​

Welcome to Issue 21 of my newsletter.

I have now started recording episodes for the relaunch of We Do Science.

The guest list is already looking strong, and I am expecting the podcast to return in mid to late July.

But as I have been preparing for these conversations, one theme keeps coming back:

What do the best practitioners and experts actually prioritise?

Not what sounds most advanced.
Not what makes the best social media post.
Not what generates the most attention.
Not what feels like the latest innovation.

But what actually matters most in practice.

That question is important because sport, exercise, and fitness nutrition can easily become distracted by marginal gains before the foundations are in place.

Supplements.
Nutrient timing.
Wearable data.
Glucose monitoring.
Personalised protocols.
Recovery hacks.
Specialist testing.
Micro-adjustments.
Advanced periodisation.
Individualised fuelling strategies.

All of these can have a place.

But only when they are solving the right problem.

And only when the basics are strong enough to support them.

The appeal of the advanced strategy

Advanced nutrition strategies are appealing.

They sound more professional.
They feel more specific.
They suggest expertise.
They create the impression that we are doing something sophisticated.

For practitioners, advanced strategies can also be tempting because they demonstrate knowledge.

It feels more impressive to discuss carbohydrate periodisation, supplement stacks, biomarker tracking, or precision recovery protocols than to talk about meal consistency, total energy intake, protein distribution, hydration, sleep, and food access.

But in practice, the advanced strategy is often not the limiting factor.

A team may be asking about supplements when players are missing breakfast.

An athlete may be asking about recovery products when they are sleeping poorly.

A client may be asking about carbohydrate timing when their total energy intake is inconsistent.

A runner may be interested in gut training, but still has no clear race-day fuelling plan.

A gym-goer may be focused on the perfect protein source while struggling to eat enough protein consistently across the week.

A coach may want nutrition periodisation, but the athletes do not yet have reliable food routines.

In those situations, the more advanced intervention may not be wrong.

It may just be premature.

Basics are not beginner-level

One of the problems is that we often talk about “the basics” as though they are simple, easy, or only relevant to beginners.

But the basics are not beginner-level.

They are foundational.

And in real-world practice, foundational does not mean easy.

It is one thing to know that an athlete needs enough energy.

It is another thing to help them achieve that across a demanding training schedule, travel, school, work, family, appetite changes, food preferences, body composition pressures, and limited preparation time.

It is one thing to know that protein matters.

It is another thing to build a realistic pattern of protein intake that fits someone’s routine, appetite, cooking skills, budget, and food environment.

It is one thing to know that hydration matters.

It is another thing to create a plan that works across training, competition, heat, travel, sweat losses, and individual tolerance.

It is one thing to know that sleep supports recovery.

It is another thing to recognise when nutrition is being asked to compensate for a recovery problem that is not primarily nutritional.

The basics are not basic because they are easy.

They are basic because they support everything else.

A common practitioner trap

A common trap in applied nutrition is to assume that because something is more advanced, it is more valuable.

But the value of an intervention depends on the problem it solves.

If an athlete is under-fuelled, the most valuable intervention may be total energy intake.

If training quality is poor because lunch is too small and dinner is too late, the most useful change may be meal timing.

If recovery is poor because sleep is short and training load is high, a supplement may be less important than recognising the broader recovery constraint.

If body composition is not changing because weekend intake is inconsistent, the issue may not be carbohydrate, fat, or the latest diet strategy.

If performance is inconsistent because the athlete has no pre-training routine, then a simple fuelling structure may outperform a more sophisticated plan.

This is why good nutrition support starts with diagnosis.

Not medical diagnosis necessarily, but practical diagnosis.

What is limiting the outcome?

What is the actual constraint?

What is the most useful next lever?

What needs to be stabilised before something more advanced can work?

Foundations before fine-tuning

A useful way to think about this is:

Foundations before fine-tuning.

Fine-tuning has a role.

At higher levels of performance, small improvements may matter.

For some athletes, advanced fuelling strategies, supplementation, periodisation, gut training, recovery planning, and individualised monitoring can be highly valuable.

But fine-tuning only works when there is something stable to fine-tune.

If the basics are inconsistent, advanced strategies often become noise.

They may make the plan look more professional, but not necessarily more effective.

Before chasing marginal gains, it is worth asking whether the foundation is strong enough.

Is the athlete eating enough?
Is protein intake appropriate and consistent?
Is carbohydrate availability matched to training demands?
Is hydration adequate?
Is meal timing practical?
Is the plan realistic?
Is recovery supported?
Is the athlete able to follow the plan?
Is the main problem actually nutritional?

These questions may seem simple.

But they often reveal the real work.

​

Figure 21. Foundations Before Fine-Tuning. Advanced strategies are most useful when the foundational elements of nutrition practice are already stable, appropriate, and consistently applied.

Why this matters in sport and fitness nutrition

This matters because many people are not failing because they lack advanced information.

They are failing because the fundamentals have not been made practical.

An athlete does not just need to know that fuelling matters.

They need to know what to eat, when to eat it, how much they need, how to prepare it, how to adapt it when travel disrupts the day, how to manage appetite, and how to repeat it consistently.

A fitness client does not just need to know that energy balance matters.

They need a structure that helps them manage hunger, protein, portions, weekends, alcohol, social eating, training, and normal life.

A young practitioner does not just need more protocols.

They need to learn how to identify the actual limiting factor and choose the right level of intervention.

This is where science-to-practice thinking becomes important.

The science can tell us what matters.

But practice determines how it gets done.

The hierarchy is not rigid

This does not mean everyone must follow the same linear hierarchy forever.

Real practice is messier than that.

Sometimes an advanced strategy can motivate someone.

Sometimes a supplement is useful while the bigger work continues.

Sometimes a competition demands a more urgent intervention.

Sometimes an elite athlete already has strong foundations and needs refinement.

Sometimes a simple change in timing, supplementation, or race-day strategy can make a meaningful difference.

The point is not that advanced strategies are unnecessary.

The point is that they should be matched to the context.

A good practitioner does not dismiss advanced tools.

But they also do not reach for them automatically.

They ask whether the tool fits the problem.

What experts often come back to

One of the reasons I am looking forward to the return of We Do Science is that the best expert conversations often come back to this point.

Experts may study highly specific mechanisms, methods, or interventions.

But when the conversation turns to practice, the message is often more grounded.

Get the foundations right.
Understand the context.
Do not overstate the evidence.
Know who the intervention is for.
Know what problem it solves.
Respect the practical constraints.
Monitor the response.
Adjust when needed.

That does not make the conversation less sophisticated.

It makes it more useful.

Because the sophistication is not in making everything complicated.

The sophistication is in knowing what matters most.

Applied Practice Takeaways

Before adding a more advanced nutrition strategy, ask:

1. What is the actual limiting factor?​
Do not assume the most visible issue is the real problem.

2. Are the foundations stable?​
Energy intake, protein, carbohydrate availability, hydration, meal structure, recovery, and adherence often matter more than fine-tuning.

3. Is the advanced strategy solving a real problem?​
A strategy is only useful if it addresses something that is actually limiting the outcome.

4. Can the person implement it consistently?​
The best plan is not the most sophisticated plan. It is the most appropriate plan that can be applied.

5. How will we know whether it worked?​
Define the outcome before adding complexity.

The practical point

Advanced strategies have their place.

But they are not automatically more valuable.

Sometimes the better intervention is not more complexity.

It is better execution of the fundamentals.

In sport and exercise nutrition, the goal is not to appear advanced.

The goal is to make better decisions.

That means understanding the evidence, identifying the constraint, respecting the context, and choosing the intervention that is most likely to improve the outcome.

Sometimes that will be a marginal gain.

But often, it starts with fixing the basics.

---

To better practice,
​Dr Laurent Bannock