Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
AkumaZ

Carb Backloading

Recommended Posts

Guest ExperimentB76z

Energy balance as in if you are in a surplus you will gain mass and if you are in a deficit you will lose mass (the nature of the gain / loss depending on multifarious factors).

The only evidence that you can lose weight by consuming carbs in the manner Keifer describes* is the Israeli study, and that was two kilos extra - 11 kilos lost instead of nine - over the course of six months (approximately 26 weeks). Two kilos equals 0.07 kilos a week, or 0.17 lbs. So the difference on the best study is less than one sixth of a pound a week, or to put it another way you can eat an extra 356 kcals a week in carbs if you consume them all after 7pm. Or if you look at that daily, 50 extra kcals of carbs. And that is provided you are eating to a deficit in the first place. And these were obese people. And that's if we take the study on face value, which for the reasons I've already given, we can't.

The benefits that can be obtained with carb placement - if they prove to be correct - fall into line pretty much as with the thermogenic properties of food, the differences MCTs make, and what additional fibre in the diet might do over time. The difference is really quite small in the big scheme of things. Kiefer really plays on these qualities, however; but the inescapable fact remains that energy balance is the determining factor.

*I may well have missed something and if I have I will look at it if someone points me to the appropriate reference.

I'm not sure why you and FM equate macro counting with writing down precise numbers for every meal. As I said to FM above, even if you just approximate energy consumption by portion size you are still tracking energy and counting macros, you've simply adopted a cruder less accurate form of measurement.

That said, for people who don't like to count calories, etc - I think the most effective way to structure a diet is alternate day fasting (one 500 / 600 meal on fast day - eat with impunity the next) or the 5/2 protocol - same but five days off, two days on. Both I think could be worked into a diet / program for people who resistance train. I'm considering doing an ADF set up with alternate training, not for the body composition aspect, but there appear to be other health benefits to fasting (proper fasting, not 16/8) which extend beyond body composition. Needless to say it's not concrete yet, but as with some of Kiefer's research, it looks interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Energy balance as in if you are in a surplus you will gain mass and if you are in a deficit you will lose mass (the nature of the gain / loss depending on multifarious factors).

The only evidence that you can lose weight by consuming carbs in the manner Keifer describes* is the Israeli study, and that was two kilos extra - 11 kilos lost instead of nine - over the course of six months (approximately 26 weeks). Two kilos equals 0.07 kilos a week, or 0.17 lbs. So the difference on the best study is less than one sixth of a pound a week, or to put it another way you can eat an extra 356 kcals a week in carbs if you consume them all after 7pm. Or if you look at that daily, 50 extra kcals of carbs. And that is provided you are eating to a deficit in the first place. And these were obese people. And that's if we take the study on face value, which for the reasons I've already given, we can't.

The benefits that can be obtained with carb placement - if they prove to be correct - fall into line pretty much as with the thermogenic properties of food, the differences MCTs make, and what additional fibre in the diet might do over time. The difference is really quite small in the big scheme of things. Kiefer really plays on these qualities, however; but the inescapable fact remains that energy balance is the determining factor.

*I may well have missed something and if I have I will look at it if someone points me to the appropriate reference.

I'm not sure why you and FM equate macro counting with writing down precise numbers for every meal. As I said to FM above, even if you just approximate energy consumption by portion size you are still tracking energy and counting macros, you've simply adopted a cruder less accurate form of measurement.

That said, for people who don't like to count calories, etc - I think the most effective way to structure a diet is alternate day fasting (one 500 / 600 meal on fast day - eat with impunity the next) or the 5/2 protocol - same but five days off, two days on. Both I think could be worked into a diet / program for people who resistance train. I'm considering doing an ADF set up with alternate training, not for the body composition aspect, but there appear to be other health benefits to fasting (proper fasting, not 16/8) which extend beyond body composition. Needless to say it's not concrete yet, but as with some of Kiefer's research, it looks interesting.

Fair enough.

However, I doubt i'd ever consider ADF as I quite enjoy eating, and I cant see it being very beneficial from a performance aspect for weightlifting as it seems you'd be under-recovering one day, and trying to compensate for it another day

Of course there was a time when I said i'd never consider low carb, yet found that to be quite easy to follow (in terms of eating at least). Still, can't imagine going a day on only one 5-600 Cal meal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stumbled on this Dan John article today, linked to from an Eric Cressy article:

http://danjohn.net/2012/02/manage-your-options/

The take away from the Manage Your Options article is that just about anything will work... for 6-8 weeks. There's a lot of just simple practical advice in there both in approaching your programming as well as your diet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ExperimentB76z

Jay, I'm not sure I could do one day on 600 kcals either. I'm not sure if I'll ever give it a go. I like the idea of it, because if it is true, during a fasted state your body switches from cell creation to cell repair (including brain cells), so it might protect against alzheimers. And because it reduces IGF1, things like tumours are less likely to grow (or so some scientists say). I could make a case for and against recovery, so the answer on that is I don't know until (unless) I try it. I am quite happy just doing what I'm doing at the moment though, so there is no impetus to change.

That is a good article indeed, from Dan John, FM. It does basically come down to choosing a method - any method - of creating a deficit that you are happy with and following it. Then reviewing how you got on, and making tweaks as you go. He has had his six week rule for ages, and it fits quite nicely with dieting too. Taking a break at maintenance every six to eight weeks is good mentally and physically, and means that the next lot is likely to come of just as easily. Or at least that's the way it worked for me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't remember where I found it, but I read a guy's account of self experimentation on different IF protocols. The guy was a dietitian and a lifter, so his experience weighed a little more than say Jack Black giving the same accounts. His account of the 1 day a week fasting protocol was that it was surprisingly sustainable, he looked and felt great. The day before the fast he would double up on the portions of food to maintain the average deficit for the week, and the day after the fast was a training day. He had the typical pumped look that carb backloading gives you with that approach. The weight was coming off at a pretty steady clip, not too fast and not too slow. When he attempted 2 days a week fasting with the same double up the day before protocol, things didn't go so well. He felt weak, people commented on how unhealthy he looked. That experiement didn't last too long. The Lean Gains protocol worked just as well as fasting 1 day a week--but I got the feeling he liked the 1 day a week fast a little more. Same with some of the other IF protocols.

The main reason for sharing the account, was that fasting 1 day a week while maintaining an average Caloric deficit was quite sustainable but not much more than that. My guess is the 1 day a week protocol was enough for the repair processes to complete and more than that become a bit too catabolic. It's a balance that has to be maintained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it's hypoglycemia. But while we all know what we're talking about...

That's definitely, not definately. But, spelling mistakes are ok in internet chatrooms, right?

When arguments come to spelling errors' checks, I am out of such discussions.

For your information, the spelling "hypoglycaemia" is very common. I would also advise you to double check your own spelling as it's not without errors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ExperimentB76z

Vlad, I only pointed out your error in spelling in response to you taking issue with mine - sort of, "people in glass houses should not throw stones". I could care less how you or anyone else spells or writes, especially when your English is vastly superior to my Russian.

Your post to mine wasn't the most endearing I've had fired at me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to go off topic too much, but I think Vlad was pointing out that you wrote hyperglycemia, when what happens biologically is hypoglycemia. Those are two rather different conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ExperimentB76z

Fair point, if that's what was meant. There is still the purported, "many, many" times I have made a mistake regarding something I've never mentioned before. I'm sure none of it would have happened it we weren't discussing it over the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to go off topic too much, but I think Vlad was pointing out that you wrote hyperglycemia, when what happens biologically is hypoglycemia. Those are two rather different conditions.

Yes, that was what I meant. Thank you pointing this out!

But coming back to the topic, in my view there is a major flaw in the CBL theory.

The theory builds on several assumptions, the major ones being:

1) Muscle cells and adipocytes (fat cells) become insulin resistant by the end of the day, or at least less sensitive than in the morning.

2) Training increases sensitivity of muscle cells, whereas sensitivity of adipocytes remains unchanged.

Therefore if you load carbs after training in the evening, the carbs will not be taken up by adipocytes (at least not as well as in the morning), but muscle cells will readily uptake the available glucose since they are sensitive after training.

On the surface this sounds good. But the big question is if the adipocytes become insulin resistance by the end of the day if the diet is basically ketogenic until after training.

Here one needs first of all to understand why adipocytes and muscle cells (hepatocytes for that matter as well) become insulin resistant by the end of the day. The major mechanism is the insulin receptor down-regulation caused by the receptor endocytosis upon ligand binding. In other words, after insulin binds to its receptor, the receptor disappears from the cell surface. Inside the cell, insulin dissociates and then receptor goes back to the cell surface. However, continuous and prolonged incubation of cells in the presence of insulin leads to a substantial reduction of the insulin receptor concentration on the cells surface. This is a pretty complicated process and I depicted it very simplistically for clarity.

The question is: if you don’t eat glucose during the day and basically remain in a state which is metabolically similar to a fasted state, what will cause insulin resistance by the end of the day? There’s nothing to induce it, as far as I am aware of. When you fast at night and insulin concentration drops, the concentration of receptors on the cell surface gradually increases. If you continue to fast until evening, you will remain insulin sensitive by the evening. If all you eat is fat and proteins that do not spike insulin (like suggested in CBL), then insulin will remain low during the day and you will end up being insulin sensitive by the evening.

In adipocytes, there is a theoretical possibility for another mechanism of insulin resistance, not caused by the insulin receptor down-regulation (but receptor down-regulation is a major contributing factor, if it’s present). Basically, mTOR provides a positive feedback on IRS1 activity via Ser-posphorylation. Attenuation of this feedback due to inhibition of mTOR caused by adipocytes hypetrophy and hyperplasia is speculated to be a major mechanism for the insulin resistance in adipocytes. How adipocyte hepertrophy inhibits mTORs is not known, but still this mechanism doesn’t exactly fit into the picture. In the absence of insulin, fatty acids will not be uptaken by adipocytes anyway and the described mechanism of inhibition appears to operate in obese people only, which are not exactly the population who are supposed to employ CBL.

Summarising the above, the major premise of CBL – assumption 1 – is known to operate in people who eat during the day a carbohydrate diet, and this carbohydrate diet induces the insulin resistance. Since CBL advocates not to eat carbohydrates during the day, and carbohydrates are a mechanistic reason for inducing this resistance, it is absolutely not clear if the assumption 1 operates when one follows CBL.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's two sides of the equation. Insulin production and insulin sensitivity. CBL and other similar carb cycling diets assume that the largest insulin spikes are caused by carbs. But the presence of insulin doesn't matter much when there isn't corresponding energy to store.

At least this is the uncomplicated layman understanding of the situation. If you save energy storage for when the muscles are more sensitive than fat, then you are storing more energy where it helps and not where it hurts.

As you surmise, ketosis and fasted states are a mechanism of undoing excessive insulin resistance.

(null)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The common thought process is that adipose insulin sensitivity is more bio rhythmic, so just naturally more sensitive in the morning. Whereas muscles and organs are adaptive, and become more sensitive when demands are placed on them.

I have no idea how well the thought process is backed by studies, but if it is true, then CBL makes a lot of sense.

(null)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you didn't read my explanation why the insulin sensitivity is higher in the morning and why on CBL you are very likely going to remain in the insulin sensitive state until the end of the day? There's a reason why you are more sensitive in the morning, and that is not because it's just more natrual like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to add: not really forcing anyone to read my explanations. I am a scientist working in this field and for me going into the minor details is very natural. But for most people, who are unlikely to be familiar with the underlying science, this may not be as interesting.

To be honest, I find CBL a very convenient way to eat. This has always beem more or less a natural way of eating for me and I always had difficulties sticking for a longer period of time to a more traditional diet.

But the theory behind the diet I find very unconvincing, and I am not talking about diet studies, but about the undelying biological processes that happen in the body.

Still, I am following CBL myself and I find that this way of eating works pretty well for me. In my view, CBL - like any intermetant fasting diet - has one useful advantage. The diet upregulates the machinery involved in fat burning and actually makes the body capable of switching quickly between carbs and fats utilisation. This is very useful as you can easily tolerate short term calorie restriction without experiencing any side effects of crashed energy levels since most people have large reserves of fat and very small carbohydrate reserves (in comaparison to fat). So this is very practical as you are no longer a slave of a diet.

But for losing fat, one just need to be in a calorie restriction. Whatever method creates it - works. Everything else - doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vlad, I'd like to specifically say it for the record: your input and what you call 'minor details' are very much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ExperimentB76z

I too very much enjoyed your post, Vlad; this is something I had wondered about - what controls the circadian rhythms.

All I have managed to find is this meta analysis, which seems to suggest that circadian bio-rhythms on insulin sensitivity are connected to sleep and cortisol patterns and unaffected by glucose ingestion, p.717, "Well controlled studies have demonstrated that “afternoon diabetes” does not reflect a difference in duration of prior fast but represents a true effect of time of day (9, 10, 12, 13)." "Afternoon diabetes", means increased insulin sensitivity in the analysis. What they seem to be suggesting is, even if you fast through out the day, you will still be more insulin sensitive at the end of the day than in the morning.

If that is correct - I've only skim read it - could it point to another biochemical reaction that is causing increased insulin sensitivity in the evening (assuming a normal sleep pattern)?

***

In both Vlad and FM's post there is the suggestion that carbs are needed to create an insulin response, and that protein / fat does not. I am not sure whether in Vlad's post, it is fat plus protein, in which case the response is muted. However, this is one of the major underlying problems with the whole carb cycling theory - that carbs alone spike insulin. This is not the case. Some sources of carbs cause significantly less of an insulin spike than protein. Again, the insulin index shows that beef / fish cause spikes in insulin secretion if they are ingested on their own (as do BCAAs), so even just eating protein and/ or fat in the day will cause a release of insulin.

This means two things as far as I can see,

  • The biochemical mechanism Vlad outlines above has an opportunity to work (I maybe wrong?) even if carbs are not ingested,
  • The insulin spike hopefully caused by carbs post work out is muted because of the earlier meals consisting of protein / fat.

As Jay pointed out earlier, the point of raising insulin in CBL - unlike normal carb cycling protocols - is mostly to stop muscle catabolism (which it would). But on that, I cannot see why you would need or necessarily want to spike insulin (not that it appears you can, unless you are eating a high GI carbohydrate in a fasted state in the absence of another protein, and why would you do that) any more than you could by ingesting protein on it's own or a normal meal.

***

Accepting for a moment that Vlad's biochemical reaction is not interfered with by a separate biochemical reaction (?), and insulin sensitivity is not increased through out the day unless you ingest carbs, then because you will be insulin sensitive at the end of the day the muscles will be more receptive to uptake of glucose (as they are normally in the morning). I am guessing then that the issue is the adipocytes are equally sensitive too, whereas in CBL they are purportedly less sensitive?

I think it is pretty much trite that muscles are more receptive to nutrients after a damn good work out, however; that's not time of day specific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you didn't read my explanation why the insulin sensitivity is higher in the morning and why on CBL you are very likely going to remain in the insulin sensitive state until the end of the day? There's a reason why you are more sensitive in the morning, and that is not because it's just more natrual like that.

I read it, and it is informative if a little over my head at the moment. The thing that CBL and similar diets do rather well is take all the the stuff that means something to scientists and package it in a way that common folk like me can comprehend at a basic level two things:

  1. what's going on
  2. how I can manipulate the variables

The challenge is that what's going on seems to change depending on the fat content you have. For obese guys, it seems just about anything will work to lose weight. That's great. For folks with already low body fat, there also seems to be a good amount of information. For those guys that are somewhere in the middle, it's a crap shoot.

At any rate, my basic understanding of the way body systems work and how I can manipulate variables needs to change because it was based on a population that doesn't train.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In both Vlad and FM's post there is the suggestion that carbs are needed to create an insulin response, and that protein / fat does not.

A minor clarification of what I was trying to say: the insulin response is of less interest when there isn't an abundance of readily available energy to store. Protein takes time to convert to energy, but by that time the insulin response dies down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I third (or fourth, whatever number we're on) Vlad bringing in the science. It makes me feel like my education is actually useful.

...could it point to another biochemical reaction that is causing increased insulin sensitivity in the evening (assuming a normal sleep pattern)?

It could be related (inversely) to cortisol levels, perhaps. IIRC, cortisol is highest in the mornings (assuming you aren't always stressed out), and diseases involving perpetually high levels of cortisol, eg Cushing's syndrome, often have an insulin resistance component to their pathophysiology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A minor clarification of what I was trying to say: the insulin response is of less interest when there isn't an abundance of readily available energy to store. Protein takes time to convert to energy, but by that time the insulin response dies down.

This is not so. Insulin is not just a storage hormone. It also inhibits fat lypolisis and oxidation, and that's exactly what you want when losing fat.

I think we have created (or maybe I should say - I have) a lot of unnecessary confusion around this subject. I have touched the subject of insulin resistance very superficially and one will obviously find a lot of examples when another mechanism is in operation. There are at least a dozen different mechanisms.

Regarding the circadian rythm and insulin sensitivity during a time of day. Here one again needs to understand what causes circadian rythms. This is not something that happens "naturally" and is just so and should be accepted as a fact. Circadian rythms are caused by cyclical patterns of activity during the day. Our brain "catches" these patterns and starts acting accordingly. If you change the patterrn of activity during the day, the brain will notice that and make appropriate changes.

So if people in the studies on glucose sensitivity display a certain pattern, one has to remeber that those people are most likely on a typical carbohydrate diet which has an intrinsic property to generate insulin resistance. The brain adjusts all other hormones accordingly so that the body has the best chance of survival under those conditions. If you now start doing some medical tests on these people, one will notice that some properties behave in a cyclical way (lie insulin resistance) even if the underlying cause is not present during the study. But allow the new pattern to operate for a week, and the brain will adjust a lot of different things in a different way, and a new circadian rythm will be created.

Regarding CBL, I have said before - this is a very conveniet diet for myself to adhere to. The easier it is to adhere to a diet, the better results you will get. This is why many people get good results on CBL. But a lot of other people get very good results from other IF diets and they find it easy to adhere to those diets as well. Some people find it easy to adhere to a diet with lots of carbohydrates. But some don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ExperimentB76z

So if people in the studies on glucose sensitivity display a certain pattern, one has to remeber that those people are most likely on a typical carbohydrate diet which has an intrinsic property to generate insulin resistance.

I understand what you mean by the mechanisms which control circadian rhythms, and I thought the explanation you gave about cellular function and insulin was frankly awesome. **Actually, contrary your worry here that you are making things more complex, I think you are bringing some much needed clarity though the subject itself maybe be complicated** That said, in the meta analysis I referenced above, it seems that in four of the studies the participants were given glucose at different times during the day, and they took it in a fasted state. So these subjects are not following a typical diet (though it would be interesting to see if they were in the studies Keifer references). I think the studies were to specifically test whether the circadian rhythms of insulin sensitivity operated independently of carbohydrate ingestion (or so it seems, without further reading). And they concluded that it does. It seems that there may be some connection with sleep, which is why I thought there may be another biochemical reaction going on in addition to the one you delineated above. I think the cortisol suggestion by Janelle sounds more than plausible, since there appears to be connections between sleep apnoea and insulin resistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As Jay pointed out earlier, the point of raising insulin in CBL - unlike normal carb cycling protocols - is mostly to stop muscle catabolism (which it would). But on that, I cannot see why you would need or necessarily want to spike insulin (not that it appears you can, unless you are eating a high GI carbohydrate in a fasted state in the absence of another protein, and why would you do that) any more than you could by ingesting protein on it's own or a normal meal.

I might not have specified it, but the use of an insulin spike with the primary purpose of stopping catabolism is specifically for morning workouts, which is accomplished according to the protocol with protein and a dose of leucine (3-5g).

Leucine, according to the claims, is a BCAA that does a very good job of causing a very quick insulin spike that dies down shortly thereafter (which is probably why certain protein rich foods cause insulin reactions in themselves, leucine content?)

For the ideal training time of late afternoon/evening, it serves to stop the catabolism and start making the body capable of handling the carbs better (again leucine in the PWO shake along with high GI carbs). I guess the quick insulin spike with carbs gets things going while the GLUT4 & 12 are active.

Some end their feeding window with another protein shake with leucine, the idea being to cause one last sharp spike that dies quickly so that GH production at night is unaffected

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what you mean by the mechanisms which control circadian rhythms, and I thought the explanation you gave about cellular function and insulin was frankly awesome. **Actually, contrary your worry here that you are making things more complex, I think you are bringing some much needed clarity though the subject itself maybe be complicated** That said, in the meta analysis I referenced above, it seems that in four of the studies the participants were given glucose at different times during the day, and they took it in a fasted state. So these subjects are not following a typical diet (though it would be interesting to see if they were in the studies Keifer references). I think the studies were to specifically test whether the circadian rhythms of insulin sensitivity operated independently of carbohydrate ingestion (or so it seems, without further reading). And they concluded that it does. It seems that there may be some connection with sleep, which is why I thought there may be another biochemical reaction going on in addition to the one you delineated above. I think the cortisol suggestion by Janelle sounds more than plausible, since there appears to be connections between sleep apnoea and insulin resistance.

I meant that the diet that they followed before the test was most likely a typical carbohydrate diet. So the circadian rhythm in the study was a reflection of that diet. When they did the test, they didn't follow their previous carbohydrate diet, but the rythm still continues because it takes a few days (maybe a week) to overide it. When you change a pattern, it takes maybe a week (I don't know precisely how long) for the brain to recognise that now there is a new pattern and to adapt to it in order to make the body more eficient.

CBL is an attempt to exploit the body's inefficiency when you use an eating pattern that the body is not adapted to. As a rule, we are adapted to a diet where we eat food (with plenty of carbs) early in the morning and try not to eat a lot before going to sleep. This is a generally recommended diet, and as a rule our bodies are really efficient on this diet as can be seen from the fact that insulin sensitivity is high in the morning (good for carb metabolism) and worse in the evening (when you are not supposed to eat too much). If you switch to CBL, then the body will be less efficient. But my point is that this is a temporary phenomenon. I have no doubt that our bodies can adjust to any eating pattern you choose. Just give it enough time. The body’s adaptation will be of an efficiency one so that you can metabolise the food in a much better way (not so that you can build more muscle). In this case, I think the adaptation will be such that insulin sensitivity will be highest in the evening when you consume a lot of carbs.

Of course, I have no proof for the above. But it makes a lot of sense that it should be like that. The bio-rhythms exist in order to make us more efficient for a certain pattern of activity. If the pattern changes, then the old bio-rhythm makes the body very inefficient and if it were not possible for these rhythms to change and adapt to a new pattern, then they would be detrimental to our existence and survival as a species (in the past of course).

I think you mentioned somewhere studies showing that it doesn't matter for the body composition when during the day you consume the diet's macronutrients. This, if true, actually supports what I wrote above about the bio-rhythms. The body can adapt to any eating pattern and be efficient regardless of the timing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys (and gal!),

The science being discussed here is way over my head. But, I've enjoyed reading what you informed and educated folks have to offer!

Throwing my hat in the fray, I noticed on the CBL forum on Dangerously Hardcore (a "protected forum" for those who bought Kiefer's book) that there was a discussion of a recent interview of Kiefer. Allegedly, in this interview Kiefer stated that sleep is extremely important for his diet to work; to the effect that poor, or interrupted, or inadequate sleep patterns make his diet worthless. (Head slap- who'd have thunk that sleep was important, right?)

I noticed this snippet because my sleep generally sucks (I stay up late and wake early- usually 7 hours max), and I've resolved to do better on that score. And, I'm making that resolution here again, in front of witnesses....

I haven't read this interview yet, just thought I'd throw in what I saw over there.... Kiefer may be referring to either the cortisol effect that Janelle was discussing, or the circadian rhythm effect on insulin sensitivity that you guys are splitting causal hairs over.

I also agree with the statement made by several others that following CBL is easier than most diets that require weighing and measuring (and calculating macro contents at each meal). Vlad makes a good point that the ease of adhering to the CBL diet (which clearly limits overall calorie intake in my limited, personal experience) MAY be the reason why it works.

There are "many ways to skin a cat," to use a pithy metaphor (or, "flay the fat" in our context). Finding a way that can be adhered to without losing your mind (or becoming OCD about food) is not such an easy proposition.

I'm really interested in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a quick search on Dangerously hardcore's forum "kiefer interview sleep" here is what I found- a post referring to an interview of kiefer by Sean Hyson.

I just stumbled across the answer to this in a Kiefer interview by Sean Hyson.

http://www.seanhyson...iefer-as-part-i

Sean: One question I see all the time is if [Carb Back-loading] can be done even when your body clock is totally out of whack with the time of day. You say cortisol peaks at 7 a.m., but what if you work nights and go to bed at around 5 a.m.? Would cortisol then rise toward the end of your sleep cycle, even though it’s later in the day—around 1 p.m., maybe—or is it hardwired to rise at 7 a.m.

Kiefer: Some people will sleep in a room without blacking out all the sunlight. In those instances, the body stays pretty close to regular circadian rhythms. Your body will still try to be in tune with sunlight if you’re not blocking out sun. But then you have people who are up all night and then basically make a cave for themselves when they sleep, and there’s not as much research on that. It does shift, but it’s somewhat erratic. I’ve worked with people where it’s appeared to have shifted perfectly with their sleep cycle. So even though they’re waking up at 6 p.m., everything is normal. And then I’ve worked with people where it just didn’t seem to benefit them… I would recommend still doing back-loading as advertised. I would avoid food when you first get up. People in those instances who are the most successful also train right after they get up. So maybe they’re getting up at 7 p.m., training, and then going off to work at night.

Sean: So then that guy’s 7 p.m. is like our 7 a.m.?

Kiefer: Correct. In a way, it makes it nice for those people. They get to enjoy the breakfast foods. [When they get back from work, it’s most people’s breakfast time, and since they’ve already trained] they can have pancakes, [hash browns, other starchy or sugary carbs].

It may be worth it for the science types to check out the Sean Hyson inteviews and see if what Kiefer says in them makes sense, or sounds like rubbish?

P.S. Hopefully, I won't get banned, or "shunned," or murdered by the DH people for posting this snippet in IronStrong!

P.S.S. I checked the link it is still good. There is an annoying pop up advertisement that you have to close, but then you can read the interview. Apparently Hyson did several interviews with Kiefer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×