Somebody asked me this question the other day. At the time, it sounded unpleasantly sarcastic, but I answered civilly. Reflection on the larger question, though, leads me to answer more fully.
Yes. WE ARE ALL DOING IT WRONG if our problems deepen, or don't ameliorate as far as possible for our hypothetically-damaged bodies.
We're probably "doing it wrong" because we don't know what the right answer IS. We're "doing it wrong" because authorities have told us THIS IS THE WAY IT IS DONE and some people are foolish enough to trust them -- we're "doing it wrong" because the wrong thing is Standard of Care. Some of the information in textbooks IS WRONG, despite claims to the contrary.
Some people are "doing it wrong" because they leap into an attractive regimen without learning enough about it. There's an AWFUL lot of advice floating around -- from every possible side of the question -- for every possible thing that can ail us. Being particularly interested in thyroid issues and low-energy states, I've read a million of 'em! The vast majority are absolutely positively idiotic! They are frequently Conventional Wisdom maxims, and though it "makes sense" to people, it's just plain WRONG. Bearing in mind that there are a huge range of different thyroid problems one might have and all of them probably have different solutions (if any), there are SOME universal truths....
Some people are "doing it wrong" because they aren't doing something 100%. For the un- or minimally-damaged person, Sisson's 80/20 rule is already going above-and-beyond average health-consciousness and it's just fine. For others, that 20% non-compliance could quite possibly kick their ass (celiac disease, anyone?).
I could go on and on.... My point is, even though Regimen X works for 95% of people, it may be the wrong thing for that 5% -- the 5% are DOING IT WRONG, even though they don't have any reason to suspect it.
It's true -- too often when people claim failure at one of those perfect regimens, the peanut gallery pipes up that it's the fault of the Failed. Maybe, maybe not. But some distinctions need to be drawn. Somewhere along the line, the outrage against the concept of "blaming the victim" has gone overboard. There are damned good reasons to be careful about how blame is apportioned, ... but ya know what? The victim OCCASIONALLY is fully responsible for his plight -- think Darwin Awards!
We're doing it right when we finally find what succeeds. Until then, at least in part, we're "doing it wrong."