Rescoped at the founder’s instruction: no DiGA, no certification path, and this page does not position emealia as a clinical product. Pregnancy, GLP-1 and perimenopause are handled separately and factually on three contexts. What remains is narrower and more buildable: a simple layer for non-clinical nutrition professionals — coaches, personal trainers with a nutrition offering, wellness consultants, the unregulated Ernährungsberater segment — to see a client’s diary, read richer statistics without any AI-generated interpretation layered on top, and adjust what the client’s app targets and surfaces. For the client, this stays optional and debatable, never silently imposed.
| Screen | What it does | What it deliberately does not do |
|---|---|---|
| 1 · The diary view | A read-only feed of a client’s logged meals — the same free-text entries and estimates the client sees, in the same honest-range form. No reformatting into a clinical worksheet. | No AI-generated summary, no “here is what stood out this week” text. The professional reads the diary; emealia does not interpret it for them. |
| 2 · The pattern view — “more options in statistics, no interpretation” | The consumer statistics screen, extended with filters and axes a professional would want and a general consumer wouldn’t need daily: nutrient-by-nutrient over a custom date range, day-of-week patterns, meal-type breakdowns, a raw CSV export. Every one of these is more views of the same numbers, not a new computation. | No pattern is ever labelled “concerning”, “good”, or flagged by the system. No AI narrative sits over the charts. This is the line the founder drew explicitly: richer options, zero interpretation. |
| 3 · The settings view | The professional can set or suggest: energy target, macro targets, micronutrient targets, which nutrients are highlighted as “focus” on the client’s day view, and simple intake preferences (avoid X, favour Y) that feed the existing preferences architecture. | No free-text advice field, no clinical claim, no diagnosis. A number and a toggle, not a sentence a professional writes and emealia displays as its own voice. |
For an ordinary user, none of this happens by default. A professional’s suggested change lands as a proposal the client accepts or declines, never a silent write. In practice this is either a paid add-on the client turns on (“let my coach adjust my targets”) or a debate the product designs for explicitly: Your coach suggests raising your protein target to 110–130g. Accept? Not now? That single confirmation step is what keeps this from becoming the thing non-negotiable #6 exists to prevent — a target a user did not choose, silently defining whether their day looks like a success.
The regulated professional discussion (Diätassistenten, ZPP certification, DiGA reimbursement) is parked, not deleted — it can be picked back up later if the founder wants it. What is left is a real, much less complicated market: coaches and consultants who are not making medical claims and do not need to be.
These professionals are generally not diagnosing or treating a condition, which is the distinction MDCG 2019-11 turns on. That is reasoning, not a determination. Nobody qualified has reviewed emealia’s position, in this configuration, for this audience — and this page is not the place that gets settled. The narrower audience is what the founder scoped this round; whether it is also the lower-risk one is a question for someone with the standing to answer it.
| Tool | What it already does | Where it leaves room |
|---|---|---|
| Cronometer Pro | View/edit client targets and settings, encrypted messaging, EMR-style reports, a professional directory. $39.99/mo for 10 seats, then $2.50/seat. | The client-facing app is Cronometer Gold — still search-and-select. No free-text logging at either end. |
| Foodzilla — not in the earlier draft, and it changes the picture | Explicitly built for dietitians, nutritionists and coaches: personalised calorie/macro/micronutrient targets per client, white-label client apps, AI meal-plan generation, secure messaging, booking, invoicing, e-signatures, exportable visual-chart reports. | This is a full practice-management suite, not a simple diary-and-settings layer. It is evidence the “pro tool” space is more contested than assumed — and evidence that a genuinely simple alternative (no billing, no scheduling, no white-label) is still a real, unfilled niche next to it. |
| PRODI (v7.5, Dec 2025) | Cloud/web as well as Windows now — the pure-desktop framing from the last round is out of date. Reference database refreshed against Souci•Fachmann•Kraut 9th edition. | No confirmed client-facing mobile app; still built around clinical documentation, not a client’s daily habit. |
| Nutrium, Practice Better | Meal planning, client portals, appointment and billing workflows. | Same pattern as Foodzilla — comprehensive practice management, food logging as one module rather than the point. |
The gap is not “nobody lets a professional set a client’s targets” — several tools already do, and Foodzilla does more than this spec proposes. The gap is a tool that stays this simple. No billing, no scheduling, no white-label branding, no e-signatures — a diary view, a pattern view, and a settings screen, attached to a consumer product people already enjoy using on their own. That is a narrower thing to build than what is on this table. Whether it is also cheaper or faster in practice is an estimate nobody has made, and whether coaches want narrower is the untested assumption directly below.
Unchanged from the earlier draft, because it is still the right first step regardless of scope: build the shareable weekly summary first. A client-generated, client-shared page — no professional account, no second controller under GDPR, no build beyond what the diary already produces. If clients never share it, the settings-and-pattern layer above is a solution to a problem nobody has yet. If they do, talk to ten coaches about what the diary and pattern views above are missing before building either.