4 practitionersJonathan Spages, Joy Grout, Talib Ahmad, Craig Mortensen
Conflicting research makes it difficult to create effective, health-specific meal plans for clients. This article explores four practical strategies that help practitioners cut through contradictory studies and build nutrition plans that actually work. These approaches draw on insights from registered dietitians and nutrition experts who regularly face this challenge in clinical practice.
When research conflicts, I don't believe the answer is simply choosing one study or one diet and applying it to everyone. In my functional medicine approach, I use the research as a guide, but I also look closely at the individual patient's laboratory results and how their body is actually responding.
Type 2 diabetes is a great example. You can find research supporting low-carbohydrate, Mediterranean, plant-based, intermittent fasting, and other dietary approaches. Instead of arguing that one diet is universally best, I look at the patient's labs. I may evaluate glucose, A1C, fasting insulin, triglycerides, liver markers, thyroid function, inflammation markers, and other testing when clinically appropriate.
Two patients can have the same diabetes diagnosis but very different laboratory patterns. One may have significant insulin resistance and fatty liver concerns, while another may have thyroid, stress hormone, or digestive issues contributing to the bigger metabolic picture. Their nutritional strategies shouldn't automatically be identical.
I then monitor objective markers over time. Is A1C improving? Is fasting insulin changing? Are triglycerides improving? Is the patient feeling and functioning better? If the labs aren't moving in the right direction, I don't keep recommending something simply because a particular study says it should work.
The most important lesson I've learned is that evidence-based medicine and individualized care don't have to compete. Research tells us what may work across populations. Laboratory testing can help us determine what is actually happening with the individual sitting in front of us.
With over 20 years as a certified health coach and therapeutic recreation specialist working across clinical settings, I navigate contradictory nutritional noise by anchoring directly to foundational human physiology.
For instance, while popular trends often push extreme caloric restriction for clients using GLP-1 medications, research warns that stopping without proper lifestyle habits can cause patients to regain up to two-thirds of their lost weight.
I resolve this conflict by shifting the focus away from restrictive dieting and toward clean, whole foods, adequate protein, and glycemic index awareness to combat fatigue and protect lean muscle mass.
When research conflicts, look past quick-fix fads and prioritize small, sustainable whole-food swaps that genuinely support long-term energy, muscle retention, and cognitive health.
Conflicting nutrition research is normal, so I start by looking at the weight of the evidence rather than a single headline or study. I give more weight to systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, established clinical guidelines, and findings that have been replicated. Then I consider how closely the research population actually resembles the person I'm working with.
A good example is carbohydrate intake for blood sugar management. You can find research supporting lower-carbohydrate approaches, while other evidence supports Mediterranean-style or higher-fiber eating patterns that still contain meaningful amounts of carbohydrates. I don't interpret that as meaning one side must be wrong.
Instead, I focus on the areas where the evidence overlaps: reducing refined carbohydrates and added sugars, prioritizing fiber-rich foods, pairing carbohydrates with protein and healthy fats, controlling portions, and choosing an eating pattern the person can sustain. For someone managing a diagnosed medical condition, I also keep recommendations within my scope and coordinate with their physician or registered dietitian rather than independently changing medical nutrition therapy.
As a NASM Certified Nutrition Coach (CNC), ISSA Nutritionist, and CISSN, I've learned that evidence-based nutrition isn't about pretending the science is always settled. It's about being transparent about uncertainty while still giving people useful, responsible guidance.
Craig MortensenFunctional Medicine Practitioner | IFMCP | Founder of Premier Integrative & Functional Medicine, Premier IFMIn our office, we avoid diets altogether. We have a few reasons for this: 1. it is too restrictive, and 2. you are always going to find the new "latest and greatest" diet making headlines; sometimes it is a repeat of an older diet, or it contradicts the newest latest and greatest from a few years prior. In our office, we don't chase diet fads, and we don't like to lock patients into one strict diet. We go back to the basics: which foods are genuinely nutrient-dense, which foods are inflammatory for almost everyone, and, more specifically, which foods don't react well with that particular patient's body.
Grains are a good example of the conflicting research. Our take is that, in reality, it depends on the person and the grain. Some patients do fine on whole grains like rolled oats or steel-cut oats; in fact, some people with high cholesterol respond extremely well to having a bowl of oats a day, while others don't tolerate grains well at all. It is really about the individual.
There is one thing in our office we don't budge on regardless of which diet trend is popular: avoid processed foods, period; they drive inflammation and offer nothing good to the body. Build meals around nutrient-dense proteins, ideally organic and grass-fed or free-range, then organic vegetables with fruit in moderation. Don't over-sweeten food, include a protein source at every meal, and skip the snacking. Those basics are habits we teach our patients, and they give them more freedom with meal planning. These "rules" also allow for occasional eating out without feeling guilty.
