Offseason Bulking Diet - Good or Bad?

[quote]telesis37 wrote:
I totally agree. Everyone is different and context is extremely important. I front loaded carbs for over 10 years, tapering them off toward the end of the day. One can get huge and shredded a thousand different ways. CBL’ing takes a lot of tweaking. I believe it can work for anyone but each individual must tailor it to work with a number of factors; goals, age, metabolic rate, body type, gender, workout volume, etc. I, personally, can’t get away with backloading every night. I’m 34, sit on my ass most of my work day, and my testosterone levels are lower since losing a testicle to cancer.

For me to advise a 23 year old ectomorph who works construction 6 days a week to CBL like I do would be silly. But the OP is already super lean from contest prep and wants to “bulk” which really means he wants to increase muscle size and density. He’s a young guy with a good amount of lean mass. In this instance, CBL’ing is absolutely his best option to stay lean while inducing hypertrophy. Maybe backloading 3 nights per week like I do is best for him, maybe he can get away with 5. No matter how he tweaks it, in 20 years of being obsessed with this stuff, I’ve never seen anything work better for anyone. Period.[/quote]

Could you give a bit of clarity on that last point? Wouldn’t you CBL every evening on days when you have trained (I assume you train more than 3 days a week)? What is your approach for the remaining 4 days?

[quote]telesis37 wrote:
DNL is absolutely happening in humans.[/quote]

Need more than your word here. Useful human studies?

[quote]telesis37 wrote:
All I’m saying is that unless you’ve tried CBL’ing for an extended period of time, six months or more, your opinion on its effectiveness makes no difference. I know a handful of long-term athletes who have adopted this approach and all of us say the exact same thing. It’s not “more effective” per say, but it sure makes things much much easier and helps keep the fat off. I push it because I wish someone had been in the position to tell me about it when I was in my 20’s. Its a small tweak that makes a substantial impact.
[/quote]

I readily admit to not trying it myself. When I find something that works, and works well, I tend to stick with it unless literature and experiences of those with similar goals convince me of something better. A few friends of mine (former competitors) tried it for lengths of time but abandoned it, instead returning to just a healthy balance, with a concerted concentration of nutrients surrounding their training. Of course I’m solely focused on physique enhancement in terms of the competitive stage. Being in “the best shape of my life” means nothing when there are other competitors standing to both sides of you.

Literature-wise, there are plenty of places to see educated folks blowing holes in Keifer’s interpretations. While I personally have no axe to grind (people can follow whatever they feel has given them their own best results - whatever that make actually constitute), I found these online snippets (NOT MY WRITING!)engaging:


[i] Now there are two primary mechanisms that CBL discusses:
1- The overnight increase in insulin sensitivity,
2- and non-insulin mediated glucose transport into muscle cells.

First, just to recap, insulin has MANY purposes in the human body, but the most significant one here is its ability to cause glucose uptake by the cell. Basically, when insulin encounters any nutrient storing cell (muscle, liver, fat, etc.), it binds to the insulin receptor, which then (simplify simplify) causes a glucose transporter receptor to come to the surface. Itâ??s essentially telling these cells to â??open their gatesâ?? to glucose

Thereâ??s a problem with number 1. The CBL book states â??Both fat and muscle cells react strongly to insulin in the morning and less so as the day goes on, i.e. insulin sensitivity is high in the morning.â?? â?¦this is actually completely, 100% INcorrect.

Even his own references state the exact opposite (as does every biochemistry textbook ever written). The body is insulin RESISTANT in the morning (the well documented â??dawn phenomenonâ??), which means it is LESS capable of quickly storing excess glucose. So, no, your fat cells wonâ??t â??soak up sugar like a fat kid with a gallon of melted ice cream and a strawâ?? as the book states- quite the opposite., Now, the data supporting a few other claims based around this (Including all-day suppression of fat burning) is not really supported by any references- there is a SINGLE study done on ten volunteers where the researchers make this claim, but they themselves state itâ??s a theory, with more research needed. At least somebodyâ??s being responsible here.

As for number 2, thereâ??s an even bigger problem with this. When youâ??re exercising, your body is burning glycogen (even at low intensities, some is being used). At high intensities (as when weight training), your muscles are using glycogen as its primary fuel source. In response, your body releases small amounts from your liver as glucose and dumps it into the bloodstream, with the goal of getting this sugar to the working muscles.

This is a small amount of sugar- not enough to cause an insulin response. Now, as an adaptation, your muscles themselves, when stimulated by high intensity activity, signal their OWN cells to open their gates to glucose WITHOUT needing insulin to tell them to- this is precisely to facilitate uptake of this liver-sourced glucose by the muscles that need it most. The CBL argument is then, post exercise, you can take advantage of this selective response by flooding the system with sugar, and the muscles will take up a huge amount of it before insulin is releasedâ thus avoiding an insulin spike and minimizing fat storage.

Bzzt. False. The reason this is so studied for diabetics is because they do NOT release insulin naturally (or, in the case of type 2 diabetics, do not respond to it), so ANY non-insulin related expression of glucose receptors is beneficial- it’s one of the few ways the body can clear sugar from the system (which is toxic in high amounts).

For NON-diabetics, this isn’t a concern. And, in fact, within SECONDS after taking in simple sugars, whether post workout or otherwise, your body releases JUST AS MUCH insulin as any other time of day.

Insulin expression is not governed by the amount of receptors open on muscle cells, it is released a) by high levels of glucose in the blood, and b) on its own in pulses throughout the day. The few seconds that a handful of muscles have their glucose transporters open before the floodgates open are in no way clinically significantâ?¦ youâ??d be talking maybe a few extra grams shunted into muscles as opposed to fat cells. The reason is simple- thereâ??s only so much glycogen storage capacity in your muscle cells, and even prolonged high intensity weight training wonâ??t do much to drain these stores. All they really need is a few grams to fill them up again, and any extra glucose simply floats on by, right to the fat cells it was destined for all along.
[/i]


Again, I’ve got no dog in the CBL fight (if anyone wants to view it as such). As a pro competitor and coach, I go with what I know without a doubt works, and works well. Until I see a physique competitor who brings a package that is unquestionably impressive by judging, not gymrat standards, and has been built with the latest nutrition approach, I’ll stick with the good ol’ tried and true, and will always suggest others to do the same.

I am glad you feel you got your best results though. I hope my opinions won’t be taken as any type of stirring up sh-t. You do seem to be sporting an excellent build.

S

[quote]elbreeno wrote:
Could you give a bit of clarity on that last point? Wouldn’t you CBL every evening on days when you have trained (I assume you train more than 3 days a week)? What is your approach for the remaining 4 days?[/quote]

Hey, man. Again, I have tweaked things for my current goals, age, etc. I’m currently 15% BF weighing 250, down from 265, not my usual 6% BF @ 235. CBL’ing after each lifting session, once the amount of carbs each individual needs is determined, will essentially allow one to continue growing while maintaining current body fat levels or even losing a little. At least, that’s what I’ve seen in several people. I backload 3 nights per week because I’ve got 15 more pounds to drop. I got married last year, went on a lot of vacations, and just kinda took it easy for awhile enjoying my time with my wife.

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:


[i] Now there are two primary mechanisms that CBL discusses:
1- The overnight increase in insulin sensitivity,
2- and non-insulin mediated glucose transport into muscle cells.

First, just to recap, insulin has MANY purposes in the human body, but the most significant one here is its ability to cause glucose uptake by the cell. Basically, when insulin encounters any nutrient storing cell (muscle, liver, fat, etc.), it binds to the insulin receptor, which then (simplify simplify) causes a glucose transporter receptor to come to the surface. It�¢??s essentially telling these cells to �¢??open their gates�¢?? to glucose

There�¢??s a problem with number 1. The CBL book states �¢??Both fat and muscle cells react strongly to insulin in the morning and less so as the day goes on, i.e. insulin sensitivity is high in the morning.�¢?? �¢?�¦this is actually completely, 100% INcorrect.

Even his own references state the exact opposite (as does every biochemistry textbook ever written). The body is insulin RESISTANT in the morning (the well documented �¢??dawn phenomenon�¢??), which means it is LESS capable of quickly storing excess glucose. So, no, your fat cells won�¢??t �¢??soak up sugar like a fat kid with a gallon of melted ice cream and a straw�¢?? as the book states- quite the opposite., Now, the data supporting a few other claims based around this (Including all-day suppression of fat burning) is not really supported by any references- there is a SINGLE study done on ten volunteers where the researchers make this claim, but they themselves state it�¢??s a theory, with more research needed. At least somebody�¢??s being responsible here.

As for number 2, there�¢??s an even bigger problem with this. When you�¢??re exercising, your body is burning glycogen (even at low intensities, some is being used). At high intensities (as when weight training), your muscles are using glycogen as its primary fuel source. In response, your body releases small amounts from your liver as glucose and dumps it into the bloodstream, with the goal of getting this sugar to the working muscles.

This is a small amount of sugar- not enough to cause an insulin response. Now, as an adaptation, your muscles themselves, when stimulated by high intensity activity, signal their OWN cells to open their gates to glucose WITHOUT needing insulin to tell them to- this is precisely to facilitate uptake of this liver-sourced glucose by the muscles that need it most. The CBL argument is then, post exercise, you can take advantage of this selective response by flooding the system with sugar, and the muscles will take up a huge amount of it before insulin is released�¢ thus avoiding an insulin spike and minimizing fat storage.

Bzzt. False. The reason this is so studied for diabetics is because they do NOT release insulin naturally (or, in the case of type 2 diabetics, do not respond to it), so ANY non-insulin related expression of glucose receptors is beneficial- it’s one of the few ways the body can clear sugar from the system (which is toxic in high amounts).

For NON-diabetics, this isn’t a concern. And, in fact, within SECONDS after taking in simple sugars, whether post workout or otherwise, your body releases JUST AS MUCH insulin as any other time of day.

Insulin expression is not governed by the amount of receptors open on muscle cells, it is released a) by high levels of glucose in the blood, and b) on its own in pulses throughout the day. The few seconds that a handful of muscles have their glucose transporters open before the floodgates open are in no way clinically significant�¢?�¦ you�¢??d be talking maybe a few extra grams shunted into muscles as opposed to fat cells. The reason is simple- there�¢??s only so much glycogen storage capacity in your muscle cells, and even prolonged high intensity weight training won�¢??t do much to drain these stores. All they really need is a few grams to fill them up again, and any extra glucose simply floats on by, right to the fat cells it was destined for all along.
[/i]


Again, I’ve got no dog in the CBL fight (if anyone wants to view it as such). As a pro competitor and coach, I go with what I know without a doubt works, and works well. Until I see a physique competitor who brings a package that is unquestionably impressive by judging, not gymrat standards, and has been built with the latest nutrition approach, I’ll stick with the good ol’ tried and true, and will always suggest others to do the same.

I am glad you feel you got your best results though. I hope my opinions won’t be taken as any type of stirring up sh-t. You do seem to be sporting an excellent build.

S[/quote]

Hey, Stu. I see what this person is saying here, but as with many of the anti-Kiefer proponents online, I think he gathered the “main points” from the book from someone else’s writing, someone who also didn’t read the book. It’s kinda like the telephone game.

The first part, he didn’t necessarily get Kiefer wrong. He was just, simply incorrect. Insulin sensitivity is highest first thing in the morning. LITERALLY EVERYTHING ANYWHERE agrees with that. I don’t use all caps lightly either, haha. This is why everyone is told to eat their oats in the morning. The body is much more likely to use it for fuel throughout the day rather than fat.

That leads me to the 2nd part. Here, the guy who wrote this just missed what Kiefer was saying completely. Kiefer discovered this tweak while studying non-insulin mediated GLUT translocation in diabetics. He’s never once said that, in healthy individuals, eating a bunch of carbs post workout will allow glucose to be carried into the muscle cells before insulin is released. He teaches people to go for the biggest insulin spike possible post workout. He even advocates using Leucine and Hydrolysates along with Whey and Dextrose to really flood the blood stream with insulin. The whole point is to take advantage of the fact that the muscle cells, in healthy humans as with diabetics, will preferentially soak up the sugar in the bloodstream rather than the fat cells after resistance training. How is this different than what anyone else is doing? Don’t we all already focus heavily on the post training window? The difference is, and this is another part the guy reference above missed, by avoiding carbs in the first part of the day, fat is mobilized more readily, there’s no opportunity for any unused carbs to be stored as fat, and (this is the big one) by training with no carbs in your bloodstream, adrenaline is released allowing muscle cells to utilize glycogen stores as their primary fuel.

If you train with glucose already in your bloodstream, because it is toxic there, the body will utilize it first. This means until it is burned up, you’re not tapping into your muscle glycogen. One of the first things I noticed when I started CBL’ing was my intensity went up and I never experienced the dreaded rebound hypoglycemia post workout if I didn’t get to my shake or a banana or a cliff bar quickly enough. Now, since someone who backloads is able to burn through more of their glycogen stores than someone who ate carbs all day, the CBL’er can then expect more of his/her post workout carbs to be stored as muscle glycogen, especially at the end of the day when fat cells are more resistant and muscle cells would get preferential treatment with or without insulin post training as we learned from the studies on diabetics.

Clear as mud?

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]telesis37 wrote:
DNL is absolutely happening in humans.[/quote]

Need more than your word here. Useful human studies?[/quote]

Still waiting.

[quote]telesis37 wrote:
One of the first things I noticed when I started CBL’ing was my intensity went up and I never experienced the dreaded rebound hypoglycemia post workout if I didn’t get to my shake or a banana or a cliff bar quickly enough. Now, since someone who backloads is able to burn through more of their glycogen stores than someone who ate carbs all day, the CBL’er can then expect more of his/her post workout carbs to be stored as muscle glycogen, especially at the end of the day when fat cells are more resistant and muscle cells would get preferential treatment with or without insulin post training as we learned from the studies on diabetics.
[/quote]

I guess we can simply chalk this is an individual thing in terms of post workout lag. A couple of people on here have relayed having similar issues. Obviously I’ve had very different experiences, which I’ve written about quite a bit in my past contest blogs. When I first started competing, I had the mentality that I absolutely positively needed the majority of my carbs after I trained.

That was just the ‘company line’ as far as magazines and gym-rat bro-science at the time. Heck, I even tried to avoid carbs pre-workout hoping my body would burn more fat in the process (admitedly I had a very limited view of the big picture).

Luckily I would eventually realize that ensuring the most productive training session is the most important factor in actually making progress over time, whether you’re in a caloric deficit or not, or even other issues outside of the short time span where you’re actually training that people get obsessed with.

Of course as I started playing around with more pre-workout loading, and even having carbs throughout the day, I not only had noticeably more intense workouts, but my stage weight continued to improve each year as I pushed more and more carbs during the day, and had absolutely none post - Just P+F feedings.

So while we can obviously agree to disagree with our carb experiences, I’m always going to lean back on the fact that not only do I do this with all my competitive clients, but the other Pros I’m close with follow a similar approach, and the results are pretty difficult to argue with.

Again, agree to disagree. :slight_smile:

S