Keifer's Carb Backloading ebook: a discussion

JasonDetwiler

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.

testease

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?

SideSteel

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.

professorRAT

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.

JasonDetwiler

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.

Chief_Rocka

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.

Chief_Rocka

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.

JasonDetwiler

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

jacksonpt

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.

Chief_Rocka

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 confusion

ArroganceInStep

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?

SideSteel

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.

Chief_Rocka

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.

JasonDetwiler

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.

Acg67

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 extreme

jacksonpt

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.

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

professorRAT

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.

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?

professorRAT

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.