Why research needs more nutritionists

Nutritionists do research every day, though we call it nutrition consulting. When a client comes to us, we consider how their body functions as a system, not by breaking symptoms down into individual organs. We also consider how one change, such as increasing carbohydrate intake, will affect the entire body, and even the mitochondria, and how hormones are signaled. When someone comes to us with symptoms they have never experienced before, and they have been to doctor after doctor with no improvement, such as new food intolerances and GI symptoms disrupting their everyday life, we look at them as a scientist would. We think about what has worked, what hasn’t worked, and what we could try. We ask: What is the minimum I can recommend that will have the greatest impact? We do trial and error with clients daily, that is, research. We consider supplements such as slippery elm, marshmallow root, L-glutamine, and other soothing botanicals, vitamins, and minerals that will bridge the gap and improve symptoms. So, how does all of this equate to research?

As I said, nutritionists are doing research daily. We have protocols we design specifically for individuals that we know have either worked before or we are trying out to give the most relief. However, most nutritionists do not consider their work research-worthy, or even worth submitting to a medical journal, because we have been made to feel that what we are doing is minimal and not groundbreaking compared to pharmaceutical companies. But I like to think of it differently. If we published our work on how we use L-glutamine and slippery elm for chronic diarrhea or when clients have new food intolerances, then doctors may read our case studies and prescribe supplements with fewer side effects over a very powerful pharmaceutical medication. Or if we published research on why we believe dysbiosis and leaky gut are not made-up symptoms, then maybe we could influence the scientific community to consider our clients differently.

Moreover, nutritionists spend more time with their clients because many of us are private pay. We can report how clients feel and how quickly their symptoms change. We also see our clients more regularly. We speak with them at least once a month for a video call and have weekly chats. We know more about what is happening with them, their symptoms, and their experience, and we can make a change more quickly than a doctor. That provides a unique opportunity in research because you have deep knowledge of the client experience that doctors lack. Including these details in research allows clients to remain human and be considered based on their voices.

These elements make our case reports, studies, or series essential in the medical world. They can guide practitioners in understanding how best to support their patients without reaching for a prescription pad. Moreover, most doctors do not take nutrition courses, so they may not identify certain symptoms as a vitamin D and zinc deficiency and may recommend a prescription instead. Our research can fill that gap for practitioners.

But doesn’t research have to be peer-reviewed to be published? Yes. Will peers take our work seriously when we try to publish? Yes and no. I have published two research papers as a lead author, and have received widely varying responses to my work. My first piece of work was on the effects of GLP-1 on mitochondrial function. I received feedback praising my work as valuable, and someone told me they thought I was the dumbest person on the planet for how I considered the client and their symptoms. You need a thick skin when submitting research. My second piece of work focused on red-light helmet therapy for mood disorders. That manuscript had high praise, and no one mentioned how dumb I was, so you never know when you submit your work. However, that should not be a reason to minimize your voice in the research space. We are all supporting clients and pioneering new ways of thinking about symptoms and care. That is worth sharing with the scientific community.