SECTION 1: Introduction...
● The 3 foundations of a healthy Student.
SECTION 2: Maintain a 4.0 GPA!
● Exploiting your strengths and study tips.
● Dealing with Stress...
SECTION 3: Stay Healthy!
● Keeping Healthy in Process
● Why working out relieves stress, and helps your GPA!
● Finding a good workout regime
● Creating a Healthy Diet Plan
● Supplements - What works, what doesn't and why.
SECTION 4: Keeping a healthy Bank Account...
● Why having a set part-time job may affect your GPA...
● Money Savers for University Students
● Online SCAMS!
● The truth about most review sites!!!
● Using a webpage to create revenue!
● Finding Scholarships and Financial Aid...
CREATING A HEALTHY DIET
"Brink's Unified
Theory of Nutrition"
By Will Brink, author of:
Muscle Building Nutrition
http://www.musclebuildingnutrition.com
Muscle Gaining Diet, Training Routines by Charles Poliquin & Bodybuilding
Supplement Review
Diet Supplements Revealed
http://www.aboutsupplements.com
Real World Fat Loss Diet & Weight Loss Supplement Review
"Brink's
Unified Theory of Nutrition"
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 sated 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)? |
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!
About the Author - William D. Brink
Will Brink is a columnist, contributing consultant, and writer for various
health/fitness, medical, and bodybuilding publications. His articles
relating to nutrition, supplements, weight loss, exercise and medicine can
be found in such publications as Lets Live, Muscle Media 2000, MuscleMag
International, The Life Extension Magazine, Muscle n Fitness, Inside
Karate, Exercise For Men Only, Body International, Power, Oxygen,
Penthouse, Women’s World and The Townsend Letter For Doctors.
He is the author of Priming The Anabolic
Environment and Weight Loss Nutrients Revealed. He is the Consulting
Sports Nutrition Editor and a monthly columnist for Physical magazine and
an Editor at Large for Power magazine. Will graduated from Harvard
University with a concentration in the natural sciences, and is a
consultant to major supplement, dairy, and pharmaceutical companies.
He has been co author of several studies relating to sports nutrition and
health found in peer reviewed academic journals, as well as having
commentary published in JAMA. He runs the highly popular web site
BrinkZone.com which is strategically positioned to fulfill the needs and
interests of people with diverse backgrounds and knowledge. The BrinkZone
site has a following with many sports nutrition enthusiasts, athletes,
fitness professionals, scientists, medical doctors, nutritionists, and
interested lay people. William has been invited to lecture on the benefits
of weight training and nutrition at conventions and symposiums around the
U.S. and Canada, and has appeared on numerous radio and television
programs.
William has worked with athletes ranging from professional bodybuilders,
golfers, fitness contestants, to police and military personnel.
See Will's ebooks online here:
Muscle Building Nutrition
http://www.musclebuildingnutrition.com
A complete guide bodybuilding supplements and eating to gain lean muscle
Diet Supplements Revealed
http://www.aboutsupplements.com
A review of diet supplements and guide to eating for maximum fat loss
He can be contacted at: PO Box 812430
Wellesley MA. 02482.
BrinkZone.com
Email: will@brinkzone.com
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.
● Unified Theory of Nutrition: WILL BRINK
● Proprietary blends: WILL BRINK
● Creatine, Not just a sports nutrition supplement: WILL BRINK
● Creatine, More than a sports nutrition supplement: WILL BRINK
● The Whey to Weight loss: WILL BRINK
● The Truth About Counting Calories And Weight Loss: TOM VENUTO
● The Glycemix Index (GI) - Key To Fat Loss Or Just Another Diet Gimmic: TOM VENUTO
● Banking Calories - Eat Less Now To Pig Out Later?: TOM VENUTO
● Building A Better Body One Brick At A Time: TOM VENUTO
● Nutrition Or Training - Which Is More Important? TOM VENUTO?
● Turn Super-Sizing To Your Advantage: TOM VENUTO