Carb Back Loading

gabex · June 9, 2012, 11:59am

I’m jumping in here to throw in my 2 cents about some of the recent posts.

First off, if you did the ‘prep phase’, the original thesis by Kiefer was that you “can’t get fat”. This was due to depleting whatever enzyme converts carbs to fat, and keeping the window to 4 hours max. So, with people reporting back they may have gotten fat eating LESS than the Delta chart in carbs, WTF? Yes, my thoughts exactly.

Secondly, the preworkout meals in the book do not follow a 1:1 pro/fat in GRAMS, yet its been stated all over forums and by Naomi. If it is in grams, then why hasn’t there been an official clarification? I also agree with Sigil in the fact that if you are gaining fat, could the fault be preworkout instead of post workout?

Third, I feel like the whole “insulin” from too much protein, or too many eggs, or Ace-K is overstated. I seriously doubt insulin is going to rise enough from 6 eggs, which still has about 25g of fat. Any diet where I have to worry about eating too many eggs, or drinking diet soda is too anal for me.

Fourth, there is so much emphasis on backloading with high GI carbs, quick insulin, etc avoiding things like pasta, but it doesn’t matter about the fat content. I’m sorry, but fat and high GI carbs are probably going to be slower releasing than some real oats, or pasta. I think I remember reading one time when Shelby was telling someone ‘look, 50g of carbs is 50g of carbs. It’s going to spike insulin regardless in that quantity’

Lastly (that I can think of right now), I still think at the end of the day, total calories matter. They may not matter as much with a diet such as this, but to completely disregard calories at the end of the day is crazy. Even some kind of generalization would be nice (IE: if you are density bulking, shoot for bodyweight x 18, with x% calories preworkout, and x% postworkout, following z:y ratio, etc).

Signed, a guy who mainly gained fat on CBL without ever even hitting the Delta Chart.

FYI, I did get the book for free, and read it. I was quoted in the results section based on my interpretation of the original CBL (before the book, based on articles).

wiggles · June 9, 2012, 12:23pm

[quote]gabex wrote:

Lastly (that I can think of right now), I still think at the end of the day, total calories matter. They may not matter as much with a diet such as this, but to completely disregard calories at the end of the day is crazy. Even some kind of generalization would be nice (IE: if you are density bulking, shoot for bodyweight x 18, with x% calories preworkout, and x% postworkout, following z:y ratio, etc).
[/quote]

You made some great points. This last one I wanted to address though. I found a chart in the book (yes, I read it) where there are recommendations for your protein and fat ratios in the preworkout part of the day and your protein requirements for the backload. For me, looking to hit about 225 lbs and stay in that range, I’m supposed to be getting 170g protein (no prob), 40g of fat (I typically get more to keep brain fog at bay), and then 100g of protein between PWO and bed. This is for my afternoon training days. Now, since the carbs I’m supposed to be hitting are listed elsewhere, this seems dangerously close to caloric requirements, yes?

That being said, this thing is like any other diet plan. You can sit and microanalyze and spend forever mired in the details. I was able to read the book like I do research: skim the meaty parts, start the eating plan, and then go back and adjust if I felt like shit. I found it pretty easy, then again I’m on no crusade to be 6% bodyfat, I just want to be strong as shit in my weight class, so others may have different results.

I think the biggest issue with CBL is the claims like “eat like a fat kid and get jacked.” It’s what I’M doing, yes, and its working great for ME. However my metabolic rates and insulin resistance may be entirely different than the next guys. I did not due the 10 day prep. I’m making pretty steady gains on this though. Others may have mileage that varies.

It’s like any diet. It’s as simple, or as complex, as the individual makes it.

Peter_Shannon · June 9, 2012, 4:25pm

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]pshannon wrote:

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:

[quote]pshannon wrote:

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
Just want to throw in my diet for critique:

Off Days/Low Carb Day: Mondays and Thursdays

Fast for a few hours in the morning, then I eat…

1st meal: 6 eggs with some sausage, sour cream, cheese, and salsa
Later: 2 scoops whey with 3 tbsp of VCO
Dinner: 8oz of chicken/beef/pork in a salad with lots of ranch and cheese
Snack: Scoop of whey with 2 tbsp of VCO

Also have some Diet Dr. Pepper in there, and often times I replace one of the whey shakes with some cottage cheese or more meat at dinner. Keifer said the eggs are fine as long as it’s with all the other fatty sources

[/quote]

Your not backloading with 2 scoops of whey. That will spike your insulin taking you out of any type of fat burning. If you listen to the podcasts Keifer says “if your just drinking protein shakes all day you might at well just eat carbs.”

Watch the Diet Dr. Pepper if it has Ace-K

I don’t think a lot of people have the book around here. I know the book seems to be a little vague at times, but its all in there. NO place in the book does it say take 2 scoops of anything, or drink protein consistently.

I don’t mean to belittle your efforts. Im always a supporter of backloaders

[/quote]

No I have the book, but I was pretty positive he said that having the VCO with whey would greatly reduce the insulin response in an interview with him. Kind of like the eggs; if you are eating JUST eggs, or JUST protein then yeah insulin is getting spiked. But combining it with fats was ok.

And yeah the Ace-K isn’t in Diet Dr. Pepper.[/quote]

Since the whey is broken down into such a fast absorbing form, the fat will not metabolize fast enough to blunt any of the whey. Fat can take up to 3 hours to give you energy. Combining eggs with bacon is a whole different story. Both are whole foods.
[/quote]

I dont see why the fat needs to be broken down to blunt the insulin response. That would occur because fat slows digestion/gastic emptying which slow the absorption of the whey? Does fat all of a sudeen not do these things?[/quote]

1.) Troll

2.) Please continue to eat your brown rice, chicken, and 15 protein shakes a day. I know I know you love it. It all tastes so good, you will never get sick of it.

3.) You must be totally and completely right. I mean you must be. Why would any one charge that amount of money for a book that just says eat a of carbs PWO and fat during the day. There must be absolutely no medical research, explanations, or differences between the ideas from the 16 year old from New Mexico on the T-Nation forums.

YOUR RIGHT.

EVERYONE PLEASE PLEASE DELETE YOUR COPY OF CBL! THIS GUYS SAYS ITS WRONG!

Blackaggar · June 9, 2012, 4:48pm

I just find it hilarious that people think that CBL can actually get around proven science and the laws of themodynamics.

L O L

MAF14 · June 9, 2012, 5:01pm

[quote]gabex wrote:
Third, I feel like the whole “insulin” from too much protein, or too many eggs, or Ace-K is overstated. I seriously doubt insulin is going to rise enough from 6 eggs, which still has about 25g of fat. Any diet where I have to worry about eating too many eggs, or drinking diet soda is too anal for me.

Fourth, there is so much emphasis on backloading with high GI carbs, quick insulin, etc avoiding things like pasta, but it doesn’t matter about the fat content. I’m sorry, but fat and high GI carbs are probably going to be slower releasing than some real oats, or pasta. I think I remember reading one time when Shelby was telling someone ‘look, 50g of carbs is 50g of carbs. It’s going to spike insulin regardless in that quantity’[/quote]

Totally agree about 3 and 4. Wouldn’t eating more eggs cause LESS of an insulin spike than just one? The total amount of insulin produced may be higher but the actual “spike”, highly doubtful.

And in regard to 4, I’ve seen Shelby, Meadows etc say the same. From the meals I’ve seen it’s not like all the food you have eaten has been digested within 2 hours and insulin has cleared so that you can “spike” it again.

bigmac73nh · June 9, 2012, 6:17pm

[quote]pshannon wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]pshannon wrote:

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:

[quote]pshannon wrote:

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
Just want to throw in my diet for critique:

Off Days/Low Carb Day: Mondays and Thursdays

Fast for a few hours in the morning, then I eat…

1st meal: 6 eggs with some sausage, sour cream, cheese, and salsa
Later: 2 scoops whey with 3 tbsp of VCO
Dinner: 8oz of chicken/beef/pork in a salad with lots of ranch and cheese
Snack: Scoop of whey with 2 tbsp of VCO

Also have some Diet Dr. Pepper in there, and often times I replace one of the whey shakes with some cottage cheese or more meat at dinner. Keifer said the eggs are fine as long as it’s with all the other fatty sources

[/quote]

Your not backloading with 2 scoops of whey. That will spike your insulin taking you out of any type of fat burning. If you listen to the podcasts Keifer says “if your just drinking protein shakes all day you might at well just eat carbs.”

Watch the Diet Dr. Pepper if it has Ace-K

I don’t think a lot of people have the book around here. I know the book seems to be a little vague at times, but its all in there. NO place in the book does it say take 2 scoops of anything, or drink protein consistently.

I don’t mean to belittle your efforts. Im always a supporter of backloaders

[/quote]

No I have the book, but I was pretty positive he said that having the VCO with whey would greatly reduce the insulin response in an interview with him. Kind of like the eggs; if you are eating JUST eggs, or JUST protein then yeah insulin is getting spiked. But combining it with fats was ok.

And yeah the Ace-K isn’t in Diet Dr. Pepper.[/quote]

Since the whey is broken down into such a fast absorbing form, the fat will not metabolize fast enough to blunt any of the whey. Fat can take up to 3 hours to give you energy. Combining eggs with bacon is a whole different story. Both are whole foods.
[/quote]

I dont see why the fat needs to be broken down to blunt the insulin response. That would occur because fat slows digestion/gastic emptying which slow the absorption of the whey? Does fat all of a sudeen not do these things?[/quote]

1.) Troll

2.) Please continue to eat your brown rice, chicken, and 15 protein shakes a day. I know I know you love it. It all tastes so good, you will never get sick of it.

3.) You must be totally and completely right. I mean you must be. Why would any one charge that amount of money for a book that just says eat a of carbs PWO and fat during the day. There must be absolutely no medical research, explanations, or differences between the ideas from the 16 year old from New Mexico on the T-Nation forums.

YOUR RIGHT.

EVERYONE PLEASE PLEASE DELETE YOUR COPY OF CBL! THIS GUYS SAYS ITS WRONG! [/quote]

WTF is this response man? Seriously, that might be one of the most unwarranted piles of bullshit I’ve ever seen.

Ryan raised an ok question, why not actually give him a legit answer to why fats won’t slow protein aborption in the process of being broken down and converted to energy rather than straw manning the shit out of his point and making personal attacks?

The whole ‘protein sources causing an insulin response’ thing (and how to manage that aspect of the nutrition) IMO is not the best-explained aspect of the CBL book, and it would be cool to have some good discussion about it.

wiggles · June 9, 2012, 6:24pm

[quote]Blackaggar wrote:
I just find it hilarious that people think that CBL can actually get around proven science and the laws of themodynamics.

L O L[/quote]

Psh, the laws are more like theories anyway.

lol /endtroll

anon23385723 · June 9, 2012, 9:50pm

I said this earlier in the thread, but I think it’s worth saying again. I like that Keifer has scientific data to back-up his work. But, honestly the only thing I care about CBL is that it works. Apparently I’m not even doing it 100% correctly, and still, it works. Idk what it is, but this style of eating allows me to eat WAY more carbs then I ever have without putting on fat. I feel energized, eating out with friends is no longer a hassle, and I’m able to look good by being able to sport abs while my muscles always being full, not flat from lower carb intake.

Obviously CBL, in most of it’s variations, works well for people. So while I agree the book may be overpriced and a tad incomplete, why even get into a discussion that people obviously can’t be civilized about?

wiggles · June 9, 2012, 10:03pm

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
I said this earlier in the thread, but I think it’s worth saying again. I like that Keifer has scientific data to back-up his work. But, honestly the only thing I care about CBL is that it works. Apparently I’m not even doing it 100% correctly, and still, it works. Idk what it is, but this style of eating allows me to eat WAY more carbs then I ever have without putting on fat. I feel energized, eating out with friends is no longer a hassle, and I’m able to look good by being able to sport abs while my muscles always being full, not flat from lower carb intake.

Obviously CBL, in most of it’s variations, works well for people. So while I agree the book may be overpriced and a tad incomplete, why even get into a discussion that people obviously can’t be civilized about? [/quote]

Because its the internets, and we have to have something to argue about.

Siouxfan · June 9, 2012, 11:26pm

[quote]wiggles wrote:

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
I said this earlier in the thread, but I think it’s worth saying again. I like that Keifer has scientific data to back-up his work. But, honestly the only thing I care about CBL is that it works. Apparently I’m not even doing it 100% correctly, and still, it works. Idk what it is, but this style of eating allows me to eat WAY more carbs then I ever have without putting on fat. I feel energized, eating out with friends is no longer a hassle, and I’m able to look good by being able to sport abs while my muscles always being full, not flat from lower carb intake.

Obviously CBL, in most of it’s variations, works well for people. So while I agree the book may be overpriced and a tad incomplete, why even get into a discussion that people obviously can’t be civilized about? [/quote]

Because its the internets, and we have to have something to argue about.[/quote]

What would we do if we couldn’t argue?

wiggles · June 9, 2012, 11:43pm

[quote]Siouxfan wrote:

[quote]wiggles wrote:

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
I said this earlier in the thread, but I think it’s worth saying again. I like that Keifer has scientific data to back-up his work. But, honestly the only thing I care about CBL is that it works. Apparently I’m not even doing it 100% correctly, and still, it works. Idk what it is, but this style of eating allows me to eat WAY more carbs then I ever have without putting on fat. I feel energized, eating out with friends is no longer a hassle, and I’m able to look good by being able to sport abs while my muscles always being full, not flat from lower carb intake.

Obviously CBL, in most of it’s variations, works well for people. So while I agree the book may be overpriced and a tad incomplete, why even get into a discussion that people obviously can’t be civilized about? [/quote]

Because its the internets, and we have to have something to argue about.[/quote]

What would we do if we couldn’t argue? [/quote]

We would find ways to pick apart each other’s statements based solely on grammar and semantics, rather than logic, research, experience, or reason.

Siouxfan · June 10, 2012, 12:22am

[quote]wiggles wrote:

[quote]Siouxfan wrote:

[quote]wiggles wrote:

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
I said this earlier in the thread, but I think it’s worth saying again. I like that Keifer has scientific data to back-up his work. But, honestly the only thing I care about CBL is that it works. Apparently I’m not even doing it 100% correctly, and still, it works. Idk what it is, but this style of eating allows me to eat WAY more carbs then I ever have without putting on fat. I feel energized, eating out with friends is no longer a hassle, and I’m able to look good by being able to sport abs while my muscles always being full, not flat from lower carb intake.

Obviously CBL, in most of it’s variations, works well for people. So while I agree the book may be overpriced and a tad incomplete, why even get into a discussion that people obviously can’t be civilized about? [/quote]

Because its the internets, and we have to have something to argue about.[/quote]

What would we do if we couldn’t argue? [/quote]

We would find ways to pick apart each other’s statements based solely on grammar and semantics, rather than logic, research, experience, or reason.[/quote]

Should you put a period after semantics? Don’t want to make a run-on sentence

ryanbCXG · June 10, 2012, 2:02am

[quote]gabex wrote:
I’m jumping in here to throw in my 2 cents about some of the recent posts.

First off, if you did the ‘prep phase’, the original thesis by Kiefer was that you “can’t get fat”. This was due to depleting whatever enzyme converts carbs to fat, and keeping the window to 4 hours max. So, with people reporting back they may have gotten fat eating LESS than the Delta chart in carbs, WTF? Yes, my thoughts exactly.

Secondly, the preworkout meals in the book do not follow a 1:1 pro/fat in GRAMS, yet its been stated all over forums and by Naomi. If it is in grams, then why hasn’t there been an official clarification? I also agree with Sigil in the fact that if you are gaining fat, could the fault be preworkout instead of post workout?

Third, I feel like the whole “insulin” from too much protein, or too many eggs, or Ace-K is overstated. I seriously doubt insulin is going to rise enough from 6 eggs, which still has about 25g of fat. Any diet where I have to worry about eating too many eggs, or drinking diet soda is too anal for me.

Fourth, there is so much emphasis on backloading with high GI carbs, quick insulin, etc avoiding things like pasta, but it doesn’t matter about the fat content. I’m sorry, but fat and high GI carbs are probably going to be slower releasing than some real oats, or pasta. I think I remember reading one time when Shelby was telling someone ‘look, 50g of carbs is 50g of carbs. It’s going to spike insulin regardless in that quantity’

Lastly (that I can think of right now), I still think at the end of the day, total calories matter. They may not matter as much with a diet such as this, but to completely disregard calories at the end of the day is crazy. Even some kind of generalization would be nice (IE: if you are density bulking, shoot for bodyweight x 18, with x% calories preworkout, and x% postworkout, following z:y ratio, etc).

Signed, a guy who mainly gained fat on CBL without ever even hitting the Delta Chart.

FYI, I did get the book for free, and read it. I was quoted in the results section based on my interpretation of the original CBL (before the book, based on articles). [/quote]

Well put

ryanbCXG · June 10, 2012, 2:02am

[quote]Siouxfan wrote:

[quote]wiggles wrote:

[quote]Siouxfan wrote:

[quote]wiggles wrote:

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
I said this earlier in the thread, but I think it’s worth saying again. I like that Keifer has scientific data to back-up his work. But, honestly the only thing I care about CBL is that it works. Apparently I’m not even doing it 100% correctly, and still, it works. Idk what it is, but this style of eating allows me to eat WAY more carbs then I ever have without putting on fat. I feel energized, eating out with friends is no longer a hassle, and I’m able to look good by being able to sport abs while my muscles always being full, not flat from lower carb intake.

Obviously CBL, in most of it’s variations, works well for people. So while I agree the book may be overpriced and a tad incomplete, why even get into a discussion that people obviously can’t be civilized about? [/quote]

Because its the internets, and we have to have something to argue about.[/quote]

What would we do if we couldn’t argue? [/quote]

We would find ways to pick apart each other’s statements based solely on grammar and semantics, rather than logic, research, experience, or reason.[/quote]

Should you put a period after semantics? Don’t want to make a run-on sentence :)[/quote]

But they are so much fun

ryanbCXG · June 10, 2012, 2:03am

[quote]pshannon wrote:

1.) Troll

2.) Please continue to eat your brown rice, chicken, and 15 protein shakes a day. I know I know you love it. It all tastes so good, you will never get sick of it.

3.) You must be totally and completely right. I mean you must be. Why would any one charge that amount of money for a book that just says eat a of carbs PWO and fat during the day. There must be absolutely no medical research, explanations, or differences between the ideas from the 16 year old from New Mexico on the T-Nation forums.

YOUR RIGHT.

EVERYONE PLEASE PLEASE DELETE YOUR COPY OF CBL! THIS GUYS SAYS ITS WRONG! [/quote]

This gave me a very good laugh.

But srsly you dont want to even attempt to have a legit discussion?

anon23385723 · June 10, 2012, 10:41pm

This thread better not die now. lol

BrianBellitto · June 10, 2012, 11:16pm

Ive been doing CBL for about a week. I will say that when i hit the right amount of carbs i feel awesome when i wake up, but my energy level when i work out is definitely depleted. Thinking this could be because my body is adjusting to not having carbs before i workout. Going to try and keep going and maybe change my diet alittle bit in the morning.

as1 · June 11, 2012, 12:50am