"Can't Find What
You're Looking For? Search this Site with..."
Google Search
|
|
Health and Fitness Vitality.com...
Where Weight Loss is
More Than Wishful Thinking
Preview Issue's Health and Fitness Articles
Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition for Weight Loss
and Muscle Gain
by Will Brink in the Weightloss Section
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
now 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!
About the author: See more excellent bodybuilding, fat
loss, and sports nutrition articles from Will Brink here: http://www.brinkzone.com/onlinearticles.html
and see Will's other websites here: http://www.dietsupplementsreview.com
http://www.musclebuildingguide.com
Other Weightloss Articles Featured in
Health and Fitness Vitality:
~~~> A Mediterranean Diet - How to Lose Weight Safely
by Roy Barker Click Here.
~~~> Holiday Eating: Party Hearty Without Putting on the Pounds!
By Author: Marsha J. Hudnall, MS, RD, CD Click Here
~~~> 5 Easy Steps To Help You Lose Weight by Amie
Grelowski Click Here
~~~> Artificial Sweeteners: The Real Story? By Loring
A. Windblad Click Here
~~~> Walk, or Run, to Achieve Weight Loss By Michael
Lewis Click Here
|
|
