|
Diet InformationBrink's Unified Theory of Nutrition For Weight Loss and Muscle Gain
by:
Will Brink
Copyright 2005 Cyberspace Publications
When folk hear the term Unified Theory, several times called the Grand Unified Theory, or even as "Theory of Everything," they probably think of it in terms of physics, wherever
a Unified Theory, or single theory capable of process
the nature of the interrelationships among nuclear, electromagnetic, and attraction forces, would-be reconcile on the face of it incompatible aspects of various field theories to create a single comprehensive set of equations.
Such a theory could possibly
unlock all the private secrets of nature and the universe itself, or as theoretical man of science
Michio Katu, puts it "an equation an inch long that would-be allow us to see the mind of God." That's how important unified theories can be. However, unified theories don't have to deal with such exciting
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 satiate above, seeks to explain on the face of it incompatible aspects of various theories. In this article I attempt to unify on the face of it incompatible or opposing views regarding nutrition, namely, what is probably the longest running debate in the biological process sciences: calories vs. macro nutrients.
One school, I would-be say the 'old school' of nutrition, maintains weight loss or weight gain is all just 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 move to that conclusion.
The different school, I would-be call more the 'new school' of thought on the issue, would-be state that gaining or losing weight is actually just about wherever
the calories move 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 move to this conclusion mistreatment various lines of evidence.
This has been an current
debate between folk in the field of nutrition, biology, physiology, and many a different disciplines, for decades. The result of which has led to conflicting proposal
and a great deal of confusion by the general public, not to mention many a medical professionals and different groups.
Before I go any further, two key points that are essential to understand just about any unified theory:
A nice unified theory is simple, concise, and comprehendible even as to lay people. However, underneath, or behind that theory, is often a great deal of information that can take up many a volumes of books. So, for me to outline all the information I have used to move to these conclusions, would-be take a large book, if not several and is far on the far side
the scope of this article.
A unified theory is often planned
by several intellect before it can even as be established or fully supported by physical evidence. Over time, several 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 necessarily to be revised or is just incorrect. I feel there is now more than enough evidence at this point to give a unified theory of nutrition and continued
lines of evidence wish continue (with several 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 once
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 wish lose weight regardless of the calorie source and if you eat more calories than you burn off each day, you wish gain weight, regardless of the calorie source.
This long command
and accepted view of nutrition is based on the fact that supermolecule
and carbs contain approx 4 calories per gram and fat around 9 calories per gram and the source of those calories matters not. They base this on the many a 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 really several effects on the metabolism via incalculable pathways, such as their effects on hormones (e.g., insulin, leptin, glucagon, etc), effects on hunger and appetite, caloric effects (heat production), effects on uncoupling proteins (UCPs), and 1000 different effects that could be mentioned.
Even worse, this school of thought fails to take into account the fact that even as inside
a macro nutrient, they too can have several effects on metabolism. This school of thought ignores the ever mounting volume of studies that have found diets with several macro nutrient ratios with identical calorie intakes have several effects on body composition, steroid alcohol levels, aerophilic stress, etc.
Translated, not only is the mantra "a calorie us a calorie" established to be false, "all fats are created equal" or "protein is protein" is as well incorrect. For example, we no cognize several fats (e.g. fish oils vs. saturated fats) have immensely
several effects on metabolism and health in general, as we now cognize several carbohydrates have their own effects (e.g. high GI vs. low GI), as we cognize several proteins can have unique effects.
The "calories don't matter" school of thought
This school of thought wish typically tell you that if you eat large amounts of several 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 really low macromolecule intakes (i.e., Atkins, etc.) often maintain calories don't matter in such a diet.
Others maintain if you eat really high supermolecule
intakes with really low fat and macromolecule 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, tho'
it's clean several macro nutrients in several amounts and ratios have several effects on weight loss, fat loss, and different metabolic effects, calories do matter. They always have and they always will. The data, and real earth experience of millions of dieters, is quite clean on that reality.
The truth behind such diets is that they are often quite nice at suppressing appetence and thus the person just ends up consumption fewer calories and losing weight. Also, the weight loss from such diets is often from water vs. fat, at least in the 1st few weeks. That's not to say folk can't experience meaning weight loss with several of these diets, but the effect comes from a reduction in calories vs. any magic effects often claimed by proponents of such diets.
Weight loss vs. fat loss!
This is wherever
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 undisciplined
eye. What has become extravagantly clean from the studies performed and real earth 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 cognize several diets have several effects on the metabolism, appetite, body composition, and different 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 more weight a person gains or loses; macro nutrient ratios dictates what a person gains or loses"
This on the face of it simple statement allows folk to understand the differences between the two schools of thought. For example, studies often find that two groups of folk put on the same calorie intakes but really several ratios of carbs, fats, and proteins wish lose several amounts of bodyfat and or lean body mass (i.e., muscle, bone, etc.).
Some studies find for example folk on a higher supermolecule
lower carb diet lose around the same numbers of weight as another group on a high carb lower supermolecule
diet, but the group on the higher supermolecule
diet lost more actual fat and less lean body mass (muscle). Or, several studies mistreatment the same calorie intakes but several macro nutrient intakes often find the higher supermolecule
diet may lose less actual weight than the higher carb lower supermolecule
diets, but the actual fat loss is higher in the higher supermolecule
low carb diets. This effect has as well been seen in several studies that compared high fat/low carb vs. high carb/low fat diets. The effect is commonly amplified if exercise is involved as one power 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 several macro nutrient ratios do have several effects on human physiology even as once
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 several effects on leptin concentrations, energy expenditure, voluntary food intake, and atomic number 7 balance, suggesting that the physical
adaptations to energy restriction can be modified by dietary composition."(12)
The point being, there are many a studies confirming that the actual quantitative relation
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 more 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 folk do decisions just about nutrition?
Knowing this, it becomes more easier for folk to understand the on the face of it conflicting diet and nutrition proposal
out there (of course this does not account for the down right pseudoscientific
and dangerous nutrition proposal
folk 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 several important and possibly
useful conclusions:
An best
diet designed to do a person lose fat and retain as more LBM as possible is not the same as a diet just designed to lose weight.
A nutrition program designed to create fat loss is not just 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 just 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 numbers of LBM the person carries vs. bodyfat pct , activity levels, etc., and numbers out calories based on the proper macro nutrient ratios to attain fat loss with a minimum loss of LBM. The actual quantitative relation
of macro nutrients can be quite several for several diets and even as for individuals.
Diets that give the same macro nutrient quantitative relation
to all folk (e.g., 40/30/30, or 70,30,10, etc.) regardless of total calories, goals, activity levels, etc., wish always be less than optimal. Best
macro nutrient ratios can change with total calories and different variables.
Perhaps most important, the unified theory explains why the focus on weight loss vs. fat loss by the brobdingnagian majority of people, including most medical professionals, and the media, wish always fail in the long run to deliver the results folk want.
Finally, the Universal Theory does it clean that the best
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 wish this diet have on appetite? What effects wish this diet have on metabolic rate? What effects wish this diet have on my lean body mass (LBM)? What effects wish this diet have on hormones; several hormones that may improve or impede my goals? What effects wish this diet have on (fill in the blank)?
Simply asking, "how more weight wish I lose?" is the wrong question which wish lead to the wrong answer. To get the best
effects from your next diet, whether looking to gain weight or lose it, you must ask the right questions to get meaning answers.
Asking the right questions wish as well help you avoid the pitfalls of pseudoscientific
poorly thought out diets which do promises they can't support and go against what we cognize just about human physiology and the really laws of physics!
There are of course many a additional questions that can be asked and points that can be raised as it applies to the above, but those are several of the key issues that move 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 discomfited folk who don't obtain the best
results they had hoped for and have ready-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 quantitative relation
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 wish activity for all folk all the time no matter the circumstances, throw it out or give it to being you don't like!
Just just about the author:
See more fantabulous bodybuilding, fat loss, and sports nutrition articles from Wish Brink here:
http://www.brinkzone.com/onlinearticles.html
And see Will's different websites here:
http://www.dietsupplementsreview.com
http://www.musclebuildingguide.com
Circulated by Article Emporium
| |
