Login

Search the site:
 

     

President's Desk, April 2015
David L. Katz, MD, MPH

Lifestyle Medicine: Spate of Communion

Presidents are supposed to give periodic status reports about the unions they steward.  In our case, I am privileged to be in that position of stewardship as our union not only thrives, but unites with other, likeminded unions.  So the best way to characterize the state of our union is to describe the recent spate of our communions.

We are quite far along the path of communal effort with the American College of Preventive Medicine.  Conjoining these two organizations in a manner that lends the strength of each to the other while preserving their important distinctions and character has long been an aspiration of the leadership in both camps.  There are some details to be worked out still, but the effort now seems certain of success.  I expect our College to be the stronger for it.

We are an integral part of a fast-growing coalition of lifestyle medicine organizations all around the world as a founding partner in the Global Lifestyle Medicine Association.  We have our friend and colleague, Dr. Michael Sagner, President of the European Society of Lifestyle Medicine, to thank for the heavy lifting that set this in motion- but ACLM has been engaged from the start.  The awareness of lifestyle medicine as a global movement has inspired the creation of new organizations around the world.  In recent weeks, we have learned, for instance, of just such efforts in Canada, Korea, and Brazil.

Our spate of good ties and tidings includes our evolving relationship with the Blue Zones.  We have the public support of Blue Zone founder and CEO, Dan Buettner, for the GLiMMER Initiative, and can all look forward to Dan as a keynote speaker at our conference in Nashville.  Dan and I just shared the podium at a conference in San Diego, and I am pleased to report we are all in for a treat.

My particular, personal effort at communing in the service of lifestyle medicine is reflected in the rapidly expanding Council of Directors for the GLiMMER Initiative, described here previously.  The fundamental intent of that Council is to show that there is a largely overlooked global consensus among experts about the salient features of healthy living, including diet. I had believed this to be true, and hoped that others would rally around it.

The Council has confirmed my belief, and exceeded my hopes.  We are still in the very early days of GLiMMER, but already have over 120 experts from at least 17 countries on the council.  Quite a few are household names, such as David Kessler, Dean Ornish, Walter Willett, and former US Surgeon General Richard Carmona.  Others may have a bit less celebrity, but are leading influencers just the same, such as the CEO of the Cleveland Clinic, Dr. Toby Cosgrove.  Council members also include experts in the sustainability of our diets, and culinary experts committed to blending delicious and nutritious, such as Sam Kass, until quite recently the White House Chef, and architect of Let’s Move.

The GLiMMER Council is growing almost daily, and updated on our website every other week.  Visit http://glimmerinitiative.org/ for our status at the time this reaches you.

Lifestyle medicine makes me think of the famous speech delivered by Daniel Webster, the most famous son of my alma mater, Dartmouth, in defense of the charter that kept it a college: “It is, Sir, as I have said, a small college.  And yet there are those who love it!” 

Those of us in this College truly love it.  And yet, it is a small college.  Small, when compared to the larger houses of medicine and professional practice, from the AMA, to the American College of Physicians, to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.  Small, too, when compared to the magnitude of the grave challenges, and great opportunities confronting our field.

Small is good in some ways, of course.  But strength is essential to success, and strength may best derive from unity. 

Global forces are rallying to the need for, and promise of, lifestyle medicine- and we are in the middle of it, surrounded by a rapidly expanding global community of friends and colleagues.  That makes us…strong.

Preventive Medicine, Lifestyle Medicine, and Functional Medicine all profess to target the true causes of disease, and there is a valid basis for each such claim.  The specific contentions of each enterprise are the substance of that manuscript now in the works; it’s not my place here to preempt those better arguments, by better sources.

I can, however, illustrate the effort by noting the pedigree of Lifestyle Medicine’s claim.

We might trace the origins of our mantle to Hippocrates, who famously advanced the cause of lifestyle medicine with such admonishment as: “let food be thy medicine.”  There is little left to append there other than: amen.

We might, alternatively, constrain our timeline to the modern era, in which case McGinnis and Foege, rather than Hippocrates, are parents to our cause, flag bearers in our forward progress.  Their seminal publication in JAMA in 1993 made the case for causes not only explicit, but even eponymous: “Actual causes of death in the United States.”

Those “causes” extended to a list of ten factors.  Most noteworthy for our camp is the overwhelming predominance of lifestyle on that list.  The first three entries, accounting for 80% of premature deaths in 1990, and reaffirmed in diverse publications since and current to this day, were tobacco use, dietary pattern, and physical activity.  As this readership likely knows, I refer to those routinely as our daily applications of feet, forks, and fingers.  The evidence base substantiating these as master levers of medical destiny is little short of irrefutable.

So the legitimacy of our claim to causal devotion is not to be trifled with; it is not to be discredited.  But there is perhaps some danger in the very blatancy of that legitimacy. 

We in Lifestyle Medicine may be overly inclined to invoke that robust and riveting literature.  We might get carried away with the idea that lifestyle practices are, indeed, the actual causes of most of what ails us in modern society- or the remedy to that very problem.  We are right to do so, up to a point.  Beyond that point, though, the claim may make us proud, and insular.  It may isolate us.  It might make us exclusive.

But in fact, our claim, however legitimate, cannot be exclusive; for it is contingent on a more nuanced reality.  Even causes have causes.

The treatment of an effect we can administer may be better than the treatment of its cause we cannot.  The closer we get to bedrock, the better – but whatever we do in the neighborhood of roots will reverberate far more profoundly than the pruning of peccant branches in the canopy.

Consider, for instance, the social determinants of health.  We in lifestyle medicine are not prone, I trust, to dismiss the fundamental importance of poverty versus privilege; of environmental security versus squalor.  Poverty is not a lifestyle choice, however; it is a circumstance in which lifestyle choices play out.  The choices we make are, ultimately, subordinate to the choices we have.  Some lives are so focused on the immediate exigencies of survival, there is no place for “style.”  The appendage of “style” to life is, itself, something of a privilege.  Perhaps we focus on lifestyle because the deeper layers of causality are beyond our reach.

There is a need to highlight the primacy of causes, to rally in defense of the respect they warrant, to allocate more resources in their direction.  Modern, conventional medicine is routinely, if inadvertently neglectful of causes, in its preferential attention to effects.  This was elaborated recently and well by our colleague from South Africa, Dr. Derek Yach, and his co-authors writing in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

If we are to change something so formidable as the established allocations of the NIH, it will require a considerable counterforce.  Such strength is unlikely in the absence of unity.

If we can allow that lifestyle factors have causes upstream, and effects downstream that matter; if we can acknowledge that none of us has a monopoly on best methods; if we can concede that the “good” we can do may trump the “better” we cannot- it has the potential to illuminate common ground.  If we can recognize that even causes have causes, it may unite us in common cause.

Therein lies the best way forward, for there are arduous miles to go – and only, I think, in unity, the strength to go the distance.

As I write this, the American College of Lifestyle Medicine and the American College of Preventive Medicine have made considerable progress toward a prenuptial agreement that may allow for the mutual rewards of marriage in the foreseeable future.  As I write this, those two entities along with the Institute for Functional Medicine have made considerable progress toward the drafting and submission of a joint manuscript elucidating the perhaps overlooked architecture of our native alignment.

The former endeavor is, ultimately, much about the details of practice, and the practicalities of administration.  The latter is all about principles.  The first principle underlying a mutual devotion to causes is this: even causes have causes.

Preventive Medicine, Lifestyle Medicine, and Functional Medicine all profess to target the true causes of disease, and there is a valid basis for each such claim.  The specific contentions of each enterprise are the substance of that manuscript now in the works; it’s not my place here to preempt those better arguments, by better sources.

I can, however, illustrate the effort by noting the pedigree of Lifestyle Medicine’s claim.

We might trace the origins of our mantle to Hippocrates, who famously advanced the cause of lifestyle medicine with such admonishment as: “let food be thy medicine.”  There is little left to append there other than: amen.

We might, alternatively, constrain our timeline to the modern era, in which case McGinnis and Foege, rather than Hippocrates, are parents to our cause, flag bearers in our forward progress.  Their seminal publication in JAMA in 1993 made the case for causes not only explicit, but even eponymous: “Actual causes of death in the United States.”

Those “causes” extended to a list of ten factors.  Most noteworthy for our camp is the overwhelming predominance of lifestyle on that list.  The first three entries, accounting for 80% of premature deaths in 1990, and reaffirmed in diverse publications since and current to this day, were tobacco use, dietary pattern, and physical activity.  As this readership likely knows, I refer to those routinely as our daily applications of feet, forks, and fingers.  The evidence base substantiating these as master levers of medical destiny is little short of irrefutable.

So the legitimacy of our claim to causal devotion is not to be trifled with; it is not to be discredited.  But there is perhaps some danger in the very blatancy of that legitimacy. 

We in Lifestyle Medicine may be overly inclined to invoke that robust and riveting literature.  We might get carried away with the idea that lifestyle practices are, indeed, the actual causes of most of what ails us in modern society- or the remedy to that very problem.  We are right to do so, up to a point.  Beyond that point, though, the claim may make us proud, and insular.  It may isolate us.  It might make us exclusive.

But in fact, our claim, however legitimate, cannot be exclusive; for it is contingent on a more nuanced reality.  Even causes have causes.

The treatment of an effect we can administer may be better than the treatment of its cause we cannot.  The closer we get to bedrock, the better – but whatever we do in the neighborhood of roots will reverberate far more profoundly than the pruning of peccant branches in the canopy.

Consider, for instance, the social determinants of health.  We in lifestyle medicine are not prone, I trust, to dismiss the fundamental importance of poverty versus privilege; of environmental security versus squalor.  Poverty is not a lifestyle choice, however; it is a circumstance in which lifestyle choices play out.  The choices we make are, ultimately, subordinate to the choices we have.  Some lives are so focused on the immediate exigencies of survival, there is no place for “style.”  The appendage of “style” to life is, itself, something of a privilege.  Perhaps we focus on lifestyle because the deeper layers of causality are beyond our reach.

There is a need to highlight the primacy of causes, to rally in defense of the respect they warrant, to allocate more resources in their direction.  Modern, conventional medicine is routinely, if inadvertently neglectful of causes, in its preferential attention to effects.  This was elaborated recently and well by our colleague from South Africa, Dr. Derek Yach, and his co-authors writing in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

If we are to change something so formidable as the established allocations of the NIH, it will require a considerable counterforce.  Such strength is unlikely in the absence of unity.

If we can allow that lifestyle factors have causes upstream, and effects downstream that matter; if we can acknowledge that none of us has a monopoly on best methods; if we can concede that the “good” we can do may trump the “better” we cannot- it has the potential to illuminate common ground.  If we can recognize that even causes have causes, it may unite us in common cause.

Therein lies the best way forward, for there are arduous miles to go – and only, I think, in unity, the strength to go the distance.

As I write this, the American College of Lifestyle Medicine and the American College of Preventive Medicine have made considerable progress toward a prenuptial agreement that may allow for the mutual rewards of marriage in the foreseeable future.  As I write this, those two entities along with the Institute for Functional Medicine have made considerable progress toward the drafting and submission of a joint manuscript elucidating the perhaps overlooked architecture of our native alignment.

The former endeavor is, ultimately, much about the details of practice, and the practicalities of administration.  The latter is all about principles.  The first principle underlying a mutual devotion to causes is this: even causes have causes.

Preventive Medicine, Lifestyle Medicine, and Functional Medicine all profess to target the true causes of disease, and there is a valid basis for each such claim.  The specific contentions of each enterprise are the substance of that manuscript now in the works; it’s not my place here to preempt those better arguments, by better sources.

I can, however, illustrate the effort by noting the pedigree of Lifestyle Medicine’s claim.

We might trace the origins of our mantle to Hippocrates, who famously advanced the cause of lifestyle medicine with such admonishment as: “let food be thy medicine.”  There is little left to append there other than: amen.

We might, alternatively, constrain our timeline to the modern era, in which case McGinnis and Foege, rather than Hippocrates, are parents to our cause, flag bearers in our forward progress.  Their seminal publication in JAMA in 1993 made the case for causes not only explicit, but even eponymous: “Actual causes of death in the United States.”

Those “causes” extended to a list of ten factors.  Most noteworthy for our camp is the overwhelming predominance of lifestyle on that list.  The first three entries, accounting for 80% of premature deaths in 1990, and reaffirmed in diverse publications since and current to this day, were tobacco use, dietary pattern, and physical activity.  As this readership likely knows, I refer to those routinely as our daily applications of feet, forks, and fingers.  The evidence base substantiating these as master levers of medical destiny is little short of irrefutable.

So the legitimacy of our claim to causal devotion is not to be trifled with; it is not to be discredited.  But there is perhaps some danger in the very blatancy of that legitimacy. 

We in Lifestyle Medicine may be overly inclined to invoke that robust and riveting literature.  We might get carried away with the idea that lifestyle practices are, indeed, the actual causes of most of what ails us in modern society- or the remedy to that very problem.  We are right to do so, up to a point.  Beyond that point, though, the claim may make us proud, and insular.  It may isolate us.  It might make us exclusive.

But in fact, our claim, however legitimate, cannot be exclusive; for it is contingent on a more nuanced reality.  Even causes have causes.

The treatment of an effect we can administer may be better than the treatment of its cause we cannot.  The closer we get to bedrock, the better – but whatever we do in the neighborhood of roots will reverberate far more profoundly than the pruning of peccant branches in the canopy.

Consider, for instance, the social determinants of health.  We in lifestyle medicine are not prone, I trust, to dismiss the fundamental importance of poverty versus privilege; of environmental security versus squalor.  Poverty is not a lifestyle choice, however; it is a circumstance in which lifestyle choices play out.  The choices we make are, ultimately, subordinate to the choices we have.  Some lives are so focused on the immediate exigencies of survival, there is no place for “style.”  The appendage of “style” to life is, itself, something of a privilege.  Perhaps we focus on lifestyle because the deeper layers of causality are beyond our reach.

There is a need to highlight the primacy of causes, to rally in defense of the respect they warrant, to allocate more resources in their direction.  Modern, conventional medicine is routinely, if inadvertently neglectful of causes, in its preferential attention to effects.  This was elaborated recently and well by our colleague from South Africa, Dr. Derek Yach, and his co-authors writing in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

If we are to change something so formidable as the established allocations of the NIH, it will require a considerable counterforce.  Such strength is unlikely in the absence of unity.

If we can allow that lifestyle factors have causes upstream, and effects downstream that matter; if we can acknowledge that none of us has a monopoly on best methods; if we can concede that the “good” we can do may trump the “better” we cannot- it has the potential to illuminate common ground.  If we can recognize that even causes have causes, it may unite us in common cause.

Therein lies the best way forward, for there are arduous miles to go – and only, I think, in unity, the strength to go the distance.

As I write this, the American College of Lifestyle Medicine and the American College of Preventive Medicine have made considerable progress toward a prenuptial agreement that may allow for the mutual rewards of marriage in the foreseeable future.  As I write this, those two entities along with the Institute for Functional Medicine have made considerable progress toward the drafting and submission of a joint manuscript elucidating the perhaps overlooked architecture of our native alignment.

The former endeavor is, ultimately, much about the details of practice, and the practicalities of administration.  The latter is all about principles.  The first principle underlying a mutual devotion to causes is this: even causes have causes.

Preventive Medicine, Lifestyle Medicine, and Functional Medicine all profess to target the true causes of disease, and there is a valid basis for each such claim.  The specific contentions of each enterprise are the substance of that manuscript now in the works; it’s not my place here to preempt those better arguments, by better sources.

I can, however, illustrate the effort by noting the pedigree of Lifestyle Medicine’s claim.

We might trace the origins of our mantle to Hippocrates, who famously advanced the cause of lifestyle medicine with such admonishment as: “let food be thy medicine.”  There is little left to append there other than: amen.

We might, alternatively, constrain our timeline to the modern era, in which case McGinnis and Foege, rather than Hippocrates, are parents to our cause, flag bearers in our forward progress.  Their seminal publication in JAMA in 1993 made the case for causes not only explicit, but even eponymous: “Actual causes of death in the United States.”

Those “causes” extended to a list of ten factors.  Most noteworthy for our camp is the overwhelming predominance of lifestyle on that list.  The first three entries, accounting for 80% of premature deaths in 1990, and reaffirmed in diverse publications since and current to this day, were tobacco use, dietary pattern, and physical activity.  As this readership likely knows, I refer to those routinely as our daily applications of feet, forks, and fingers.  The evidence base substantiating these as master levers of medical destiny is little short of irrefutable.

So the legitimacy of our claim to causal devotion is not to be trifled with; it is not to be discredited.  But there is perhaps some danger in the very blatancy of that legitimacy. 

We in Lifestyle Medicine may be overly inclined to invoke that robust and riveting literature.  We might get carried away with the idea that lifestyle practices are, indeed, the actual causes of most of what ails us in modern society- or the remedy to that very problem.  We are right to do so, up to a point.  Beyond that point, though, the claim may make us proud, and insular.  It may isolate us.  It might make us exclusive.

But in fact, our claim, however legitimate, cannot be exclusive; for it is contingent on a more nuanced reality.  Even causes have causes.

The treatment of an effect we can administer may be better than the treatment of its cause we cannot.  The closer we get to bedrock, the better – but whatever we do in the neighborhood of roots will reverberate far more profoundly than the pruning of peccant branches in the canopy.

Consider, for instance, the social determinants of health.  We in lifestyle medicine are not prone, I trust, to dismiss the fundamental importance of poverty versus privilege; of environmental security versus squalor.  Poverty is not a lifestyle choice, however; it is a circumstance in which lifestyle choices play out.  The choices we make are, ultimately, subordinate to the choices we have.  Some lives are so focused on the immediate exigencies of survival, there is no place for “style.”  The appendage of “style” to life is, itself, something of a privilege.  Perhaps we focus on lifestyle because the deeper layers of causality are beyond our reach.

There is a need to highlight the primacy of causes, to rally in defense of the respect they warrant, to allocate more resources in their direction.  Modern, conventional medicine is routinely, if inadvertently neglectful of causes, in its preferential attention to effects.  This was elaborated recently and well by our colleague from South Africa, Dr. Derek Yach, and his co-authors writing in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

If we are to change something so formidable as the established allocations of the NIH, it will require a considerable counterforce.  Such strength is unlikely in the absence of unity.

If we can allow that lifestyle factors have causes upstream, and effects downstream that matter; if we can acknowledge that none of us has a monopoly on best methods; if we can concede that the “good” we can do may trump the “better” we cannot- it has the potential to illuminate common ground.  If we can recognize that even causes have causes, it may unite us in common cause.

Therein lies the best way forward, for there are arduous miles to go – and only, I think, in unity, the strength to go the distance.


AMERICAN COLLEGE OF LIFESTYLE MEDICINE

The American College of Lifestyle Medicine (ACLM) is the world's flagship professional medical association for physicians, clinicians and allied health professionals, as well as those in professions devoted to advancing the mission of lifestyle medicine.

       

© 2015 American College of Lifestyle Medicine

Site design by Enrich and Wild Apricot development by Webbright