How do you define "healthy" in an individual?

Nataliaho

in

Shellz31

But is your ability to resist diseases/colds affected by your diet once you've achieved your necessary nutrition for the day? I can understand if you were lacking certain vitamins/minerals/enzymes, but generally you only need certain levels for optimum nutrition.

How would you quantify energy and alertness? General question, not being combative. It seems to me like it would be rather subjective on this count.

Let me preface this by saying I am NOT a clean eater. The idea of foods being "clean" or "dirty" is silly to me.

To answer your question about whether your ability to resist disease is affected by your diet once you're achieved necessary nutrition, the answer is a resounding YES! :drinker: There are sooo many studies showing certain foods can reduce rates of cancer, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, etc. I think the most famous example is that people who switch from heavily saturated oils to monounsaturated oil have less incidence of cardiovascular disease. I went to one site online (yes Fuhrman whose diet I don't fully subscribe too but the man does his research) and found these sources (I list 3, he lists over 30):

Carter P, Gray LJ, Troughton J, et al. Fruit and vegetable intake and incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2010

Higdon J, Delage B, Williams D, et al. Cruciferous vegetables and human cancer risk: epidemiologic evidence and mechanistic basis. Pharmacol Res 2007

Hong SA, Kim K, Nam SJ, et al. A case-control study on the dietary intake of mushrooms and breast cancer risk among Korean women. Int J Cancer 2008

Google the titles to get the Abstract. These are just a few of many, many studies. The interesting thing is that supplements can't do the same thing. isolating one vitamin is not going be as much help as getting the entire food with its natural balance of vitamins and minerals and other good stuff.

I think there's room for all kinds of food in one's diet. But just having good lab results and not being deficient on anything obvious, IMHO, does mean you are relatively healthy but doesn't mean you couldn't be a lot healthier.

devil_in_a_blue_dress

On a side note: I think a lot of people seem to assume just because you follow IIFYM you're eating junk food all day long. In order to hit your macros you still need to eat a lot of healthy foods but it allows room for foods that are processed and a few treats. It isn't like most people who follow IIFYM don't get thir micros in too or completely ignore them. IIFYM just suits modern life better and allows for greater felxibility and things like socialising and eating out sometimes.

In terms of what is healthy - don't forget to include mental health on the list. Physical health and fitness is nothing if your metal health isn't in check

:drinker:

Mslmesq

But is your ability to resist diseases/colds affected by your diet once you've achieved your necessary nutrition for the day?

Who is to say when so many variables can affect this and even 'expert' opinions shift, seemingly, day to day. All one can do is put in the level of effort they are comfortable with learning about nutrition, and then make their diet 'sustainable' for themselves.

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.

I won't say that 'some people' would not make that assertion, because I really don't know. If the person would be uncomfortable adhering to someone else's diet because it is not what they have determined is best for them, I see nothing wrong with that. Nor do I see anything wrong with them simply stating what they have found is working for them.

If it goes further than that and they pay attention to someone else's diet or lifestyle choices in a judgemental, condescending, and/or superior manner, then I think the issue goes to the individual with the righteous attitude. And I would ask them, what issues they have that are causing them to pass judgements and /or attempt control over other peoples' lifestyle choices.

On the other side of the coin, one could also ask themselves what issues they need to deal with themselves if something is bothering them or 'triggering' them to be annoyed or upset by someone else. So, for example, if someone made snide comments or were judgemental of my lifestyle choices on what I eat or how I eat it, I wouldn't care because I'm comfortable with the choices I make. And since I have experienced this a few times, and didn't care, I can say that.

But, op, if someone else is passing any judgement on you or your health 1) the issue is with them, and possibly 2) the next question might be why does it bother you and/or why is it your problem at all, as opposed to their problem?

rybo

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?

I have been both of these people in my life. The biggest difference between them is digestive health, for lack of a better term. And a close second is sustained energy levels throughout the day/week.

BinaryPulsar

Right, it's not one extreme or the other. I'm not a clean eater, whatever that means (I'm not even sure), but I wouldn't let my kids eat candy bars all day. We all still need a balanced and nutritious diet, along with treats. Also, I realize now this thread was probably a response to another thread that I hadn't seen. And like everyone said, health is about the whole person mentally, emotionally and physically. Everyone is going to have ups and downs. My mother has always been very healthy, but now she has Leukemia in her early 50's (that was very unexpected). Sometimes life is unexpected and there wasn't anything we could do to predict, stop or change it.

whierd

But is your ability to resist diseases/colds affected by your diet once you've achieved your necessary nutrition for the day?

Who is to say when so many variables can affect this and even 'expert' opinions shift, seemingly, day to day. All one can do is put in the level of effort they are comfortable with learning about nutrition, and then make their diet 'sustainable' for themselves.

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.

I won't say that 'some people' would not make that assertion, because I really don't know. If the person would be uncomfortable adhering to someone else's diet because it is not what they have determined is best for them, I see nothing wrong with that. Nor do I see anything wrong with them simply stating what they have found is working for them.

If it goes further than that and they pay attention to someone else's diet or lifestyle choices in a judgemental, condescending, and/or superior manner, then I think the issue goes to the individual with the righteous attitude. And I would ask them, what issues they have that are causing them to pass judgements and /or attempt control over other peoples' lifestyle choices.

On the other side of the coin, one could also ask themselves what issues they need to deal with themselves if something is bothering them or 'triggering' them to be annoyed or upset by someone else. So, for example, if someone made snide comments or were judgemental of my lifestyle choices on what I eat or how I eat it, I wouldn't care because I'm comfortable with the choices I make. And since I have experienced this a few times, and didn't care, I can say that.

But, op, if someone else is passing any judgement on you or your health 1) the issue is with them, and possibly 2) the next question might be why does it bother you and/or why is it your problem at all, as opposed to their problem?

No one was passing judgement on me directly, as I generally don't ask for advice on the main forums. However, I see a lot of people, primarily newer members, that try to tell others who are seeking advice that they have to give up all of the "unhealthy" things in their diet in order to lose weight and be healthy. They are often challenged by more knowledgable/experienced posters to define "healthy" and never seem to be able to.

whierd

Lightbulb moment.

I've realised how you can actually decide which of the two individuals is the more healthy.

Throw a bread roll at them and see which one catches it. *science face*

That was pretty funny. :laugh:

Hexahedra

The effect of food on physical health can be tough to judge unless it's plain toxic. It could take years before your diet leads to a certain disease. Getting fat is not an overnight thing, even exposure to carcinogens takes a while to show up as cancer, if at all.

There is evidence that high quantities of fructose may eventually lead to obesity and type-2 diabetes, but again it doesn't happen overnight. I didn't show any sign of blood sugar problem until I was 38.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/08/sugar/cohen-text

To make it more complicated, quantity plays a big part of it. You can avoid the pitfalls of sugar consumption without completely forsaking it, simply reducing the intake to a reasonable level would work.

My personal opinion is that as long as my body spends about the same calories as it takes in, it has no chance to develop a dangerous surplus of fat, cholesterol, triglycerides, etc. If I'm in a deficit, then there's very little cause to worry, as long as all the essentials are covered.

Mslmesq

I see a lot of people, primarily newer members, that try to tell others who are seeking advice that they have to give up all of the "unhealthy" things in their diet in order to lose weight and be healthy.

I have not seen posts like this personally, so it's hard for me to comment on it. If I did see a post by a newer member, or any member, specifically telling someone they needed to give up all 'unhealthy' things in their diet (as they defined 'unhealthy things in a diet' -- I assume) in order to lose weight and be healthy, I would be surprised by that post as well.

I think there is a big difference between saying what one is doing and/or is working for them, and telling another member what they need to do. Especially if they were adament that they needed to do it and it was the only way to be 'healthy'. Of course, I still think it would go back to the posters issues on being judgemental and why they think they are in a position to tell someone else what they should do.

Mr_Knight

Lightbulb moment.

I've realised how you can actually decide which of the two individuals is the more healthy.

Throw a bread roll at them and see which one catches it. *science face*

Unless one of them is gluten-free.

*Ba-da-bing.*

JDBLY11

Healthy to me is good skin, teeth, hair, and nails and not having any major health problems. Glowing skin is a big one for me.

JDBLY11

Which diseases?

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 don't know who could be considered healthy by this definition. That seems to imply that you have to have reached perfection which I do not consider possible for anyone. I have issues and they will probably stick around hopefully getting a little better each year.

Mslmesq

Which diseases?

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 don't know who could be considered healthy by this definition. That seems to imply that you have to have reached perfection which I do not consider possible for anyone. I have issues and they will probably stick around hopefully getting a little better each year.

In a round-about way, you make a lot of sense. But I am not sure there is a 'perfect' anyone, much less a 'perfect healthy'. Perhaps just a, 'healthier'. And aren't we all just on a spectrum or continuum of what we define as healthy? Afterall, even a person who may be ailing still has some health while they live and breathe. So, aren't we all levels of healthy....until the day we die. Then, not so much.

BinaryPulsar

Healthy to me is good skin, teeth, hair, and nails and not having any major health problems. Glowing skin is a big one for me.

Me too

Shellz31

I see a lot of people, primarily newer members, that try to tell others who are seeking advice that they have to give up all of the "unhealthy" things in their diet in order to lose weight and be healthy.

I have not seen posts like this personally, so it's hard for me to comment on it. If I did see a post by a newer member, or any member, specifically telling someone they needed to give up all 'unhealthy' things in their diet (as they defined 'unhealthy things in a diet' -- I assume) in order to lose weight and be healthy, I would be surprised by that post as well.

I think there is a big difference between saying what one is doing and/or is working for them, and telling another member what they need to do. Especially if they were adament that they needed to do it and it was the only way to be 'healthy'. Of course, I still think it would go back to the posters issues on being judgemental and why they think they are in a position to tell someone else what they should do.

Just want to point out that just because someone hasn't been on MFP long doesn't mean they are new to trying to lose weight or be healthy. I have only been here a few months, but came in already having lost 45 lbs. I switched food logging sites because MFP syncs to my new fitbit, but I'm no newbie!

LiftAllThePizzas

I think people have missed the point of this thread. It seems pretty obvious that the intent was to illustrate that there is no way to quantify 'healthy' and so saying things like clean eating makes someone 'healthier' is stupid.

Highland666

My husband is 54 years and still weighs the same he did when he was 18.

In my opinion he has an awful diet which consists of all processed food, chocolate and sweets and he drinks alcohol. Yesterday I tracked what he ate and he had 4000 calories. He eats no fruit or veg apart from potatoes.

He is thin but with muscle definition despite doing no exercise at all for the last three years.

He has low blood pressure, is never ill and when he recently went to the dentist after 25 years he needed no work.

He looks healthy!.

BinaryPulsar

On mfp people are generally pretty reasonable about someone being 5 pounds or more over the highest end of the BMI. But, there can be people that tend to freak out if someone is at the low end or literally .1 below. Not 1 point below, but .1 (drinking a glass of water would bump them back again). When it comes to things like frame size, we are different. That does not mean we are entirely unique and no else is like us. It means there is a range where different people fit in, and each range has a lot of people in it. One is not better than another. It's just the way it is. Seems like this came up in the conversation, though maybe off topic. Oh, well, just wanted to say that somewhere today.

snazzyjazzy21

Honestly, I use my mental health as a measure of my physical health. For me there is a huge correlation between the two and I can't maintain one without the other. I try not to judge other peoples health, because I have no idea what position they're in and it's simply not my place.

Sinisterly

"Next to godliness"<--?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

sayray16

One who eats, sleeps, and breathes healthy. Personally, I think it is best to live a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle. Also, organic and whole foods are always the best. Some people breathe healthier air due to less smog, so choosing where you will live for the rest of your life can make a difference to your health. And, not depriving yourself of sleep is always a plus. Lastly, I know the important in a good workout. Physical activity will never do you wrong.

Jestinia

Suffering from no major illness or degenerative injury (so not me, I have arthritis). Low chemical body burden (so probably none of us). A lifetime of nutritious eating (definitely not me). Or at very least meeting all nutritional needs now (well, I'm trying).

amusedmonkey

My definition of healthy is simple and does not adhere to a high standard. Basically: being able to function well physically and mentally in life - If I can carry my groceries home without panting, I have enough cardiovascular health and strength to perform well, and I don't need to be running 5k to be considered healthy.

In addition to that, not having any terminal disease or disease markers for something that would potentially be life threatening (or having them well under control).

It's a spectrum not a certain defined line that separates two categories.