|
"Brink's Unified Theory of
Nutrition"
When people hear the term Unified Theory, some times called the Grand
Unified Theory, or even "Theory of Everything," they probably think of
it in terms of physics, where a Unified Theory, or single theory capable
of defining the nature of the interrelationships among nuclear,
electromagnetic, and gravitational forces, would reconcile seemingly
incompatible aspects of various field theories to create a single
comprehensive set of equations.
Such a theory could
potentially unlock all the secrets of nature and the universe itself, or
as theoretical physicist Michio Katu, puts it "an equation an inch long
that would allow us to read the mind of God." That's how important
unified theories can be. However, unified theories don't have to deal
with such heady topics as physics or the nature of the universe itself,
but can be applied to far more mundane topics, in this case nutrition.
Regardless of the topic, a
unified theory, as sated above, seeks to explain seemingly incompatible
aspects of various theories. In this article I attempt to unify
seemingly incompatible or opposing views regarding nutrition, namely,
what is probably the longest running debate in the nutritional sciences:
calories vs. macro nutrients.
One school, I would say
the 'old school' of nutrition, maintains weight loss or weight gain is
all about calories, and "a calorie is a calorie," no matter the source
(e.g., carbs, fats, or proteins). They base their position on various
lines of evidence to come to that conclusion.
The other school, I would
call more the 'new school' of thought on the issue, would state that
gaining or losing weight is really about where the calories come from
(e.g., carbs, fats, and proteins), and that dictates weight loss or
weight gain. Meaning, they feel, the "calorie is a calorie" mantra of
the old school is wrong. They too come to this conclusion using various
lines of evidence.
This has been an ongoing
debate between people in the field of nutrition, biology, physiology,
and many other disciplines, for decades. The result of which has led to
conflicting advice and a great deal of confusion by the general public,
not to mention many medical professionals and other groups.
|
Diet Supplements Revealed, the #1 Diet
Supplement E-book on the Internet. If you are looking for
information on weight loss and Diet Supplements, this is the
E-book that you have been looking for! |
Muscle Building Nutrition! The
information contained in this E-book is vital if you are serious
about gaining lean muscle mass. This is a must read for any
serious athlete! |
Before I go any further,
two key points that are essential to understand about any unified
theory:
-
A good unified theory
is simple, concise, and understandable even to lay people. However,
underneath, or behind that theory, is often a great deal of
information that can take up many volumes of books. So, for me to
outline all the information I have used to come to these
conclusions, would take a large book, if not several and is far
beyond the scope of this article.
-
A unified theory is
often proposed by some theorist before it can even be proven or
fully supported by physical evidence. Over time, different lines of
evidence, whether it be mathematical, physical, etc., supports the
theory and thus solidifies that theory as being correct, or
continued lines of evidence shows the theory needs to be revised or
is simply incorrect. I feel there is now more than enough evidence
at this point to give a unified theory of nutrition and continuing
lines of evidence will continue (with some possible revisions) to
solidify the theory as fact.
"A calorie is a
calorie"
The old school of nutrition, which often includes most nutritionists, is
a calorie is a calorie when it comes to gaining or losing weight. That
weight loss or weight gain is strictly a matter of "calories in,
calories out." Translated, if you "burn" more calories than you take in,
you will lose weight regardless of the calorie source and if you eat
more calories than you burn off each day, you will gain weight,
regardless of the calorie source.
This long held and
accepted view of nutrition is based on the fact that protein and carbs
contain approx 4 calories per gram and fat approximately 9 calories per
gram and the source of those calories matters not. They base this on the
many studies that finds if one reduces calories by X number each day,
weight loss is the result and so it goes if you add X number of calories
above what you use each day for gaining weight.
However, the "calories in
calories out" mantra fails to take into account modern research that
finds that fats, carbs, and proteins have very different effects on the
metabolism via countless pathways, such as their effects on hormones
(e.g., insulin, leptin, glucagon, etc), effects on hunger and appetite,
thermic effects (heat production), effects on uncoupling proteins
(UCPs), and 1000 other effects that could be mentioned.
Even worse, this school of
thought fails to take into account the fact that even within a macro
nutrient, they too can have different effects on metabolism. This school
of thought ignores the ever mounting volume of studies that have found
diets with different macro nutrient ratios with identical calorie
intakes have different effects on body composition, cholesterol levels,
oxidative stress, etc.
Translated, not only is
the mantra "a calorie us a calorie" proven to be false, "all fats are
created equal" or "protein is protein" is also incorrect. For example,
we no know different fats (e.g. fish oils vs. saturated fats) have
vastly different effects on metabolism and health in general, as we now
know different carbohydrates have their own effects (e.g. high GI vs.
low GI), as we know different proteins can have unique effects.
The "calories don't matter" school of thought
This school of thought will typically tell you that if you eat large
amounts of some particular macro nutrient in their magic ratios,
calories don't matter. For example, followers of ketogenic style diets
that consist of high fat intakes and very low carbohydrate intakes
(i.e., Atkins, etc.) often maintain calories don't matter in such a
diet.
Others maintain if you eat
very high protein intakes with very low fat and carbohydrate intakes,
calories don't matter. Like the old school, this school fails to take
into account the effects such diets have on various pathways and ignore
the simple realities of human physiology, not to mention the laws of
thermodynamics!
The reality is, although
it's clear different macro nutrients in different amounts and ratios
have different effects on weight loss, fat loss, and other metabolic
effects, calories do matter. They always have and they always will. The
data, and real world experience of millions of dieters, is quite clear
on that reality.
The truth behind such
diets is that they are often quite good at suppressing appetite and thus
the person simply ends up eating fewer calories and losing weight. Also,
the weight loss from such diets is often from water vs. fat, at least in
the first few weeks. That's not to say people can't experience
meaningful weight loss with some of these diets, but the effect comes
from a reduction in calories vs. any magical effects often claimed by
proponents of such diets.
Weight loss vs. fat loss!
This is where we get into the crux of the true debate and why the two
schools of thought are not actually as far apart from one another as
they appear to the untrained eye. What has become abundantly clear from
the studies performed and real world evidence is that to lose weight we
need to use more calories than we take in (via reducing calorie intake
and or increasing exercise), but we know different diets have different
effects on the metabolism, appetite, body composition, and other
physiological variables...
Brink's
Unified Theory of Nutrition
...Thus, this reality has
led me to Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition which states:
"Total
calories dictates how much weight a person gains or loses;
macro nutrient ratios dictates what a person gains or loses"
This seemingly simple statement allows people to understand the
differences between the two schools of thought. For example, studies
often find that two groups of people put on the same calorie intakes but
very different ratios of carbs, fats, and proteins will lose different
amounts of bodyfat and or lean body mass (i.e., muscle, bone, etc.).
Some studies find for
example people on a higher protein lower carb diet lose approximately
the same amount of weight as another group on a high carb lower protein
diet, but the group on the higher protein diet lost more actual fat and
less lean body mass (muscle). Or, some studies using the same calorie
intakes but different macro nutrient intakes often find the higher
protein diet may lose less actual weight than the higher carb lower
protein diets, but the actual fat loss is higher in the higher protein
low carb diets. This effect has also been seen in some studies that
compared high fat/low carb vs. high carb/low fat diets. The effect is
usually amplified if exercise is involved as one might expect.
Of course these effects
are not found universally in all studies that examine the issue, but the
bulk of the data is clear: diets containing different macro nutrient
ratios do have different effects on human physiology even when calorie
intakes are identical (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11).
Or, as the authors of
one recent study that looked at the issue concluded:
"Diets with identical energy contents can have different effects on
leptin concentrations, energy expenditure, voluntary food intake, and
nitrogen balance, suggesting that the physiologic adaptations to energy
restriction can be modified by dietary composition."(12)
The point being, there are many studies confirming that the actual ratio
of carbs, fats, and proteins in a given diet can effect what is actually
lost (i.e., fat, muscle, bone, and water) and that total calories has
the greatest effect on how much total weight is lost. Are you starting
to see how my unified theory of nutrition combines the "calorie is a
calorie" school with the "calories don't matter" school to help people
make decisions about nutrition?
Knowing this, it becomes
much easier for people to understand the seemingly conflicting diet and
nutrition advice out there (of course this does not account for the down
right unscientific and dangerous nutrition advice people are subjected
to via bad books, TV, the 'net, and well meaning friends, but that's
another article altogether).
Knowing the above
information and keeping the Unified Theory of Nutrition in mind, leads
us to some important and potentially useful conclusions:
-
An optimal diet
designed to make a person lose fat and retain as much LBM as
possible is not the same as a diet simply designed to lose weight.
-
A nutrition program
designed to create fat loss is not simply a reduced calorie version
of a nutrition program designed to gain weight, and visa versa.
-
Diets need to be
designed with fat loss, NOT just weight loss, as the goal, but total
calories can't be ignored.
-
This is why the diets
I design for people-or write about-for gaining or losing weight are
not simply higher or lower calorie versions of the same diet. In
short: diets plans I design for gaining LBM start with total
calories and build macro nutrient ratios into the number of calories
required. However, diets designed for fat loss (vs. weight loss!)
start with the correct macro nutrient ratios that depend on
variables such as amount of LBM the person carries vs. bodyfat
percent , activity levels, etc., and figure out calories based on
the proper macro nutrient ratios to achieve fat loss with a minimum
loss of LBM. The actual ratio of macro nutrients can be quite
different for both diets and even for individuals.
-
Diets that give the
same macro nutrient ratio to all people (e.g., 40/30/30, or
70,30,10, etc.) regardless of total calories, goals, activity
levels, etc., will always be less than optimal. Optimal macro
nutrient ratios can change with total calories and other variables.
-
Perhaps most
important, the unified theory explains why the focus on weight loss
vs. fat loss by the vast majority of people, including most medical
professionals, and the media, will always fail in the long run to
deliver the results people want.
-
Finally, the Universal
Theory makes it clear that the optimal diet for losing fat, or
gaining muscle, or what ever the goal, must account not only for
total calories, but macro nutrient ratios that optimize metabolic
effects and answer the questions: what effects will this diet have
on appetite? What effects will this diet have on metabolic rate?
What effects will this diet have on my lean body mass (LBM)? What
effects will this diet have on hormones; both hormones that may
improve or impede my goals? What effects will this diet have on
(fill in the blank)?
Simply asking, "how much weight will I lose?" is the wrong question
which will lead to the wrong answer. To get the optimal effects from
your next diet, whether looking to gain weight or lose it, you must
ask the right questions to get meaningful answers.
Asking the right questions will also help you avoid the pitfalls of
unscientific poorly thought out diets which make promises they can't
keep and go against what we know about human physiology and the very
laws of physics!
People that want to know
my thoughts on the correct way to lose fat should read my ebook
Diet Supplements Revealed, see this website
http://www.aboutsupplements.com
If you want to know my
thoughts on the best way to set up a diet to gain weight in the form
of muscle while minimizing bodyfat, consider reading my ebook Muscle
Building Nutrition (AKA Brink's Bodybuilding Bible) at this web site:
http://www.musclebuildingnutrition.com .
BTW, both ebooks also
cover supplements for their respective goals along with exercise advice.
There are of course many
additional questions that can be asked and points that can be raised as
it applies to the above, but those are some of the key issues that come
to mind. Bottom line here is, if the diet you are following to either
gain or loss weight does not address those issues and or questions, then
you can count on being among the millions of disappointed people who
don't receive the optimal results they had hoped for and have made yet
another nutrition "guru" laugh all the way to the bank at your expense.
Any diet that claims
calories don't matter, forget it. Any diet that tells you they have a
magic ratio of foods, ignore it. Any diet that tells you any one food
source is evil, it's a scam. Any diet that tells you it will work for
all people all the time no matter the circumstances, throw it out or
give it to someone you don't like!
About the Author -
William D. Brink
Will Brink is a columnist, contributing consultant, and writer for
various health/fitness, medical, and bodybuilding publications. His
articles relating to nutrition, supplements, weight loss, exercise and
medicine can be found in such publications as Lets Live, Muscle Media
2000, MuscleMag International, The Life Extension Magazine, Muscle n
Fitness, Inside Karate, Exercise For Men Only, Body International,
Power, Oxygen, Penthouse, Women’s World and The Townsend Letter For
Doctors.
He is the author of
Priming The Anabolic Environment and Weight Loss Nutrients Revealed. He
is the Consulting Sports Nutrition Editor and a monthly columnist for
Physical magazine and an Editor at Large for Power magazine. Will
graduated from Harvard University with a concentration in the natural
sciences, and is a consultant to major supplement, dairy, and
pharmaceutical companies.
He has been co author of several studies relating to sports nutrition
and health found in peer reviewed academic journals, as well as having
commentary published in JAMA. He runs the highly popular web site
BrinkZone.com which is strategically positioned to fulfill the needs and
interests of people with diverse backgrounds and knowledge. The
BrinkZone site has a following with many sports nutrition enthusiasts,
athletes, fitness professionals, scientists, medical doctors,
nutritionists, and interested lay people. William has been invited to
lecture on the benefits of weight training and nutrition at conventions
and symposiums around the U.S. and Canada, and has appeared on numerous
radio and television programs.
William has worked with athletes ranging from professional bodybuilders,
golfers, fitness contestants, to police and military personnel.
See Will's ebooks online
here:
Muscle Building
Nutrition
A complete guide bodybuilding supplements and eating to gain lean muscle
Diet Supplements
Revealed
A review of diet supplements and guide to eating for maximum fat loss
He can be contacted at: PO Box 812430
Wellesley MA. 02482.
BrinkZone.com
Email: will@brinkzone.com
Article References:
(1) Farnsworth E, Luscombe
ND, Noakes M, Wittert G, Argyiou E, Clifton PM. Effect of a
high-protein, energy-restricted diet on body composition, glycemic
control, and lipid concentrations in overweight and obese
hyperinsulinemic men and women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Jul;78(1):31-9.
(2) Baba NH, Sawaya S, Torbay N, Habbal Z, Azar S, Hashim SA. High
protein vs high carbohydrate hypoenergetic diet for the treatment of
obese hyperinsulinemic subjects. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1999
Nov;23(11):1202-6.
(3) Parker B, Noakes M, Luscombe N, Clifton P. Effect of a high-protein,
high-monounsaturated fat weight loss diet on glycemic control and lipid
levels in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2002 Mar;25(3):425-30.
(4) Skov AR, Toubro S, Ronn B, Holm L, Astrup A.Randomized trial on
protein vs carbohydrate in ad libitum fat reduced diet for the treatment
of obesity. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1999 May;23(5):528-36.
(5) Piatti PM, Monti F, Fermo I, Baruffaldi L, Nasser R, Santambrogio G,
Librenti MC, Galli-Kienle M, Pontiroli AE, Pozza G. Hypocaloric
high-protein diet improves glucose oxidation and spares lean body mass:
comparison to hypocaloric high-carbohydrate diet. Metabolism. 1994
Dec;43(12):1481-7.
(6) Layman DK, Boileau RA, Erickson DJ, Painter JE, Shiue H, Sather C,
Christou DD. A reduced ratio of dietary carbohydrate to protein improves
body composition and blood lipid profiles during weight loss in adult
women. J Nutr. 2003 Feb;133(2):411-7.
(7) Golay A, Eigenheer C, Morel Y, Kujawski P, Lehmann T, de Tonnac N.
Weight-loss with low or high carbohydrate diet? Int J Obes Relat Metab
Disord. 1996 Dec;20(12):1067-72.
(8) Meckling KA, Gauthier M, Grubb R, Sanford J. Effects of a
hypocaloric, low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss, blood lipids, blood
pressure, glucose tolerance, and body composition in free-living
overweight women. Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 2002 Nov;80(11):1095-105.
(9) Borkman M, Campbell LV, Chisholm DJ, Storlien LH. Comparison of the
effects on insulin sensitivity of high carbohydrate and high fat diets
in normal subjects. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1991 Feb;72(2):432-7.
(10) Brehm BJ, Seeley RJ, Daniels SR, D'Alessio DA. A randomized trial
comparing a very low carbohydrate diet and a calorie-restricted low fat
diet on body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in healthy women. J
Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003 Apr;88(4):1617-23.
(11) Garrow JS, Durrant M, Blaza S, Wilkins D, Royston P, Sunkin S. The
effect of meal frequency and protein concentration on the composition of
the weight lost by obese subjects. Br J Nutr. 1981 Jan;45(1):5-15.
(12) Agus MS, Swain JF, Larson CL, Eckert EA, Ludwig DS. Dietary
composition and physiologic adaptations to energy restriction.Am J Clin
Nutr. 2000 Apr;71(4):901-7.
..................................
Natural
Bodybuilding at its Finest - Lift for Life.com |
