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

When people hear the term Unified Theory, someThis is where we get into the crux of the true
times called the Grand Unified Theory, or evendebate and why the two schools of thought are not
"Theory of Everything," they probably think of it inactually as far apart from one another as they
terms of physics, where a Unified Theory, or singleappear to the untrained eye. What has become
theory capable of defining the nature of theabundantly clear from the studies performed and real
interrelationships among nuclear, electromagnetic, andworld evidence is that to lose weight we need to
gravitational forces, would reconcile seeminglyuse more calories than we take in (via reducing
incompatible aspects of various field theories tocalorie intake and or increasing exercise), but we
create a single comprehensive set of equations.know different diets have different effects on the
Such a theory could potentially unlock all the secretsmetabolism, appetite, body composition, and other
of nature and the universe itself, or as theoreticalphysiological variables...
physicist Michio Katu, puts it "an equation an inch longBrink's Unified Theory of Nutrition
that would allow us to read the mind of God." That's...Thus, this reality has led me to Brink's Unified
how important unified theories can be. However,Theory of Nutrition which states:
unified theories don't have to deal with such heady"Total calories dictates how much weight a person
topics as physics or the nature of the universe itself,gains or loses; macro nutrient ratios dictates what a
but can be applied to far more mundane topics, inperson gains or loses"
this case nutrition.This seemingly simple statement allows people to
Regardless of the topic, a unified theory, as satedunderstand the differences between the two schools
above, seeks to explain seemingly incompatibleof thought. For example, studies often find that two
aspects of various theories. In this article I attemptgroups of people put on the same calorie intakes but
to unify seemingly incompatible or opposing viewsvery different ratios of carbs, fats, and proteins will
regarding nutrition, namely, what is probably thelose different amounts of bodyfat and or lean body
longest running debate in the nutritional sciences:mass (i.e., muscle, bone, etc.).
calories vs. macro nutrients.Some studies find for example people on a higher
One school, I would say the 'old school' of nutrition,protein lower carb diet lose approximately the same
maintains weight loss or weight gain is all aboutamount of weight as another group on a high carb
calories, and "a calorie is a calorie," no matter thelower protein diet, but the group on the higher
source (e.g., carbs, fats, or proteins). They base theirprotein diet lost more actual fat and less lean body
position on various lines of evidence to come to thatmass (muscle). Or, some studies using the same
conclusion.calorie intakes but different macro nutrient intakes
The other school, I would call more the 'new school'often find the higher protein diet may lose less actual
of thought on the issue, would state that gaining orweight than the higher carb lower protein diets, but
losing weight is really about where the calories comethe actual fat loss is higher in the higher protein low
from (e.g., carbs, fats, and proteins), and thatcarb diets. This effect has also been seen in some
dictates weight loss or weight gain. Meaning, theystudies that compared high fat/low carb vs. high carb
feel, the "calorie is a calorie" mantra of the old schoollow fat diets. The effect is usually amplified if
is wrong. They too come to this conclusion usingexercise is involved as one might expect.
various lines of evidence.Of course these effects are not found universally in
This has been an ongoing debate between people inall studies that examine the issue, but the bulk of the
the field of nutrition, biology, physiology, and manydata is clear: diets containing different macro nutrient
other disciplines, for decades. The result of which hasratios do have different effects on human physiology
led to conflicting advice and a great deal of confusioneven when calorie intakes are identical
by the general public, not to mention many medical(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11).
professionals and other groups.Or, as the authors of one recent study that looked
Before I go any further, two key points that areat the issue concluded:
essential to understand about any unified theory:"Diets with identical energy contents can have
A good unified theory is simple, concise, anddifferent effects on leptin concentrations, energy
understandable even to lay people. However,expenditure, voluntary food intake, and nitrogen
underneath, or behind that theory, is often a greatbalance, suggesting that the physiologic adaptations
deal of information that can take up many volumesto energy restriction can be modified by dietary
of books. So, for me to outline all the information Icomposition."(12)
have used to come to these conclusions, would takeThe point being, there are many studies confirming
a large book, if not several and is far beyond thethat the actual ratio of carbs, fats, and proteins in a
scope of this article.given diet can effect what is actually lost (i.e., fat,
A unified theory is often proposed by some theoristmuscle, bone, and water) and that total calories has
before it can even be proven or fully supported bythe greatest effect on how much total weight is lost.
physical evidence. Over time, different lines ofAre you starting to see how my unified theory of
evidence, whether it be mathematical, physical, etc.,nutrition combines the "calorie is a calorie" school with
supports the theory and thus solidifies that theory asthe "calories don't matter" school to help people
being correct, or continued lines of evidence showsmake decisions about nutrition?
the theory needs to be revised or is simply incorrect.Knowing this, it becomes much easier for people to
I feel there is now more than enough evidence atunderstand the seemingly conflicting diet and nutrition
this point to give a unified theory of nutrition andadvice out there (of course this does not account
continuing lines of evidence will continue (with somefor the down right unscientific and dangerous nutrition
possible revisions) to solidify the theory as fact.advice people are subjected to via bad books, TV,
"A calorie is a calorie"the 'net, and well meaning friends, but that's another
The old school of nutrition, which often includes mostarticle altogether).
nutritionists, is a calorie is a calorie when it comes toKnowing the above information and keeping the
gaining or losing weight. That weight loss or weightUnified Theory of Nutrition in mind, leads us to some
gain is strictly a matter of "calories in, calories out."important and potentially useful conclusions:
Translated, if you "burn" more calories than you takeAn optimal diet designed to make a person lose fat
in, you will lose weight regardless of the calorieand retain as much LBM as possible is not the same
source and if you eat more calories than you burnas a diet simply designed to lose weight.
off each day, you will gain weight, regardless of theA nutrition program designed to create fat loss is not
calorie source.simply a reduced calorie version of a nutrition
This long held and accepted view of nutrition is basedprogram designed to gain weight, and visa versa.
on the fact that protein and carbs contain approx 4Diets need to be designed with fat loss, NOT just
calories per gram and fat approximately 9 calories perweight loss, as the goal, but total calories can't be
gram and the source of those calories matters not.ignored.
They base this on the many studies that finds if oneThis is why the diets I design for people-or write
reduces calories by X number each day, weight lossabout-for gaining or losing weight are not simply
is the result and so it goes if you add X number ofhigher or lower calorie versions of the same diet. In
calories above what you use each day for gainingshort: diets plans I design for gaining LBM start with
weight.total calories and build macro nutrient ratios into the
However, the "calories in calories out" mantra fails tonumber of calories required. However, diets designed
take into account modern research that finds thatfor fat loss (vs. weight loss!) start with the correct
fats, carbs, and proteins have very different effectsmacro nutrient ratios that depend on variables such
on the metabolism via countless pathways, such asas amount of LBM the person carries vs. bodyfat
their effects on hormones (e.g., insulin, leptin,percent , activity levels, etc., and figure out calories
glucagon, etc), effects on hunger and appetite,based on the proper macro nutrient ratios to achieve
thermic effects (heat production), effects onfat loss with a minimum loss of LBM. The actual ratio
uncoupling proteins (UCPs), and 1000 other effectsof macro nutrients can be quite different for both
that could be mentioned.diets and even for individuals.
Even worse, this school of thought fails to take intoDiets that give the same macro nutrient ratio to all
account the fact that even within a macro nutrient,people (e.g., 40/30/30, or 70,30,10, etc.) regardless of
they too can have different effects on metabolism.total calories, goals, activity levels, etc., will always be
This school of thought ignores the ever mountingless than optimal. Optimal macro nutrient ratios can
volume of studies that have found diets withchange with total calories and other variables.
different macro nutrient ratios with identical caloriePerhaps most important, the unified theory explains
intakes have different effects on body composition,why the focus on weight loss vs. fat loss by the
cholesterol levels, oxidative stress, etc.vast majority of people, including most medical
Translated, not only is the mantra "a calorie us aprofessionals, and the media, will always fail in the
calorie" proven to be false, "all fats are created equal"long run to deliver the results people want.
or "protein is protein" is also incorrect. For example,Finally, the Universal Theory makes it clear that the
we no know different fats (e.g. fish oils vs. saturatedoptimal diet for losing fat, or gaining muscle, or what
fats) have vastly different effects on metabolismever the goal, must account not only for total
and health in general, as we now know differentcalories, but macro nutrient ratios that optimize
carbohydrates have their own effects (e.g. high GImetabolic effects and answer the questions: what
vs. low GI), as we know different proteins can haveeffects will this diet have on appetite? What effects
unique effects.will this diet have on metabolic rate? What effects
The "calories don't matter" school of thoughtwill this diet have on my lean body mass (LBM)?
This school of thought will typically tell you that if youWhat effects will this diet have on hormones; both
eat large amounts of some particular macro nutrienthormones that may improve or impede my goals?
in their magic ratios, calories don't matter. ForWhat effects will this diet have on (fill in the blank)?
example, followers of ketogenic style diets thatSimply asking, "how much weight will I lose?" is the
consist of high fat intakes and very lowwrong question which will lead to the wrong answer.
carbohydrate intakes (i.e., Atkins, etc.) often maintainTo get the optimal effects from your next diet,
calories don't matter in such a diet.whether looking to gain weight or lose it, you must
Others maintain if you eat very high protein intakesask the right questions to get meaningful answers.
with very low fat and carbohydrate intakes, caloriesAsking the right questions will also help you avoid the
don't matter. Like the old school, this school fails topitfalls of unscientific poorly thought out diets which
take into account the effects such diets have onmake promises they can't keep and go against what
various pathways and ignore the simple realities ofwe know about human physiology and the very laws
human physiology, not to mention the laws ofof physics!
thermodynamics!There are of course many additional questions that
The reality is, although it's clear different macrocan be asked and points that can be raised as it
nutrients in different amounts and ratios haveapplies to the above, but those are some of the key
different effects on weight loss, fat loss, and otherissues that come to mind. Bottom line here is, if the
metabolic effects, calories do matter. They alwaysdiet you are following to either gain or loss weight
have and they always will. The data, and real worlddoes not address those issues and or questions, then
experience of millions of dieters, is quite clear on thatyou can count on being among the millions of
reality.disappointed people who don't receive the optimal
The truth behind such diets is that they are oftenresults they had hoped for and have made yet
quite good at suppressing appetite and thus theanother nutrition "guru" laugh all the way to the bank
person simply ends up eating fewer calories andat your expense.
losing weight. Also, the weight loss from such diets isAny diet that claims calories don't matter, forget it.
often from water vs. fat, at least in the first fewAny diet that tells you they have a magic ratio of
weeks. That's not to say people can't experiencefoods, ignore it. Any diet that tells you any one food
meaningful weight loss with some of these diets, butsource is evil, it's a scam. Any diet that tells you it will
the effect comes from a reduction in calories vs. anywork for all people all the time no matter the
magical effects often claimed by proponents of suchcircumstances, throw it out or give it to someone
diets.you don't like!
Weight loss vs. fat loss!