Florence Nightingale Nutrition and Taking Food

She noted that individuals desire different foods at different times of the day and that frequent small
servings may be more beneficial to the patient than a large breakfast or dinner.

She urged that no business be done with patients while they are eating because this was distraction.

**********Principles of Nutrition*************

Based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, food and nutrition rank on the same level as air in the basic
necessities of life. Obviously, death eventually occurs without food. But unlike air, food does so much
more than simply sustain life. Food is loaded with personal, social, and cultural meanings that define our
food values, beliefs, and customs. That food nourishes the mind as well as the body broadens nutrition
to an art as well as a science. For most people, nutrition is not simply a matter of food or no food but
rather a question of what kind, how much, and how often. Merging want with need and pleasure with
health are key to achieving optimal nutritional status. To achieve optimal nutritional status, intake may
need to be adjusted upward or downward. For instance, when the goal is recovery from illness or
surgery, nutrition therapy focuses on meeting increased needs for calories, protein, and other nutrients.
Clients who fail to meet their nutritional needs may experience prolonged or complicated recovery from
illness, and their responses to medical treatments and drug therapies may be diminished. In wellness
settings, when optimal nutritional status means disease prevention, the nutritional focus is frequently to
ensure that intake does not exceed requirement. The emphasis is on avoiding excesses of calories, fat,
saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium to reduce the risk of chronic diseases such as heart disease,
hypertension, diabetes, and obesity. However, these settings do not have mutually exclusive nutritional
priorities. Some hospital patients require restrictive diets (e.g., lowsodium diet), and some wellness
clients have nutrient intakes below their requirements (e.g., not enough calcium or fiber). Therefore, a
priority for all clients is to consume or obtain an adequate and appropriate intake of calories and
nutrients based on their own individual needs. Just what is an adequate and appropriate intake of
calories and nutrients and how to achieve that intake is determined by analyzing data to identify actual
or potential nutritional problems. The decision-making process continues with goal setting,
implementing a plan, and evaluation. While the dietitian or diet technician may shoulder most of the
responsibility for the nutritional care of hospitalized patients deemed to be at moderate to high
nutritional risk, low-risk hospitalized patients and clients in other settings (e.g., home health, corporate
wellness, parish nursing) may be relegated to the nurse. In addition, it may be the nurse who screens
clients to determine the existing level of risk and who reinforces diet counseling. As such, nurses are
intimately involved in all aspects of nutritional care. This chapter focuses on the importance of nutrition
in nursing practice. The nursing processis used to illustrate how nutrition is integrated into nursing in the
real world. Real-life situations are described to show practical application.

**************Healthy Eating…

All life processes in the body are in a strong dependence of diet, and what constitutes for its food –
since the very first days of the life. Every living organism in its live processes continuously spends some
constituent substances. Much of these substances are being “burned” (oxidized) in the body, resulting in
energy release. This energy the organism uses to maintain a constant body temperature, also to ensure
the normal functioning of the internal organs (heart, respiratory system, circulatory system, nervous
system, etc.) and particularly to perform any physical work.

***************Theory of Nutrition*****************

Food is the essence and the first condition of life. Not surprisingly, all the universal natural science
concepts have been including the theory of nutrition as their important and essential part. In the history
of science there were two theories of nutrition. The first occurred in ancient times, and the second – the
classical theory of a balanced diet – has been finally formed at the end of XIX – the first half of XX
century.

The ancient theory of nutrition is associated with the names of Aristotle and Galen, and is a part of their
representations of the living. According to this theory the power to all structures of the body is due to
the blood, which is continuously formed in the digestive system of nutrients as a result of a complex
process of unknown to nature, in a way similar to the fermentation. The liver cleanses the blood, and
then it is used to supply all the organs and tissues. Based on these representations, numerous
therapeutic diets were built, that were to provide an easier transformation of food into the blood with
the best qualities of the latter.

********************Classical Theory********************

The classical theory of a balanced diet is closely related to common belief about the ideal food and
optimal balanced diet. This theory is based on a balanced approach for the assessment of diet, and it still
retains its value up to now. In its simplest form, this approach focuses on the part that the body should
have a supply, composed of such molecular structure, that would compensate for their expense and
loss from the metabolism, work, and for growth that also applies to the young organisms.

The classical theory is also based on the following fundamental principles:

inflow of substances must exactly match their expenses;

influx of nutrients provided by the destruction of structures and absorption of food nutrients – nutrients
needed for metabolism and construction of structures of the body;

utilization of food is carried out by the body;

food consists of several components of different physiological significance: food, ballast and toxic
substances;

Metabolism is determined by the level of amino acids, sugars, fatty acids, vitamins and some salts, so
thus we can build a so-called elemental (monomeric) diets.

Nutrients are called such chemicals or individual elements, that are essential for the body and its vital
processes. The common property of proteins, fats and carbohydrates is their ability to satisfy the energy
needs. However, they have relatively high levels of energy released when exposed to the digestive
enzymes.
**************The Food composition******************

The food should contain proteins, fats, carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals and water. The need for
particular amount of food, as well as the particular nutrients may depend on the age for the children,
and for the type of work and living conditions for the adults. To better meet this need of the body, it is
necessary to know how much energy is being consumed on a daily basis. It is known for a fact, that the
energy produced by the body eventually being released as heat.

Under the best nutritional standards we understand such rules, that completely cover the needs of the
bodies for adults, and in addition, the needs of growth and development for the children. Proper diet
promotes working capacity, and is one of the most important conditions for the appropriate functioning
of the gastrointestinal tract.

**********************Unified Theory in Nutrition*****************************

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 Kaku, 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 REALLY MATTER

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!
CONCLUSION

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 BodyBuilding Revealed (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:

Will Brink is the owner of the Brinkzone Blog. Will has over 15 years experience as a respected author,
columnist and consultant, to the supplement, fitness, bodybuilding, and weight loss industry and has
been extensively published. Will graduated from Harvard University with a concentration in the natural
sciences, and is a consultant to major supplement, dairy, and pharmaceutical companies.

His often ground breaking articles can be found in publications such 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.