Instead of defining what health looks like, why don't we define what health thinks and does? We would benefit greatly here to acknowledge that there is as much of a mental component to health as there is physical. Physical is pretty cut and dry: exercise. Move your body. Lift weights. Walk. Run. Jog. Move. We could agree that so long as these acts do not negatively affect you (say, you can't run because you'll injure your knee), they are healthy actions. Health also eats food and drinks fluids that provide nutrients that the body requires to function. Health takes in the amount of carbohydrates that the body needs. This is what health does.

So what is not healthy? Not healthy is the area outside of healthy. Not healthy is the in excess of health. Not healthy is consuming more carbohydrates than the body requires to function, which in turn is stored as fat. Not healthy is eating when you're not hungry. Not healthy is when you're eating because you're sad, or eating just because it's there, or eating foods on a regular basis that provide little to no nutritional value to the body. Not healthy is eating because you feel bad about the way you look, so you're either punishing yourself or trying to dull the sadness. These are not healthy actions. This is where the mental aspect of health comes into play. Whether it's an eating disorder, a compulsion, an addiction to food, these are all functions of the brain, and unfortunately, these are the kinds of issues that are more difficult to address. But these issues are not impossible to address. It takes personal strength, the knowledge to guide you, the support of your peers, the personal strength, the personal strength, and the personal strength, to overcome these not healthy thoughts and actions. Individual responsibility and accountability.

Old people, people who are disabled and the chronically ill do have a place in what we consider to be healthy when we as a society use health to consider someone to be morally sound or not. All three of the groups that you deem 'unnecessary' are continually shunned from our society in numerous ways due to them not being considered in ideal health. This is more than their appearance but the way health is constructed in society. All people have the right to live in society free of their worth being placed on their body or health. I'm not talking about what are healthy behaviors or what we idealize as beautiful but the way all bodies are suppose to look. This is also gender neutral and is not just specific to women.

Also I don't use the word 'overweight' (or any 'o' words that are medicalized forms of body size) because that term is not only used to imply pathology but also begs the question, over what weight? The words I use are not done without thought or whim. I use the word fat and thin to describe two different body types, it is only divisive if we continue to understand fat with its negative connotations intact, instead of with its actual meaning as a descriptive term used to define a body size.

Sadly, many medical professionals do tend to define health based on standardized notions of beauty. If they followed the research and stopped confusing correlation with causation, they'd be less likely to think a fat person is unhealthy simply because of their body size. I urge you to look at the links I posted below as a preliminary starting point for your research into the matter.

Everyones body size is 50-75% dependent upon genetics. See this study, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14610529

Assuming that everyone who eats well and moves their body will be thin ignores this and the fact that many fat people participate in those same actions but still remain fat (and are healthy). I have no problem with people encouraging healthy behavior as long as it is accessible to all people. Actively discouraging unhealthy behaviors again ignores that those healthy behaviors are not available to everyone. We should be focusing on making it more available and that would improve overall health in our society.

That seems an odd statement: "I have no issue with people encouraging healthy behavior as long as it is accessible to all people."

You're making the assumption that people who discourage unhealthy behaviors are somehow responsible for the fact that there are disadvantaged people who are forced to drink Mountain Dew and eat McDonalds. Like, if we all can't eat healthy ... no one does.

I'd rather think that was just careless wording, than believe that's actually what you mean to say. Because the latter is absurd.

Actually, scientifically speaking, you most certainly could gain weight. As Amanda said below, body size is actually based more on genetics than anything else. Behaviors have some input, but by and large fat people are not fat because of unhealthy behaviors. I'd urge you to look at this article that has found this to be true elsewhere in nature: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/12/10/what-fat-animals-tell-us-about-human-obesity.html

Kim: Great article! Definitely interesting stuff. It's that kind of curiosity that progresses science. However, I think you're taking liberties in saying "by and large, fat people are not fat because of unhealthy behaviors." Do you have evidence to back that up, because that conclusion does not necessarily follow from Amanda's article nor your article. Looking at genetics, if it's encoded in the genes for each individual to have a certain body size and fat percentage, then individuals can still become "overweight" (meaning, over the weight that you're designed to hold) and "underweight."

Sorry Jim about the limiting space thing! But excellent comment(s).

Those are two different subjects: 1) People should strive to eat healthy 2) We should be a sharing society.

It just seemed like your wording suggested we couldn't have one conversation with including the other. What tripped me up was your "as long as" proviso.

This is two separate questions, first to believe we are resentful against thin ignores this is about the pathologizing of fat bodies and the resulting prejudice. This is also a derailing tactic often used when a marginalized group starts to fight back against the prejudice they face. I’m not ignorant of the fact fat people can be unhealthy, but many people are when they ignore thin people can be unhealthy too for the same reasons.

We are often asked if we have read every study that addresses health and body size, this is also another form of derailing when talking about these issues. The truth is there are no studies that show fat causes ill health. The reason we believe fat is inherently unhealthy is because often times we don’t understand the difference between causation and correlation.

While fat has been shown to have correlation with ill health, this doesn’t address how fat bodies can be healthy if we focus on wellness not weight loss or the way someone’s social location can change their health outcome. It also doesn’t address losing weight for ‘health’ ignores that 95% of weight loss attempts fail within 1-3 years after they are started, after 5 years the 5% that succeed on average only keep off 10% of their body mass. It also ignores how yo-yo dieting makes people in the end heavier and unhealthier than if they keep a stable body weight. I’m going to be discussing a health movement by the name of Health at Every Size™ in an upcoming blog.

Also, the reason that as a society we are heavier is a multi-faceted issue, one that cannot be blamed on ill health alone. First and foremost the way that we track body size by the use of BMI standards that are not only incorrect in labeling health, since health should be considered different for every individual regardless of body size, it also was changed in the late 1999s. BMI rates were lowered so that millions of Americans overnight were considered to be ‘overweight’ or ‘obese.’ It is direct contradiction to the fact that people who are considered ‘overweight’ on average have a lower mortality rate than people in any other group.

In the last 20 years we have also had a huge rise of the diet industry which last year made profits of around 60 billion dollars, to put that into perspective we spent 50 billion on college tuition last year as well. This is 60 billion dollars being put into an industry that has a 95% failure rate and makes people heavier / unhealthier in the long run.

This rate is also impacted by the fact that we have more older people than any other time in history due to improved medicine, we gain weight as we age, and food is more readily available to the masses, the majority of which is processed food.

A few things:
1. Different countries have different levels of obesity (and even different levels in same countries over a period of time) because the definition of obestiy is constantly changing. The diet industry has lobbied the medical industry to broaden the categories of obesity over time so they would have more customers. When we spend more on diets in this country than on higher education (true fact), it's not surprising that they get such a voice.
2. The statistics about health are largely borne out not by fat people, but by people considered to be thin by societal and medical standards. Many researchers are coming to the conclusion that the existence of a certain amount of fat in a body does not mean that the person is unhealthy.

It is not surprising given the money the diet industry makes that we do not hear as much about the research which finds that fat does not equal ill. (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/i-take-space/201103/stigma-is-big-business) Further, it is often not the eating and exercising behavior of people that determines body size and composition. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/12/10/what-fat-animals-tell-us-about-human-obesity.html) That's why many medical professionals and researchers are urging people to change their views on fat. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2011/01/03/con-sharma-obesity.html#socialcomments-submit)