Free-Reprint Article Written by: Will Brink 
See Terms of Reprint Below.

* This email is being delivered directly to members of the group:

We have moved our TERMS OF REPRINT to the end of the article.
Be certain to read our TERMS OF REPRINT and honor our TERMS 
OF REPRINT when you use this article. Thank you.

This article has been distributed by:

Helpful Link: 
  The Digital Millennium Copyright Act - Overview


Article Title:
Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition

Article Description:
Regardless of the topic, a unified theory, 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 

Additional Article Information:
2866 Words; formatted to 65 Characters per Line
Distribution Date and Time: Fri Feb 24 02:45:54 EST 2006

Written By:     Will Brink
Copyright:      2006
Contact Email:  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Article URL:
Will Brink's Picture URL:

For more free-reprint articles by this Author, please visit:


Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition
Copyright © 2006 Will Brink
Muscle Building 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 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

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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: .

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 

(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 

(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 

(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 

(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 

(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 

(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.

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

Muscle Building Nutrition 
A complete guide bodybuilding supplements and eating to gain 
lean muscle

Diet Supplements Revealed 
A review of diet supplements and guide to eating for maximum 
fat loss



TERMS OF REPRINT - Publication Rules 
(Last Updated:  April 7, 2005)

Our TERMS OF REPRINT are fully enforcable under the terms of:

  The Digital Millennium Copyright Act


*** Digital Reprint Rights ***

* If you publish this article in a website/forum/blog, 
  You Must Set All URL's or Mailto Addresses in the body 
  of the article AND in the Author's Resource Box as
  Hyperlinks (clickable links).

* Links must remain in the form that we published them.
  Clean links should point to the Author's links without
  redirects having been inserted into the copy.

* You are not allowed to Change or Delete any Words or 
  Links in the Article or Resource Box. Paragraph breaks 
  must be retained with articles. You can change where
  the paragraph breaks fall, but you cannot eliminate all
  paragraph breaks as some have chosen to do.

* Email Distribution of this article Must be done through
  Opt-in Email Only. No Unsolicited Commercial Email.

* You Are Allowed to format the layout of the article for 
  proper display of the article in your website or in your 
  ezine, so long as you can maintain the author's interests 
  within the article.

*** Author Notification ***

  We ask that you notify the author of publication of his
  or her work. Will Brink can be reached at:

*** Print Publication Reprint Rights ***

  If you desire to publish this article in a PRINT 
  publication, you must contact the author directly 
  for Print Permission at:  


If you need help converting this text article for proper 
hyperlinked placement in your webpage, please use this 
free tool:


ABOUT THIS ARTICLE SUBMISSION is a paid article distribution 
service. and 
are owned and operated by Bill Platt of Enid, Oklahoma USA.

The content of this article is solely the property 
and opinion of its author, Will Brink



1. Print the article in its entirety. Don't make any changes in the article . 
2. Print the resource box with all articles in their entirety.
3. Send the Author a copy of the reprinted article or the URL 
  where the articles was posted.

Anything short of following these three rules is a violation 
of the Authors Copyright. 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to