Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition

[Guest guest]

Free-Reprint Article Written by: Will Brink

See Terms of Reprint Below.

*****************************************************************

*

* This email is being delivered directly to members of the group:

*

*

*

*****************************************************************

We have moved our TERMS OF REPRINT to the end of the article.

Be certain to read our TERMS OF REPRINT and honor our TERMS

OF REPRINT when you use this article. Thank you.

This article has been distributed by:

http://Article-Distribution.com

Helpful Link:

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act - Overview

http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/dmca1.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Article Title:

==============

Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition

Article Description:

====================

Regardless of the topic, a unified theory, 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.

Additional Article Information:

===============================

2866 Words; formatted to 65 Characters per Line

Distribution Date and Time: Fri Feb 24 02:45:54 EST 2006

Written By: Will Brink

Copyright: 2006

Contact Email: mailto:articles@...

Article URL:

http://thePhantomWriters.com/free_content/d/b/brinks-unified-theory-of-nutrition\

..shtml

Will Brink's Picture URL:

http://aboutsupplements.com/index-images/willbrink.jpg

For more free-reprint articles by this Author, please visit:

http://thePhantomWriters.com/free_content/d/index.shtml#Will_Brink

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition

Copyright © 2006 Will Brink

Muscle Building Nutrition

http://musclebuildingnutrition.com

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 stated 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://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!

-------------------

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) 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, kson 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, 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, s 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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Will Brink writes for numerous health, fitness, medical, and

bodybuilding publications. His articles can be found in Life

Extension Magazine, Muscle n Fitness, Inside Karate, Exercise

For Men Only, Oxygen, Women's World, The Townsend Letter For

Doctors and many more. His website is http://www.brinkzone.com

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