Exact Word Match
+ Home
+ Purchase
+ TPW Article Archives
+ Contact Us









Will Brink of Muscle Building Nutrition, invites you to reprint this article in your publication, ezine, or on your website.

This is a Free-Reprint article. The only requirements for publishing this article are:

  • You must leave the article and resource box unedited. You are not allowed to change our recommendations, nor are you allowed to change the context of the article.
  • You may not use this article in UCE (Unsolicited Commercial Email). Email distribution of this article MUST be opt-in email only.
  • You must forward a copy of the ezine or newsletter that contains the article inside to the author at: articles@brinkzone.com
  • If you post this article on a website, you MUST set any URL's in the body of the article and most especially in the Author's Resource Box as hyperlinks. You must also send us a copy of the URL where you have posted this article.

  • If you find any of the rules to be unsavory or unacceptable, please do not publish this article. While we are happy to make the content available to you for your own use, we must insist on having our rules and *Terms of Reprint* honored in full.

    Thank you for adhering to these four very simple rules.



    Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition
    Copyright © 2006, Will Brink

    You may use this image in your ezine or website if you choose to publish my article. --- Will Brink
    You may use this image in your ezine or website if you choose to publish my article. Click here to see the picture full-sized.--- Will Brink
    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) Parker 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, Erickson 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, Campbell 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, Daniels 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. 
    



    Writer's Resource Box:
    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




    More Articles Written by Will Brink

    Notice: thePhantomWriters.com / Article-Distribution.com played no part in creating this content.

    Our client has purchased thePhantomWriters.com / Article-Distribution.com Distribution Services, and we have distributed this article to over 6,000 publishers and webmasters. As part of this service, we offer this page and the Copy-and-Paste version of this article on autoresponder.



    Are you curious about where this article has been published? This article was first distributed on:
    Fri Feb 24 02:42:01 EST 2006


    Check out these links to get a real good idea. Keep in mind that these links will only show those websites who have posted the article and have been submitted the page to the respective search engines.
  • Google Results
  • All the Web Results
  • AltaVista Results
  • Yahoo! Results
  • MSN Results
  • Lycos Results
  • Wind Seek Results


  • The article on this page is Copyright © 2006, Will Brink
    You are not required to show the creative commons license
    notice when you reprint this work.


    Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a
    Creative Commons License.


    Article Marketing Tips:
    • Stand out from the crowds. Educate your prospects and they will turn to you for more knowledge. When they turn to you for more, they will visit your website. It is up to your website copy to sell your products, NOT your article. Provide great information and at your website, address how the prospect will benefit from what you are offering. Using these things in conjuction will help your cash register to ring.

    Subscribe to Article Distribution
    Email:
    Browse Archives at groups-beta.google.com



    Unless Otherwise Noted, All Copy and Images are:
    Copyright © 2001-2017, Bill Platt, thePhantomWriters.com

    thePhantomWriters Ghost Writing Services

    thePhantomWriters Article Submission Services

    Other Website Properties owned by Bill Platt:
    Article Marketing Ebooks | Live Article Marketing Training
    Redneck Marketers | Biz Magi Newsletter

    Also Recommended:
    Invisible MBA - Educational Articles
    Super Home Ideas


    Marketing and Services provided by:
    Bill Platt

    Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075