Frankly, looking around, it seems your choice is either a magazine that barely addresses fitness, or going straight to the hardcore muscle-building mags. I was hoping for something reasonably in-between with Women's Health, but failed to find it. If someone knows of such a magazine, I'd be interested to hear it (I tried Women's Fitness, which suffers from the same problems as Women's Health). The good news is that my subscription to Women's Health seemed to get me a good price on Men's Health, which I am switching over to because some reviewers recommended it for those disappointed with the content of WH. I'll see how that works out.
The meaning of health has evolved over time. In keeping with the biomedical perspective, early definitions of health focused on the theme of the body's ability to function; health was seen as a state of normal function that could be disrupted from time to time by disease. An example of such a definition of health is: "a state characterized by anatomic, physiologic, and psychological integrity; ability to perform personally valued family, work, and community roles; ability to deal with physical, biological, psychological, and social stress". Then in 1948, in a radical departure from previous definitions, the World Health Organization (WHO) proposed a definition that aimed higher: linking health to well-being, in terms of "physical, mental, and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease and infirmity". Although this definition was welcomed by some as being innovative, it was also criticized as being vague, excessively broad and was not construed as measurable. For a long time, it was set aside as an impractical ideal and most discussions of health returned to the practicality of the biomedical model.