 HEN PEOPLE HEAR the term Unified Theory, sometimes called the Grand Unified Theory, or even the Theory of Everything, they probably think of it in terms of physics, where a Unified Theory — or a 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 of the universe itself. Theoretical physicist Michio Katu refers to it as "an e quation 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 but can be applied to far more mundane topics, in this case, nutrition.
Again, regardless of the topic, a unified theory seeks to explain seemingly incompatible aspects of various theories. In this article we attempt to unify seemingly incompatible and opposing views regarding the role of nutrition in the attempt to gain or lose bodyweight. The debate concerns the importance of calories versus macronutrients (carbohydrates, protein, fats) as factors in the struggle. This is the subject of probably the longest running debate in the nutritional sciences.
One school, which we might call the old school of nutrition, maintains that weight loss and weight gain are all about calories, and "a calorie is a calorie," no matter the source (carbs, fats or proteins). They base their position on various lines of evidence to come to that conclusion.
The other school, the new school, states that gaining or losing weight is really about where the calories come from (again, carbs, fats or proteins), and that is what dictates weight loss or weight gain. This would mean, they feel, that the calorie-is-a calorie mantra of the old school is wrong. They, too, come to the conclusion using various lines of evidence.
Again, this has been an ongoing debate among people in the fields of nutrition, biology, physiology and many other disciplines for decades. The result has been conflicting advice leading to a great deal of confusion among the general public, not to mention among many medical professionals and related groups.
But before we go any further, we must make two key points, essential to understanding any unified theory. First, a good unified theory is simple, concise and understandable, even to lay people. However, the theory is always supported by technical information that can fill many volumes. So, for us to outline all the information we have used to come to our conclusions is (far) beyond the scope of this article.
Second, a unified theory is often first proposed by some theorist before it can even be proved or fully supported by mathematical and physical evidence. Then, over time, different lines of evidence may support the theory and thus solidify that theory as being correct. Or they may show the theory needs to be revised or that it is simply incorrect. We feel that time has come, that there is now more than enough evidence to give a unified theory of nutrition, and that lines of evidence will continue (with possible revisions) to solidify our theory as fact. "A calorie is a calorie" The old school of nutrition, which includes most nutritionists, proclaims "a calorie is a calorie" when it comes to gaining or losing weight. Weight loss or weight gain is strictly a matter of "calories in, calories out." Translated, when you "burn" more calories than you take in, you lose weight regardless of the calorie source; and when you eat more calories than you burn off, you 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 approximately four calories per gram, fat holds approximately nine calories per gram, and the source of those calories matters not. They base this on the many studies that find when one reduces calories by X each day, weight loss is the result, and when one adds X calories beyond those used each day, weight gain follows. And since this is fact, what is the argument?
Well, 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 metabolic pathways. They have effects on hormones (such as insulin, leptin and glucagon), effects on hunger and appetite, thermic effects (heat production), effects on uncoupling proteins (UCPs), and myriad other effects. Indeed, nutrients not only provide energy and building materials; they also provide information.
Even worse, this school of thought fails to take into account the fact that even within a macronutrient, data (the precursor to information) exist that can have different effects on metabolism. The school ignores the ever-mounting volume of studies that have found diets with different macronutrient ratios but with identical caloric intake have different effects on body composition, cholesterol levels, oxidative stress, and so forth. Translated, not only is the mantra a calorie is a calorie false, all fats are created equal and protein is protein are also bogus. Indeed, we now know different fats (fish oils and saturated fats, for example) have vastly different effects on metabolism and on health in general, even as we now know different carbohydrates (with different Glycemic Indices) have their own effects, and different proteins have their unique effects. The "calories don't matter" school This school of thought typically maintains that when you eat large or small amounts of some particular macronutrient, calories don't matter. For example, followers of ketogenic-style diets that consist of high fat intake and very low carbohydrate intake (Atkins comes to mind) often proudly announce that calories are irrelevant.
Others insist that calories don't matter with very high protein intake and very low fat and carbohydrate intakes. Like the old school, this school fails to take into account the effects such diets have on various metabolic pathways and ignores the simple realities of human physiology, not to mention the laws of thermodynamics.
Although it's clear different macronutrients in different amounts and ratios have different effects on weight loss, fat loss and other metabolic happenings, the reality is 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 fad diets is they are often quite good at suppressing appetite, and the person simply ends up eating fewer calories and thus losing weight. But the weight loss from such diets is often from water versus 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 as opposed to any magical effects claimed by their proponents. Weight loss versus 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 casual observer. What has become abundantly clear from the studies performed and from real world evidence is that to lose weight we need to use more calories than we take in (via reducing caloric intake and increasing exercise). But we also know different diets have different effects on metabolism, appetite, body composition and other physiologic variables. Unified Theory of Nutrition And that reality has led us to our Unified Theory of Nutrition. The theory states: The total number of calories you take in dictates how much weight you gain or lose, and macronutrient ratios determine how much of that gain or loss is fat or muscle.
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 who are put on the same calorie intakes but are prescribed very different ratios of carbs, fats and proteins will lose different amounts of body fat and lean body mass (muscle). (Continued in right-hand column)
| (Continued from left-hand column)
Some studies find, for example, people on a high protein, low carb diet lose approximately the same amount of weight as another group on a high carb, low protein diet; but the group on the high protein diet lost more actual fat and less lean body mass (again, muscle). Or, some studies using the same caloric intakes but different macronutrient intakes often find the high protein diet may result in less actual weight loss than the high carb, low protein diets, but the actual fat loss is higher. This effect has also been seen in some studies that compared high fat, low carb versus high carb, low fat diets. The effect is usually amplified when exercise is involved, as you 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 macronutrient ratios do have different effects on human physiology even when caloric intakes are identical. 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. |
The point being there are many studies confirming that the actual ratio of carbs, fats and proteins in a given diet can affect what is actually lost (fat, muscle, bone or water) and that total calories has the greatest effect on how much total weight is lost. Are you starting to see how the 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, we find it much easier to understand the seemingly conflicting diet and nutrition advice out there. Of course this does not account for the downright unscientific and dangerous nutrition advice people are subjected to via bad books, TV, the 'net and well meaning friends.
Knowing the above information, while keeping the Unified Theory of Nutrition in mind, leads us to some important and potentially useful conclusions: 1.) An optimal diet designed to allow a person to lose fat and retain as much lean body mass as possible is not the same as a diet simply designed for weight loss; 2.) a nutrition program designed to create fat loss is not simply a reduced calorie version of a nutrition program designed to cause weight gain; and 3.) diets need to be designed with fat loss, not just weight loss, as the goal; but total calories can't be ignored. Diets designed for fat loss (versus weight loss) should start with the correct macronutrient ratios, which depend on variables such as amount of lean body mass the person carries versus body fat percent, activity levels, and so on. And then figure out caloric intake based on the proper macronutrient ratios to achieve fat loss with minimal loss of lean mass. The actual ratio of macronutrients can be quite different for both diets and even for individuals. Optimal macronutrient ratios can change with total calories and other variables. Diets are always less than optimal when they give the same macronutrient ratios to all people (for example, 40% protein/30% carbs/30% fats) regardless of total calories, goals and activity levels.
Perhaps most important, the Unified Theory explains why the focus on weight loss versus 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 Unified Theory makes it clear that the optimal diet for losing fat or for gaining muscle, or whatever the goal, must account not only for total calories but for macronutrient ratios that optimize metabolic effects and that answer these questions: What effects will this diet have on my appetite? What effects will this diet have on my metabolic rate? What effects will this diet have on my lean body mass? What effects will this diet have on the hormones that may improve or impede my goals? But what is it about you that determines these varied effects?
Your metabolic type Eating a meal that is right for your metabolic type should produce a notable and lasting improvement in your energy, your mental capacities, and your emotional well-being and should leave you feeling satisfied for several hours. If you are already feeling good, eating should help to maintain your energy level. But if you feel worse in some way an hour or so after eating, then it might be that the meal contained an improper combination of proteins, fats and carbohydrates. Your body was designed for a certain blend of the right food types. The further you deviate from this ideal, the more health problems are likely. That is why some of the sickest people are those who are designed to be eating high-protein foods but have decided to be vegetarians. Conversely, carb types who choose to eat high amounts of meats also don't do very well. Protein types do better on low-carbohydrate, high-protein and high-fat diets. A typical ratio might be 40 percent protein and 30 percent each of fats and carbohydrates, but the amounts could easily shift to 50 percent fats and as little as 10 percent carbohydrates depending on individual genetic requirements. Carb types normally feel best when most of their food is carbohydrate. However, there is a difference between vegetables and grains, and yet they are both referenced as carbs. And if you don't understand the practical distinction between grains and vegetables, you're likely headed for a health disaster. It is important to remember that over two-thirds of Americans are either obese or overweight, and nearly every one of these individuals needs to lower their insulin levels. Additionally, most people with high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes also struggle with elevated insulin levels that respond quite well to grain restriction.
So what nearly all these people — likely over 85 percent of the U.S. population — will benefit from is not a low-carb diet (the Atkins Diet) but the grain-free diet. So if you are a carb metabolic type, you will require about 60 percent of your food as carbs, 25 percent protein and 15 percent fat, but this type may need as little as 10 percent fat and as high as 80 percent carbs in exceptional times. If you followed an Atkins Diet you might improve initially, but eventually your system would break down because it required far more carbohydrate.
If your metabolic type is mixed, your requirements are between the carb and protein types. Learn your metabolic type and eat accordingly. Your body is the best instrument available to make this analysis. So you start the process of improving your health by carefully analyzing your responses to different foods. You start by eating the proportions of proteins, fats and carbs according to your taste and appetite.
Then analyze your reactions to the meal and discover how well you did in selecting the right ratios. If you did not react optimally to your meal, change the ratios the next time you eat that meal and again analyze your reactions. In this way you can fine-tune each meal to the ratios of proteins, fats and carbs that are just right for you. Remember that you should feel great an hour after you eat. If you're still having food cravings or your energy level is lower, these are clues that you are likely not eating appropriately for your metabolic type.
For example, suppose an hour after lunch you felt sleepy, hungry and wanted some caffeine or something sweet. These are clear indications that the ratios at lunch were far from what they should have been for your metabolism. So the next day, eat the same foods for lunch but dramatically change the ratios. As a result of this change, you will feel noticeably better or worse. Either you are on the right track or you need to go in the opposite direction with your ratios. For example, if you dramatically increased your protein and lowered your carbs but your symptoms worsened, you'll know that what you needed to do at that meal was actually to lower your protein and increase your carbs.
In conclusion, simply asking, "How much weight will I lose?" is asking the wrong question, which will lead to the wrong answer. To get the optimal effects from your next diet, whether designed for weight gain or weight loss, you must ask the right questions. Asking the right questions will also help you avoid the pitfalls of unscientific, poorly thought out diets that make promises they can't keep and that go against what we know about human physiology and the laws of physics.
There are, of course, many additional questions that can be asked and points that can be raised as they apply to the above, but those are the key issues. Bottom line here is, if the diet you are following either to gain or lose weight does not address those issues and questions, then you can count on your being among the millions of disappointed people who don't receive the optimal results they had hoped for. And you've allowed yet another nutrition guru to laugh all the way to the bank, at your expense. A diet that suggests any one food source is evil is a scam. A diet that claims calories don't matter: Forget it. A diet that claims they have a magic ratio of foods: Ignore it. A diet that claims it will work for all people all the time, Democrat or Republican: Throw it out or give it to someone you don't like. - END - | FYI: The author of this article is not a nutritionist; he is merely a reporter who has made a commonsense connection between two parallel streams of evidence gleaned from the literature. The references to a "Unified Theory" are intended to incite a first blush interest in the article. This approach is referred to in jounalism as an angle. (And yes, commonsense is one word when used as an adjective.) |
|