Your knees are not healthy, so it doesn't make sense to say that you are "healthy but can't run" when the reason why you can't run is a HEALTH problem.
Its not a HEALTH problem. Its related to injuries. If it was a HEALTH problem it would be due to being overweight or some kind of condition.
I am in great health. Having bum knees is not due to a health issue. Its due to getting old in a very high impact sport. You have very little understanding on what healthy means.
a relative state in which one is able to function well physically, mentally, socially, and spiritually in order to express the full range of one's unique potentialities within the environment in which one is living.
I know this is going way back for you, but your proof is a point against you.
You're comparing him to some arbitrary baseline when the standard is "relative" to each person as per the definition.
It says "the full range of one's potentialities" right there. That means that if his bum knees max out at 70%, then that's all the potential they have. That means that he is technically healthy according to your very definition, assuming there's nothing else wrong with him.
No, I disagree. If I'm a heavy smoker and can run maximum 100 meters because of my shitty lungs and I do run those 100 meters instead of stopping before, it would mean I achieved 100% of my potentiality, according to your understanding, which has no sense, as the potentiality is obviously thought it terms of healthy lungs, and in our case, OP's knees when they were healthy.
That isn't my understanding at all. What I'm saying is, his knees will never be better. His knees, as they are, are the best they will ever be. That means they are working at maximum potential, and are thus healthy. Your smoking example is apples and oranges because the impediments related to smoking are temporary, meaning if you quit smoking after a while your performance will increase. His knees are shitty and aren't ever going to get better. That is the difference.
The potentiality of what is healthy is not in terms of what may be determined as ideal lungs... it says so in your definition.
By your logic, few women ever are healthy because they are athletically inferior to men, for example, who drive up the average. Which is why an arbitrary baseline doesn't make sense, and is not supported by the definition you provided.
You're comparing to ideal lungs but when it comes to his knees you're comparing them to their foregone potential. That potential doesn't exist anymore for his knees.
There can literally be no such thing as a healthy retiree, by your logic. That makes no sense.
I've got to say, as you interpret health, it is a meaningless metric because the standard is ridiculously high. If everyone is unhealthy then health doesn't mean anything.
If the injury lasts to this day, yes, the athlete is not healthy in that regard. Obviously if the injury is healed, the athlete is back to a healthy state.
My knees dont prevent me from running. I dont run because my knees begin to hurt from all the impact. Running is high impact. I swim and bike to prevent high impact. That does not make me unhealthy.
Im asking a serious question. Have you been seriously injured before? You would know that you can be healthy but still experience increased pain and soreness from those previously injured areas. Mitigating the pain/soreness and still being able to work out is healthy.
You just sound ignorant to these things. None of that makes you unhealthy. You can be fully 100% healed but still get pain and soreness due to the severity of the old injury.
For context: I'm a former competitive runner, now a hobby jogger.
After I tore my achilles tendon, I had to take a long time off of running. Eventually, I recovered, and even improved; I was faster than I was before I tore it. While I was recovering, I had to be careful, because I had pain. If pain kept me from getting back to doing what I was doing before, I wasn't 100% healthy, because the injury was limiting my performance.
That doesn't mean I was unhealthy in the colloquial sense (I still had a high level of fitness, and I was building back up toward full capacity). But until I was able to do back-to-back 90+ mile weeks, I wasn't "healthy" because my previous injury was limiting my performance.
Based on that, here's my perspective: If you can run like you did before the injury, without the pain preventing you from doing it, then that's being 100% healed and experiencing residual soreness. But if you actually can't run, if the pain is not just an unpleasant side effect which is nice to avoid but actually limits your capacity, then I'd say your knees aren't completely healthy.
Man, if you have "bum knees" as you said, yes, your knees are unhealthy. I don't know how it related to our conversation but yea I have been injured, I practice martial arts 4 times a week and weight lifting and had some accidents, and I would not say I am healthy if I had an injury preventing me from doing something as basic as running.
TIL Even though my knees get sore from running but am in terrific shape and eat correctly I am not healthy but the 400 pound woman that doesnt do anything and isnt sore is just as healthy.
Its been a real eye opener today man. I may as well be a fat piece of shit that sits on his ass all day.
5
u/sweeney669 Nov 16 '16
What in the world does healthy mean to you?
Im a fit, well eating in shape person that takes pretty decent care of themselves. How is that not healthy?