According to a recent national survey only 7% of our general population are considered healthy. But what ‘measures of health’ were used to arrive at this conclusion? Do the 7% represent what ‘healthy’ ought to mean? In other words, can we even claim the 7%?
The Deakin University study used 5 parameters to ascertain whether a person qualified as ‘healthy’. To qualify the surveyed respondent must:
The reasons cited for using these parameters were because if people adhere to 3-5 of these parameters they are less likely to be obese.
But is an ‘absence of obesity’ our new gauge of what constitutes health?
The Deakin University study used 5 parameters to ascertain whether a person qualified as ‘healthy’. To qualify the surveyed respondent must:
- not smoke
- meet most Australian Dietary Guidelines
- get around 150 minutes exercise or more a week (roughly 30 minutes 5 times a week)
- spend less than 8 hours sitting down or inactive every day, and
- get around 7 to 9 hours sleep every night.
The reasons cited for using these parameters were because if people adhere to 3-5 of these parameters they are less likely to be obese.
But is an ‘absence of obesity’ our new gauge of what constitutes health?
"If the meaning of well-being lowers its definition to one which will imply we are merely free of grave illness and disease, we are seriously lost in ignorance. Ignorance is therefore the illness in this case."
Serge Benhayon An Open Letter to Humanity, p 88
According to the parameters set by the study, a subject could answer 5 out of 5 and still be a serial binge drinker, could be abusive to their partner and be highly stressed, withdrawn or depressed. Does this qualify as healthy? Or have we strayed (a long way) from health and its true meaning?
In a recent forum run by Universal Medicine the subject of health was explored and how it has changed over time. Historical messages and meanings around ‘health’ as shared by people in their 70s and 80s provided a sobering contrast to the messages regarding ‘health’ received by young people today:
As Johanna Smith observed:
Generally it was shared that the people who were in their 80’s, 70’s and 60’s did not really have a clear definition of the word ‘health’ back when they were growing up…These groups shared things like serious illnesses – such as cancers, diabetes, mental illness – were rare and hardly spoken about; that life and health was one and the same and it did not carry its own activities or definition. Life’s activities back then were what kept you healthy and people didn’t make time to ‘be healthy’ or ‘do health.’ Health back then was without definition but the way of life was what supported healthy bodies. At this point there was no compartmentalisation of ‘health’ in life.
As Johanna Smith observed:
Generally it was shared that the people who were in their 80’s, 70’s and 60’s did not really have a clear definition of the word ‘health’ back when they were growing up…These groups shared things like serious illnesses – such as cancers, diabetes, mental illness – were rare and hardly spoken about; that life and health was one and the same and it did not carry its own activities or definition. Life’s activities back then were what kept you healthy and people didn’t make time to ‘be healthy’ or ‘do health.’ Health back then was without definition but the way of life was what supported healthy bodies. At this point there was no compartmentalisation of ‘health’ in life.
Observations from people in their 20s and 30s reveal a very different picture:
[In this age range]…the absolute shift and compartmentalisation of health was obvious along with the great deterioration in the way of life, relationships, behaviours and activities, and the dramatic increase of serious illnesses and diseases within it. This group shared that being healthy meant you went to the gym, went for a run, did aerobics, ate certain fad foods, were a particular image and fitted in, and so on. Yet health here all took place in isolation to life, was a part in life but not a natural part of a way of living.
This means that activities and behaviours that go completely against ‘true health’ – ones that in fact abuse the body such as drinking, excessive exercise, smoking, starving oneself, overeating, eating sugary and fatty foods, spending excessive time on technology devices, getting little sleep, working in drive and so on, can play out while the body that is doing them still considers itself ‘healthy’ because it spends some time at the gym or ‘doing health’ now and then. And so the lie of health today is revealed.
Johanna Smith – from Health and Life Today and Through the Ages
[In this age range]…the absolute shift and compartmentalisation of health was obvious along with the great deterioration in the way of life, relationships, behaviours and activities, and the dramatic increase of serious illnesses and diseases within it. This group shared that being healthy meant you went to the gym, went for a run, did aerobics, ate certain fad foods, were a particular image and fitted in, and so on. Yet health here all took place in isolation to life, was a part in life but not a natural part of a way of living.
This means that activities and behaviours that go completely against ‘true health’ – ones that in fact abuse the body such as drinking, excessive exercise, smoking, starving oneself, overeating, eating sugary and fatty foods, spending excessive time on technology devices, getting little sleep, working in drive and so on, can play out while the body that is doing them still considers itself ‘healthy’ because it spends some time at the gym or ‘doing health’ now and then. And so the lie of health today is revealed.
Johanna Smith – from Health and Life Today and Through the Ages
This ‘lie of health’ today – that health can be separate to the whole of life – is evidenced in a research study that can allow a person to at once be a binge drinker and depressed and at the same time be considered ‘healthy’.
In a recent comparative study involving 449 female participants of Universal Medicine, markedly improved health indicators and substantially lower levels of disease and illness were found in participants, compared with participants in an Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health, representing women in the general Australian population.
Of particular note was that their BMI was significantly lower than the general sample population and the health indicators measured in the Universal Medicine participants were more precise and comprehensive than the Deakin study, involving almost every aspect of health and well-being.
Of particular note was that their BMI was significantly lower than the general sample population and the health indicators measured in the Universal Medicine participants were more precise and comprehensive than the Deakin study, involving almost every aspect of health and well-being.
Results showed the women experienced:
- Lower and more stable BMI (Body Mass Indicator)
- Less frequent back pain
- Markedly lower anxiety and depression scores
- Notably fewer instances of allergies, sinusitis and breathing difficulties
- Markedly fewer instances of headaches, migraines, hot flashes and night sweats
- Use less HRT
- Fewer sleep issues
- A lower lifetime diagnoses of hypertension (high blood pressure)
- A higher perceived level of control in life
- Lower stress levels
- Higher vitality scores
- Higher scores on their perceived mental and physical health.
Universal Medicine respondents showed no increase in BMI relative to age, unlike the average population, which increases in weight (and hence BMI) up to the age of 69 (ALSWH).
Current statistics (ALSWH) show almost two thirds of Australian women adults are now deemed either overweight (BMI over 25) or obese (over 30). By these same measures and as the proportion of obese adults continues to rise, so too in correlation does the incidence of associated ill health conditions such as diabetes, hypertension and heart disease rises with it. In stark contrast we are seeing a community of women who’s weight is not only well within the designated healthy BMI, and who consistently maintain that healthy weight as they age but who also show correspondingly fewer indications of the associated ill health conditions.
Women associated with Universal Medicine display an average BMI of 21 as compared with women in the general population of 26.1 and interestingly also show a higher than average percentage of low BMI readings (11%).
Whilst being ‘underweight’ is normally associated with a range of ill-health conditions such as anorexia, other disordered eating patterns, extreme dieting, smoking, high stress, cachexia (starvation) due to cancer or other chronic illness,
UM respondents surveyed showed little evidence to indicate any notable statistical difference in health to the general population aside from a greater level of ‘perceived control’ in life. Those who became underweight since attending Universal Medicine also experienced significantly less bodily pain however numbers are too small to be statistically significant.
Further studies will determine the broader health status of this percentage of women.
With much greater health outcomes in this cohort of UM women than the 7%, and at the same time more comprehensive markers of health measured, a natural next step would be to ask why the women attending Universal Medicine have been able to make such significant shifts contra to current ill-health trends? Anecdotally we also have a growing body of evidence supporting the fact that changes in dietary and lifestyle habits these women have been able to make, are well ahead of those the average population appears able to implement or sustain.
Current statistics (ALSWH) show almost two thirds of Australian women adults are now deemed either overweight (BMI over 25) or obese (over 30). By these same measures and as the proportion of obese adults continues to rise, so too in correlation does the incidence of associated ill health conditions such as diabetes, hypertension and heart disease rises with it. In stark contrast we are seeing a community of women who’s weight is not only well within the designated healthy BMI, and who consistently maintain that healthy weight as they age but who also show correspondingly fewer indications of the associated ill health conditions.
Women associated with Universal Medicine display an average BMI of 21 as compared with women in the general population of 26.1 and interestingly also show a higher than average percentage of low BMI readings (11%).
Whilst being ‘underweight’ is normally associated with a range of ill-health conditions such as anorexia, other disordered eating patterns, extreme dieting, smoking, high stress, cachexia (starvation) due to cancer or other chronic illness,
UM respondents surveyed showed little evidence to indicate any notable statistical difference in health to the general population aside from a greater level of ‘perceived control’ in life. Those who became underweight since attending Universal Medicine also experienced significantly less bodily pain however numbers are too small to be statistically significant.
Further studies will determine the broader health status of this percentage of women.
With much greater health outcomes in this cohort of UM women than the 7%, and at the same time more comprehensive markers of health measured, a natural next step would be to ask why the women attending Universal Medicine have been able to make such significant shifts contra to current ill-health trends? Anecdotally we also have a growing body of evidence supporting the fact that changes in dietary and lifestyle habits these women have been able to make, are well ahead of those the average population appears able to implement or sustain.
To 'do' health or to live it?
Recent history has furthermore proven that we won’t be able to ‘do health’ as a means to becoming healthy as a humanity. The health industry has grown exponentially in the last 20 years and simultaneously so has the obesity crisis.
So are the women surveyed in the Universal Medicine study showing these markers because they are more disciplined at ‘doing health’ or is it because they have found a way of living in which health is a natural consequence?
Imagine restoring a way of living in which ‘health’ and life are no longer separate. Is it possible that this is what Universal Medicine supports its participants to return to?
If the answer is yes, surely this warrants further study.
To learn more see UnimedLiving.com
----------------------------------------------------------
LIKE THIS POST? SHARE IT TO SOCIAL MEDIA
look for the share buttons at the left or the top of the page
So are the women surveyed in the Universal Medicine study showing these markers because they are more disciplined at ‘doing health’ or is it because they have found a way of living in which health is a natural consequence?
Imagine restoring a way of living in which ‘health’ and life are no longer separate. Is it possible that this is what Universal Medicine supports its participants to return to?
If the answer is yes, surely this warrants further study.
To learn more see UnimedLiving.com
----------------------------------------------------------
LIKE THIS POST? SHARE IT TO SOCIAL MEDIA
look for the share buttons at the left or the top of the page
RSS Feed
