I.

What is Good Health?
By Thomas Eldridge

There are many ideas, and opinions, on what constitutes good health, or what a meaningfully healthy lifestyle feels like or looks like. It could be said that health should be a natural condition, or at least a consistent state of well being. But what is this natural condition? There are some people who accept pain and discomfort in the body as a necessary part of living. This pain is considered to be a motivator, something for the body to fight against. They accept this condition because they observe that there are so many people with health complaints and so few people free of problems. It is even taken for granted today that dying of a degenerative disease is acceptable if the person had led a 'good life'.

My parents both died of cancerous type diseases. I seem to be the only one who is not saying, but they 'lived a full life'. Keep in mind that I am the one nobody can understand. I am not quite the black sheep. I am the different one who stopped eating sugar thirty years ago. No one could understand why I would go to so much trouble to read food product labels trying to find something that did not contain sugar. Today it is many times worse because of all the sugar substitutes in our food products. If I were reading labels today I would choose sugar before the sugar substitutes if I had no other choice. My choice today is to not buy any processed food products. I believe that my continuing good health depends on me making my own food from simple organic ingredients. I seldom read food labels these days because I buy very little with a label on it.

Is good health some sort of perfection? In homeopathy good health is said to manifest when a person's "vital force" is being expressed by perfect functioning of all parts of the body and by a sense of general well being. This holistic approach to health states that nature, of which we are an important part, has a constant tendency toward what is best for it. This vital force of nature reaches its masterpiece in the human body and the human consciousness. Harvey Diamond in his part of the book Fit for Life II: Living Health states that humans are "constructed for health and happiness." Life on earth lived in its ultimate achievement is a constant and unshakeable zest for well being and enthusiasm, says Diamond. I have a lot of respect for the diet that the Diamonds recommended. It still is an excellent diet for cleansing out toxins. I am not a great fan of being all that you can be, going for it all or pursuing excellence as a lifestyle. To me this is a short road to burn out and premature gray hair. I was unconsciously going for it all in my younger years. I worked very hard. I cannot say that I experienced good health or happiness back then.

If we wanted this 'ultimate achievement' of good health our goal would be to reach old age and maturity without aches and pains, to be well-balanced and spared emotional traumas and stress-related illnesses. To have zest for life we would wish to be like the beaming, healthy-looking 90-year-olds featured in vegetarian magazine articles. Working out at the fitness club at 91 years of age could demonstrate the principle that the best condition for the body is resilience and flexibility. To take up piano lessons at 83 years might demonstrate an absence of constricting contractions in body and mind. The problem is that we tend to extrapolate these stories into believing that this example of 'good health' is the best way to go. Pushing yourself into the gym when you are exhausted and should be resting is not good health.

It seems apparent to me that for millions of years people lived in some sort of harmony with the natural forces of nature. Good health was some sort of consistent state of being. Otherwise, how would we be here? If we were always in poor health for millions of years I cannot see how we would have survived. A long time ago the dinosaurs disappeared suddenly. Today species of plants and animals are becoming extinct at an accelerating rate. Throughout history at least some of us must have maintained an instinctive natural knowledge about how to live healthily enough to allow our species to continue. How we are doing today is a mute question. Are we going to continue to survive or is our current acceptance of sub-marginal health a sign of something?

Perhaps it is time to take a look at what this instinctive natural knowledge of good health might look like in our modern culture. I feel that it is not that much different than it has been for millions of years. This 'knowledge' probably includes simple things like sunshine, pure water, sleeping when the sun sets, relying on wholesome foods from nature, having daily alone time in the outdoors and living physically active lives in communities of loving supportive people.

From Platinum Pearls.com / Bringing enlightenment, enjoyment and fulfillment to mid-life baby boomers.

II. 
What is Good Health?
Health News, June, 1994
 
There is no universally agreed definition of health. Its meaning has changed through the ages and in different cultures. The term derives from the Anglo-Saxon word "haelth," meaning safe, sound or whole. In medieval times "haelthing" meant "sharing a few drinks with one's friends," having previously meant "hello" and "holiness." In recent decades, health has been taken to mean "the absence of disease." The term "disease" generally refers to a diagnosable physical abnormality while "illness" means the personal experience of sickness, or the perceived suffering due to a disease.

Changing views of health

Since the mid-1900s, medical practice has been dominated by a biomedical model that focuses more on curing than preventing illness, dividing diseases into categories -- for example, targetting a "cirrhotic liver" or "ischemic heart" for treatment. This method tends to separate physical from psychological or emotional problems, which are sometimes dismissed as "all in the head," not meriting medical attention. However, views of health are undergoing radical changes. The absence-of-disease concept is being supplanted by an image of "wellbeing for body, spirit and mind." The emerging biopsychosocial model regards mind and body as an intertwined unit and suggests that people be treated as whole persons, taking into account economic, social and psychological factors.

In 1948, the World Health Organization (WHO) defined health as a "state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing, encompassing the ability to achieve full potential, deal with crises and meet environmental challenges." In other words, health -- or wellness, to use a trendy term -- is the capacity to undertake physical effort, to live within one's own potential and carry out tasks with vigour and alertness, leaving enough energy for unforeseen emergencies. The more recent Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion goes further, suggesting as fundamentals for health: "peace, shelter, education, food, income, a stable ecosystem, sustainable resources, social justice and equity." For example, people can't easily stay healthy if they're starving, if the air is polluted or during wartime.

Today's key mottos are disease prevention and health promotion, rather than trying to cure illnesses that are largely preventable. Unfortunately, despite lip service, prevention is often a hard sell as it takes both personal and community action. Yet studies show that even a few words of advice from health professionals can often help to prevent disease by motivating people to modify their lifestyle.

Many of us are the "worried well"

Read rest of article Here...in Health News

 

 

Health Care Hypocrisy

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. House of Representatives approved a rules package on Wednesday, the first day of business for the 112th Congress, that will dictate the way the legislature operates this year and reflects a shift to Republican control of the lower chamber. The bill passed on a party-line vote, with 240 Republicans in favor and 191 Democrats against. One measure that didn't make it into the rules package was a proposal by Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.) that would have required all members to disclose whether they are taking advantage of their federal health insurance plan within 15 days of taking the oath of office. Crowley's measure also split on a party-line vote, with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed. On MSNBC's "Hardball" Wednesday, Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), the new chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Dems' House fundraising arm, accused Republicans of a double standard in blocking the disclosure: ISRAEL: Every Republican voted to hide their own government health care, while many of them are pledging to repeal health care for everyone else. So, you go from hypocrisy to hypocrisy; from broken promise to broken promise. And this is just the first day of the new Congress. MATTHEWS: You mean, they didn't want to admit that they're taking health care? ISRAEL: This is a very straightforward amendment that we offered, that, if you're going to take government-sponsored health care and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, simply disclose. Let your constituents know that you are taking that government health care. Every single Republican voted to hide their health care while many of them are pledging to repeal it for their constituents.

The Next Questions We Should Be Asking About Health Care 

By John H. Richardson 

It's done. What Teddy Roosevelt couldn't do, what FDR couldn't do, what Truman couldn't do, what Johnson couldn't do, what Clinton couldn't do, Barack Obama has done. The health care reform bill has passed. No longer can you be kicked off your plan for the crime of getting sick. If you lose your job, no longer must you live in fear of losing your insurance when the COBRA runs out. If you get cancer, no longer can your insurance company pore over the records and cancel your policy because you failed to disclose your childhood acne. Now, finally, facts will intervene. Is health care reform really the end of America, as so many Republicans have so feverishly warned? Is the economy really going to collapse? Are we suddenly going to start frog-marching in mass formations past our Dear Leader? Is the government really going to start funding abortions? Or was Obama just flat-out lying when he signed, at the last minute, that executive order promising Bart Stupak and the abortion-hating Democrats that the government would do no such thing? No longer must you fear the worst. Just walk outside and see if the sky is falling. One thing, however, is clear already: In the middle of a severe economic slump, despite all the hand-wringing and whining, Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats kicked ass. Now they've got the Big Mo to reform the financial system, start paying down the deficit, reform immigration, and fix the global warming problem. The future is at hand. That hopey-changey thing is working out just fine, thank you. And you can measure it in the relentless attacks that are certain to come, because trashing health care before it goes into effect is the only weapon Obama's enemies have left. Another thing is very clear: Every single Republican voted against reform. Their record is now 3-0. This party fought against Social Security right up until George Bush gave up its last attempt to "privatize" reform into more profits for the geniuses of Wall Street. This party fought against Medicare right up to the day Bush packed it with another trillion dollars or so in unfunded mandates. (And excuse me if I indulge in the conspiratorial suspicion that the GOP's real motive was to bankrupt Medicare so they could drown it in that government-killing bathtub they're always going on about.) Then, for the last year, this party fought against universal health care so feverishly that, by the end, the Republicans actually had the chutzpah to attack the Democrats for funding reform out of existing revenues. That's right: When the Democrats did the responsible thing and moved money around within the federal budget, paying for reform without adding a penny to the deficit, the Republican Party suddenly started crying crocodile tears for Medicare.

Read more: 

D.A and Dairy Industry Spar Over Testing of Milk

The Food and Drug Administration is concerned that antibiotics might be contaminating the milk of American dairy cows.

By WILLIAM NEUMAN Published: January 25, 2011

Read More: 

 

Anorexics, rejoice: With asthma inhalers and vaporizers, inventor David Edwards turns physical food into a cloud, which dieters inhale to "sate chocolate or caffeine cravings" with no more than a single calorie. This is straight out of a futuristic farce. Edwards' two inventions, Le Whif (!) and Le Whaf (!!), create edible clouds that exist at the nexus of molecular gastronomy and pro-ana fantasy. Here's how Le Whif works: 

Read More...

Glucosamine, marketed as a nutritional supplement is one of the most frequently taken dietary supplements for the treatment of osteoarthritis worldwide. Many patients with osteoarthritis (OA) claim that it is effective in relieving their symptoms, such as pain and limited range of motion. But now, after a number of prestigious studies have demonstrated no benefit from glucosamine, its value has been rather soundly dismissed.

Read More...