|
Brinks Unified Theory of Nutrition For Weight Loss and Muscle Gain
Weight Loss Begins In The MindNot only was I fat, I was in poor health too. Constantly fatigued, constipated through over-eating, with an aching knee to ..... Copyright 2005 Internet Publications
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:
See more excellent bodybuilding, fat loss, and sports nutrition
articles from Will Brink here:
http://www.brinkzone.com/onlinearticles.html And see Will's
other websites here: http://www.dietsupplementsreview.com
http://www.musclebuildingguide.com
|
