[logi_cal869]

In terms of establishing an individual’s required intake as part of comprehensive changes under the guidance of a professional, I agree.

But to a layperson such benefits are wholly lost due to other personal choices - even a single choice - and at that point it falls under the grandiose shell game hawking fictional health benefits for corporate profit.

[ConservativeMind]

I understand what you are saying, but the article on the study even gives desired numbers and ratios. No doctor or professional is ever needed—just your year-to-year numbers that your doctor wasn't already telling you about (because they also didn't know these two relationships from the study).

Education is an ever present concern, and then you have different understandings that wind up being shared with patients. For instance, three years ago, my brother-in-law was diagnosed with diabetes, related to a severe liver issue. The dietitian prescribed nearly 100% maltodextrin diabetic nutritional shakes for him. My sister-in-law paid big bucks for this diet approach of nearly 100% high glycemic carbs. She asked us to get a case of them for him.

I immediately told her the shakes were poison and exactly the opposite of what he needed to eat. She blew up at me, despite what we forwarded to her.

However, six months later, she admitted the dietitian was completely wrong. I still don't know what made her change her mind, but he got a lot better than he had been doing.