PDA

View Full Version : Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition



Severed Ties
10-05-2004, 12:27 PM
I've talked about the importance of macronutrients many times on the forum yet some people can't get past the idea of calories in vs calories out. It's not about one or the other but rather utilizing both if you want to get LEAN not THIN.

This article ties both idea's together beautifully.

Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition

By Will Brink© 2003
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 now 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)?

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 answers.

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,
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) 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.

He can be contacted at: PO Box 812430
Wellesley MA. 02482.
Email: wbrink@earthlink.net



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.

galileo
10-05-2004, 12:30 PM
I haven't yet read it, but Lyle McDonald has commented on such -


I've seen folks like Berardi, I think Brink and Krieder reference it to support all manners of idiotic claims. Krieder used it to claim that low GI was more protein sparing, nevermind that the low GI group had more total protein.

Berardi misinterpreted it completely, said that one group lost more fat (the study only looked at weight changes), etc.

In Will's 'Unified theory of nutrition' where he makes claims about a calorie not being a calorie, I'm fairly sure that EVERY study he references is comparing low and high protein intakes. This is fairly common.

Max-Mex
10-05-2004, 02:40 PM
Good read ST. However, I think people get so obsessed with macros they totally forget that total calorie consumption is just as important. Generally when people on this board post about not being able to gain/lose weight, more often that not they are taking in too much or not enough calories. I think once people get calorie intake settled, then macros will help tweak weight loss/gain more.

Severed Ties
10-05-2004, 03:41 PM
I haven't yet read it, but Lyle McDonald has commented on such - I'm fairly sure that EVERY study he references is comparing low and high protein intakes.

Lyle should look at what he's referencing before commenting.

Max-Mex- Agree this not info for newbies as people need to get a handle on total caloric first but I think we need some advanced discussion now and again.;)


This caught my eye as well....

New data supports Low glycemic diet

Public release date: 26-Aug-2004
[ Print This Article | Close This Window ]

Contact: Bess Andrews
elizabeth.andrews@childrens.harvard.edu
617-355-6420
Children's Hospital Boston

New data validate the low-glycemic diet
Recruits sought for large human trial of 'atkins alternative'
A carefully controlled animal study provides clear evidence that a low-glycemic-index (low-GI) diet – one whose carbohydrates are low in sugar or release sugar slowly – can lead to weight loss, reduced body fat, and reduction in risk factors for diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
"The study findings should give impetus to large-scale trials of low-GI diets in humans," says senior author David Ludwig, MD, PhD, director of the Optimal Weight for Life (OWL) obesity program at Children's Hospital Boston. His group's findings appear in the August 28th issue of The Lancet.

Many studies, including small studies in humans, have suggested that low-GI diets are beneficial, but due to study design, the observed benefits could have come from other aspects of the subjects' diets, such as fiber or overall caloric intake. For this reason, no major health agency or professional association references glycemic index in their dietary guidelines, Ludwig says.

In the current study, rats were fed tightly controlled diets with identical nutrients, except for the type of starch. Both diets were 69 percent carbohydrates, but 11 rats were randomly assigned to a high-GI starch and 10 to a low-GI starch. Food portions were controlled to maintain the same average body weight in the two groups.

At follow-up, the high-GI group had 71 percent more body fat and 8 percent less lean body mass than the low-GI group, despite very similar body weights. The fat in the high-GI group was concentrated in the trunk area, conferring "the apple shape as opposed to the pear shape," Ludwig says. (Having an apple shape is a known risk factor for cardiovascular disease in humans.)

The high-GI group also had significantly greater increases in blood glucose and insulin levels on an oral glucose tolerance test, and far more abnormalities in the pancreatic islet cells that make insulin, all changes that occur in diabetes. Finally, the high-GI group had blood triglyceride levels nearly three times that of the low-GI group, a risk factor for cardiovascular disease.

In a further experiment, rats were randomly assigned to one of the two diets, and, at week 7, were crossed over to the alternate diet for another 3 weeks. Rats that switched from a low to high GI diet showed greater increases in blood glucose and insulin than rats that were switched from high to low GI. Finally, 24 mice were randomly assigned to the low- or hi-GI diet. At week 9, the high-GI group had 93 percent more body fat than mice on the low-GI diet.

"What the study shows is that glycemic index is an independent factor that can have dramatic effects on the major chronic diseases plaguing developed nations – obesity, diabetes, and heart disease," says Ludwig. "This is the first study with hard endpoints that can definitively identify glycemic index as the active dietary factor."

Unlike the popular Atkins diet, which seeks to minimize carbohydrate intake, the low-GI diet makes distinctions among carbs. It avoids high glycemic-index foods, such as white bread, refined breakfast cereals, and concentrated sugars, which are rapidly digested and raise blood glucose and insulin to high levels. Instead, it emphasizes carbohydrates that release sugar more slowly, including whole grains, most fruits, vegetables, nuts, and legumes.

"The Atkins diet tries to get rid of all carbohydrates, which we think is excessively restrictive," says Ludwig. "You don't have to go to this extreme if you pay attention to the glycemic index and choose low-GI carbs."


###
Children's Hospital Boston is now recruiting adult subjects for a large-scale, 18-month human study of the low-GI diet. Subjects will receive comprehensive dietary and behavioral counseling in individual and group sessions that will enable them to put low-GI diets into effect. To enroll, subjects must be overweight, 18 to 35 years old, and motivated to attend weekly sessions for four months and return for follow-up through 18 months. People interested in enrolling should contact Erica Garcia-Lago at 617-355-2500.

Children's Hospital Boston is the nation's leading pediatric medical center, the largest provider of health care to Massachusetts' children, and the primary pediatric teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School. Children's provides pediatric and adolescent health services for patients from birth through age 21. In addition to 325 inpatient beds and comprehensive outpatient programs, it houses the world's largest research enterprise based at a pediatric medical center. More than 500 scientists, including eight members of the National Academy of Sciences, nine members of the Institute of Medicine and 10 members of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute comprise Children's research community

Vido
10-05-2004, 03:59 PM
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 now 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.


I think this guy is bang-on. I'm not sure how one could refute any of the above.

Saint Patrick
02-17-2005, 12:51 PM
Bump

lilmase1153
02-17-2005, 12:57 PM
damn good read ST

spencerjrus
02-18-2005, 12:33 PM
So basically to summarize "Your body can tell the difference between different kinds of foods regardless of identical calorie counts."

Wow I never would have thought of that on my own. If articles like this are all it takes to be a leading researcher in your field I should go work at NASA. Honestly if I'm missing something here please point it out and I will gladly apologize for my sarcasm but from reading the article I don't see any information you couldnt get from asking a room full of kindergarten students.

Roark
02-18-2005, 12:54 PM
this interests me. i'll be coming off my first true "bulk" in about 2.75 more pounds.

i'm hoping to figure out the best way to maintain the muscle while losing fat.

smalls
02-18-2005, 01:59 PM
So basically to summarize "Your body can tell the difference between different kinds of foods regardless of identical calorie counts."

Wow I never would have thought of that on my own. If articles like this are all it takes to be a leading researcher in your field I should go work at NASA. Honestly if I'm missing something here please point it out and I will gladly apologize for my sarcasm but from reading the article I don't see any information you couldnt get from asking a room full of kindergarten students.

LOL, this topic has been debated back and forth many times on this site, ST was posting a well written article explaining his point of view. It discussed the topic a little more in depth then "your body telling the difference between different kinds of foods." Also the author is not a leading researcher in the nutrition field.

Edit: cuz I dont wanna get banned.

Adam
02-18-2005, 07:55 PM
Thanks for the bump St. P

Adam
02-18-2005, 07:58 PM
Did anyone read this book? 'Muscle Building Nutrition'

lilmase1153
02-18-2005, 11:39 PM
no adam but after reading this i think i will have to pick it up..

chris mason
02-19-2005, 06:06 AM
Has anyone ever seen Will Brink? The guy is a chubby little man who doesn't look like he trains or has any clue about nutrition.

When someone is supposed to be a guru they had better practice what they preach or I have a very hard time buying into their ideas (assuming they are able to practice it---i.e. not physically handicapped etc.). I might otherwise assume the lack of drive which allows themselves to look like a slob (if they are a fitness guy or gal) might just translate into their work and thus their work might be the result of a haphazard work ethic.

My 2 cents.

Adam
02-19-2005, 06:25 AM
I saw a pic taken from far away.
He sure didn't seem to have a bodybuilders build.
I like the information posted above though, its similar to Berardi's(and he has a great physique) and I've been using his advice for the last 12 months with tremendous results.

Beef101
02-19-2005, 06:31 AM
very interesting read, i can see articles like these will come in handy in my future studies.
:D

darius19
02-19-2005, 06:48 AM
Yeah, good stuff. Makes sense.

Pup
02-19-2005, 12:58 PM
Has anyone ever seen Will Brink? The guy is a chubby little man who doesn't look like he trains or has any clue about nutrition.


I don't think that this is ever a decent premise for an argument about someone's knowledge base regarding exercise or nutrition. An individual may be a researcher in a lab or research the pubmed articles like the Avant Labs guys do, this doesn't necessarily make them stupid or their information unworthy or stupid because they don't necessarily "look the part". Guys like John Berardi are special cases...John is an athlete who just happens to hold a PhD, this Will Brink may just be someone interested in the field and done research on the subject.

Case in point: when PowermanDL first came to WBB, i recall you hating him with a passion because some 160lb guy certainly couldn't know anything worthwhile about powerlifting, olympic lifting or exercise physiology in general. But in fact, he turned out to be pretty spot on with a good deal of his stuff, has written articles for mindandmuscle magazine (a good online magazine imo) and was even a moderator here that helped a good many people with their training.

A man's physical stature does not always define the quality of his intellect.

Vido
02-19-2005, 02:53 PM
I guess Lyle McDonald's not very credible either then eh Chris?

Holto
02-19-2005, 03:08 PM
at least Lyle is in shape...he's skinny because he has poor genetics

Vido
02-19-2005, 03:10 PM
at least Lyle is in shape...he's skinny because he has poor genetics

For someone that knows as much about bodybuilding nutrition as he does, you wouldn't know it by looking at him...that's all I'm saying.

Having knowledge and having the desire to use that knowledge are 2 totally different things.

lilmase1153
02-19-2005, 04:28 PM
For someone that knows as much about bodybuilding nutrition as he does, you wouldn't know it by looking at him...that's all I'm saying.

Having knowledge and having the desire to use that knowledge are 2 totally different things.
100% correct.. many nutrtitionists and dieticians dont look it but that doesnt take away from what they know.. thats like saying a coach for a football team doesnt know what hes talking about cause he doesnt look like a football player..

although i do wish more of these "gurus" actully looked the part..

chris mason
02-19-2005, 04:58 PM
I go back to the dentist analogy. If my dentist's teeth are rotting out I might doubt his abilities and the worth of his knowledge.

There are certain positions and jobs that just demand the person look the part and I think dietician/diet guru is one of them.

I understand my thoughts on this seem overly harsh but they are just how I feel. I also could not take training advice from someone who is a squid. It just is what it is.

Vido
02-19-2005, 05:09 PM
I go back to the dentist analogy. If my dentist's teeth are rotting out I might doubt his abilities and the worth of his knowledge.

There are certain positions and jobs that just demand the person look the part and I think dietician/diet guru is one of them.

Everyone agrees that clean teeth are better than rotting ones.

Not everyone wants to look like a bodybuilder.

Maki Riddington
02-19-2005, 05:11 PM
If you're gonna talk the talk, make sure you can walk it as well, otherwise credibility is going to be tough to establish.

Maki Riddington
02-19-2005, 05:14 PM
Everyone agrees that clean teeth are better than rotting ones.

Not everyone wants to look like a bodybuilder.

You're missing the point Vido. It's the ability to use this information that is being discussed. It's one thing to say something and another to actually apply it.

I agree though that not everyone wants to become a bodybuilder, whatever that means. But surely if the information that one presents can not be translated to real life results, there is a problem?

Vido
02-19-2005, 05:14 PM
If you're gonna talk the talk, make sure you can walk it as well, otherwise credibility is going to be tough to establish.

Aren't you a big fan of Lyle?

Vido
02-19-2005, 05:18 PM
But surely if the information that one presents can not be translated to real life results, there is a problem?

I wouldn't call it a problem. Some people don't have the desire to use their knowledge.

I'll just use myself as an example. I would never call myself an "expert" on nutrition, but I know a fair amount...certainly I could look a lot better than I do now if I didn't go out to the bar with friends or eat garbage all the time. See my point?

I agree that it's more difficult to take advice from someone who "doesn't walk the walk", but you have to step back and realize that's a fairly narrow-minded viewpoint.

Maki Riddington
02-19-2005, 05:22 PM
Aren't you a big fan of Lyle?


What constitutes being a fan?? I follow his readings from time to time and agree with what he has to say for the most part, but I don't exactly swing off his nut sack.

Vido
02-19-2005, 05:25 PM
What constitutes being a fan?? I follow his readings from time to time and agree with what he has to say for the most part, but I don't exactly swing off his nut sack.

lol, calm down...I never said you did. My point is that Lyle is someone whose knowledge far surpasses his physique. He also happens to be someone who I think you respect.

Maki Riddington
02-19-2005, 05:27 PM
I wouldn't call it a problem. Some people don't have the desire to use their knowledge.

I'll just use myself as an example. I would never call myself an "expert" on nutrition, but I know a fair amount...certainly I could look a lot better than I do now if I didn't go out to the bar with friends or eat garbage all the time. See my point?

I agree that it's more difficult to take advice from someone who "doesn't walk the walk", but you have to step back and realize that's a fairly narrow-minded viewpoint.

Knowledge is not attained by plowing through a list of studies. It needs to be applied. Until you are in a position where you teach others you will not fully grasp this concept. And this is by no means an insult towards you Vido.

If I talk the talk but don't walk it, what does it make me? It makes me a hypocrite. Now I am not saying Lyle is a hypocrite because if I remember correctly he was at one point at a very repsectable bodyweight and bodyfat level.

Maki Riddington
02-19-2005, 05:29 PM
lol, calm down...I never said you did. My point is that Lyle is someone whose knowledge far surpasses his physique. He also happens to be someone who I think you respect.

I am calm. I was just asking what you meant by being a fan. I repsect those that back up what they preach.

Lyle may not be applying himself to his fullest capabilities and that's probably because he suffers from something called self-discipline, just like many of us do on this board.

Vido
02-19-2005, 05:34 PM
If I talk the talk but don't walk it, what does it make me? It makes me a hypocrite. Now I am not saying Lyle is a hypocrite because if I remember correctly he was at one point at a very repsectable bodyweight and bodyfat level.


Lyle may not be applying himself to his fullest capabilities and that's probably because he suffers from something called self-discipline, just like many of us do on this board.

Those posts right there are basically what I'm saying though. For a plethora of reasons, someone may not look as good as they could; that doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about.

Maki Riddington
02-19-2005, 05:41 PM
Ok, but that was not what I was referring to.


Having knowledge and having the desire to use that knowledge are 2 totally different things.


Some people don't have the desire to use their knowledge.

My statements were in reference to the above.

Vido
02-19-2005, 05:53 PM
I don't see how you're a hypocrite for KNOWING something and DOING something else. If someone asks for your advice you're going to give them an answer based on what they SHOULD be doing, not on what you currently are doing. I can sit on here in the Diet Forum all day and give advice, while I chow down on pizza and cookies. You don't see me recommending pizza and cookies because that wouldn't make any sense. I'm well aware those aren't foods I should be eating, but do I anyway? Yes, of course.

Severed Ties
02-19-2005, 05:58 PM
I gotta agree with Vido on this, look at coachs for pro bodybuilders or powerlifters and many times you will find goliath being trained by david.

If you choice to disagree with information based on some point of reason or experience fine but rejecting information because the person giving it is smaller than you sounds like the kind of reasoning I expect to hear in a highschool gym.

ST

Maki Riddington
02-19-2005, 06:13 PM
I don't see how you're a hypocrite for KNOWING something and DOING something else. If someone asks for your advice you're going to give them an answer based on what they SHOULD be doing, not on what you currently are doing. I can sit on here in the Diet Forum all day and give advice, while I chow down on pizza and cookies. You don't see me recommending pizza and cookies because that wouldn't make any sense. I'm well aware those aren't foods I should be eating, but do I anyway? Yes, of course.

You do follow what you believe in but at times you stray from it. That is fine. I am talking about those who do not practice what they preach at all. Which is what I clearly showed you were getting at with the two statements I highlighted in my above post.

"a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold"

If you do not act upon a belief but profess them through teachings what does that make you? Bear in mind that to know something is to believe it and to profess what you believe in but not hold true to your own teachings is hypocrisy. I don't know how you are even trying to debate this fact Vido.

I am a bit lost at what you are trying to get at with all this back and forth chatter. You seem to keep changing your points to make different points when all I was getting at was this. If you're gonna talk the talk you better be walking it otherwise your credibility will be limited. Argue all you want but this is the cold truth.

Maki Riddington
02-19-2005, 06:15 PM
I gotta agree with Vido on this, look at coachs for pro bodybuilders or powerlifters and many times you will find goliath being trained by david.

If you choice to disagree with information based on some point of reason or experience fine but rejecting information because the person giving it is smaller than you sounds like the kind of reasoning I expect to hear in a highschool gym.

ST

I never even remotley touched on this in any of my posts.

TTT
02-19-2005, 06:45 PM
........
.....................

This caught my eye as well....

New data supports Low glycemic diet

Public release date: 26-Aug-2004
[ Print This Article | Close This Window ]

Contact: Bess Andrews
elizabeth.andrews@childrens.harvard.edu
617-355-6420
Children's Hospital Boston

New data validate the low-glycemic diet
Recruits sought for large human trial of 'atkins alternative'
A carefully controlled animal study provides clear evidence that a low-glycemic-index (low-GI) diet – one whose carbohydrates are low in sugar or release sugar slowly – can lead to weight loss, reduced body fat, and reduction in risk factors for diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
"The study findings should give impetus to large-scale trials of low-GI diets in humans," says senior author David Ludwig, MD, PhD, director of the Optimal Weight for Life (OWL) obesity program at Children's Hospital Boston. His group's findings appear in the August 28th issue of The Lancet.

Many studies, including small studies in humans, have suggested that low-GI diets are beneficial, but due to study design, the observed benefits could have come from other aspects of the subjects' diets, such as fiber or overall caloric intake. For this reason, no major health agency or professional association references glycemic index in their dietary guidelines, Ludwig says.

In the current study, rats were fed tightly controlled diets with identical nutrients, except for the type of starch. Both diets were 69 percent carbohydrates, but 11 rats were randomly assigned to a high-GI starch and 10 to a low-GI starch. Food portions were controlled to maintain the same average body weight in the two groups. ..................................................................................................


Good posts, ST. Interesting read - thanks.

I don't like this part of the second experiment though (highlighted in bold) - looks a bit dodgy to me.

Severed Ties
02-19-2005, 06:54 PM
I never even remotley touched on this in any of my posts.


My response is in regards to Chris's point about Brink being built like a stringbean. However I wasn't sure what to make of your post below so I left my response general. If I misunderstood then I apologize for taking it out of context.




If you're gonna talk the talk, make sure you can walk it as well, otherwise credibility is going to be tough to establish.


ST

idzeroone
02-19-2005, 06:55 PM
Everyone agrees that clean teeth are better than rotting ones.

Not everyone wants to look like a bodybuilder.

EXACTLY RIGHT!!

The football coach analogy could just as well apply to any sport. I doubt many trainers/coaches of boxing, bicycling, marathon running, etc. look like or perform like those they are training.

chris mason
02-19-2005, 07:01 PM
Yeah, except the football coaches (for the most part) played ball at one point. They walked the walk at some point as have nearly all coaches.

I hope everyone noted the fact that I did not say my thoughts on the subject are rational or correct, they are my opinion. I just can't have a squid training me. That's just me.

Severed Ties
02-19-2005, 07:01 PM
Good posts, ST. Interesting read - thanks.

I don't like this part of the second experiment though (highlighted in bold) - looks a bit dodgy to me.


TTT- the highlighted part is the most critical part of the study. The food portions need to be controlled to measure if there is any significant difference between the rats being fed hi-GI and low GI diets. It is definitly odd that the researchers choose to feed them a caloric intake to maintain the same average bodyweight but if you go to the full study I'd be very interested to see if the lo-GI group was feed more calories per day to maintain there weight or if there were any changes in fat to LBM ratio's. I agree the reseachers choose an odd way to go about it as a fixed diet for both groups seems logical.

ST

Severed Ties
02-19-2005, 07:08 PM
I did not say my thoughts on the subject are rational or correct, they are my opinion.

Well that just about kills any response I may have had...strong Chris...I conceed defeat for now,lol:bow:

ST

Maki Riddington
02-19-2005, 07:10 PM
My response is in regards to Chris's point about Brink being built like a stringbean. However I wasn't sure what to make of your post below so I left my response general. If I misunderstood then I apologize for taking it out of context.






ST

Note the words "tough to establish." :)

chris mason
02-19-2005, 07:10 PM
Lol, and really an opinion I should have kept to myself. Brink is probably a great guy.

idzeroone
02-19-2005, 07:18 PM
I agree with you that I would not want some fat slob or skinny geek as a personal trainer, but I thought the point of the post that got this going was the validity of a researcher's results based on what he looks like. I need to scroll up and see if my memory is correct.

idzeroone
02-19-2005, 07:39 PM
Yep,
My memory was correct.

"Has anyone ever seen Will Brink? The guy is a chubby little man who doesn't look like he trains or has any clue about nutrition.

When someone is supposed to be a guru they had better practice what they preach or I have a very hard time buying into their ideas (assuming they are able to practice it---i.e. not physically handicapped etc.). I might otherwise assume the lack of drive which allows themselves to look like a slob (if they are a fitness guy or gal) might just translate into their work and thus their work might be the result of a haphazard work ethic.

My 2 cents."

Anyway, the only reason I am posting is I want my post total to go up, LOL.

Vido
02-19-2005, 08:28 PM
My response is in regards to Chris's point about Brink being built like a stringbean.

That's what I was talking about the whole time too. I will leave at that.

lilmase1153
02-19-2005, 10:47 PM
i believe we can all agree to disagree...

lets just follow the advice of the legend himself Ron Burgundy who sculpts his guns with unmatched precsison..

"when in rome"

chris mason
02-20-2005, 08:48 AM
Yep,
My memory was correct.

"Has anyone ever seen Will Brink? The guy is a chubby little man who doesn't look like he trains or has any clue about nutrition.

When someone is supposed to be a guru they had better practice what they preach or I have a very hard time buying into their ideas (assuming they are able to practice it---i.e. not physically handicapped etc.). I might otherwise assume the lack of drive which allows themselves to look like a slob (if they are a fitness guy or gal) might just translate into their work and thus their work might be the result of a haphazard work ethic.

My 2 cents."

Anyway, the only reason I am posting is I want my post total to go up, LOL.

Please note my qualifying words "a very hard time" as opposed to I cannot possibly believe their ideas.

If a squid states something which makes sense to me, backs up my personal experience, or is readily agreed upon in the arena upon which they are commenting then I will probably agree with it and wonder why said squid cannot practice what they preach.

My specific comment about Brink was really due to a picture I have seen of him with Debbie Kruck (a fitness model) where she dwarfs him in height and his pot-belly is readily evident along with his lack of arm development. This image of him, due to my own issues, makes me truly wonder about the validity of what he says and or why the heck he can't apply it to himself.

Like I said, it is my opinion on the matter and probably one I should have kept to myself because it serves no real purpose other than negativity.

Vido
02-20-2005, 01:33 PM
Like I said, it is my opinion on the matter and probably one I should have kept to myself because it serves no real purpose other than negativity.

Nah, I think everyone feels the same way you do, Chris. It's just important to recognize that you can't necessarily judge a book by its cover so to speak.

WillBrink
07-24-2006, 04:31 PM
I've talked about the importance of macronutrients many times on the forum yet some people can't get past the idea of calories in vs calories out. It's not about one or the other but rather utilizing both if you want to get LEAN not THIN.

This article ties both idea's together beautifully.



Glad you enjoyed it.

WillBrink
07-24-2006, 04:37 PM
So basically to summarize "Your body can tell the difference between different kinds of foods regardless of identical calorie counts."

Wow I never would have thought of that on my own. If articles like this are all it takes to be a leading researcher in your field I should go work at NASA. Honestly if I'm missing something here please point it out and I will gladly apologize for my sarcasm but from reading the article I don't see any information you couldnt get from asking a room full of kindergarten students.

Then go ask a room full of kindergarten kids and see what answers you get. I have had a bunch of PhD level researchers tell me at conferences how much they like that article, but clearly, you are more advanced then any of them or myself.

Holto
07-24-2006, 04:44 PM
Then go ask a room full of kindergarten kids and see what answers you get. I have had a bunch of PhD level researchers tell me at conferences how much they like that article, but clearly, you are more advanced then any of them or myself.

Wow. How unprofessional of you. If you are who you claim to be.

WillBrink
07-24-2006, 04:46 PM
Has anyone ever seen Will Brink? The guy is a chubby little man who doesn't look like he trains or has any clue about nutrition.


Is that right?

http://brinkzone.com/gallery.php?gcatid=13

Top pics are how I look now at 41. Bottom left pic is me in my 20s. I was 5'7" and apprx 205bs at 8-9% BF. No, I am not exactly going to challange anyone for the My Olympia, but I have done the est I can with the genetics I was born with.

WillBrink
07-24-2006, 04:54 PM
Wow. How unprofessional of you.

How so? Can't deal with it when a person defends themselves after some person makes insulitng (and incorrect) comments? Professionalism does not = accepting insults from people. Deal with it.

Maki Riddington
07-24-2006, 05:00 PM
Nice arms.

WillBrink
07-24-2006, 05:07 PM
Nice arms.


Thank you Maki. I do the best I can.

Built
07-24-2006, 05:57 PM
Interesting discussion.

Meat animals produce different qualities of meat depending upon their feed. It's not a huge leap to think that humans could be similar in this regard.

My feeling is that some aspects of diet (calories, sufficient essential macro and micro nutrients) produce gross changes in physique, while others (macronutrient timing, quality and type of essential and non-essential macro and micronutrients) create the fine tuning. This is not based on an article I can point to, but a pattern of observations I haven't quite managed to put togther ... yet.

I'm all ears though - I'd sure like to know how to get the rest of the fat off my ass.

Will, drop by my gym log anytime.

And I agree with Maki - nice pipes.

smalls
07-24-2006, 09:32 PM
How so? Can't deal with it when a person defends themselves after some person makes insulitng (and incorrect) comments? Professionalism does not = accepting insults from people. Deal with it.


Defending yourself is one thing. You kinda sound offended and defensive, which is kinda sad when done on the internet.




My feeling is that some aspects of diet (calories, sufficient essential macro and micro nutrients) produce gross changes in physique, while others (macronutrient timing, quality and type of essential and non-essential macro and micronutrients) create the fine tuning. This is not based on an article I can point to, but a pattern of observations I haven't quite managed to put togther ... yet.



This is pretty much the way I see it and have experienced it as well.

Slim Schaedle
07-25-2006, 01:11 AM
Defending yourself is one thing. You kinda sound offended and defensive, which is kinda sad when done on the internet.
Just going to chime in and say I gree with this.


Professionalism is not just doing a job. It is doing a job while potraying a particular image or impression (maturity, good character, etc.). This is my opinion and the techincal definition of "professionalism" closely resembles it.


But anyway...

WillBrink
07-25-2006, 08:46 AM
Interesting discussion.

Meat animals produce different qualities of meat depending upon their feed. It's not a huge leap to think that humans could be similar in this regard.

My feeling is that some aspects of diet (calories, sufficient essential macro and micro nutrients) produce gross changes in physique, while others (macronutrient timing, quality and type of essential and non-essential macro and micronutrients) create the fine tuning. This is not based on an article I can point to, but a pattern of observations I haven't quite managed to put togther ... yet.

I'm all ears though - I'd sure like to know how to get the rest of the fat off my ass.

Will, drop by my gym log anytime.

And I agree with Maki - nice pipes.

As I made clear in the article, more research is clearly needed in this area, but I felt there was enough info at this point to put forth the theory/concept. People can take away from that what they want. Thanx for the "nice piped" comments. I had posted a URL to an MPEG of my last leg day, but for reasons unclear, the mod removed it claiming there were pics on my photo bucket section not allowed on the forum. There is no porn there or anything like that, so it's a mystery to me, especially considering I have posted that URL to many a forum without issue. Regardless, it's an interesting area of research and researchers in this area are just starting to "get it" when it comes to macro nutrient ratios vs simple calories and their effects on bodycomp (vs weight) and other interesting effects.

Holto
07-25-2006, 02:30 PM
If you could post a study, wherein anything other than total calories had an impact on body composition, I would be fascinated to read it.

ShockBoxer
07-25-2006, 06:27 PM
If you could post a study, wherein anything other than total calories had an impact on body composition, I would be fascinated to read it.

We should do our own study. We have a pretty large sample group, after all, filled with newbies like myself. Hardest part would be arranging for accurate composition tests for each subject at various markers.

Holto
07-29-2006, 06:58 PM
We should do our own study.

To have any credibility for a non live in study, you need a huge group. At least 1000. The only study I can think of like this is the Harvard Nurses study. It gets referenced alot in nutrition science. It had 4000+ participants.

If we did it though it would be cool if the subjects used At Large products. That kind of hype could create a long term legacy for the brand.