- This topic has 62 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
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...
Which mechanisms? Which claims? I would appreciate if you answer with as much accuracy and specificity as possible
He clearly states he hasn't read much on kiefers stuff, and then goes ahead and bashes him anyways. Seems like a pretty empty critique to me
I do agree with thrownullpointer in the fact that this diet does seem to need a lot of tweaking to be successful. Many of these tweaks kiefer likes to keep for his personal clients and team dh. Kind of disheartening after the price I paid for the book.
I do agree with thrownullpointer in the fact that this diet does seem to need a lot of tweaking to be successful. Many of these tweaks kiefer likes to keep for his personal clients and team dh. Kind of disheartening after the price I paid for the book.
Very much agreed.
I do agree with thrownullpointer in the fact that this diet does seem to need a lot of tweaking to be successful. Many of these tweaks kiefer likes to keep for his personal clients and team dh. Kind of disheartening after the price I paid for the book.
Check my log in my signature. I'm using CBL/CNS to prep for my FIRST Bodybuilding comp. risky i know, but i have 7 months CBL experience, alot of time to invest reading, listening and researching myself, plus i'm lucky to have the support of a few very knowledgeable forum members. Kiefer is always dropping hints in his podcasts about what his 'clients do pre comp etc'. I've taken all of these and ran. I think I've hit the nail pretty sweetly on the hard, as I'm still dropping BF (about 5-6% at the mo), and ate steak bacon, and some eggs today, with a white rice meal at night... and i'm 4 weeks out from my comp. the info in the book is worth more than the $80 price tag, even if its purely as a reference list to research!the guy know's his stuff, there is no doubting that. the only issue with the whole thing is people read the cover and think they can slam as much shit at night and get big and stay lean. thats not necessarily the way it works.in terms of more advanced tweaks... kiefer even says there is no one size fits all approach, hence why it'll never be in a book. if he could have a step by step guide he would release it. fortunately, i've had time CBLing to start to see what works for me, and what doesn't. Plus i'm very serious about my training and diet and really know how my body responds to different foods/training.my 2c but check out my log for a few of those 'tweaks' you may be after.http://dangerouslyhardcore.com/forum/index.php?topic=3759.0
Seeking optimal health & performance for myself & others at:
Alex Fergus Coaching - www.AFCoaching.com.au
The Anabolic Diet, the Cycle Diet, Shitloading, Skiploading etc etc all involve periods of overfeeding, slamming high GI carbs (and some fats) over a period of time. Where is the disconnect here that CBL is from another planet? If you do that 4 times a week of course you will get fat, I do it 1 time a week with 2 small backloads and look BOSS right now. Thrownullpointer, I like good debates and find it interesting, but you are bordering on trolling by attacking Kiefer's credentials on his own board.
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...
Oh, really? Have you read all of the research that he has?
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. see example in response belowAnyhow 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.
Rule #1 of being a Grammar Nazi- If you call out someone's grammar mistakes, be sure you don't make any yourself. You meant to say: "However, people also want to get the most weight loss/muscle gain for their effort."There- place Their- possessiveThey're - contraction of "they are" Also, you probably meant "e.g." instead of "IE" (which, correctly abbreviated would actually be i.e.) e.g. stands for “exempli gratia,” which means “for the sake of example”, used for presenting examples of statements. i.e. stands for “id est,” which means “that is”, used mainly when rewording a sentence, i.e. stating it another way.
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...
It is neither productive nor polite to come into a forum and imply that the members are all brainless sheep. You started a thread that is basically a challenge to everyone doing this diet. That in itself isn't always a bad thing, but the way it was delivered is going to stir up a lot of negative responses because all of your arguments/points are given in what comes off as a very condescending tone. Perhaps you would get the healthy debate you claim to be looking for if you would respond in a more objective way. Otherwise, the people on this forum are going to assume you're a troll at best. If you don't feel that Kiefer's work/diet/book is worth your time or you feel that he has no idea what he's talking about then I suggest you move on to another forum or diet plan you feel would get you the best results possible. The rest of us are happy to be following his advice and seeking our own way to personal results.
I'm all for debates on topics and critical issues, but it seems like these sort of “meta” threads that are popping up will only end in personal attacks and (eventually) bannings. The criticisms being posted also look pretty vague in their focus…we have all of like 45 words of criticism that Aragon (son of Arathorn?) made of Keifer's material, and none of it really all that substantial. Shouldn't we wait to hear people like Aragon and McDonald out in more detail? I'd love to see a lengthy review-type article on CBL from a skeptic, and if anyone can point me to one I'd greatly appreciate it.I'm not sure what the real point of this thread is (other to rehash "Is a calorie a calorie" debate), but I'm thinking it's a desire to see big names we all know and love duke it out and find out who's the last one standing, a sort of nutritional-guru WWE or MMA. My guess is it stems from the scope of the material available, and the sheer amount of time it takes to read and sort out all these studies, books, articles, etc...it's nice to have a one-stop solution that you can use for all your workout/nutritional needs.
http://www.dangerouslyhardcore.com/1733/hi-tech-nutrient-conversion-lessons-for-carb-back-loading/This article should clear up some of the issues discussed on this thread.
I do agree with thrownullpointer in the fact that this diet does seem to need a lot of tweaking to be successful. Many of these tweaks kiefer likes to keep for his personal clients and team dh. Kind of disheartening after the price I paid for the book.
Very much agreed.
Kiefer doesn't really "keep tweaks for his clients," he does use a lot of stuff for special cases, but those things require his supervision and they won't work for everyone. He also does some experimental things. The information in CBL and CNS is stuff that will work for most people. He can't add a lot of things in because they will just screw people up.Adittionally, if you pay attention to Kiefer's articles and podcasts, you will get updates and new info all the time.Also, the book is worth the price tag. The amount of work that went into it and the information it contains rivals college textbooks, which are well over $100. Plus you are going to get updates for free.
Also, the book is worth the price tag. The amount of work that went into it and the information it contains rivals college textbooks, which are well over $100. Plus you are going to get updates for free.
And you get full access to these boards...which offer you a TON of insight and the ability to get almost any question answered virtually immediately.
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...
the nutrition field is still stuck in the 80s still. besides fat diet celebrities, i cant think of a single person whose a trained nutritionist and discovered/contributed anything the field of nutrition.the nutrition field is advanced by the other sciences; medicine, chemistry, epidemiology to a large extent, and yes physics.
Kiefer clearly knows a) the principles of applied science & b) how to dissect and critically review a study. Plus he has 10 years of practical experience. I really don't see how anyone could be any more qualified than him. The suggestions most qualified nutritionists and even doctors make are laughable.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.