There may be possible improvements in theory, but I feel it's best to go with the tested nutrition that they use rather than what people could come up with on an internet forum. It's all complicated as you know with bioscience, and obviously not something you want to gamble on.
The thing about tested nutrition is that it's the mainstream pharmaceutical and agribusiness interests that decide what is tested, so essentially the argument that this or that nutrition isn't tested will last forever because there will never be money for someone to test it. Nice how that works out for them, eh?
Here's what the feeding bag has, this is from memory so it might not be 100% verbatim: Maltodextrin, sucrose, sodium caseinate, medium chain triglycerides, canola oil, soybean oil, soybean fiber, then it gets down to small ingredients (<1%) for micro nutrients.
That's correct, the second biggest ingredient is table sugar, the first being something pretty similar to table sugar. The only fats are processed omega-6 heavy vegetable oils (at least evidence has been shown about 3-6 levels) and the protein appears to be in the form of casein, notoriously the second most problematic protein behind the wheat proteins gluten/gliadin.
I'm not saying I have the ideal formulation figured out, but I would be hard pressed to come up with a hypothetical formulation worse than that one. It's as if the medical industry just asked the agribusiness industry how they'd like the formulation to be, since those are obviously the cash crops that mega-farms produce.
