Torwen:
Hello and welcome back to the Ideal Nutrition Podcast. My name is Torwen, and I’m here with my co-host Aidan. Hope you’re having a wonderful day wherever you’re listening from. Today we will share rapid-fire thoughts on five diet trends. We will explore the carnivore diet, raw dairy, intermittent fasting, electrolyte drink hype, and GLP-1 medication diets. I’m excited for this one, are you?
Aidan:
Yeah, I’m keen. This is a new format for us. As we were prepping, I was thinking we could do heaps of these. If anyone listening has feedback, let us know. If you don’t like it, let us know. We may or may not do more based on that. If there are topics you want us to cover, we can take feedback as well. I want to start with a trend that should have ended early. Somehow it’s still going. Let’s talk about the carnivore diet. We will do pros and cons. I’m going to start with some pros. The main easy, obvious one is weight loss.
If you only eat carnivore and exclude everything else, you likely end up in a calorie deficit. Most people who go carnivore see weight loss. You could argue that is a pro. Another debatable pro is avoiding triggers and intolerances. It avoids many common triggers, which can improve symptoms and conditions.
Torwen:
I want to back onto this. You often see online that people report reduced bloating. They suddenly feel better and have more energy. Carnivore seems to work initially for symptoms because it cuts foods like FODMAPs and some food chemicals. These can cause gas and bloating for many people. When you cut them out, you will often feel better initially.
Aidan:
If we focus on the long term, you may do your gut health a disservice. Any plant-based variety supports a good gut microbiome. It helps you get enough fibre and micronutrients as well. It can also create a self-fulfilling loop that makes reintroduction hard. I see people go carnivore, symptoms improve, then plants are added back.
They get symptoms straight away and say, see, I was right. I can’t eat that. It is often talked about in that lens. I can’t eat anything else because of this. In many cases this is created by a lack of diversity. That changes the microbiome and bacteria that break down these foods. Very slow exposure could help reintroduce these foods.
Torwen:
There are other cons. There isn’t much research on long-term carnivore diets. That is an issue for a few reasons. When your diet is mainly meat, saturated fat intake is higher. We then see high cholesterol and LDL levels more often. Kidney function could be affected due to very high protein. We don’t know long-term implications for sure.
Aidan:
Going on from that, fibre intake is very low. We have clear long-term data showing high fibre intake is good. It reduces chronic disease risk. I find the confidence from some leaders interesting. They claim proposed problems are not issues. A common line is high cholesterol without high blood glucose is fine. Fibre is not essential, so it’s not an issue if we don’t have it.
We have a lot of data that suggests otherwise. I won’t name names. One leader reported an LDL of about 15 mmol/L. There is a lot of confidence that this is not an issue. For anyone listening, that is extremely high. I’ve been a dietitian for 10 years. That is higher than I have ever seen in a patient. It would take extreme confidence to believe that is fine.
You go back to your point. There isn’t much long-term data. There also isn’t much anecdotal data. Few people exist with an LDL of 15 to confirm it is fine. Food for thought.
Torwen:
I looked at some studies as well. If we look at overall nutrient composition, we fall short in many nutrients. It’s not just fibre and high fats. We often fall short in calcium, vitamin C, thiamine, iron, folate, iodine, and potassium. Many intakes are well below recommended levels.
Aidan:
There are ways around this. A well-executed carnivore diet might go nose-to-tail. Nutrient-rich foods like liver can help. Some people include a few foods outside strict carnivore to avoid gaps. I still see big implications below this. I’ve worked with intelligent people on near-carnivore diets. They were not doing the full comprehensive approach. They had clear gaps.
If I ask why the gaps exist, they say they don’t like liver. Fair enough, but the gaps remain. Cool, we could say a lot about carnivore. Let’s move into raw dairy, which has taken off recently. I’ve been seeing it everywhere, often from near-carnivore circles. I don’t have positives to start with. I’ll talk about common claims first.
People say raw milk is more natural. Others say it’s more nutrient dense or has probiotics. Another claim is that it contains lactase and is easier to digest. I’ve seen both claims. Let’s unpack the lactose intolerance claim first.
Torwen:
There’s a claim that lactose-intolerant people can drink raw milk. It isn’t backed by science. I’ve seen a study on lactose malabsorption showing no benefit. Lactose was just as malabsorbed. There were no symptom improvements.
Aidan:
Mechanistically, raw milk does not contain the lactase enzyme. That claim isn’t true. A randomised controlled trial compared raw milk to placebo. They measured symptoms rather than enzyme content. They asked, does this cause fewer symptoms? It didn’t. That claim is off the table. It’s fascinating the claim is common on TikTok. I could almost understand a digestion claim. The odd claim is that raw milk contains a good amount of lactase.
Torwen:
Other negatives matter too. Many studies link unpasteurised milk with contamination. That is the big one. Pasteurisation exists to make milk safe for consumption. E. coli, Salmonella, and Listeria can be present in raw milk.
Aidan:
Agreed, and that is the biggest concern. If there were positives, I’d be more open to it. We are not seeing easier digestion. The probiotics claim is interesting, but raw milk isn’t high in probiotics. People argue pasteurisation destroys probiotics. Raw milk still isn’t high in probiotics.
There are many other ways to get probiotics. Nutritionally, differences between raw and pasteurised milk are minimal. It is illegal to sell raw milk for human consumption in Australia. Some use high-pressure processing to kill bacteria without heat. In Australia, it’s still hard to buy raw milk unless you buy directly from farms.
In America there are other access pathways. An intelligent safety argument highlights stricter testing and batch checks. That is fair. I still don’t see the need to risk it. The nutritional difference is minimal.
Torwen:
Shall we move on to intermittent fasting? This one is not recent. It has been around forever. It is still relevant. Let’s do pros and cons. A pro is that it can reduce calories easily. Anecdotally, many people report weight loss. Almost every randomised controlled trial on intermittent fasting shows weight loss.
Aidan:
I would hesitate over two-plus years. Would you still see that? In shorter studies, we see weight loss. It can reduce calories for many people. Another proposed benefit is autophagy. It could carry over to reduced cancer risk and healing. We will talk more about that later.
Torwen:
Like you said, this could work for some people. Caloric intake reduces because a meal and snack are often cut. Overall daily intake reduces. Problems arise when the eating window shrinks, but intake stays the same. What have you seen in practice?
Aidan:
I’ve had people wanting to do intermittent fasting while eating maintenance calories. They eat energy-dense meals within the eight-hour window. I often see half-hearted intermittent fasting. People skip breakfast and extend the window a little. It’s not always 16:8. People who stick with 16:8 often do it long term. That makes sense.
Other downsides include hunger for some people. Many who fast say they don’t feel hungry. Fair enough. Many people also report fatigue. I think the fatigue is often ignored. People may talk themselves into believing it isn’t there. Others report the opposite and feel mentally clear. That’s why I say, for many people.
Many who go long periods without eating don’t feel as good. Some feel light-headed and get headaches. Intake of certain micronutrients likely becomes inadequate. Absorption is impacted as the window compresses. The fewer meals you have, the more nutrients compete for absorption. Iron, zinc, magnesium, and calcium are examples.
Many micronutrients have loose caps per sitting. Calcium is a clear example. The RDI for most is around 1000 mg. Supplements are usually split twice per day. Two doses of 600 mg are common. We can’t absorb 1000 mg in one sitting easily. A compressed window makes meeting needs harder.
People also miss things due to meal choices. Breakfast-type foods drop with 16:8 fasting. Does this reduce wholegrains and fruit? It often does.
Torwen:
Often the goal is fat loss. Other goals may compete, like muscle gain. If the window shrinks and foods don’t change, protein can drop. You might miss macronutrients too. There are a few things to consider.
Aidan:
On the positive side, research shows lean mass is often retained. That’s when people are in a deficit with sufficient protein. We lack research on surpluses for optimal muscle gain. Most trials end up in deficits, as noted. We’ve spoken about protein distribution benefits before. Speculatively, it may be slightly suboptimal. We lack like-for-like comparisons.
A neutral take is autophagy. With my best interpretation, if you match calories long term, it likely balances out. We see far more autophagy acutely during fasting. That makes sense with no intake. Extended fasts show more autophagy. If one person fasts three days a month, then matches calories monthly, it may balance out.
Many things are missing in that discussion. Exercise increases autophagy. This is rarely brought up. It’s not the only way to achieve autophagy. The process occurs regularly. It isn’t simply on or off with fasting. We just see it more pronounced during fasting. I can’t say with 100% confidence that it balances out. We lack research, but I believe it likely occurs.
Torwen:
Let’s move to electrolyte drink hype. This trend is everywhere lately. In the last year, everyone is using electrolyte supplements. Influencers market them for daily use. Every morning, pour it in your bottle and drink.
Aidan:
If you listen to many podcasts, you’ll hear this too. I won’t name brands. Some focus their marketing on replacing morning coffee with electrolytes. People report feeling energised. I’m going to start with a negative. The average person doesn’t need electrolytes for hydration. Many companies market it as essential.
The average person already consumes enough sodium. If anything, intake leans too high. Adding high sodium could be risky for high blood pressure. Some mixes have 1000 mg sodium per serve. The RDI is around 2000 to 2300 mg in many situations. Athletes go higher. The average person isn’t an elite athlete. I would do different things for elite athletes.
Torwen:
That’s where the problem lies. It’s marketed to the general population. Another con is cost. You will likely feel good with a big glass of water in the morning. Many people don’t need electrolytes daily.
Aidan:
For athletes, there are pros. They help replace sweat losses of sodium and potassium. They support muscle function, nerve signalling, and fluid balance. They are good for rehydration when used at the right times. It’s more about when we recommend them, not all day.
I start with context and what we get from food. I’ve done videos comparing supplements with a random Muscle Chef meal. That meal had 1600 mg sodium. Most frozen meals have a good amount of sodium. Electrolytes also include potassium and magnesium. That same meal often has more potassium and magnesium than supplements.
A good diet can cover a lot. As long as you don’t exclude sodium, you’ll get enough. There are times with athletes when we use supplements. For a three-hour marathon, I include electrolytes before, during, and after. Many runners feel light-headed post-race. Sodium often solves that. Food is hard during a marathon. Supplements make sense there.
Torwen:
They are super beneficial for long or intense sessions. Heavy sweaters may need more. We often assess sweat rate in clinic. If someone has gastro or is extremely dehydrated, they can also help. It always comes back to daily use. Most people don’t need them daily.
Aidan:
Another case is POTS. For some people with POTS, I push sodium intake higher. In general, we do two to three thousand-milligram doses per day. Some go up to five to six thousand. You could get that through food. Supplements are often more convenient. Cost can be debated. Salt works, but convenience matters. That’s everything I’ve got on that.
Torwen:
The big thing is to avoid falling for marketing. It pushed daily use when it isn’t needed. Now let’s talk about GLP-1 agonist supportive guidance. This shows up on my TikTok more than yours. I’ll share what I’ve seen most. There are two variations.
Aidan:
The first is foods or approaches that raise GLP-1 levels. This is not about medication use. People want to raise GLP-1 naturally to help hunger. That is a flawed idea. Natural GLP-1 spikes are quick and drop fast. It does not move appetite much. GLP-1 agonist medications get around this problem.
To be clear, we mean Ozempic, Wegovy, and semaglutide. I’m neutral on these. I see pros and cons, like any medication. That’s enough on that take. When could supportive diets be bad? It’s when people act like diets must be dramatically different. They push special foods unrelated to deficits or symptom management.
When could a GLP-1 supportive diet be good? Many common issues arise on these medications. Anything that addresses those issues is good. We can list the issues and work backwards. Muscle mass loss is a common concern. One study showed decent weight loss with 40% from lean mass.
Comments often say these medications cause muscle loss or bone loss. Based on mechanisms, that’s unlikely. This happens when you lose weight on a low-protein diet without exercise. The medication could make weight loss easier. That could indirectly reduce exercise rates. I’m not saying people take an easy way out. It just becomes easier to lose weight.
Protein intake often drops with nausea and low appetite. We should address that. I always encourage exercise. Then we add strategies to increase protein. We also help people fuel training so sessions feel better. It’s harder to train if you feel bad. Constipation and nausea are very common problems.
Many stop medication because of these symptoms. I wish I could help manage those issues. There are many options for constipation and nausea. Low overall intake is also common. People often have a massive calorie deficit. We can support that with more nutrient-rich intake. A multivitamin could cover some gaps. These are positive ways to support GLP-1 diets.
Torwen:
I’m also neutral. I agree with much of that. If we optimise diet while on GLP-1 medication, that’s ideal. The issue is seeing it as a magic fix without diet change. If discretionary foods stay high, problems increase. The medications change how you digest food. High fat can increase reflux and nausea. That becomes a problem. Change intake to make the most of medication and optimise diet. That is the happy medium.
Aidan:
I’m optimistic. I view it as these medications don’t stop people changing diets. All else equal, this can still fit. If you hear me not mentioning it, it’s optimism. Of course I encourage exercise. Of course I encourage diet change. Anything else you want to add?
Torwen:
No, that covers everything. That’s all five. As we wrote this out, we saw heaps more topics. If anyone has feedback, please let us know.
Aidan:
Thank you for listening. This has been episode 224 on five current diet trends. We hope you learnt something. Please leave us a rating and review if you haven’t already. Thank you.