​

Welcome to Issue 19 of my newsletter.

Hi,

Last week, I shared that this newsletter is beginning its next chapter.

The core theme remains the same:

How do we move from science to better practice?

That question has shaped much of my work as a practitioner, educator, researcher, and founder of the IOPN.

It is also the question sitting behind the return of the We Do Science Podcast.

I have now started booking guests for the new series, and as things stand, I am aiming to relaunch the podcast in late June.

That gives me a few weeks to do something important before the first episodes go live:

think carefully about what would make the podcast genuinely useful.

Not just interesting.

Useful.

Because there are already plenty of podcasts.

There are plenty of interviews.
Plenty of opinions.
Plenty of people discussing papers, trends, methods, controversies, and claims.

The question is not whether the world needs more content.

The better question is:

What kind of content actually helps practitioners think and work better?

Beyond “what does the research say?”

One of the challenges in nutrition, exercise, health, and performance is that research rarely translates neatly into practice.

A study may be well designed, but still limited in its application.

A mechanism may be plausible, but not especially relevant to the person in front of you.

A protocol may be effective under controlled conditions, but difficult to implement in the real world.

A finding may be statistically significant, but practically underwhelming.

A popular recommendation may be evidence-informed in one setting, but poorly matched to another.

This is why I want We Do Science to go beyond the usual question:

What does the research say?

That question matters.

But it is only the beginning.

The more useful questions are:

What does this mean?​
​How strong is the evidence?​
​Where does it apply?​
​Where does it not apply?​
​Who is this relevant for?​
​What are the practical constraints?​
​What should practitioners do differently, if anything?

That is the space I want the podcast to occupy.

Not science for science’s sake.

Not practice detached from evidence.

But the space between them.

The interpretive space.

The decision-making space.

The place where applied expertise actually lives.

Why long-form still matters

One of the reasons I have always valued podcasting is that long-form conversation gives ideas room to breathe.

Short clips are useful.

Headlines can be useful.

Summaries can be useful.

But complex topics often need more time.

They need nuance.
They need context.
They need disagreement.
They need clarification.
They need examples.
They need the occasional “it depends” — followed by an explanation of what it depends on.

That is especially true in applied nutrition.

Take almost any common topic:

Protein intake.
Carbohydrate availability.
Supplements.
Body composition.
Gut health.
Female athlete health.
Weight loss.
Recovery.
Hydration.
Energy availability.
Masters athletes.
Fitness nutrition.
Elite sport environments.

None of these topics can be reduced to a single protocol without losing something important.

They all require interpretation.

And that is where good conversations can help.

A good podcast episode should not just give the listener more information.

It should help them organise their thinking.

What I want We Do Science to become

For the relaunch, I want We Do Science to retain what made the original podcast valuable:

long-form conversations with credible researchers, practitioners, and experts in sport, exercise, nutrition, health, and performance.

But I also want it to become sharper.

More useful.
More connected.
More directly relevant to the realities of practice.

The aim is not simply to interview experts.

The aim is to extract useful thinking.

How do they interpret the evidence?
How do they deal with uncertainty?
How do they decide what matters?
How do they avoid overstating findings?
How do they move from research to recommendation?
How do they apply their work in the real world?

That is the kind of conversation I want to have.

And it is also the kind of conversation I think many practitioners, coaches, educators, and students need more access to.

Figure 19. From Listening to Applying. A useful science-to-practice podcast should not only share information. It should help listeners interpret evidence, understand context, and apply ideas more effectively in real-world practice.

From listening to applying

A useful science-to-practice podcast should do more than transmit information.

It should help listeners move through a process.

First, there is the expert conversation.

That conversation should expose the listener to knowledge, perspective, evidence, experience, and debate.

But the conversation itself is not the end point.

The next step is interpretation.

What is the evidence actually showing?
How confident should we be?
What are the limitations?
What is being overstated?
What remains uncertain?

Then comes context.

Where might this apply?
Where might it not apply?
Who is this relevant for?
What constraints matter?
What assumptions are being made?

Only then can we extract practical meaning.

Not a simplistic “take-home message” that ignores complexity, but a useful understanding of what may be worth doing differently.

And even then, the final step is practice.

Apply.
Review.
Refine.

That is the loop that matters.

I would value your input

Before the relaunch goes live, I would genuinely value your input.

You can simply reply to this email and tell me what would make We Do Science more useful for you.

Here are a few things I am especially interested in.

1. Topics

Which topics would you like to hear covered?

These might include specific areas of sport and exercise nutrition, such as protein, carbohydrate, supplements, recovery, hydration, body composition, energy availability, gut health, female athlete nutrition, or nutrition for ageing and performance.

They might also be broader topics, such as evidence-informed practice, research interpretation, behaviour change, practitioner development, communication, coaching, or decision-making.

I am especially interested in topics where you feel the public conversation is too simplistic, too polarised, or too detached from real-world practice.

2. Guest recommendations

Who would you like to hear from?

Researchers.
Practitioners.
Coaches.
Clinicians.
Educators.
Performance staff.
People whose work deserves a deeper, more thoughtful conversation.

Some guests will be well known.

Others may be less visible, but doing excellent work.

Both matter.

So if there is someone you think would make a strong guest, please let me know.

3. Episode support materials

I am also thinking about what should sit around each episode.

A podcast can be useful on its own, but the wider ecosystem around it may be where it becomes even more valuable.

For example, would you value:

Written episode summaries?​
A concise overview of the key ideas from each conversation.

Practical takeaways?​
A short “what this means in practice” section for practitioners, coaches, or students.

Research links?​
Key papers, reviews, position stands, or resources mentioned in the episode.

Transcripts?​
Useful for searching, quoting, studying, or revisiting specific parts of a conversation.

Context summaries?​
A short explanation of where the topic fits within the wider evidence base and practical landscape.

Short clips?​
Brief excerpts that highlight key ideas for social media or quick learning.

Q&A follow-ups?​
A way to explore listener questions after an episode has been published.

Some of these may be available from the start.

Others may develop over time.

But I would rather build the right things than simply add features because they sound useful.

4. Future formats

The core format will be long-form expert conversation.

But I am also considering other formats over time.

For example:

Solo episodes where I break down a paper, concept, or applied framework.

Journal-club style episodes discussing a specific paper or area of research.

Practitioner case discussions exploring how evidence is interpreted in real-world scenarios.

Expert roundtables where several voices discuss a complex topic from different angles.

Shorter applied summaries that translate a longer conversation into key points for practice.

I do not want to overcomplicate the relaunch.

The first priority is to get the main podcast moving again and make it consistently valuable.

But over time, I want We Do Science to become more than a podcast feed.

I want it to become a useful science-to-practice resource.

A note on premium content

A few people have already asked whether there will eventually be some form of premium membership or deeper resource layer.

Possibly.

But not yet.

It is too soon to make that the focus.

Before thinking about premium content, memberships, or paid resources, the first job is to rebuild the podcast properly.

That means good guests.
Good conversations.
Good questions.
Good production.
Good follow-through.
And a clear sense of who the podcast is serving.

If a premium layer ever makes sense, it should emerge because it adds real value.

Not because it is another thing to sell.

For now, the focus is simple:

make We Do Science useful again.

Why this matters for the newsletter

This newsletter will remain central to the wider ecosystem.

In many ways, it is the best place to develop the ideas that sit around the podcast.

Some issues may stand alone, as they have done so far.

Others may connect to podcast themes.

Some may introduce a guest or topic before an episode goes live.

Others may unpack the practical implications after an episode is released.

The newsletter gives us space to slow down, reflect, and apply.

That matters.

Because a podcast conversation can open the door to an idea.

But the newsletter can help turn that idea into something more practical.

Applied Practice Takeaways

Before we add another podcast, article, paper summary, or social media clip to the world, it is worth asking:

1. Does it help people interpret evidence more clearly?​
Information is useful only when it helps people understand what the evidence does and does not mean.

2. Does it make context visible?​
Good science communication should show where an idea applies, where it does not, and what conditions shape its usefulness.

3. Does it support better decisions?​
The aim is not just awareness. It is better judgement in real-world practice.

4. Does it respect uncertainty?​
Useful content does not need to pretend everything is settled. It should help people think better when things are not.

5. Does it move from listening to applying?​
The real value is not the episode itself. It is what the listener can think about, question, test, or apply afterwards.

The practical point

The return of We Do Science is not just about restarting a podcast.

It is about building a better platform for science-to-practice thinking.

A place for careful conversations.
A place for interpretation.
A place for nuance.
A place for better questions.
A place for practitioners who want to think more clearly and work more effectively.

That is the direction I want to take it.

And I would value your help in shaping it.

So, if you have a topic, guest recommendation, format idea, or feature request, just reply to this email.

I read every response.

---

To better practice,
​Dr Laurent Bannock