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

When people hear the term Unified Theory, somenot actually as far apart from one another as
times called the Grand Unified Theory, or eventhey appear to the untrained eye. What has
"Theory of Everything," they probably think of itbecome abundantly clear from the studies
in terms of physics, where a Unified Theory, orperformed and real world evidence is that to lose
single theory capable of defining the nature of theweight we need to use more calories than we
interrelationships among nuclear, electromagnetic,take in (via reducing calorie intake and or
and gravitational forces, would reconcile seeminglyincreasing exercise), but we know different diets
incompatible aspects of various field theories tohave different effects on the metabolism,
create a single comprehensive set of equations.appetite, body composition, and other physiological
Such a theory could potentially unlock all thevariables...
secrets of nature and the universe itself, or asBrink's Unified Theory of Nutrition
theoretical physicist Michio Katu, puts it "an...Thus, this reality has led me to Brink's Unified
equation an inch long that would allow us to readTheory of Nutrition which states:
the mind of God." That's how important unified"Total calories dictates how much weight a person
theories can be. However, unified theories don'tgains or loses; macro nutrient ratios dictates what
have to deal with such heady topics as physics ora person gains or loses"
the nature of the universe itself, but can beThis seemingly simple statement allows people to
applied to far more mundane topics, in this caseunderstand the differences between the two
nutrition.schools of thought. For example, studies often
Regardless of the topic, a unified theory, as satedfind that two groups of people put on the same
above, seeks to explain seemingly incompatiblecalorie intakes but very different ratios of carbs,
aspects of various theories. In this article Ifats, and proteins will lose different amounts of
attempt to unify seemingly incompatible orbodyfat and or lean body mass (i.e., muscle, bone,
opposing views regarding nutrition, namely, what isetc.).
probably the longest running debate in theSome studies find for example people on a higher
nutritional sciences: calories vs. macro nutrients.protein lower carb diet lose approximately the
One school, I would say the 'old school' ofsame amount of weight as another group on a
nutrition, maintains weight loss or weight gain is allhigh carb lower protein diet, but the group on the
about calories, and "a calorie is a calorie," nohigher protein diet lost more actual fat and less
matter the source (e.g., carbs, fats, or proteins).lean body mass (muscle). Or, some studies using
They base their position on various lines ofthe same calorie intakes but different macro
evidence to come to that conclusion.nutrient intakes often find the higher protein diet
The other school, I would call more the 'newmay lose less actual weight than the higher carb
school' of thought on the issue, would state thatlower protein diets, but the actual fat loss is higher
gaining or losing weight is really about where thein the higher protein low carb diets. This effect
calories come from (e.g., carbs, fats, andhas also been seen in some studies that
proteins), and that dictates weight loss or weightcompared high fat/low carb vs. high carb/low fat
gain. Meaning, they feel, the "calorie is a calorie"diets. The effect is usually amplified if exercise is
mantra of the old school is wrong. They tooinvolved as one might expect.
come to this conclusion using various lines ofOf course these effects are not found universally
evidence.in all studies that examine the issue, but the bulk
This has been an ongoing debate between peopleof the data is clear: diets containing different
in the field of nutrition, biology, physiology, andmacro nutrient ratios do have different effects on
many other disciplines, for decades. The result ofhuman physiology even when calorie intakes are
which has led to conflicting advice and a great dealidentical (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11).
of confusion by the general public, not to mentionOr, as the authors of one recent study that
many medical professionals and other groups.looked at the issue concluded:
Before I go any further, two key points that are"Diets with identical energy contents can have
essential to understand about any unified theory:different effects on leptin concentrations, energy
A good unified theory is simple, concise, andexpenditure, voluntary food intake, and nitrogen
understandable even to lay people. However,balance, suggesting that the physiologic
underneath, or behind that theory, is often aadaptations to energy restriction can be modified
great deal of information that can take up manyby dietary composition."(12)
volumes of books. So, for me to outline all theThe point being, there are many studies
information I have used to come to theseconfirming that the actual ratio of carbs, fats, and
conclusions, would take a large book, if notproteins in a given diet can effect what is actually
several and is far beyond the scope of this article.lost (i.e., fat, muscle, bone, and water) and that
A unified theory is often proposed by sometotal calories has the greatest effect on how
theorist before it can even be proven or fullymuch total weight is lost. Are you starting to see
supported by physical evidence. Over time,how my unified theory of nutrition combines the
different lines of evidence, whether it be"calorie is a calorie" school with the "calories don't
mathematical, physical, etc., supports the theorymatter" school to help people make decisions
and thus solidifies that theory as being correct, orabout nutrition?
continued lines of evidence shows the theoryKnowing this, it becomes much easier for people
needs to be revised or is simply incorrect. I feelto understand the seemingly conflicting diet and
there is now more than enough evidence at thisnutrition advice out there (of course this does not
point to give a unified theory of nutrition andaccount for the down right unscientific and
continuing lines of evidence will continue (withdangerous nutrition advice people are subjected to
some possible revisions) to solidify the theory asvia bad 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 often includesUnified Theory of Nutrition in mind, leads us to
most nutritionists, is a calorie is a calorie when itsome important and potentially useful conclusions:
comes to gaining or losing weight. That weightAn optimal diet designed to make a person lose
loss or weight gain is strictly a matter of "caloriesfat and retain as much LBM as possible is not the
in, calories out." Translated, if you "burn" moresame as a diet simply designed to lose weight.
calories than you take in, you will lose weightA nutrition program designed to create fat loss is
regardless of the calorie source and if you eatnot simply a reduced calorie version of a nutrition
more calories than you burn off each day, you willprogram designed to gain weight, and visa versa.
gain weight, regardless of the calorie source.Diets need to be designed with fat loss, NOT just
This long held and accepted view of nutrition isweight loss, as the goal, but total calories can't be
based on the fact that protein and carbs containignored.
approx 4 calories per gram and fat approximatelyThis is why the diets I design for people-or write
9 calories per gram and the source of thoseabout-for gaining or losing weight are not simply
calories matters not. They base this on the manyhigher or lower calorie versions of the same diet.
studies that finds if one reduces calories by XIn short: diets plans I design for gaining LBM start
number each day, weight loss is the result and sowith total calories and build macro nutrient ratios
it goes if you add X number of calories aboveinto the number of calories required. However,
what you use each day for gaining weight.diets designed for fat loss (vs. weight loss!) start
However, the "calories in calories out" mantra failswith the correct macro nutrient ratios that
to take into account modern research that findsdepend on variables such as amount of LBM the
that fats, carbs, and proteins have very differentperson carries vs. bodyfat percent , activity
effects on the metabolism via countlesslevels, etc., and figure out calories based on the
pathways, such as their effects on hormonesproper macro nutrient ratios to achieve fat loss
(e.g., insulin, leptin, glucagon, etc), effects onwith a minimum loss of LBM. The actual ratio of
hunger and appetite, thermic effects (heatmacro nutrients can be quite different for both
production), effects on uncoupling proteins (UCPs),diets and even for individuals.
and 1000 other effects that could be mentioned.Diets that give the same macro nutrient ratio to
Even worse, this school of thought fails to takeall people (e.g., 40/30/30, or 70,30,10, etc.)
into account the fact that even within a macroregardless of total calories, goals, activity levels,
nutrient, they too can have different effects onetc., will always be less than optimal. Optimal
metabolism. This school of thought ignores themacro nutrient ratios can change with total
ever mounting volume of studies that have foundcalories and other variables.
diets with different macro nutrient ratios withPerhaps most important, the unified theory
identical calorie intakes have different effects onexplains why the focus on weight loss vs. fat loss
body composition, cholesterol levels, oxidativeby the vast majority of people, including most
stress, etc.medical professionals, and the media, will always
Translated, not only is the mantra "a calorie us afail in the long run to deliver the results people
calorie" proven to be false, "all fats are createdwant.
equal" or "protein is protein" is also incorrect. ForFinally, the Universal Theory makes it clear that
example, we no know different fats (e.g. fish oilsthe optimal diet for losing fat, or gaining muscle,
vs. saturated fats) have vastly different effectsor what ever the goal, must account not only for
on metabolism and health in general, as we nowtotal calories, but macro nutrient ratios that
know different carbohydrates have their ownoptimize metabolic effects and answer the
effects (e.g. high GI vs. low GI), as we knowquestions: what effects will this diet have on
different proteins can have unique effects.appetite? What effects will this diet have on
The "calories don't matter" school of thoughtmetabolic rate? What effects will this diet have on
This school of thought will typically tell you that ifmy lean body mass (LBM)? What effects will this
you eat large amounts of some particular macrodiet have on hormones; both hormones that may
nutrient in their magic ratios, calories don't matter.improve or impede my goals? What effects will
For example, followers of ketogenic style dietsthis diet have on (fill in the blank)?
that consist of high fat intakes and very lowSimply asking, "how much weight will I lose?" is
carbohydrate intakes (i.e., Atkins, etc.) oftenthe wrong question which will lead to the wrong
maintain calories don't matter in such a diet.answer. To get the optimal effects from your
Others maintain if you eat very high proteinnext diet, whether looking to gain weight or lose
intakes with very low fat and carbohydrateit, you must ask the right questions to get
intakes, calories don't matter. Like the old school,meaningful answers.
this school fails to take into account the effectsAsking the right questions will also help you avoid
such diets have on various pathways and ignorethe pitfalls of unscientific poorly thought out diets
the simple realities of human physiology, not towhich make promises they can't keep and go
mention the laws of thermodynamics!against what we know about human physiology
The reality is, although it's clear different macroand the very laws of physics!
nutrients in different amounts and ratios haveThere are of course many additional questions
different effects on weight loss, fat loss, andthat can be asked and points that can be raised
other metabolic effects, calories do matter. Theyas it applies to the above, but those are some of
always have and they always will. The data, andthe key issues that come to mind. Bottom line
real world experience of millions of dieters, is quitehere is, if the diet you are following to either gain
clear on that reality.or loss weight does not address those issues and
The truth behind such diets is that they are oftenor questions, then you can count on being among
quite good at suppressing appetite and thus thethe millions of disappointed people who don't
person simply ends up eating fewer calories andreceive the optimal results they had hoped for
losing weight. Also, the weight loss from suchand have made yet another nutrition "guru" laugh
diets is often from water vs. fat, at least in theall the way to the bank at your expense.
first few weeks. That's not to say people can'tAny diet that claims calories don't matter, forget
experience meaningful weight loss with some ofit. Any diet that tells you they have a magic ratio
these diets, but the effect comes from aof foods, ignore it. Any diet that tells you any one
reduction in calories vs. any magical effects oftenfood source is evil, it's a scam. Any diet that tells
claimed by proponents of such diets.you it will work for all people all the time no
Weight loss vs. fat loss!matter the circumstances, throw it out or give it
This is where we get into the crux of the trueto someone you don't like!
debate and why the two schools of thought are