The Unified Theory Of Nutrition Part 1 of 3

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…

In part II, I will get into the nitty gritty of why the two
schools of thought can be brought together.

1. Prev:Obesity – A curse on today’s youth
2. Next:Super Healthy Diet Plan!