressors, etc. Some portion of vulnerability to/protection against chronic lifestyle diseases (diabetes, atherosclerosis, etc, even dementias) can also be attributed to exercise. Mood disorders, too.

Fitness s/b for as morebean put it the functions of daily life.

I like the WHO's definition of health, which looks at the person in a 'biopsychosocial' context: "Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity."

I'm looking for quantifiable measurements. I do thank for letting me know the WHO's definition though. I did not know how they defined it.

Sarauk2sf

I quite like the WHO's one also.

devil_in_a_blue_dress

I also like WHO's.

I think health is subjective, at least in some part. So much of it has to do with how a person feels and their personal circumstances, that I don't think you aren't going to find a way to take quantifiable measurements.

BinaryPulsar

Do you mean what is healthy in a person or what is healthy in a food? I would think the way to measure the food is by the amount of micro nutrients and macronutrients it has. Also, as far as I know it's not all measurable. For example a piece of fruit has certain well known important micro nutrients in it such as vitamin C, and then we know if has bioflavanoids, but there are all kinds of nutrients and bioflavaonoids and polyphenols that we don't know how to measure or how to replicate in a laboratory. But, this may be outdated information at this point. I'm getting older...lol, and I'm still learning all the time. But, it would also depend on what you need. If you as an individual have a nutrient deficiency then eating food with that or those nutrient combinations that are needed will be more "healthy for that individual". Of course some foods are going to be healthier than other foods, but if it's all part of a well balanced diet then that's what matters.

I also like the WHO definition.

conniemaxwell5

Healthy to me is being disease free and for my body to be at the lowest risk possible for future health issues. I'm blessed with good genes - no major issues on either side of my family so I am fortunate there but it still means that I need to be at a healthy weight, eat good quality foods and stay active to be at my very best.

suziepoo1984

I am neither a IIFYM or "clean eater". I eat whatever in moderation but the only number I really eye is my calories all the while trying to eat some junk food and also some nutritious food and try to incorporate protein as much as possible.

For me, healthy is not just physical but mental too. I know from past experience I cannot be strictly clean eater. I cannot not eat junk food. I have to have some. Its good for my mental health to be able to eat whatever I want (with some control). Healthy for me have been and always will be the ability to move around better. I love being able to climb stairs of a 10 story building and barely break a sweat. I like having the ability to run after my 3 years old nephew while he's on his bike speeding through. That to me means healthy. Peace of mind and body.

^^ right there is everything I wanted to say and put in so nicely

PikaKnight

I like the WHO's definition as well. It's definitely not just a physical thing, that's for sure.

whierd

I also like WHO's.

I think health is subjective, at least in some part. So much of it has to do with how a person feels and their personal circumstances, that I don't think you aren't going to find a way to take quantifiable measurements.

My problem is that a person at a healthy weight, body fat percentage, and with great lab work results would be called "unhealthy" by some people based on their diet without any way to justify that assertion other than their personal concept of what healthy food is.

3dogsrunning

I like the WHO's definition as well. It's definitely not just a physical thing, that's for sure.

I did a health assessment through work a few months back. All of my health markers were better were they should be but the assessment also asked a number of questions. I lost a lot of point over the stress I admitted to.
That and I told them I worked out 4 days a week, using a conservative estimate as I work shift work. Some weeks I work out 6 days, some 4. I was also training for a half marathon at the time and crossfitting so often doing 1-2 hours of exercise a day. I lost points because "they" recommend 1/2 a day, 5 days a week and suggested I workout more (it was a computer survey that produced the results and suggestions).


Yeah, I'm rambling.

whierd

I like the WHO's definition as well. It's definitely not just a physical thing, that's for sure.

I did a health assessment through work a few months back. All of my health markers were better were they should be but the assessment also asked a number of questions. I lost a lot of point over the stress I admitted to.
That and I told them I worked out 4 days a week, using a conservative estimate as I work shift work. Some weeks I work out 6 days, some 4. I was also training for a half marathon at the time and crossfitting so often doing 1-2 hours of exercise a day. I lost points because "they" recommend 1/2 a day, 5 days a week and suggested I workout more (it was a computer survey that produced the results and suggestions).


Yeah, I'm rambling.

They recommended that you workout for a half hour 5 days per week? So 2.5 hours per week versus 4-8? Lol.

elyelyse

I think you're looking for an objective answer to a subjective subject.

I do think that coming up with a definition for yourself, as a way to reach towards and maintain a certain level of health based on your own desires, is a good idea; I just think the answer will be different for everyone.

Regarding clean eating and health and people who eat clean claiming that it's healthier... again, everyone is a little different. Some people can eat a lot of "unhealthy" foods but still be a healthy person...and some people feel ill no matter how well they eat. Genetics, environment, etc.

BinaryPulsar

I also like WHO's.

I think health is subjective, at least in some part. So much of it has to do with how a person feels and their personal circumstances, that I don't think you aren't going to find a way to take quantifiable measurements.

My problem is that a person at a healthy weight, body fat percentage, and with great lab work results would be called "unhealthy" by some people based on their diet without any way to justify that assertion other than their personal concept of what healthy food is.

Chances are that if a person is showing up as healthy in all of those measurable ways then they are eating enough foods that have the nutrition that they need to meet the needs of their body.

Yeah, different people have different ideas about what is or isn't healthy in food. Some people would consider a hamburger with veggies to be healthy (I do), other people wouldn't. If you have an iron deficiency then it's healthy, if you have an iron surplus then it's not.

takumaku

To me, healthy is defined as having a balance in mind, body, and spirit. What is healthy, to me, is unhealthy to other people. I could care less what other people think. I am the one who has to live with my body and the decisions I make to it.

3dogsrunning

I like the WHO's definition as well. It's definitely not just a physical thing, that's for sure.

I did a health assessment through work a few months back. All of my health markers were better were they should be but the assessment also asked a number of questions. I lost a lot of point over the stress I admitted to.
That and I told them I worked out 4 days a week, using a conservative estimate as I work shift work. Some weeks I work out 6 days, some 4. I was also training for a half marathon at the time and crossfitting so often doing 1-2 hours of exercise a day. I lost points because "they" recommend 1/2 a day, 5 days a week and suggested I workout more (it was a computer survey that produced the results and suggestions).


Yeah, I'm rambling.

They recommended that you workout for a half hour 5 days per week? So 2.5 hours per week versus 4-8? Lol.

It gave suggestions on how to improve and one was to work out more. It suggested 1/2 hour 5 days a week. I had put in that i do on average 6-8 hours a week, 4 days a week.

When the nurse read it I asked if she was kidding. She told me when I do my reassessment to just put 5 days. Lol.


I get your point. A lot of people here would call me "unhealthy" because of the food I eat.

devil_in_a_blue_dress

I also like WHO's.

I think health is subjective, at least in some part. So much of it has to do with how a person feels and their personal circumstances, that I don't think you aren't going to find a way to take quantifiable measurements.

My problem is that a person at a healthy weight, body fat percentage, and with great lab work results would be called "unhealthy" by some people based on their diet without any way to justify that assertion other than their personal concept of what healthy food is.

In general, I think some people have narrow views of what health is. And usually they hold their view for a self serving purpose (moral superiority).

Maybe my perspective is skewed. Considering health by the criteria "a healthy weight, body fat percentage, and with great lab work results" I would be considered unhealthy. I am "overweight" according to the BMI by 7 pounds. My BF% and waist measurements are "normal", have no major health issues. So am I less healthy than somebody who just weighs a little less? I would argue no because I feel super and my doctor has quit suggesting I need to lose weight. My point is, I think it's unfair to label anyone "unhealthy" because a lot goes into health you can't see. Or eat.

I think people cling hard to standards of health they have achieved. If that makes sense. It's like pride gone awry.

Contrarian

To me, healthy is simply not sick.

BinaryPulsar

I let my kids eat toaster strudels, but I also encourage them to have an apple as a snack. They ask me if the toaster strudel is healthy, and I tell them it's a treat, it has been fortified with vitamins and it has calories that your body needs for energy and growth, but having an apple as a snack would be a healthier choice. Perhaps this is just my opinion, but I think this is teaching them to make healthy choices.

Robin_Bin

Healthy food? Or a healthy person?
Your subject appears to refer to people, but then you ask about healthy food.

I hope my meat comes from a healthy animal and my veggies and fruits were healthy plants, that the grain they made my bread from was not moldy, etc. I don't classify types of food as healthy or not. Clean food means it was washed. I will classify food as calorie-dense or nutritionally-dense.

I'm more concerned with my health and the health of other people than the health of my food. (I live in the U.S. and optimistically hope the FDA and other systems are keeping arsenic and mad cow disease among other things out of our food chain.) People's health involves eating the appropriate amount of calories and nutrition, not particular foods. Food is important to health, but it's not the only thing that affects our physical health.

How do I measure physical health in people? Well at a basic level, health means not being sick. Not having high blood pressure, frequent illnesses, infections, diabetes, or other chronic, painful, debilitating or fatal conditions, etc. Even better (healthier) is not requiring medical intervention to stay that way (for instance, not requiring medication to keep your blood pressure in a good range). Better still is being able to do reasonable and fun things with your body -- being able to walk as far as you like, swim, participate in sports or other activities.

ETA: P.S. I like the WHO definition too. And agree with the comments that to some extent an individual's health is subjective. But I also agree with the OP, that if someone wants to claim that something (food, exercise or other) will on average make people healthier, then they need to be able to measure it in some objective way.