#45: The Wellness Model
In this training
I’m going to explain why true wellness must come from natural biology, not a synthetic biology.
Listen, if you’re serious about improving your health, living pain-free or you just don’t want to be sick anymore, here’s how to find out if I can help you. Call us at 219-769-5433, mention this show and we can begin together to find out today!
- What is true wellness
- Why Western Science is about sickness/disease management, not wellness
- Introducing the Health-Promotion Model
I am really excited to start you on this journey and I hope to add a lot of value to your life as a whole.
Nutrition is remarkable in its ability to have people with completely opposite views saying they have science to support completely opposite views.
Frustrating isn’t it? What are we suppose to believe?
Welcome to Dynamism Biohack, my name is Dr. Matt Hammett Wellness & Nutrition Expert, Lifestyle Trainer and Movement Enthusiast. In each week I’m going share with you how to make the right nutritious choices despite conflicting expert opinions where I help you to discover how to unlock your inner aborigine or your inner greatness. Thank you for spending this time with me today, so let’s get into the training.
The wellness model of health is best described and understood as a paradigm. A paradigm, or the way we view our world, can influence the smartest clinicians, scientists, mathematicians, biologists, and geneticists in the world. They can even be regarded as the most intellectual of their peer group even awarded the Nobel Prize. What you need to understand is the idea that the scientific and clinical questions they ask come from the popular viewpoint. Ergo, the design of the studies and solutions would be geared toward that paradigm or viewpoint. When most people think about wellness, they are operating out of the sickness/disease paradigm, and describe wellness from that model. In my opinion, this is the greatest mistake we have made in healthcare in the last millennium, for the simple reason we would not compare apples to oranges, because they are completely different governed by differing laws and biological mechanisms.
Currently, this error is defining the terms health and wellness from a sickness/disease perspective. Health, as defined in the Western medicine paradigm, is defined as a lack of disease or a lack of a medical diagnosis.1 Wellness, as defined in the Western medicine paradigm, is supposed to be about prevention of disease.2 The definitions trick you into believing they are about prevention, but their tools are for early detection. Let me provide an example- a mammogram is not wellness, and it is not prevention, because it does not prevent a thing; it is simply early detection.
Allow me to illustrate this point more clearly. The scientific literature which operates from the sickness/disease model does not accurately or operationally define what a healthy subject is, when they conduct studies. More often than not, they assume a subject is healthy if that subject does not have the diagnosis or a pathological state the study is addressing. I must also elaborate on a discussion on the random-control trial model. Typically, two control groups are present. Let us analyze diabetes for a moment; one group has diabetes, and the other does not. Within this model, Western medicine assumes the group without the diabetes diagnosis is a healthy subject because since that particular group is lacking a diabetes diagnosis, they label them as a healthy subject for this study. They have group 1, who has diabetes, and group 2, who does not. By this model, group 2 is considered the healthy standard for the control group in the study BECAUSE they do not have the diagnosis.
Here lies the problem, what if that so-called healthy subject has other symptoms, diseases, or even cancers not related to a diabetes diagnosis? In this model, that does not matter to them, because the subject does not have a diabetes diagnosis. In the gold standard of a random-control-trial, because the subject is lacking that particular diagnosis, the subject is considered healthy; that in my opinion is a BIG, BIG problem. What if the subject is addicted to drugs/alcohol and smokes cigarettes every day, but he or she does not have diabetes? He or she would be considered a healthy subject. “That is outrageous!” you might think… Interesting, right? How many people lie about smoking on those surveys because they are afraid their insurance premiums will skyrocket? How will that impact the data?
What you need to understand is that when a medical doctor uses the term wellness, they are operating from the sickness/disease model of sickness care. As long as they are not diabetic in this model, they are considered a healthy subject. Now, I just took you through a scientific constructive thinking process. How did you do?
At this point, you may be tempted to wander. Did you ask the obvious question that I have asked myself the last 20 years of my life? How do smart people, Nobel Prize winning people get it so wrong? That is a loaded question and not the point of this book. I am simply redefining the sickness/disease paradigm and health restoration/promotion paradigm.
Comparing these two models is like comparing apples to oranges. That is the point I am trying to make. On the other hand, I will offer a suggestion I learned from all the research and interviewing I conducted over the last decade of my practice. In the new model, the Health-Promotion Model, I would like to identify new health standards and parameters, based on the health from our ancestors who seemed to have the highest standards of health known to man. It seems reasonable, right? Why then is this considered grass-roots, and not mainstream?
It is safe to explain it this way- a scientist or a clinician that thinks outside the box (like we are together) is often criticized and punished if they try to move too far outside the boundaries. The world of science has built an eight-ounce glass (so-to-speak), and you must fit your theories and observations within that glass.
A scientist colleague who wished to remain anonymous once said that, “it is very difficult to get grant money for research in science; they only approve studies that obey these standard laws.” Clearly, even the smartest scientist on the planet should understand that the lack of a diagnosis is in no way a baseline standard for health. Once again, would it surprise you to know that most medical doctors who take the time to read my books, and understand the goals of these programs, tend to agree with me the majority of the time?
THE FIVE PILLARS OF HUMAN HEALTH MODEL
In the newer wellness model and the health promotion/restoration paradigm, I am proposing that we can define healthy humans exhibiting a state of homeostasis or balanced function. We can create benchmarks looking at specific testing on humans to understand who is physically fit, who eats a healthy diet, and who has high levels of self-esteem and life satisfaction. We can recommend the deeper layers of health by engaging them and teaching them strategies of improved lifestyle that turns on healthy gene expression. The true genius of this model lies in that it can be defined this way from ancient wild humans, our hunter-gatherer ancestors, human evolutionary biology, and human anthropology. Thanks to new technology, we have the ability to move away from 17th-century-inspired rat science, into proper exploratory and safe research with actual human beings, in pursuit of health and wellness. The study of humanity needs to be the goal of every doctor and scientist today. In the next training were goint to begin our journey with exploring the Health-Promotion Model.1,2