This particular comment is a self-serving one biased by the fact it is supporting a product touting five ingredients as essential. That is not a magic number in and of itself. When you think of the body as a whole, and consider that it is a highly integrated and interdependent system of biochemical and physiological pathways and systems, there are many disparate elements that can work for you or against you when there is some pathologic derangement present, as with diabetes, to make things worse. Why not do more towards fixing the whole human being than just one physiologic regulatory pathway?
This is especially shortsighted considering how little is understood by the medical mainstream about nutraceuticals, and all they do, and the contrast between natural products from nature and pharmaceutical chemicals that are not natural, and thus devoid of divine energy in the sense present in those things in nature we put there specifically to help support human health and thriving. When you consider the average diet will involve the intake of virtually thousands of chemical compounds daily, that wide array of substances may have many constituents of no real value for human nutrition but there may be hundreds doing useful things still unnoticed and unsung by science. So in nutraceuticals more is better, usually, including providing constituents not perhaps the most important for a particular narrow outcome; for example, support for diabetes. There is no harm in having a few extra ingredients that benefit the heart or the liver, for example, so many times a wide array of substances is providing an added value. So we would see it as much more an attractive offering than unneeded and perhaps more a negative in adding to cost, et cetera.
Please login or Register to submit your answer