Best nutrition tips on the web


Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition For Weight Loss and Muscle Gain

When people hear the term Unified Theory,true debate and why the two schools of
some times called the Grand Unified Theory,thought are not actually as far apart from
or even "Theory of Everything," they probablyone another as they appear to the untrained
think of it in terms of physics, where aeye. What has become abundantly clear from
Unified Theory, or single theory capable ofthe studies performed and real world evidence
defining the nature of the interrelationshipsis that to lose weight we need to use more
among nuclear, electromagnetic, andcalories than we take in (via reducing
gravitational forces, would reconcilecalorie intake and or increasing exercise),
seemingly incompatible aspects of variousbut we know different diets have different
field theories to create a singleeffects on the metabolism, appetite, body
comprehensive  set  of  equations.composition, and other physiological
variables...
Such a theory could potentially unlock all
the secrets of nature and the universeBrink's  Unified  Theory  of  Nutrition
itself, or as theoretical physicist Michio
Katu, puts it "an equation an inch long that...Thus, this reality has led me to Brink's
would allow us to read the mind of God."Unified  Theory  of  Nutrition  which states:
That's how important unified theories can be.
However, unified theories don't have to deal"Total calories dictates how much weight a
with such heady topics as physics or theperson gains or loses; macro nutrient ratios
nature of the universe itself, but can bedictates  what  a  person  gains  or  loses"
applied to far more mundane topics, in this
case  nutrition.This seemingly simple statement allows people
to understand the differences between the two
Regardless of the topic, a unified theory, asschools of thought. For example, studies
sated above, seeks to explain seeminglyoften find that two groups of people put on
incompatible aspects of various theories. Inthe same calorie intakes but very different
this article I attempt to unify seeminglyratios of carbs, fats, and proteins will lose
incompatible or opposing views regardingdifferent amounts of bodyfat and or lean body
nutrition, namely, what is probably themass  (i.e.,  muscle,  bone,  etc.).
longest running debate in the nutritional
sciences:  calories  vs.  macro  nutrients.Some studies find for example people on a
higher protein lower carb diet lose
One school, I would say the 'old school' ofapproximately the same amount of weight as
nutrition, maintains weight loss or weightanother group on a high carb lower protein
gain is all about calories, and "a calorie isdiet, but the group on the higher protein
a calorie," no matter the source (e.g.,diet lost more actual fat and less lean body
carbs, fats, or proteins). They base theirmass (muscle). Or, some studies using the
position on various lines of evidence to comesame calorie intakes but different macro
to  that  conclusion.nutrient intakes often find the higher
protein diet may lose less actual weight than
The other school, I would call more the 'newthe higher carb lower protein diets, but the
school' of thought on the issue, would stateactual fat loss is higher in the higher
that gaining or losing weight is really aboutprotein low carb diets. This effect has also
where the calories come from (e.g., carbs,been seen in some studies that compared high
fats, and proteins), and that dictates weightfat/low carb vs. high carb/low fat diets. The
loss or weight gain. Meaning, they feel, theeffect is usually amplified if exercise is
"calorie is a calorie" mantra of the oldinvolved  as  one  might  expect.
school is wrong. They too come to this
conclusion  using  various lines of evidence.Of course these effects are not found
universally in all studies that examine the
This has been an ongoing debate betweenissue, but the bulk of the data is clear:
people in the field of nutrition, biology,diets containing different macro nutrient
physiology, and many other disciplines, forratios do have different effects on human
decades. The result of which has led tophysiology even when calorie intakes are
conflicting advice and a great deal ofidentical  (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11).
confusion by the general public, not to
mention many medical professionals and otherOr, as the authors of one recent study that
groups.looked  at  the  issue  concluded:
Before I go any further, two key points that"Diets with identical energy contents can
are essential to understand about any unifiedhave different effects on leptin
theory:concentrations, energy expenditure, voluntary
food intake, and nitrogen balance, suggesting
A good unified theory is simple, concise, andthat the physiologic adaptations to energy
understandable even to lay people. However,restriction can be modified by dietary
underneath, or behind that theory, is often acomposition."(12)
great deal of information that can take up
many volumes of books. So, for me to outlineThe point being, there are many studies
all the information I have used to come toconfirming that the actual ratio of carbs,
these conclusions, would take a large book,fats, and proteins in a given diet can effect
if not several and is far beyond the scope ofwhat is actually lost (i.e., fat, muscle,
this  article.bone, and water) and that total calories has
the greatest effect on how much total weight
A unified theory is often proposed by someis lost. Are you starting to see how my
theorist before it can even be proven orunified theory of nutrition combines the
fully supported by physical evidence. Over"calorie is a calorie" school with the
time, different lines of evidence, whether it"calories don't matter" school to help people
be mathematical, physical, etc., supports themake  decisions  about  nutrition?
theory and thus solidifies that theory as
being correct, or continued lines of evidenceKnowing this, it becomes much easier for
shows the theory needs to be revised or ispeople to understand the seemingly
simply incorrect. I feel there is now moreconflicting diet and nutrition advice out
than enough evidence at this point to give athere (of course this does not account for
unified theory of nutrition and continuingthe down right unscientific and dangerous
lines of evidence will continue (with somenutrition advice people are subjected to via
possible revisions) to solidify the theory asbad books, TV, the 'net, and well meaning
fact.friends, but that's another article
altogether).
"A  calorie  is  a  calorie"
Knowing the above information and keeping the
The old school of nutrition, which oftenUnified Theory of Nutrition in mind, leads us
includes most nutritionists, is a calorie isto some important and potentially useful
a calorie when it comes to gaining or losingconclusions:
weight. That weight loss or weight gain is
strictly a matter of "calories in, caloriesAn optimal diet designed to make a person
out." Translated, if you "burn" more calorieslose fat and retain as much LBM as possible
than you take in, you will lose weightis not the same as a diet simply designed to
regardless of the calorie source and if youlose  weight.
eat more calories than you burn off each day,
you will gain weight, regardless of theA nutrition program designed to create fat
calorie  source.loss is not simply a reduced calorie version
of a nutrition program designed to gain
This long held and accepted view of nutritionweight,  and  visa  versa.
is based on the fact that protein and carbs
contain approx 4 calories per gram and fatDiets need to be designed with fat loss, NOT
approximately 9 calories per gram and thejust weight loss, as the goal, but total
source of those calories matters not. Theycalories  can't  be  ignored.
base this on the many studies that finds if
one reduces calories by X number each day,This is why the diets I design for people-or
weight loss is the result and so it goes ifwrite about-for gaining or losing weight are
you add X number of calories above what younot simply higher or lower calorie versions
use  each  day  for  gaining  weight.of the same diet. In short: diets plans I
design for gaining LBM start with total
However, the "calories in calories out"calories and build macro nutrient ratios into
mantra fails to take into account modernthe number of calories required. However,
research that finds that fats, carbs, anddiets designed for fat loss (vs. weight
proteins have very different effects on theloss!) start with the correct macro nutrient
metabolism via countless pathways, such asratios that depend on variables such as
their effects on hormones (e.g., insulin,amount of LBM the person carries vs. bodyfat
leptin, glucagon, etc), effects on hunger andpercent , activity levels, etc., and figure
appetite, thermic effects (heat production),out calories based on the proper macro
effects on uncoupling proteins (UCPs), andnutrient ratios to achieve fat loss with a
1000  other  effects that could be mentioned.minimum loss of LBM. The actual ratio of
macro nutrients can be quite different for
Even worse, this school of thought fails toboth  diets  and  even  for  individuals.
take into account the fact that even within a
macro nutrient, they too can have differentDiets that give the same macro nutrient ratio
effects on metabolism. This school of thoughtto all people (e.g., 40/30/30, or 70,30,10,
ignores the ever mounting volume of studiesetc.) regardless of total calories, goals,
that have found diets with different macroactivity levels, etc., will always be less
nutrient ratios with identical caloriethan optimal. Optimal macro nutrient ratios
intakes have different effects on bodycan change with total calories and other
composition, cholesterol levels, oxidativevariables.
stress,  etc.
Perhaps most important, the unified theory
Translated, not only is the mantra "a calorieexplains why the focus on weight loss vs. fat
us a calorie" proven to be false, "all fatsloss by the vast majority of people,
are created equal" or "protein is protein" isincluding most medical professionals, and the
also incorrect. For example, we no knowmedia, will always fail in the long run to
different fats (e.g. fish oils vs. saturateddeliver  the  results  people  want.
fats) have vastly different effects on
metabolism and health in general, as we nowFinally, the Universal Theory makes it clear
know different carbohydrates have their ownthat the optimal diet for losing fat, or
effects (e.g. high GI vs. low GI), as we knowgaining muscle, or what ever the goal, must
different  proteins  can have unique effects.account not only for total calories, but
macro nutrient ratios that optimize metabolic
The "calories don't matter" school of thoughteffects and answer the questions: what
effects will this diet have on appetite? What
This school of thought will typically telleffects will this diet have on metabolic
you that if you eat large amounts of somerate? What effects will this diet have on my
particular macro nutrient in their magiclean body mass (LBM)? What effects will this
ratios, calories don't matter. For example,diet have on hormones; both hormones that may
followers of ketogenic style diets thatimprove or impede my goals? What effects will
consist of high fat intakes and very lowthis  diet  have  on  (fill  in  the  blank)?
carbohydrate intakes (i.e., Atkins, etc.)
often maintain calories don't matter in suchSimply asking, "how much weight will I lose?"
a  diet.is the wrong question which will lead to the
wrong answer. To get the optimal effects from
Others maintain if you eat very high proteinyour next diet, whether looking to gain
intakes with very low fat and carbohydrateweight or lose it, you must ask the right
intakes, calories don't matter. Like the oldquestions  to  get  meaningful  answers.
school, this school fails to take into
account the effects such diets have onAsking the right questions will also help you
various pathways and ignore the simpleavoid the pitfalls of unscientific poorly
realities of human physiology, not to mentionthought out diets which make promises they
the  laws  of  thermodynamics!can't keep and go against what we know about
human physiology and the very laws of
The reality is, although it's clear differentphysics!
macro nutrients in different amounts and
ratios have different effects on weight loss,There are of course many additional questions
fat loss, and other metabolic effects,that can be asked and points that can be
calories do matter. They always have and theyraised as it applies to the above, but those
always will. The data, and real worldare some of the key issues that come to mind.
experience of millions of dieters, is quiteBottom line here is, if the diet you are
clear  on  that  reality.following to either gain or loss weight does
not address those issues and or questions,
The truth behind such diets is that they arethen you can count on being among the
often quite good at suppressing appetite andmillions of disappointed people who don't
thus the person simply ends up eating fewerreceive the optimal results they had hoped
calories and losing weight. Also, the weightfor and have made yet another nutrition
loss from such diets is often from water vs."guru" laugh all the way to the bank at your
fat, at least in the first few weeks. That'sexpense.
not to say people can't experience meaningful
weight loss with some of these diets, but theAny diet that claims calories don't matter,
effect comes from a reduction in calories vs.forget it. Any diet that tells you they have
any magical effects often claimed bya magic ratio of foods, ignore it. Any diet
proponents  of  such  diets.that tells you any one food source is evil,
it's a scam. Any diet that tells you it will
Weight  loss  vs.  fat  loss!work for all people all the time no matter
the circumstances, throw it out or give it to
This is where we get into the crux of thesomeone you don't like!



1 A B C 48 49 51 52 53 54 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 78 79 80 81 82 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98