Keifer's Carb Backloading ebook: a discussion
Replies
-
Does that then mean that cortisol and insulin levels have no meaningful impact on weight, body fat or LBM?
I think the point made is not that cortisol, gh or insulin have no effect on your body. It is that the minor changes in natural levels of these hormones you can make by altering your meal patterns is not significant enough to have any benefit, those are 2 difference points.
The grown hormone argument is a non factor IMO.
What about all those people who talk about stress increasing cortisol levels which can make it more difficult yo lose weight? More bioscience?
I think there's merit to chronically elevated levels of cortisol being potentially harmful.0 -
Does that then mean that cortisol and insulin levels have no meaningful impact on weight, body fat or LBM?
I think the point made is not that cortisol, gh or insulin have no effect on your body. It is that the minor changes in natural levels of these hormones you can make by altering your meal patterns is not significant enough to have any benefit, those are 2 difference points.
The grown hormone argument is a non factor IMO.
What about all those people who talk about stress increasing cortisol levels which can make it more difficult yo lose weight? More bioscience?
I think there's merit to chronically elevated levels of cortisol being potentially harmful.
As a person who took low doses of cortisol for a chronic illness for 3 years I can certainly tell you it alters metabolism and causes fat gain. I am not speaking anecdotally, but I am aware of this via scientific evidence that I read extensively and information I received from numerous MD's specializing in autoimmune diseases and their treatment. It is a well known and well documented side effect of cortisol, and it doesn't take very high levels (chronically elevated, yes.). Chronic stress can elevate cortisol levels and do the same.0 -
I haven't read the book yet but plan to. My thoughts going into it are that the benefits of meal timing are largely outweighed by the practitioner's ability to follow their diet (and of course the level of not-suck of the diet). That being said, I think that managing those kinds of things when you're already very lean can be beneficial. They will not match pharma of course, but I do think it would make sense for someone trying to get in the best shape genetically possible, fiddling with them is worth trying.
What I'm most interested in is cbl's impact on performance. Anecdotally, I've heard it can help a lot with the next day's workout (and off the cuff it makes sense that it would). Any thoughts on that?0 -
I haven't read the book yet but plan to. My thoughts going into it are that the benefits of meal timing are largely outweighed by the practitioner's ability to follow their diet (and of course the level of not-suck of the diet). That being said, I think that managing those kinds of things when you're already very lean can be beneficial. They will not match pharma of course, but I do think it would make sense for someone trying to get in the best shape genetically possible, fiddling with them is worth trying.
What I'm most interested in is cbl's impact on performance. Anecdotally, I've heard it can help a lot with the next day's workout (and off the cuff it makes sense that it would). Any thoughts on that?
I think the performance related aspects of nutrient timing will vary from person to person, however I tend to eat most of my carbs at night, and train fasted, for performance reasons.0 -
I think the performance related aspects of nutrient timing will vary from person to person, however I tend to eat most of my carbs at night, and train fasted, for performance reasons.
Which would be in line with (as I understand it, anyway) the basic premise of the book. I'm certainly looking forward to giving it a go.0 -
I haven't read the book yet but plan to. My thoughts going into it are that the benefits of meal timing are largely outweighed by the practitioner's ability to follow their diet (and of course the level of not-suck of the diet). That being said, I think that managing those kinds of things when you're already very lean can be beneficial. They will not match pharma of course, but I do think it would make sense for someone trying to get in the best shape genetically possible, fiddling with them is worth trying.
What I'm most interested in is cbl's impact on performance. Anecdotally, I've heard it can help a lot with the next day's workout (and off the cuff it makes sense that it would). Any thoughts on that?
Well said.
This book, and it's principles, are intended for people in good shape looking to get into better shape. It's not for someone looking to lose 50lbs because they can't stay away from the refrigerator. Clearly if you can't control yourself and sustain an appropriate diet for your goals, you have no business thinking about CBL.
Additionally, I didn't mean to suggest that I believe this book/plan can yield holy grail-ish results. But I am curious about the merit of Keifer's principles. 1) If cortisol is catabolic by nature, and if cortisol is naturally higher in the mornings, are you more apt to burn more fat during that cortisol high? And if so, why wouldn't you want to take advantage of that? 2) If insulin is anabolic by nature, and if muscle cells/tissue are crying for nutrients post workout, why wouldn't you want to spike insulin and maximize it's benefits? Especially if the ability to "feed" fat cells is reduced post-workout. 3) If CBL is an effective way to boost/fuel your workouts, why wouldn't you?
I get that there is little to no evidence supporting these claims outside of Keifer's research. But is there any evidence to disprove it?0 -
1) If cortisol is catabolic by nature, and if cortisol is naturally higher in the mornings, are you more apt to burn more fat during that cortisol high? And if so, why wouldn't you want to take advantage of that? 2) If insulin is anabolic by nature, and if muscle cells/tissue are crying for nutrients post workout, why wouldn't you want to spike insulin and maximize it's benefits? Especially if the ability to "feed" fat cells is reduced post-workout. 3) If CBL is an effective way to boost/fuel your workouts, why wouldn't you?
I get that there is little to no evidence supporting these claims outside of Keifer's research. But is there any evidence to disprove it?
1-Cortisol is one piece of a much larger puzzle. The big picture is net calorie balance over time
2-MPS is elevated for 24-48 hours after a workout. Again, the big picture is intake over time.
3-What "boosts" your workout is high variable based on persona preference
And the burden of proof lies with the individual making the claim. If he writes a book claiming that this method is super-awesome, he needs to either 1) be able to prove it or, 2) admit that there is nothing special about his protocol, outside of personal preference0 -
1-Cortisol is one piece of a much larger puzzle. The big picture is net calorie balance over time
2-MPS is elevated for 24-48 hours after a workout. Again, the big picture is intake over time.
3-What "boosts" your workout is high variable based on persona preference
I'm not questioning the big picture, I'm questioning the finer points that make up that big picture. Is there benefit to "fine tuning" the details once you have the basics down?0 -
1-Cortisol is one piece of a much larger puzzle. The big picture is net calorie balance over time
2-MPS is elevated for 24-48 hours after a workout. Again, the big picture is intake over time.
3-What "boosts" your workout is high variable based on persona preference
I'm not questioning the big picture, I'm questioning the finer points that make up that big picture. Is there benefit to "fine tuning" the details once you have the basics down?
I am wondering the very same. Especially considering the fact that I have learned lots of "conventional wisdom" about diet that most people just assume is true (including myself) turns out to have no real evidence to back it up. There seems to be a lack of evidence on nutrition in general and we really don't know as much as many people think we do.0 -
It's worked for me. I did Carb Nite for a few weeks after the prep phase and then CBL for a few months (still doing it). 6/2012 I was 215 and my maxes were 450, 345, and 475. I got down to 185 by the beginning of October and 11/3/2012 put up 475, 355, and 525 at 190. So I got stronger and significantly reduced my body fat in four months using the principles in the book. I am but one anecdotal data point.
I don't remember the finer points about amplifying GH production in the book. I think if anything that effect is minimal. Breaking the day into two blocks of fat burning and muscle building makes sense. Others in this thread have called foul on drastic manipulation of the hormone levels, but the book talks about using your natural cycles to your advantage.
So, it worked for me. I'm sticking around 190 right now and increasing my intake for a hypertrophy phase. After Christmas I'll probably do a few more weeks of hypertrophy and then cut with CNS again.0 -
Fire Rock, you throw me with your persistent avatar switching. I'm like, "who's the new guy talking like he knows stuff?"
Oh, FR with a new avi.0 -
And ill anecdotally say my success and numbers have been because i eat 80% of my calories for lunch, and only drink shakes the rest of the day. Should i write a book, cherry pick some supporting numbers, slap some success stories in it and call it a day?0
-
1-Cortisol is one piece of a much larger puzzle. The big picture is net calorie balance over time
2-MPS is elevated for 24-48 hours after a workout. Again, the big picture is intake over time.
3-What "boosts" your workout is high variable based on persona preference
I'm not questioning the big picture, I'm questioning the finer points that make up that big picture. Is there benefit to "fine tuning" the details once you have the basics down?
I think that depends on context. I would speculate that some of the finer points may not even show up on the radar for someone who is (just as an example) 300lbs and obese and beginning lifting. A contest bodybuilder in prep is a different context in which some of these things (by "things" I mean a collective of the finer points and not this issue specifically) could end up making a difference.
Regarding whether or not you "fine tune" I would suggest that you structure your meal timing to maximize performance. If your nutrient timing allows you train harder then you're going to get better results. For some people, that may be a CBL type of approach and if you want to, obviously go ahead and try it.
I just don't think that the result are due to the hormonal effects suggested, for reasons previously stated.0 -
And ill anedotally say my success and numbers have been because i eat 80% of my calories for lunch, and only drink shakes the rest of the day. Should i write a book, cherry pick some supporting numbers, slap some success stories in it and call it a day?
No. Nothing is claiming CBL is the only approach that will get results. I am interested in this from an academic perspective as well and I am trying to determine if the hypothesis is consistent with scientific knowledge about these hormones, etc. So far everything I have researched has found it consistent, but I am not a biochemist. The doesn't imply evidence supports it, just that it is consistent with current knowledge. I don't think the results will be hugely different from other approaches either. The main point is to take advantage of natural fluctuations in cortisol and insulin to tweak fat burning and muscle building. It seems plausible, even if the result will be small.
I find science interesting in all forms and I sometimes I am just interested in learning. Yeah, nerdy. Oh well.0 -
Regarding whether or not you "fine tune" I would suggest that you structure your meal timing to maximize performance. If your nutrient timing allows you train harder then you're going to get better results. For some people, that may be a CBL type of approach and if you want to, obviously go ahead and try it.
Definitely. I went through an adjustment period where I considered dropping the program because I felt terrible and my gym performance was suffering. I adjusted and started getting back to PR's in a few weeks. I can see how some would not react well to it and if your gym performance remains poor throughout the diet, it's obviously not going to work for you.0 -
1-Cortisol is one piece of a much larger puzzle. The big picture is net calorie balance over time
2-MPS is elevated for 24-48 hours after a workout. Again, the big picture is intake over time.
3-What "boosts" your workout is high variable based on persona preference
I'm not questioning the big picture, I'm questioning the finer points that make up that big picture. Is there benefit to "fine tuning" the details once you have the basics down?
My opinion is that "fine tuning" your meal timing beyond the basics amounts to little more than mental *kitten*. I'll change my opinion if I see proof.0 -
Fire Rock, you throw me with your persistent avatar switching. I'm like, "who's the new guy talking like he knows stuff?"
Oh, FR with a new avi.
I like to keep people off balance.0 -
Fire Rock, you throw me with your persistent avatar switching. I'm like, "who's the new guy talking like he knows stuff?"
Oh, FR with a new avi.
I like to keep people off balance.
Sounds like Crossfit0 -
And ill anedotally say my success and numbers have been because i eat 80% of my calories for lunch, and only drink shakes the rest of the day. Should i write a book, cherry pick some supporting numbers, slap some success stories in it and call it a day?
No. Nothing is claiming CBL is the only approach that will get results. I am interested in this from an academic perspective as well and I am trying to determine if the hypothesis is consistent with scientific knowledge about these hormones, etc. So far everything I have researched has found it consistent, but I am not a biochemist. The doesn't imply evidence supports it, just that it is consistent with current knowledge. I don't think the results will be hugely different from other approaches either. The main point is to take advantage of natural fluctuations in cortisol and insulin to tweak fat burning and muscle building. It seems plausible, even if the result will be small.
I find science interesting in all forms and I sometimes I am just interested in learning. Yeah, nerdy. Oh well.
Agreed.
Not everything can be proved. Sometimes it's enough (for me) to know that an idea is consistent with current information. If people are having success, then even better, but knowing who those people are and the context of their success becomes important.
I also am always trying to learn, even if it doesn't necessarily apply to me or where I am in my health/training at the time.0 -
Fire Rock, you throw me with your persistent avatar switching. I'm like, "who's the new guy talking like he knows stuff?"
Oh, FR with a new avi.
I like to keep people off balance.
Sounds like Crossfit
forging elite confusion0 -
And the burden of proof lies with the individual making the claim. If he writes a book claiming that this method is super-awesome, he needs to either 1) be able to prove it or, 2) admit that there is nothing special about his protocol, outside of personal preference
Doesn't he have a crap-ton of references supporting his claims? Are they insufficient?0 -
And the burden of proof lies with the individual making the claim. If he writes a book claiming that this method is super-awesome, he needs to either 1) be able to prove it or, 2) admit that there is nothing special about his protocol, outside of personal preference
Doesn't he have a crap-ton of references supporting his claims? Are they insufficient?
The claims, as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong here with the studies) are hypothetical in that he can show how nutrient timing effects acute hormone balance but he CANT show that there's a net difference in LBM gains over time from this effect.
Find studies that show that CBL results in increased LBM over time (with equal intakes, so it compares timing only) and now you've got something.0 -
And the burden of proof lies with the individual making the claim. If he writes a book claiming that this method is super-awesome, he needs to either 1) be able to prove it or, 2) admit that there is nothing special about his protocol, outside of personal preference
Doesn't he have a crap-ton of references supporting his claims? Are they insufficient?
The claims, as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong here with the studies) are hypothetical in that he can show how nutrient timing effects acute hormone balance but he CANT show that there's a net difference in LBM gains over time from this effect.
Find studies that show that CBL results in increased LBM over time (with equal intakes, so it compares timing only) and now you've got something.
^^^that
And, I'm not even sure if his impressive-looking list of references actually show what he says they show, but I'll leave that for someone else to pick apart.0 -
The claims, as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong here with the studies) are hypothetical in that he can show how nutrient timing effects acute hormone balance but he CANT show that there's a net difference in LBM gains over time from this effect.
Find studies that show that CBL results in increased LBM over time (with equal intakes, so it compares timing only) and now you've got something.
The claim is that it makes it easier to add muscle without adding as much fat as a typical bulking diet, or easier to hold on to your muscle mass while cutting.0 -
And the burden of proof lies with the individual making the claim. If he writes a book claiming that this method is super-awesome, he needs to either 1) be able to prove it or, 2) admit that there is nothing special about his protocol, outside of personal preference
Doesn't he have a crap-ton of references supporting his claims? Are they insufficient?
So does Good calories, Bad Calories, but we all know what a os that book was.
CBL is interesting, but really not all that different then conventional BB wisdom of slamming protein shakes spiked with dextrose, this is just taken to the extreme0 -
CBL is interesting, but really not all that different then conventional BB wisdom of slamming protein shakes spiked with dextrose, this is just taken to the extreme
CBL in general, or CBL the book? The book also talks about fasting... how and when to fast to maximize fat loss.0 -
CBL is interesting, but really not all that different then conventional BB wisdom of slamming protein shakes spiked with dextrose, this is just taken to the extreme
CBL in general, or CBL the book? The book also talks about fasting... how and when to fast to maximize fat loss.
Holding protein and calories the same, I wouldn't expect any significant differences in fat loss between a group that fasts vs one that doesn't0 -
CBL is interesting, but really not all that different then conventional BB wisdom of slamming protein shakes spiked with dextrose, this is just taken to the extreme
CBL in general, or CBL the book? The book also talks about fasting... how and when to fast to maximize fat loss.
Holding protein and calories the same, I wouldn't expect any significant differences in fat loss between a group that fasts vs one that doesn't
Perhaps not, but possibly one holds on to more muscle? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21410865?dopt=Abstract
I admit the jury is still out on these issues due to lack of sufficient evidence (in either direction!). I also admit it is ultimately an empirical question. However, I don't see what is wrong with questioning plausibility in the context of current scientific knowledge. I still haven't hear anything that refutes the plausibility based on current knowledge of biochemical processes.0 -
CBL is interesting, but really not all that different then conventional BB wisdom of slamming protein shakes spiked with dextrose, this is just taken to the extreme
CBL in general, or CBL the book? The book also talks about fasting... how and when to fast to maximize fat loss.
Holding protein and calories the same, I wouldn't expect any significant differences in fat loss between a group that fasts vs one that doesn't
Perhaps not, but possibly one holds on to more muscle? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21410865?dopt=Abstract
I admit the jury is still out on these issues due to lack of sufficient evidence (in either direction!). I also admit it is ultimately an empirical question. However, I don't see what is wrong with questioning plausibility in the context of current scientific knowledge. I still haven't hear anything that refutes the plausibility based on current knowledge of biochemical processes.
Effect of protein-supplement timing on strength, power, and body-composition changes in resistance-trained men.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19478342
Now this one is based on protein, but if it's not protein timing then are you a believer that then it is the high GI carbs in the CBL protocol that would would lead to potentially greater lbm retention?0 -
CBL is interesting, but really not all that different then conventional BB wisdom of slamming protein shakes spiked with dextrose, this is just taken to the extreme
CBL in general, or CBL the book? The book also talks about fasting... how and when to fast to maximize fat loss.
Holding protein and calories the same, I wouldn't expect any significant differences in fat loss between a group that fasts vs one that doesn't
Perhaps not, but possibly one holds on to more muscle? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21410865?dopt=Abstract
I admit the jury is still out on these issues due to lack of sufficient evidence (in either direction!). I also admit it is ultimately an empirical question. However, I don't see what is wrong with questioning plausibility in the context of current scientific knowledge. I still haven't hear anything that refutes the plausibility based on current knowledge of biochemical processes.
Effect of protein-supplement timing on strength, power, and body-composition changes in resistance-trained men.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19478342
Now this one is based on protein, but if it's not protein timing then are you a believer that then it is the high GI carbs in the CBL protocol that would would lead to potentially greater lbm retention?
Neither. I thought your most recent question was regarding fasting vs. not ("Holding protein and calories the same, I wouldn't expect any significant differences in fat loss between a group that fasts vs one that doesn't").
The study holds all constant except fasting vs traditional daily calorie restriction. Fat loss was the same, but retention of muscle was not. I was addressing that narrowly defined question, not one about the total merits of the CBL book. I don't follow your response in that regard.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions