Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition For Weight Loss
and Muscle Gain
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 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!
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!
See more excellent bodybuilding, fat loss, and sports
nutrition articles from Will Brink here:
http://www.brinkzone.com/onlinearticles.html
Find More Sports Related Information:
Back to Index of All Sports Articles
Index of all Baseball Articles
