Yeah, I don't mean to decry their effectiveness, only what they demand of the user in order to render that effectiveness. They were the gold standard up until relatively recently, and saved a lot of lives.

The modern programs of a combination of fast/slow analogs are more flexible and adaptable. The demand on the user is still pretty high, but it's a bit closer to baseline.

EDIT: and I guess I should say, I've got plenty of bias from my own relatively narrow experience. I'm sure there are different regimens and different opinions amongst various doctors