Lifestyle Medicine: A Brief Review of Its Dramatic Impact on Health and Survival.

By ignoring the root causes of disease and neglecting to prioritize lifestyle measures for prevention, the medical community is placing people at harm. Advanced nations, influenced by a Western lifestyle, are in the midst of a health crisis, resulting largely from poor lifestyle choices. Epidemiologic, ecologic, and interventional studies have repeatedly indicated that most chronic illnesses, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, and type 2 diabetes, are the result of lifestyles fueled by poor nutrition and physical inactivity.In this article, we describe the practice of lifestyle medicine and its powerful effect on these modern instigators of premature disability and death. We address the economic benefits of prevention-based lifestyle medicine and its effect on our health care system: A system on the verge of bankruptcy. We recommend vital changes to a disastrous course. Many deaths and many causes of pain, suffering, and disability could be circumvented if the medical community could effectively implement and share the power of healthy lifestyle choices. We believe that lifestyle medicine should become the primary approach to the management of chronic conditions and, more importantly, their prevention. For future generations, for our own health, and for the Hippocratic Oath we swore to uphold ("First do no harm"), the medical community must take action. It is our hope that the information presented will inspire our colleagues to pursue lifestyle medicine research and incorporate such practices into their daily care of patients. The time to make this change is now.

A pilot study to assess the utility of five established variables to standardize exercise treadmill test reporting.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic utility of 5 established variables (functional capacity, Duke treadmill score, chronotropic response to exercise, heart rate recovery, and premature ventricular contractions) together after routine exercise treadmill testing (ETT) has not been determined. METHODS: We assessed the combined prognostic ability of 5 established variables for the primary outcome (myocardial infarction [MI], coronary revascularization [CR] or all-cause mortality) and the secondary outcome of unnecessary downstream testing (defined as receipt of further noninvasive imaging without CR, MI, or death) compared with standard methods. Using a retrospective study design, 1857 consecutive patients were enrolled in the year 2014 and followed until December 31, 2015. Optimal discrimination and global fit statistics were assessed from logistic regression models. Classification and regression tree (CART) methodology was used for the final model. RESULTS: The mean [SD] age was 56.0 [12.5]years; median comorbidities (2, IQR 2) with 26% having an equivocal report. Compared to other models, a model with age, sex, and the 5 established variables showed an improvement in discrimination for the primary [c-statistic 0.85 versus (0.69-0.79)] and secondary [c-statistic 0.73 versus (0.65-0.71)] outcomes with substantial improvement in global fit. The final, optimal, 10-fold cross-validated CART model had a c-statistic of 0.78. CONCLUSIONS: The utility of the 5-established variables, based on the current study, resides in its ability to decrease unnecessary downstream testing and improve cardiovascular event prognostication. This is accomplished by removing the subjective interpretation of currently used ETT variables that can lead to an equivocal report.