- This topic has 62 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Well, if there are a load of different nutritionists (I use the term loosely) all coming to similar conclusions through independent research, that's great. They all have access to the same research and they're all studying it at the same time with the same goals in mind. Is it really so strange that they created similar programs?
What is this in reference to specifically?
It's a response to your previous post, the one directly before it.
Furthermore, Fairy has a right to her opinion above, and no one has a right to tell her that what she has to say or what she feels is worthless. That is insulting and unfair, and not how we handle things on these forums
She posted about CNS in the CBL forum. This post is about CBL. Worthless may have been too far, but off-topic was appropriate.
So, you can argue all you want - nothing else matters then personal progress.
Anyhow personal progress is great when you get it. However people also want to get the most weight loss / musclegain for there effort. Just because something works doesn't make it ideal. IE losing 1 pound in 1 year.
Also, it seems to me that there is a few forum members on this thread who are intent on bashing Kiefer and his diets. If you have a dissenting opinion, then share it, but don't get pissed off that other people like Kiefer's diet.
I don't think anyone minds that people like his diet. Thats what we're here to discuss (many of us).
Some people are full of opinions, and spend more time trying to reason with why something WON'T work rather than testing it out, and seeing if it actually does.If something doesn't work for you, fair enough. Have the courtesy to move on to something else, and not stir up unnecessary trouble on the forums, or go about insulting its members.
There really isn't enough time to test every diet. A sample size of 1 (using yourself only) is extremely limited and tells very little...To do an actual study takes time and money, thats why so few diet books have done this. If you look through them all few if any will have done studies (actual studies not some bullshit) to prove their diet is truly effective...
Actually it is on topic... Aragon and McDonald are discrediting Kiefer and his theories. "McDonald says that Kiefer is wrong 99% of the time" - that was posted somewhere here or a different thread.
If you don't care for Aragon or McDonald then this thread probably won't interest you... You also probably won't care what they have to say...
Furthermore, Fairy has a right to her opinion above, and no one has a right to tell her that what she has to say or what she feels is worthless. That is insulting and unfair, and not how we handle things on these forums
She posted about CNS in the CBL forum. This post is about CBL. Worthless may have been too far, but off-topic was appropriate.
So, you can argue all you want - nothing else matters then personal progress.
The grammar of this sentence makes me :'(, but i'm sure my posts are ridden with errors too.Anyhow personal progress is great when you get it. However people also want to get the most weight loss / musclegain for there effort. Just because something works doesn't make it ideal. IE losing 1 pound in 1 year.
Actually it is on topic... Aragon and McDonald are discrediting Kiefer and his theories. "McDonald says that Kiefer is wrong 99% of the time" - that was posted somewhere here or a different thread.
If you don't care for Aragon or McDonald then this thread probably won't interest you... You also probably won't care what they have to say...
Well, you can make fun of my grammar all you would like. Personal attacks are what they are, so knock yourself out. Auto-correct is a bitch.It's not that I don't care what they say. After reading the thread "McDonald says that Kiefer is wrong 99% of the time", I did a quick search to find out more. I started to read blogs, random posts and threads about them and I got a gist of what they stand for. It's not the information that I have a problem with, it's the way the information is presented. When you come into an environment, such as DH, and take the offensive, it's not hard to be defensive. I have seen great changes in my body that I haven't seen since my days in college. So, to discount that because you are partial to a certain protocol and / or diet, gets me a little fired up. I don't know what your goals are here but they don't seem pure nor helpful in any way. Maybe you are trying to build a productive conversation and debate... I don't know. Or, just maybe, you are a troll with ulterior motives to discourage what this forum is truly about. So, whatever your motivation is, you definitely have gotten the attention you so want. But, again, I have seen great strides following the C.N.S. and I am trying to find those same gains with C.B.L. Even though I am struggling to find it right now with C.B.L., as I have only been following it for a couple of weeks. I have faith that it can / will work for me... Only time will tell, with or without your efforts to derail the diet.
She posted about CNS in the CBL forum. This post is about CBL. Worthless may have been too far, but off-topic was appropriate.
Saying Fairy's post was "worthless" was going too far. Not "may have been".
There really isn't enough time to test every diet. A sample size of 1 (using yourself only) is extremely limited and tells very little...
Honestly, I could care less if studies are done that show the diet claims to be true or false. IF the diets are working for me, then I don't need studies to justify my own continuation of the diet... my own results are all I require. So, in this case, a sample size of 1 is sufficient -- that 1 being me.
It appears to me that this guy wants us to prove to him beyond reasonable doubt that CBL is the most efficient and effective diet in existence so he doesn't have to waste any of his precious time reading the research or experimenting for himself, and by me posting on a topic (CNS) that isn't directly relevant to his goals I have wasted his precious time, and thereby enraged him and now he has it in for me and TLfoxy and will continue to ruthlessly ridicule us until we beg for his forgiveness. Just my theory
It appears to me that this guy wants us to prove to him beyond reasonable doubt that CBL is the most efficient and effective diet in existence so he doesn't have to waste any of his precious time reading the research or experimenting for himself, and by me posting on a topic (CNS) that isn't directly relevant to his goals I have wasted his precious time, and thereby enraged him and now he has it in for me and TLfoxy and will continue to ruthlessly ridicule us until we beg for his forgiveness. Just my theory
I'm not looking for proof of anything.Just curious if there are Alan Aragon fans out there and what they think about his comments.Also if they apply any of his logic while back loading. For example I have been maintaining a cap on my calories for back-loads. Some people tend to just eat whatever the fuck they want as long as they hit their target carbs.CNS isn't relevant at all... we're in the CBL sub-section discussing CBL. I know more than I need to about CNS -_-
It appears to me that this guy wants us to prove to him beyond reasonable doubt that CBL is the most efficient and effective diet in existence so he doesn't have to waste any of his precious time reading the research or experimenting for himself, and by me posting on a topic (CNS) that isn't directly relevant to his goals I have wasted his precious time, and thereby enraged him and now he has it in for me and TLfoxy and will continue to ruthlessly ridicule us until we beg for his forgiveness. Just my theory
Also if they apply any of his logic while back loading. For example I have been maintaining a cap on my calories for back-loads. Some people tend to just eat whatever the fuck they want as long as they hit their target carbs.
I can't say that I apply his logic, as I didn't know of him before reading these threads. But, I do keep a tab on what I eat. I keep an eye on all of my macros. My back-loads mainly consists of rice, lean meat and sometimes I may indulge a bit. But, I try to not go overboard. And, I'd be lying if I said I didn't have a slice of pizza or pie every now and then. I recently came off of The C.N.S. where I would stuff myself with whatever I could find. I saw a great loss in body-fat. And, now, on C.B.L. (only in my 2nd week) I monitor everything I eat much more closely. I cannot and will not treat a back-load like a Carbnite. I don't come anywhere near the max carbs prescribed in the book. Actually, I don't come anywhere near half of the prescribed carbs. My experience thus far has been up and down. I have gained some weight but I expected that. But, my measurements have remained the same. I still have a good deal of fat to lose, but I am trying to build a better foundation of muscle. So, everything is trial and error as there can't be, for a lack of a better term, a cookie cutter approach to C.B.L. T.L.D.R. (cliffs notes)So, just like you, I watch closely what I eat and give myself a cap. The cap is more carb based but in turn it caps my calories as well.
Fair enough 🙂
I might some day be a fan of Alan Aragon if he ever stopped shitting on other peoples work and released some of his own recommendations to show he is actually credible. Just another interwebs arguer who is afraid to have his own thoughts critiqued.
There's a reason kiefer gets so much hate. Here are quotes from the book.
Don’t worry about the fat: post-training, the insulin response doesnot stop the after-burn effect of resistance training—the bodycontinues burning fat for up to 36 hours3.
I think some people can get away with a calorie surplus. But if you don't limit fat at all it won't be surprising that you gain weight. The fact is people come on this forum complaining "I'm putting on weight" and they're doing SA (which should involve weight loss).
For the first meal after training, don’t limit carbs, but remember,keep it trashy.
There are carb goals. But to not limit carbs at all seems a bit crazy. Also many people use the suggested carbs in the book, but find they really have to dial it down so they don't put on weight.The overall idea of CBL is to gain muscle and lose weight. In the nutrition industry this is viewed as IMPOSSIBLE. The reason i don't care much about CNS is because it is a protocol that helps you lose weight quickly, but its in no way ideal for muscle building... The goal of CNS is not muscle building!CBL promises things CNS was never intended to deliver. The question is do you think it delivers? Do you think it needs sufficient tailoring from the book? Obviously everyone is going to have to adjust it to their personal needs...I'm wondering how many people its working for. The threads for CBL are pretty scarce right now and in a few of them I see people saying "I gained weight on CBL so i switched back over to CNS To lean out".
My experience thus far has been up and down. I have gained some weight but I expected that. But, my measurements have remained the same. I still have a good deal of fat to lose, but I am trying to build a better foundation of muscle. So, everything is trial and error as there can't be, for a lack of a better term, a cookie cutter approach to C.B.L. T.L.D.R. (cliffs notes)So, just like you, I watch closely what I eat and give myself a cap. The cap is more carb based but in turn it caps my calories as well.
This is the problem I have. Kiefer makes occasional claims like "don't watch fat in your backload" and then you see people having shoddy results from this advice.I think backloads need to be more tuned in then the books lets on. You can't go around eating whole pizzas just because you hit your target carbs... Kiefer has this whole idea "a calorie is not a calorie". I agree that dieting is more complex than calorie counting, but at the end of the day an excess amount of calories leads to weight gain... How much excess will that require? Its different for everyone.The fact is some people see the back-load as this pig out freedom period. Even if you stick to high GI carbs & hit your target carbs it doesn't mean eat whatever you please... People have tried this with very mixed results.I'm not on here to start fights or for popularity. I'm not trying to insult people. I'm trying to stick to the issue that i'm trying to discuss. What I want to discuss is back-loading and why other people think its silly. I've been using it with some success, but i've strayed away from the book quite a lot...I've also found many of the claims in the advertising on the main page are VERY misleading. Calling CBL "the holy grail" of dieting seems like crazy talk to me!
I might some day be a fan of Alan Aragon if he ever stopped shitting on other peoples work and released some of his own recommendations to show he is actually credible. Just another interwebs arguer who is afraid to have his own thoughts critiqued.
He wrote a book called Girth Control.
There's a reason kiefer gets so much hate. Here are quotes from the book.
My experience thus far has been up and down. I have gained some weight but I expected that. But, my measurements have remained the same. I still have a good deal of fat to lose, but I am trying to build a better foundation of muscle. So, everything is trial and error as there can't be, for a lack of a better term, a cookie cutter approach to C.B.L. T.L.D.R. (cliffs notes)So, just like you, I watch closely what I eat and give myself a cap. The cap is more carb based but in turn it caps my calories as well.
This is the problem I have. Kiefer makes occasional claims like "don't watch fat in your backload" and then you see people having shoddy results from this advice.I think backloads need to be more tuned in then the books lets on. You can't go around eating whole pizzas just because you hit your target carbs... I'm not on here to start fights or for popularity. I'm not trying to insult people. I'm trying to stick to the issue that i'm trying to discuss. What I want to discuss is back-loading and why other people think its silly. I've been using it with some success, but i've strayed away from the book quite a lot...
Alright man, first of all, don't quote me and then turn around and say I have shoddy results. You have no idea what my results are. I am only 2 weeks into this diet and I have a lot to learn yet. I am tweaking what I am doing which is recommended in the book. Second of all, and lastly, you say you are not here to start an argument! I call some serious bullshit!!! That's all you are doing... I have met and surpassed my goals doing C.N.S. and yes, I have gotten stronger as well as lose a lot of fat. And, you should read on the front page of DH. See, Burdick's success and say that you can't get stronger and even hit P.R.'s while being on C.N.S. So, in short don't ever use a post of mine to try and make a point. Everyone is different and they need to tweak the diet to fit accordingly.
thrownullpointer, I think that in order to make this diet really effective, you must try to understand the mechanisms that make them work, luckly Kiefer have explained deeply but in a simple manner the metabolic process that make muscle gain or loss and fat loss or gain possible, and how that processes are affected by nutrient intake. If you focus in understanding thatm you will easily understand the strenghts and limitations of both CN and CBL. Thats why it kind of annoys me when some one says something like this: “Yesterday backload was so dirty” or ” How can I backload with clean food” Because dirty and clean are subjective terms, and even healthy is relative. Knowing how food composition and timing affect physiology is simply too important.
alright man, first of all, don't quote me and then turn around and say I have shoddy results.
you see people having shoddy results from this advice.
So when I said "people" you mean i'm directly commenting on your results alone? My comment wasn't directed at you at all...
That's all you are doing... I have met and surpassed my goals doing C.N.S. and yes, I have gotten stronger as well as lose a lot of fat. And, you should read on the front page of DH. See, Burdick's success and say that you can't get stronger and even hit P.R.'s while being on C.N.S. So, in short don't ever use a post of mine to try and make a point. Everyone is different and they need to tweak the diet to fit accordingly.
Its not that muscle is impossible to build... You take a point and draw it to the extreme. CNS is not made for muscle gain and thats just a fact. Can you lose fat and build muscle on CNS? Sure? But was CNS developed specifically for muscle gain? No. If it was you wouldn't have CBL...I can quote your posts as much as I'd like. If the mods have a problem then they'll deal with it...I really don't understand why you think i'm attacking you when I never specifically criticized you.
thrownullpointer, I think that in order to make this diet really effective, you must try to understand the mechanisms that make them work, luckly Kiefer have explained deeply but in a simple manner the metabolic process that make muscle gain or loss and fat loss or gain possible, and how that processes are affected by nutrient intake. If you focus in understanding thatm you will easily understand the strenghts and limitations of both CN and CBL. Thats why it kind of annoys me when some one says something like this: "Yesterday backload was so dirty" or " How can I backload with clean food" Because dirty and clean are subjective terms, and even healthy is relative. Knowing how food composition and timing affect physiology is simply too important.
A lot of the mechanisms Kiefer explains are completely unsubstantiated. His background isn't even in nutrition, its in physics... Sure physics has an influence, but he can't prove half of his claims.I already understand the basics of both diets...
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.