Keifer's Carb Backloading ebook: a discussion

Acg67

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.

You're right, went off topic for a sec

Do you have a link of the full study to read?

professorRAT

Here is the link to the full article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00873.x/full

Again, I don't mean this to imply that this settles that debate. It certainly does not. It does, however, raise the possibility of this benefit to IF. More studies would be interesting.

Acg67

Here is the link to the full article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00873.x/full

Again, I don't mean this to imply that this settles that debate. It certainly does not. It does, however, raise the possibility of this benefit to IF. More studies would be interesting.

This is kinda a biggie

{quote]More specifically, the majority of daily CR trials implemented dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), while the majority of intermittent CR trials employed bioelectrical impedance analysis. It is well known that DXA and MRI are vastly more accurate techniques for the assessment of fat mass and fat free mass when compared to bioelectrical impedance analysis (33). Thus, the different methods employed could create variability when comparing findings between diets.[/quote]

I agree though, that some research into IF is interesting, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of data supporting many of the claims made about it

professorRAT

Yep. Agreed.

Oddly, I find a lack of data supporting almost every bit of conventional wisdom I have read on MFP forums and all bodybuilding sites I visit. This is even true for things I previously thought were settled debates and I, myself, had jumped on board with! People don't feel the need to cite their sources. Bad science all around.

professorRAT

Here is the link to the full article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00873.x/full

Again, I don't mean this to imply that this settles that debate. It certainly does not. It does, however, raise the possibility of this benefit to IF. More studies would be interesting.

This is kinda a biggie

{quote]More specifically, the majority of daily CR trials implemented dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), while the majority of intermittent CR trials employed bioelectrical impedance analysis. It is well known that DXA and MRI are vastly more accurate techniques for the assessment of fat mass and fat free mass when compared to bioelectrical impedance analysis (33). Thus, the different methods employed could create variability when comparing findings between diets.

[/quote]

Quick question, does anyone know if bio impedance analysis is systematically biased (in one direction)?

Acg67

Here is the link to the full article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00873.x/full

Again, I don't mean this to imply that this settles that debate. It certainly does not. It does, however, raise the possibility of this benefit to IF. More studies would be interesting.

This is kinda a biggie

{quote]More specifically, the majority of daily CR trials implemented dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), while the majority of intermittent CR trials employed bioelectrical impedance analysis. It is well known that DXA and MRI are vastly more accurate techniques for the assessment of fat mass and fat free mass when compared to bioelectrical impedance analysis (33). Thus, the different methods employed could create variability when comparing findings between diets.

Quick question, does anyone know if bio impedance analysis is systematically biased (in one direction)?
[/quote]

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/556733-body-fat

ArroganceInStep

Slightly off point but related enough (I think, anyway).

To provide sufficient proof that a specific diet/fitness paradigm 'works' you need scientific studies proving as much, preferably peer-reviewed. I'm pretty sure, at least in this company, I can take that as an assumed fact.

However, how does one go about getting studies on these types of things? You need to get funding, and then administer the tests and submit your results. If I make a claim that eating all of your food while hanging upside down will increase fat loss (and have anecdotal proof that it does too cause do you know how hard it is to eat food upside down?) but only have 3 people in the whole world following it, it's going to be pretty hard to find funding for my study. To generate the hype needed to justify (practically speaking of course, ideally we'd want to fully vet everything before applying it but that doesn't really happen I don't think) extensive research in the area, isn't at least some degree of mental *kitten* and crowd hype required?

This doesn't mean that CBL is right, I think the main question is whether or not it poses a plausible argument. Obviously the onus is on the person making the claim to prove his or her point, but do you think his theorizing is sufficient to justify the effort performing studies to prove or disprove it?

As I said previously, I think there may be some SMALL benefit to playing with nutrient timing (what is a bulk/cut cycle other than calorie and nutrient timing over an extended period of time?) For someone very overweight, it's not going to make much difference. The problems for people in that situation are more fundamental in nature. At that point, just getting the basics down is FAR more important (and always will be).

I think that if Keifer's research can show that:
A) Timing nutrient intake can impact hormone levels
Increased/decreased levels of the hormones impacted affect LBM retention on a cut and FM suppression on a bulk

Then his claim is worthy of funding for further research. The only piece missing, assuming A and B are proven, is that A has a direct impact on B. As far as I know, the only way to prove that is through case studies (and yes, it's a huge PITA to do because of that whole pesky correlation/causation thing).

If on the other hand, all his book does is prove A, then I agree that it's wholly overrated.

...on the other hand, I really like eating cake at night .