Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition For Weight Loss and
Muscle Gain
by Will
Brink
zone3
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!
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
Nutrition Related Articles:
 Calcium: the Miracle Mineral
Is Your Bread Slowly Killing You?
Nutrition Tips to Improve Fat Loss
Benefits of a Variety of Fruits and Vegetables
Don't Allow Your Food To Control You!
Exercise Nutrition: How To Keep That Energy Up!
Heredity Is Not Destiny: Do Health and Weight Problems Run in
Your Family? It May Be Habits, Not Genetics
Just Say No to Carb Phobia
Healthy Eating Tips For Busy Women
In Excess of Portion
|
Go to Page: 