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could answer 5 out of 5 and still be a serial binge drinker, could be abusive to their partner and be highly stressed, withdrawn or depressed.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?
RSS Feed
