A Note to Nutritionists Concerned about AI

I've been reflecting on how AI will impact us as nutritionists. Will tools like Gemini determine nutritional needs faster? Will ChatGPT offer better advice for resolving symptoms? How can nutritionists maintain their expertise and accountability when clients can simply turn to AI, input their symptoms, diet, and lifestyle, and instantly receive an entire protocol?

I started thinking about this question, I asked Gemini if it would replace me. Gemini reported: “No, because as an AI tool, I cannot manage multiple systems at one time. I cannot keep a continuous thought or thesis for longer than 300 words.” That intrigued me from an academic and neurological perspective, but it also gave me insight into something unique about nutritionists that is not often shared in other health fields. We hold multiple organ systems and cellular mechanisms at once. Hear me out, you hear a client has imbalanced hormones and also constipation. In the traditional medical world, that is two separate doctors’ appointments, and the GI doctor is not going to ask about hormones, and the OBGYN is not going to ask about gut symptoms. However, when a client goes to a nutritionist, we think, "Huh, I wonder what is happening with this person’s thyroid and if they should get that checked out to begin with?”

“I wonder what their carbohydrate, fiber, electrolytes, and hydration intake are like, which could be contributing to constipation.”

“I wonder what is happening with their detoxification pathways in their liver and if that needs more support to help with the hormones.”

“I wonder if they are having brain fog and if this imbalance is affecting their mental health.”

Nutritionists do not see a single symptom as a problem with one specific organ system. We look at the body, its pathways, how everything down to the mitochondria is communicating with each other, and how that communication has a vast amount of consequences. We know that tweaking small things and making small adjustments can have a huge impact. And we have to think this way because we do not have access to pharmaceuticals, so, in a way, it's like we are working with our hands tied behind our backs. So what is my takeaway from this? AI cannot consider all of these elements at once and return a coherent stream of information to us, or to the client.

Research from Rubin et al. (2025) has shown that humans perceive AI as lacking genuine empathy and support, which are essential when providing health care. People remember the doctor with a terrible bedside manner,, regardless of how good he was at his job. The way the doctor made them feel is what they value. The same is true of AI and us as nutritionists. Our superpower is that we listen, take notes, focus on what has and has not worked, and let the client have their moment to share their history. We do not rush. The nuance and empathy that arise from that level of detail cannot be copied by AI. The empathy and human discernment are invaluable. This idea is supported by CEO, Jensen Huang, who believes that AI will not destroy jobs in healthcare but increase them. He cited a radiology study that found AI was used to understand imaging, but it did not replace humans. A human was needed to diagnose the problem, and the AI was needed to scan the image. AI increased the number of radiology jobs instead of shrinking them. Patients still wanted human discernment in diagnosis, not AI.

What about clients who claim to 'do their own research,' but are really consulting AI and reading blogs? This is where nutritionists stand out. We educate clients on the latest peer-reviewed research, clarify industry trends, and explain how science evolves. I remind clients that blogs are not research; they’re unreviewed opinions. If they don’t understand the difference between correlation and causation, or what makes for rigorous research, it’s our role to guide them. Otherwise, they’re mistaking opinion for evidence.

We can also offer information that AI cannot, because we can read research published this week that won’t get picked up by AI, which is 8 months behind. Moreover, humans have to actually do the research; AI cannot do it for us. So if we have clients with unique symptoms or side effects, we are the ones writing case reports and case series. We are directing informed care. AI will just pick up what we publish and reshare it. Fundamentally, we are pioneering new ideas that our clients will come to trust.

So, where does this leave nutritionists? AI can support us by tracking notes, managing clinical documentation, and cross-referencing research. But it cannot replace our ability to see the human body as a complex, interconnected system, or to make precise adjustments that support healing. Most importantly, it cannot offer the discernment and empathy essential for clients suffering with chronic symptoms. Humans need humans. As reliance on AI grows, we may see more clients struggling with loneliness and the fallout from misguided AI advice, making our expertise and personal connection more vital than ever.

References:

Jensen Huang, https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/04/jensen-huang-cited-radiologists-to-dispute-ai-jobs-impact.html

Kosuke Imai: https://www.hertie-school.org/en/content/detail/content/human-vs-ai-decision-making-insights-from-professor-kosuke-imais-talk

Rubin, M., Li, J.Z., Zimmerman, F. et al. Comparing the value of perceived human versus AI-generated empathy. Nat Hum Behav 9, 2345–2359 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02247-w