​

Welcome to Issue 17 of my newsletter!

One of the most common mistakes in applied nutrition is not poor knowledge.

It is moving too quickly from information to intervention.

A client wants fat loss.
An athlete wants more energy.
A coach wants a supplement plan.
A team wants a recovery strategy.
A recreational exerciser wants to “optimise” their diet.

The temptation is to respond with an answer.

Calories.
Carbohydrate.
Protein.
Hydration.
Creatine.
Meal timing.
A new plan.
A better protocol.

But in practice, better nutrition decisions rarely start with better answers.

They start with better questions.

Because until we know what problem we are actually trying to solve, even an evidence-based answer can be the wrong intervention.

---

The issue is rarely “what does the evidence say?”

Of course, the evidence matters.

A great practitioner should understand the literature. They should know the mechanisms, the consensus positions, the likely benefits, the limitations, and the risks of applying a given strategy.

But evidence does not apply itself.

It has to be interpreted through context.

That means asking:

What is the actual performance, health, or behavioural problem?​
​Who is this person?​
​What constraints are shaping their current choices?​
​What matters most right now?​
​What is realistic, repeatable, and worth doing?

Without those questions, we risk defaulting to what is scientifically plausible rather than what is practically useful.

And that is where many nutrition plans start to drift.

Not because the science is wrong.

But because the question was incomplete.

---

A familiar example: “I need more energy”

Let’s take a simple example.

An athlete says:

A protocol-first response might be:

“Let’s increase carbohydrate intake.”

And that may be right.

But it may also be incomplete.

The better first question is:

What do we mean by low energy?

Are they under-fuelled across the day?
Are they under-fuelled before training?
Are they poorly hydrated?
Are they sleeping badly?
Are they training through accumulated fatigue?
Are they anxious, stressed, or overloaded?
Are they eating enough, but mistiming intake?
Are they simply interpreting hard training as a nutrition problem?

Each possibility leads to a different decision.

And although carbohydrate availability may be part of the answer, it is not automatically the answer.

This is why “context is king” is not just a slogan.

It is a decision-making principle.

---

The practitioner’s job is not to prove how much they know

This is especially important for experienced practitioners.

The more we know, the easier it is to move quickly.

We recognise patterns.
We remember research.
We have seen similar cases before.
We know what tends to work.

That expertise is valuable.

But it can also create a blind spot.

Because sometimes we stop listening carefully enough to the problem in front of us.

We jump from cue to conclusion.

Low energy? Increase carbs.
Poor recovery? Add protein.
Fat loss plateau? Reduce calories.
Cramp? Check electrolytes.
Busy professional? Meal prep.
Gym-goer? Protein target.

Again, any of those may be appropriate.

But they should come after diagnosis, not before it.

The goal is not to show how quickly we can prescribe.

The goal is to understand what decision is most appropriate for this person, in this situation, at this time.

Figure 17. The Better Question Filter. Before choosing the intervention, clarify the problem. Better nutrition decisions come from filtering evidence through context, constraints, and intended outcomes.

---

Mechanism Spotlight: Why the same intervention can produce different outcomes

A common frustration in nutrition practice is that the same intervention does not produce the same result in every person.

That is not a failure of science.

It is the reality of application.

A nutrition strategy interacts with physiology, behaviour, training load, environment, preferences, history, stress, sleep, culture, beliefs, and adherence.

So when an intervention “doesn’t work,” the question is not always:

Was the protocol wrong?

Sometimes the better questions are:

Was the problem correctly identified?​
​Was the intervention matched to the actual constraint?​
​Was the person able to implement it consistently?​
​Was the outcome we measured the right outcome?​
​Did we review the response soon enough?

This is why applied nutrition is not just the delivery of information.

It is the management of decisions over time.

---

Science → Practice

A useful way to think about this is:

Evidence tells us what might work.​
​Context helps us decide what is most likely to work here.​
​Practice tells us whether it is working well enough to continue, adjust, or stop.

That final part matters.

In real-world nutrition support, decisions are rarely final.

They are working hypotheses.

We make the best decision we can with the available evidence and context, then we monitor the response.

Did the athlete perform better?
Did the client adhere?
Did symptoms improve?
Did training quality change?
Did body composition shift?
Did confidence increase?
Did the plan survive real life?

This is where practitioner judgement develops.

Not from memorising protocols alone.

But from repeatedly asking better questions, making better decisions, and reviewing the outcome honestly.

---

Applied Practice Takeaways

Before your next recommendation, pause and ask:

1. What is the real problem here?​
Not just the stated request, but the underlying issue that needs to be solved.

2. What outcome actually matters?​
Performance, health, adherence, confidence, recovery, body composition, consistency, or something else?

3. What constraints could prevent this from working?​
Time, access, preferences, beliefs, stress, training load, sleep, budget, cooking ability, or competing priorities.

4. What is the smallest useful intervention?​
Not the most impressive plan. The most relevant next step.

5. How will I know if this worked?​
Define what you will review before you start changing the plan.

---

The practical point

Good practitioners do not simply know more strategies.

They ask better questions before choosing one.

That is often the difference between giving nutrition information and delivering nutrition support.

One is about answers.

The other is about decisions.

And in applied practice, decisions are where the real work happens.

---

To better practice,
​Dr Laurent Bannock