blue,
just so you understand me a bit. most everything i hear and read, i assume is bs advertising, its goal being the financial betterment of some group of people. that does not mean i won't investigate further. but i am a classic example of the "doubting thomas". i have to see it work in action.

i will give you a couple of examples in health, that most people take for gospel truth. first is that silly percentage game that most nutritionists play. each diet touts certain prescribed levels of protein, fat, and carbs. the moment i see this, i tend to tune that source out, as the source has not reached the level of sophistication equal to my own, and it is doubtful that they have much to tell me.

we need to look at the body as a machine. our machines do different things on different days, so it is not likely that this machine will need the same level of food groups on these different days. so not only are different people apt to have different needs, the same person will have different needs, as the person's life changes from day to day. a day sitting at the desk is not likely to have the same needs as the day spent running for 2 hours.

so i try to make sure that the person is getting what he needs, based on the desires of the body for that day. whatever the 3 percentages are for that day is more an after-the-fact trivia, than it is a pre-determined goal.

the second is this silly bmi measurement. a tall lanky person comes in great. a short, stocky person comes in horribly. but the stocky person could actually have less body fat. the bmi totally ignores body types, and musculature. some of these 10% body fat athletes don't even do well on the bmi. since what we are attempting to discover is how much body fat we have, the only guage should be that - body fat. while all 3 ways of testing for body fat have some built-in accuracy problems, they are at least attempting to measure body fat.