The article begins citing a statistic from the American Heart association that more than 8.2 Million American adults have heart conditions. Additionally, heart disease is the leading cause of death for men and women in the United States. However, people who are “more active” develop these symptoms less. Evidence is provided in a study in which newly affected patients of ischemic heart disease exercised three times a week in a controlled environment. This demonstrated “improved metabolic changes in functional capacity and improved coronary risk profiles in the presence of smoking cessation.” Additionally, disease progression had been countered when observed at six months in the study versus the control group. This sparked further studies, which used the definition of physical activity as “a combination of intensity, duration, and frequency” and showed that tailored exercise (physical activity) increases recovery and prevention. Lastly, it closed stating that it is up to practitioners to relay the importance of life-style medicine to their patients as they come into direct contact with them and hold the most reliability and influence.
I may use this to support the claim that life-style medicine should be practiced more by practitioners instead of as a secondary method. It serves as evidence that life-style medicine is beneficial to diseases as acute and serious as heart diseases.
Next, I want to look further into the systems medicine approach and individualized care aspects that were presented in my second source. I like this piece, but I think alone it may be dry and a bit outdated as some people in today’s society already focus heavily on diet and exercise. Although, a stronger push for this type of care in medicine remains a challenge. Looking into how systems medicine and individualized care enhance life-style medicine may be my next step. Adding these aspects, could lead to a well-rounded paper.