|
"Brink's Unified Theory of
Nutrition"
By Will Brink, author of:
Muscle Building Nutrition
http://musclebuildingnutrition.com
Muscle Gaining Diet, Training Routines by Charles Poliquin & Bodybuilding
Supplement Review
Diet Supplements Revealed
http://aboutsupplements.com
Real World Fat Loss Diet & Weight Loss Supplement Review
"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.
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://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://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.
William has worked with athletes ranging from professional bodybuilders,
golfers, fitness contestants, to police and military personnel.
See Will's e-books
online here:
Muscle Building
Nutrition
http://musclebuildingnutrition.com
A complete guide bodybuilding supplements and eating to gain lean muscle
Diet Supplements
Revealed
http://aboutsupplements.com
A review of diet supplements and guide to eating for maximum fat loss
Go Back
To The Newsletter
|