Is being "healthy" an actual, overall provable term? Or is "healthy" just a loose assumption?

Question

Say you go to a doctor and they say -- more or less -- that you are "healthy."

What does this mean? Under what circumstances does one fall within these supposed confines?

And what would falling under these confines mean in a more deeper outlook? Like if I am "healthy," does that mean I can't be healthier? If I am not healthy enough, could I get healthier then?

Many people vaguely use the term healthiness to define a set of rules that must apply to someone, like if someone is disease free or not overweight or etc. But is this just vague?

A doctor saying you are healthy doesn't mean you are of utmost health, because how would you know each individual's maximum healthiness potential, if it even exists?

I always strive to be as healthy as possible with being on the lookout for new supplements and solutions to any health signs of stresses and such. But what really makes me ponder is how we can confidently dish the term healthy around in an overall manner that isn't particularly individualized.

No two different people are necessarily as equally healthy as one another in all possible respects if they're both meeting a particular set of observable standards or tests/procedures/etc.

So it makes me think that one can envision health as a perpetually tested standard one must always be working to achieve or progress towards. I don't think anyone can be perfectly healthy or the inverse, but how healthy one can become is the big question. Many people have demonstrated massive differences in their feelings/well being from supplementation, homeopathy, herbs, antioxidants and many other potential undertakings not necessarily relating to consumption. I realize you can feel healthy and not be sometimes, but usually feeling really good and strong is a symbol of good health more often than not.

In a sense, does the term "healthy" mean that much? Is there always theoretical improvement of our health regardless, because there is no one size fits all or perfect health analysis?

Answer 1

Here's the definition of health according to WHO:

Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.

As you can see, there are a lot of components to this term, of which some, like absence of disease, can be objectively assessed in a uniform manner, while others may have criteria that vary individually from person to person.

Source: https://www.who.int/about/who-we-are/constitution

Answer 2

Being healthy is a term that usually describes the presence of desired states, such as stamina and well-being, and the absence of disease and unpleasant feelings.

A doctor will likely consider you healthy when you do not have any symptoms and signs of known health conditions and when your results of medical investigations are within the normal ranges. The normal or reference ranges of different values (normal blood sodium concentration, normal blood pressure, etc.) have been determined on the basis of the studies that have shown they are least commonly associated with various diseases.

When everything appears normal by medical criteria, you can still have a room for improvement. You can be in better relationships, feel better, learn to work more efficiently, etc. On the other hand, if you run faster, does this make you healthier or happier? Health should not be viewed as a goal, but as a tool one can use to achieve personal goals in life.