Interesting to hear that confirmed. (I do mention that it was my best guess in my original comment ;). It still seems problematic to have it just missing from

Interesting to hear that confirmed. (I do mention that it was my best guess in my original comment ;). It still seems problematic to have it just missing from the presentation of options[0] merely because most people won't follow through, though. The ones who are willing to follow through (probably the ones who care most deeply about resolving the thing) aren't given a fair opportunity. Additionally, it seems like a self-perpetuating problem: I would bet a significant part of the unwillingness to make lifestyle changes in order to treat medical conditions is a consequence of Americans' expectation that illnesses are treated by medications (which comes in a large part from doctors emphasizing this). The entire situation has a kind of consumerist framing: you get sick, you purchase a thing which you then consume which treats you. That kind of perspective was strongly instilled in me until my experience with type 1 diabetes. Growing up in the U.S., I just thought that's how things worked: our medicine was that good, and it covered most illnesses. If you go into it with that kind of expectation, it comes off as a very tall order to say, give up pizza. There's this feeling of, "I took my time and money and paid for a doctor, they didn't give me anything, and now they're asking me to do work?" So maybe it's just a kind of a broken, self-reinforcing cycle. But I suspect it's a little more insidious than that too: there is an obvious financial incentive for things to be structured this way. I have a hard time imagining that has no impact. [0] Not that it wasn't "brought up," it was in both of my cases. But: not only was it relatively un-emphasized, it was described as "possibly having an effect". The accurate presentation would have been: this can be much more effective than the medicine I can prescribe—but it will also require much more effort from you.