|
"Brink's
Unified Theory of Nutrition"
By Will Brink, author of:
Body Building Revealed
www.BodyBuildingRevealed.com
Fuelling Your Body In A Manner Which Triggers its Own Muscle Building
Hormones Naturally!
Fat Loss
Revealed
www.FatLossRevealed.com
Real World Fat Loss Diet & Why 99% of Fat Loss Supplements are Total
Junk!
"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 Fat Loss Revealed, see this website
www.FatLossRevealed.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 Body Building
Revealed (AKA Brink's Bodybuilding Bible) at this web site:
www.BodyBuildingRevealed.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
Revealed
www.BodyBuildingRevealed.com
A complete guide to bodybuilding supplements and eating to gain lean muscle.
Fuelling Your Body In A Manner Which Triggers its Own Muscle Building
Hormones Naturally!
Fat Loss
Revealed
www.FatLossRevealed.com
Real World Fat Loss Diet & Why 99% of Fat Loss Supplements are Total
Junk!
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.
|
|
