Episode 247
Title: Functional Medicine or Dysfunctional Medicine?
Host: Dr. Nicole Rivera
Guest: Brendan Vermeire
________________
Transcription:
Hello, everyone. Welcome back to another episode of Integrative You Radio. If you're on video with us, my hat is disappearing with this lovely green screen I’ve got going on. So, hey, sometimes I have a hat on, and other times I don’t!
We have a lovely guest today, a dear friend of mine, Brendan Vermeire. Did I say it right? Like Oscar Mayer, he said. You'll never forget that! I'll never forget it. He runs two different companies, and I’m going to let him share a little bit more about that. But Metabolic Solutions has been such an amazing avenue of education for other practitioners in our functional medicine arena.
We just had a fantastic, passionate conversation before getting on this podcast about our industry. The theme of this podcast is: Functional Medicine or Dysfunctional Medicine? It’s going to be a good one, guys, so buckle up, strap in, and get ready! Before we dive into the topic, I want Brendan to tell you a little bit about himself and what he’s doing. Then we’re just going to go for it.
Brendan: Sounds good. I appreciate you having me, Nicole. It’s been too long, and I’m excited to do this show with you. We should definitely get you on my show, and I’m sure we’ll continue the conversation because it might get a little spicy today. That’s something I think we’ve always bonded over—we both like to keep it raw, real, and candid. I don’t want to disillusion anybody, and I think there’s way too much of that in this space, as I’m sure we’ll get into.
So, just to help everybody understand what I’m all about, I’m really passionate about teaching a more functional approach to mental and metabolic health. My background is in metabolic physiology, biochemistry, fitness, and nutrition—that’s where I started. I think there’s a severe lack of that in the functional medicine space, though it’s starting to get better. These days, I’m seeing more white-coat doctors get up on stage and say things like, “Oh, muscle fixes everything.” Great, that's the cutting-edge science that’s circulating right now.
I run a few different businesses. I’ve got an institute where I train practitioners. I’ve got a practice where we work with clients and offer educational resources. I also have a not-for-profit research and education foundation. That’s the long-term dream, but it’s not fully operational because I don’t have any funding or donors. I’m just a bootstrapping entrepreneur trying to do good in the world. The foundation’s goal is to provide public education on optimizing mental and metabolic health, while also serving those in need and doing clinical research. I have some commercial partners I’m doing research with, and I hope to replicate this model further through the foundation over time. I’m still getting the word out and getting operations up and running.
Nicole: I love it. It’s interesting what you’re saying about the bigger picture and the bigger dream because I personally classify myself as an investigator and a data junkie. People will say, “Oh, you’re a doctor,” but I’m literally an investigator, and I’m obsessed with data. I really don’t like the aspect of our industry where people are either using textbooks—because unfortunately, that’s not helping the population at this point—or treating everyone the same. They find the so-called root cause, and nowadays you’ll hear, “Oh, your nervous system is stressed,” or “Everything is in your gut.” In our industry, something new is trending every few months, and everybody wants to get on the bandwagon and talk about it. But in reality, we’re confusing people.
Brendan: Exactly, and that was the highlight of what we were talking about earlier. We’re confusing people, and there’s such a sea of mixed and bad information out there. I try to look at situations from all angles. Too often, I think it’s just immaturity, arrogance, and emotional reactivity—everyone wants to point the finger. Patients or clients will say, “Conventional medicine failed me, and then functional medicine failed me, and I’m a victim.” Functional medicine practitioners, in turn, point the finger back, and it becomes a blame game. But it’s a co-created problem. A lot of it is propagated by the nature of the internet, especially social media and its algorithms, which encourage content that’s provocative. You need a neurological hook to grab fleeting attention instantly, so content creators use sensationalized and exaggerated language. You either have to seduce people, piss them off, or enchant them in a millisecond just to get them to pay attention. That’s what’s encouraged, and it’s creating too many fads, too much sensationalism, and a lack of nuance.
Nicole: I agree. We’re definitely overcomplicating things. A lot of these over-complications are driven by things that are pretty theoretical. For example, I was recently updating my methylation and nutrigenomics course, and in that course, I used an example about how everyone is freaking out over MTHFR because of a recent Joe Rogan podcast. People focus on this one gene when, in reality, the human genome has about 20,000 to 25,000 protein-coding genes, and there are over 88 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) identified. So, people are looking at maybe 200 to 300 SNPs out of 88 million. Yet, they’ll ask, “What’s the supplement protocol for this SNP?” That’s the problem.
Brendan: Exactly! Functional medicine practitioners—even those with good intentions—often perpetuate sensationalism, reductionism, and over-complication. This pulls people down the rabbit hole of confused consumerism while ignoring the foundations of health.
Nicole: Yes, and it’s interesting because we’ve seen this trend in functional medicine marketing, where practitioners are told to “niche down.” What are you a doctor of? In conventional medicine, you go to a specialist for a certain organ or system, and that has influenced functional medicine. Now you see profiles on social media where functional medicine doctors specialize in hormones, fertility, brain inflammation, etc. But behind the scenes, that’s not how the body works. Everything is integrated.
Brendan: Exactly. And genetics is a great example. It’s fine to want to research and learn more about your body and genetics, but people need to understand that genetics is just a piece of data. It’s not about labeling yourself with limitations. For example, “Oh, I have MTHFR, so I don’t detox well,” or “I have MTHFR, so I’m going to have neurological issues.” That’s not the point. The point is to understand more about your body and let that knowledge inform your decisions—whether it’s about diet, medication, or environmental factors.
Nicole: I completely agree. Objectivity is so important. I would say the biggest thing I’m always preaching is objectivity in the healing process. You have to track progress with objective data—whether that’s biomarkers or other metrics. When clients ask, “How do I know if I have this issue?” I say, “You test.” And when they ask, “How do I know if I’ve fixed it?” I say, “You test again.”
Brendan: Exactly. That’s why I got into lab testing early in my career. A lot of my clients were just regular people trying to get healthier, but they wanted to base their success on how they felt. I’d tell them we needed objective parameters—biomarkers that were sensitive and accurate. For example, if someone’s pre-diabetic, their insulin, HbA1c, lipids, and liver enzymes will improve before they feel a difference in how their clothes fit or how they feel. Objectivity cuts through all the noise.
Nicole: And adding to what you’re saying, we also need to help clients understand what progress looks like. Sometimes you’re working on something like detox, and biomarkers might not be better at first, but they’re responding the way they should for the stage of the process you’re in. It’s our job to help people see that.
Brendan: Absolutely. The body doesn’t heal in a linear way, and we need to track objective progress over time. Unfortunately, a lot of clients come to me with a stack of labs from previous practitioners, but there’s no follow-up testing. They ran a test once, but never re-evaluated to see progress or adjust protocols. That’s where I think we need better follow-through.
Nicole: That’s a huge problem, for sure. Practitioners need to have a proprietary process in place to track progress. And for me, that’s why I don’t work with people on a la carte bases anymore. I’ve realized that people don’t know what to do unless we, as practitioners, give them clear processes.
Brendan: Absolutely. You have to follow through with long-term blood work and see trends over time. That’s where the real progress happens.
Nicole: Yes, I love being able to show clients those trends—whether it’s something dramatic like an autoimmune condition improving or cholesterol coming down. It’s so powerful to show people what their body is capable of when given the right support. That’s not to say they won’t face future health challenges, but it’s a reminder of their body’s resilience.
Brendan: Exactly. And this is where we, as practitioners, need to educate and empower clients. Healing isn’t about giving a one-size-fits-all protocol; it’s about creating a personalized plan based on objective data.
**Nicole
