- This topic has 10 voices and 51 replies.
-
Posts
-
Hey man Tex has got it covered. Kiefer begun doing podcasts at the start of this year and that is how he has been relaying all of his information to the book buyers. However, if you would like to get the information straight from him he does have a twitter (DH Kiefer) and answers peoples questions daily. You can also checkout Dangerously Hardcore on Facebook where he posts information.To elaborate on how he changed his stance if you look at how the book is written there are very few carb sources that Kiefer recommends you be restrictive with (low glycemic carbs/high fructose corn syrup/sucrose in moderation). While now he is saying that starches/dextrose/and other glucose based carb sources are best and optimal. He is getting away from the gimic of carb-backloading (indulge on all the "no no" foods at night after lifting and don't gain weight) and now telling people how to optimize the diet.Your suggestions for carb sources are good ones: rice, white potatoes, white bread, non wheat base cereals, pure dextrose, white flour based baked goods, etc. These are sources that are going to optimize your results but that is not to say that you can't indulge. A certain level of indulgence keeps you on track the other 98% of the time so certainly if you want something have it and exercise moderation. Just don't go down a tub of ice cream, a package of oreos, and a bunch of hersey's bars during the week and wonder why you aren't seeing results.
Personally I think there is nothing wrong with sugars and "junk" from a fatloss perspective and actually that sugars might be better than starches for fatloss. What's more important IMO is overall carbs and calories.
From my experience, starches tend to give me better fat loss results. Kiefer also says the same with his clients.
Would you agree that overall carbs and calories is still far more important though? (:
Depends. If you are consuming 400 g of carbs when you should be having 200 g the overall amount matters more. However 250 g of carbs from potatoes may give people better results than 200 g of carbs from ice cream.
Hey man Tex has got it covered. Kiefer begun doing podcasts at the start of this year and that is how he has been relaying all of his information to the book buyers. However, if you would like to get the information straight from him he does have a twitter (DH Kiefer) and answers peoples questions daily. You can also checkout Dangerously Hardcore on Facebook where he posts information.To elaborate on how he changed his stance if you look at how the book is written there are very few carb sources that Kiefer recommends you be restrictive with (low glycemic carbs/high fructose corn syrup/sucrose in moderation). While now he is saying that starches/dextrose/and other glucose based carb sources are best and optimal. He is getting away from the gimic of carb-backloading (indulge on all the "no no" foods at night after lifting and don't gain weight) and now telling people how to optimize the diet.Your suggestions for carb sources are good ones: rice, white potatoes, white bread, non wheat base cereals, pure dextrose, white flour based baked goods, etc. These are sources that are going to optimize your results but that is not to say that you can't indulge. A certain level of indulgence keeps you on track the other 98% of the time so certainly if you want something have it and exercise moderation. Just don't go down a tub of ice cream, a package of oreos, and a bunch of hersey's bars during the week and wonder why you aren't seeing results.
Personally I think there is nothing wrong with sugars and "junk" from a fatloss perspective and actually that sugars might be better than starches for fatloss. What's more important IMO is overall carbs and calories.
From my experience, starches tend to give me better fat loss results. Kiefer also says the same with his clients.
Would you agree that overall carbs and calories is still far more important though? (:
Depends. If you are consuming 400 g of carbs when you should be having 200 g the overall amount matters more. However 250 g of carbs from potatoes may give people better results than 200 g of carbs from ice cream.
I dont see how that works to be honest unless you are thinking about the extra calories provided from those sources by the fat and protein. Sugar could be considered less fattening by virtue of 1. Its lower insulin required to deal with due to its fructose content. This alone under the "Taubsian fat gain model" should be enough. 2. It's higher thermogenicity which again requires less insulin, promotes higher energy expenditure and carbohydrate oxidation. Meaning they are being used more so than being stored as fat as in the case of glucose. Since switching my diet round to more sugar based than starch I notice I have to eat a lot more to gain weight. I also eat carbs earlier in the day than I used to and do so daily as opposed to only on backloads post workout. If I dieted I'm sure I could drop weight easier on higher calories too. But since Ive been trying to gain for the last year or so I haven't tried it out yet. I do however concede that the leanest I have ever been was when I was doing IF/Leangains and eating a lot of white rice and oatmeal post workouts (still a but load of ice cream as well though!), maybe it was coincidence that it was also the lowest my calories have ever been? Hmm. No cant be that! (: But at the same time my hands and feet were cold all the time and my allergies were outrageous. Pretty miserable. Call me a reformed sugar-phobe.
Hey man Tex has got it covered. Kiefer begun doing podcasts at the start of this year and that is how he has been relaying all of his information to the book buyers. However, if you would like to get the information straight from him he does have a twitter (DH Kiefer) and answers peoples questions daily. You can also checkout Dangerously Hardcore on Facebook where he posts information.To elaborate on how he changed his stance if you look at how the book is written there are very few carb sources that Kiefer recommends you be restrictive with (low glycemic carbs/high fructose corn syrup/sucrose in moderation). While now he is saying that starches/dextrose/and other glucose based carb sources are best and optimal. He is getting away from the gimic of carb-backloading (indulge on all the "no no" foods at night after lifting and don't gain weight) and now telling people how to optimize the diet.Your suggestions for carb sources are good ones: rice, white potatoes, white bread, non wheat base cereals, pure dextrose, white flour based baked goods, etc. These are sources that are going to optimize your results but that is not to say that you can't indulge. A certain level of indulgence keeps you on track the other 98% of the time so certainly if you want something have it and exercise moderation. Just don't go down a tub of ice cream, a package of oreos, and a bunch of hersey's bars during the week and wonder why you aren't seeing results.
Personally I think there is nothing wrong with sugars and "junk" from a fatloss perspective and actually that sugars might be better than starches for fatloss. What's more important IMO is overall carbs and calories.
From my experience, starches tend to give me better fat loss results. Kiefer also says the same with his clients.
Would you agree that overall carbs and calories is still far more important though? (:
Depends. If you are consuming 400 g of carbs when you should be having 200 g the overall amount matters more. However 250 g of carbs from potatoes may give people better results than 200 g of carbs from ice cream.
I dont see how that works to be honest unless you are thinking about the extra calories provided from those sources by the fat and protein. Sugar could be considered less fattening by virtue of 1. Its lower insulin required to deal with due to its fructose content. This alone under the "Taubsian fat gain model" should be enough. 2. It's higher thermogenicity which again requires less insulin, promotes higher energy expenditure and carbohydrate oxidation. Meaning they are being used more so than being stored as fat as in the case of glucose. Since switching my diet round to more sugar based than starch I notice I have to eat a lot more to gain weight. I also eat carbs earlier in the day than I used to and do so daily as opposed to only on backloads post workout. If I dieted I'm sure I could drop weight easier on higher calories too. But since Ive been trying to gain for the last year or so I haven't tried it out yet. I do however concede that the leanest I have ever been was when I was doing IF/Leangains and eating a lot of white rice and oatmeal post workouts (still a but load of ice cream as well though!), maybe it was coincidence that it was also the lowest my calories have ever been? Hmm. No cant be that! (: But at the same time my hands and feet were cold all the time and my allergies were outrageous. Pretty miserable. Call me a reformed sugar-phobe.
Your argument seems entirely based on sugars lower amount of insulin. We want insulin the backload. Not only for it's anabolic properties but also because if you spike it high enough it causes all sorts of things normal things to happen, such as increased growth hormone secretion later and if insulin spiked high enough, increased LPL activity. Kiefer and Dr. Rocky also said they believe that the liver glycogen replenishment from large amounts of fructose impedes ketogenesis for the next few days, which may be part of the reason why some people who consume large amounts of sugar tend not to do as well on CBL. I was always under the impression liver glycogen got depleted quickly, but apparently they don't think so. I'm not a sugarphobe, but Kiefer said he noticed most of his CBL clients get betters results when starches are mainly consumed in the backload. I noticed that myself and many others noticed that too.
Hey man Tex has got it covered. Kiefer begun doing podcasts at the start of this year and that is how he has been relaying all of his information to the book buyers. However, if you would like to get the information straight from him he does have a twitter (DH Kiefer) and answers peoples questions daily. You can also checkout Dangerously Hardcore on Facebook where he posts information.To elaborate on how he changed his stance if you look at how the book is written there are very few carb sources that Kiefer recommends you be restrictive with (low glycemic carbs/high fructose corn syrup/sucrose in moderation). While now he is saying that starches/dextrose/and other glucose based carb sources are best and optimal. He is getting away from the gimic of carb-backloading (indulge on all the "no no" foods at night after lifting and don't gain weight) and now telling people how to optimize the diet.Your suggestions for carb sources are good ones: rice, white potatoes, white bread, non wheat base cereals, pure dextrose, white flour based baked goods, etc. These are sources that are going to optimize your results but that is not to say that you can't indulge. A certain level of indulgence keeps you on track the other 98% of the time so certainly if you want something have it and exercise moderation. Just don't go down a tub of ice cream, a package of oreos, and a bunch of hersey's bars during the week and wonder why you aren't seeing results.
Personally I think there is nothing wrong with sugars and "junk" from a fatloss perspective and actually that sugars might be better than starches for fatloss. What's more important IMO is overall carbs and calories.
From my experience, starches tend to give me better fat loss results. Kiefer also says the same with his clients.
Would you agree that overall carbs and calories is still far more important though? (:
Depends. If you are consuming 400 g of carbs when you should be having 200 g the overall amount matters more. However 250 g of carbs from potatoes may give people better results than 200 g of carbs from ice cream.
I dont see how that works to be honest unless you are thinking about the extra calories provided from those sources by the fat and protein. Sugar could be considered less fattening by virtue of 1. Its lower insulin required to deal with due to its fructose content. This alone under the "Taubsian fat gain model" should be enough. 2. It's higher thermogenicity which again requires less insulin, promotes higher energy expenditure and carbohydrate oxidation. Meaning they are being used more so than being stored as fat as in the case of glucose. Since switching my diet round to more sugar based than starch I notice I have to eat a lot more to gain weight. I also eat carbs earlier in the day than I used to and do so daily as opposed to only on backloads post workout. If I dieted I'm sure I could drop weight easier on higher calories too. But since Ive been trying to gain for the last year or so I haven't tried it out yet. I do however concede that the leanest I have ever been was when I was doing IF/Leangains and eating a lot of white rice and oatmeal post workouts (still a but load of ice cream as well though!), maybe it was coincidence that it was also the lowest my calories have ever been? Hmm. No cant be that! (: But at the same time my hands and feet were cold all the time and my allergies were outrageous. Pretty miserable. Call me a reformed sugar-phobe.
Your argument seems entirely based on sugars lower amount of insulin. We want insulin the backload. Not only for it's anabolic properties but also because if you spike it high enough it causes all sorts of things normal things to happen, such as increased growth hormone secretion later and if insulin spiked high enough, increased LPL activity. Kiefer and Dr. Rocky also said they believe that the liver glycogen replenishment from large amounts of fructose impedes ketogenesis for the next few days, which may be part of the reason why some people who consume large amounts of sugar tend not to do as well on CBL. I was always under the impression liver glycogen got depleted quickly, but apparently they don't think so. I'm not a sugarphobe, but Kiefer said he noticed most of his CBL clients get betters results when starches are mainly consumed in the backload. I noticed that myself and many others noticed that too.
I guess Im just not convinced that those results are coming from lowering extra calories from fat that usually accompany the junky sugary carb sources. On the insulin thing. I can't speak to the LPL activity but as far as insulin's action on anabolism goes a small amount is enough to do the job i.e. even protein powder post workout illicits enough insulin to maximise the anabolic response. It also seem's counterintuitive (not always bad as we have discovered though) that if you want to remain insulin sensitive that you'd repeatedly coax your body into producing huge insulin dumps followed by massive lulls. Repeated Reactive Hypoglycemia (those night sweats a lot of people have noticed) has been noted to be a major factor in obeseogenic tendancies. That over-abundance of energy followed by a period of deprivation can only signal the body to store what it gets, when it gets it for use later on. If this is glycogen good, if it's fat (which I still think is more likely on overly glucose based diets) then its bad.suppversity.blogspot.com/.../is-hypoglycemia-obesogenic-is-gi.htmlOn Growth Hormone. The problem is with the name. Growth Hormone is showing itself to be overblown and doesn't even do much in the way of producing muscular growth or fatloss at physiological doses. This is a case of a misleading hormone name and stressing importance of minutia. The idea that it wont release during sleep until insulin and blood sugar comes down I have seen challenged as well.I dont think looking at high blood sugar is necessarily a good indicator of whether fat loss is being stymied either. With high FFAs in the blood glucose utilisation is blocked. Unless rocky want's to check his other markers as consistently as his glucose I think he is looking in the wrong place and putting blame where it shouldnt be. Even with steady normal levels of blood glucose muscles still burn predominantly fat at rest.
my view is you could read 100 studies on 100 things testing the way we think the body works in a million different situations at a million different times.. But honestly none of it really matters at all. Only thing that really matters when it comes to something like CBL or any diet for that matter is what works best for yourself on the protocol. I have tested both high sugars and high starches and I find I feel and respond much better to high starches.. Others may do better on high sugars others may do better with less carbs others with more. I don't really see a reason to get so wrapped in the what should work best because of XYZ research or studies when my n=1 tells me what works best for me.
my view is you could read 100 studies on 100 things testing the way we think the body works in a million different situations at a million different times.. But honestly none of it really matters at all. Only thing that really matters when it comes to something like CBL or any diet for that matter is what works best for yourself on the protocol. I have tested both high sugars and high starches and I find I feel and respond much better to high starches.. Others may do better on high sugars others may do better with less carbs others with more. I don't really see a reason to get so wrapped in the what should work best because of XYZ research or studies when my n=1 tells me what works best for me.
Yeah man I agree entirely. I think I said as much earlier on. I'm just debating the presentation of "the science" behind this. I can't argue with results, but its probably not happening for the reason's often cited , which is why I think it's silly that the whole CBL thing has gone from "pizza and ice cream" to "plain white rice and potatoes" like you can't have both and make the exact same progress.[rant]Something else I would like to see which I don't think Kiefer's diets can provide (at this stage) is optimal health. His recommendations are based solely on low carb/keeping insulin low to produce fat loss. That's all fine and dandy, but I'm at a stage where I dont give a shit about losing any fat, I just want to build muscle and feel as good as possible while doing so in a healthy way. This is why I've had to tweak the diet to suit. For me sugars are far more healthy than starches. Some people may not be intune with their body, misreading the signals or flat out living in denial in order to truly optimize their foods. [/rant]
seems from all the recent podcasts health is his main concern right now so id expect health to be a big part of CBL and CN 2.0… Also on that i guess i'm not convinced something like large amounts of sucrose which until pretty recently has never been a huge part of the human diet pretty much anywhere aside from what you would get in seasonal fruits and certain vegetables is a healthy way to go about things if health is the goal..
seems from all the recent podcasts health is his main concern right now so id expect health to be a big part of CBL and CN 2.0... Also on that i guess i'm not convinced something like large amounts of sucrose which until pretty recently has never been a huge part of the human diet pretty much anywhere aside from what you would get in seasonal fruits and certain vegetables is a healthy way to go about things if health is the goal..
You mean you'd prefer to live like our caveman ancestors dying at 30 from disease, parasites, accident or being eaten? (; If you look at the other mammals in the animal kingdom most of them go through cycles of higher and lower activity obviously centred around reproduction. When does this mostly occur? Spring and summer when these fruits etc become available. The other times of year where these are not available are basically just subsistence living waiting out the season till it warms and the food supply allows for the high energy, reproductive driven processes to continue. In other words simulating the stressful winter starvation conditions year round is probably not the ticket to health and longevity.
luckily modern medicine and vaccinations prevent most of the deaths at 30:)my point on the health is even if they ate them seasonally i highly doubt the were gorging themselves with hundreds upon hundreds of grams of sucrose on a regular basis.. not saying eating hundreds upon hundreds of grams of starches is healthier but at least with say a sweet potato or even pieces of fruit you are getting your micros rather than just getting nutrient deprived processed whatever.... imho for health preferably get majority of your foods from sources of foods that provide plenty of micros and macros.. now source of supply is another problem and issue altogether...
luckily modern medicine and vaccinations prevent most of the deaths at 30:)
I think greater hygiene (soap, disinfectant, overall cleanliness, water supply) is probably the bigger player in our recent longevity win. But that's not to say we are any healthier for living longer necessarily. Now we have just got past the natural world's systems to keep us at bay. The new challenge is now in supporting our cellular metabolism into older age.
my point on the health is even if they ate them seasonally i highly doubt the were gorging themselves with hundreds upon hundreds of grams of sucrose on a regular basis.. not saying eating hundreds upon hundreds of grams of starches is healthier but at least with say a sweet potato or even pieces of fruit you are getting your micros rather than just getting nutrient deprived processed whatever.... imho for health preferably get majority of your foods from sources of foods that provide plenty of micros and macros.. now source of supply is another problem and issue altogether...
I find it hard to believe that you actually think that is the case. If I was living in caveman world/paleo fantasy land and had just gone the whole winter eating deer entrails then you better believe that when I come across a bunch of fruit I wouldn't be thinking "nah better not because I might get fat!". We are animals and just like all others you know they'd eat them till they were stuffed or gone, which ever happened first.
I find it hard to believe that you actually think that is the case. If I was living in caveman world/paleo fantasy land and had just gone the whole winter eating deer entrails then you better believe that when I come across a bunch of fruit I wouldn't be thinking “nah better not because I might get fat!”. We are animals and just like all others you know they'd eat them till they were stuffed or gone, which ever happened first.
neither would I but luckily or unlickily we do not live in a caveman world and have easy access to whatever foods we want(at least good portion of us do).. if fantasy caveman gorged himself on poptarts, ice cream, white breads, and other cereal grains all day everyday i bet he would get fat and lazy... too bad we don't have time machine or an unfrozen Brendan Fraser to test that out
Hey man Tex has got it covered. Kiefer begun doing podcasts at the start of this year and that is how he has been relaying all of his information to the book buyers. However, if you would like to get the information straight from him he does have a twitter (DH Kiefer) and answers peoples questions daily. You can also checkout Dangerously Hardcore on Facebook where he posts information.To elaborate on how he changed his stance if you look at how the book is written there are very few carb sources that Kiefer recommends you be restrictive with (low glycemic carbs/high fructose corn syrup/sucrose in moderation). While now he is saying that starches/dextrose/and other glucose based carb sources are best and optimal. He is getting away from the gimic of carb-backloading (indulge on all the "no no" foods at night after lifting and don't gain weight) and now telling people how to optimize the diet.Your suggestions for carb sources are good ones: rice, white potatoes, white bread, non wheat base cereals, pure dextrose, white flour based baked goods, etc. These are sources that are going to optimize your results but that is not to say that you can't indulge. A certain level of indulgence keeps you on track the other 98% of the time so certainly if you want something have it and exercise moderation. Just don't go down a tub of ice cream, a package of oreos, and a bunch of hersey's bars during the week and wonder why you aren't seeing results.
Personally I think there is nothing wrong with sugars and "junk" from a fatloss perspective and actually that sugars might be better than starches for fatloss. What's more important IMO is overall carbs and calories.
From my experience, starches tend to give me better fat loss results. Kiefer also says the same with his clients.
Would you agree that overall carbs and calories is still far more important though? (:
Depends. If you are consuming 400 g of carbs when you should be having 200 g the overall amount matters more. However 250 g of carbs from potatoes may give people better results than 200 g of carbs from ice cream.
I dont see how that works to be honest unless you are thinking about the extra calories provided from those sources by the fat and protein. Sugar could be considered less fattening by virtue of 1. Its lower insulin required to deal with due to its fructose content. This alone under the "Taubsian fat gain model" should be enough. 2. It's higher thermogenicity which again requires less insulin, promotes higher energy expenditure and carbohydrate oxidation. Meaning they are being used more so than being stored as fat as in the case of glucose. Since switching my diet round to more sugar based than starch I notice I have to eat a lot more to gain weight. I also eat carbs earlier in the day than I used to and do so daily as opposed to only on backloads post workout. If I dieted I'm sure I could drop weight easier on higher calories too. But since Ive been trying to gain for the last year or so I haven't tried it out yet. I do however concede that the leanest I have ever been was when I was doing IF/Leangains and eating a lot of white rice and oatmeal post workouts (still a but load of ice cream as well though!), maybe it was coincidence that it was also the lowest my calories have ever been? Hmm. No cant be that! (: But at the same time my hands and feet were cold all the time and my allergies were outrageous. Pretty miserable. Call me a reformed sugar-phobe.
Your argument seems entirely based on sugars lower amount of insulin. We want insulin the backload. Not only for it's anabolic properties but also because if you spike it high enough it causes all sorts of things normal things to happen, such as increased growth hormone secretion later and if insulin spiked high enough, increased LPL activity. Kiefer and Dr. Rocky also said they believe that the liver glycogen replenishment from large amounts of fructose impedes ketogenesis for the next few days, which may be part of the reason why some people who consume large amounts of sugar tend not to do as well on CBL. I was always under the impression liver glycogen got depleted quickly, but apparently they don't think so. I'm not a sugarphobe, but Kiefer said he noticed most of his CBL clients get betters results when starches are mainly consumed in the backload. I noticed that myself and many others noticed that too.
I guess Im just not convinced that those results are coming from lowering extra calories from fat that usually accompany the junky sugary carb sources.
He actually said stuff like pizza and mashed potatoes are fine. He said it's the sugar. While I really hate to use the "Kiefer said so" argument, but no one has anywhere near the empirical data and troubleshooting experience with CBL that he has.This lines up with my experience as well. I always did fine when I backloaded with pizza and French fries, but not so much when I had candy and sweet potatoes drenched in maple syrup.
Hey man Tex has got it covered. Kiefer begun doing podcasts at the start of this year and that is how he has been relaying all of his information to the book buyers. However, if you would like to get the information straight from him he does have a twitter (DH Kiefer) and answers peoples questions daily. You can also checkout Dangerously Hardcore on Facebook where he posts information.To elaborate on how he changed his stance if you look at how the book is written there are very few carb sources that Kiefer recommends you be restrictive with (low glycemic carbs/high fructose corn syrup/sucrose in moderation). While now he is saying that starches/dextrose/and other glucose based carb sources are best and optimal. He is getting away from the gimic of carb-backloading (indulge on all the "no no" foods at night after lifting and don't gain weight) and now telling people how to optimize the diet.Your suggestions for carb sources are good ones: rice, white potatoes, white bread, non wheat base cereals, pure dextrose, white flour based baked goods, etc. These are sources that are going to optimize your results but that is not to say that you can't indulge. A certain level of indulgence keeps you on track the other 98% of the time so certainly if you want something have it and exercise moderation. Just don't go down a tub of ice cream, a package of oreos, and a bunch of hersey's bars during the week and wonder why you aren't seeing results.
Personally I think there is nothing wrong with sugars and "junk" from a fatloss perspective and actually that sugars might be better than starches for fatloss. What's more important IMO is overall carbs and calories.
From my experience, starches tend to give me better fat loss results. Kiefer also says the same with his clients.
Would you agree that overall carbs and calories is still far more important though? (:
Depends. If you are consuming 400 g of carbs when you should be having 200 g the overall amount matters more. However 250 g of carbs from potatoes may give people better results than 200 g of carbs from ice cream.
I dont see how that works to be honest unless you are thinking about the extra calories provided from those sources by the fat and protein. Sugar could be considered less fattening by virtue of 1. Its lower insulin required to deal with due to its fructose content. This alone under the "Taubsian fat gain model" should be enough. 2. It's higher thermogenicity which again requires less insulin, promotes higher energy expenditure and carbohydrate oxidation. Meaning they are being used more so than being stored as fat as in the case of glucose. Since switching my diet round to more sugar based than starch I notice I have to eat a lot more to gain weight. I also eat carbs earlier in the day than I used to and do so daily as opposed to only on backloads post workout. If I dieted I'm sure I could drop weight easier on higher calories too. But since Ive been trying to gain for the last year or so I haven't tried it out yet. I do however concede that the leanest I have ever been was when I was doing IF/Leangains and eating a lot of white rice and oatmeal post workouts (still a but load of ice cream as well though!), maybe it was coincidence that it was also the lowest my calories have ever been? Hmm. No cant be that! (: But at the same time my hands and feet were cold all the time and my allergies were outrageous. Pretty miserable. Call me a reformed sugar-phobe.
Your argument seems entirely based on sugars lower amount of insulin. We want insulin the backload. Not only for it's anabolic properties but also because if you spike it high enough it causes all sorts of things normal things to happen, such as increased growth hormone secretion later and if insulin spiked high enough, increased LPL activity. Kiefer and Dr. Rocky also said they believe that the liver glycogen replenishment from large amounts of fructose impedes ketogenesis for the next few days, which may be part of the reason why some people who consume large amounts of sugar tend not to do as well on CBL. I was always under the impression liver glycogen got depleted quickly, but apparently they don't think so. I'm not a sugarphobe, but Kiefer said he noticed most of his CBL clients get betters results when starches are mainly consumed in the backload. I noticed that myself and many others noticed that too.
I guess Im just not convinced that those results are coming from lowering extra calories from fat that usually accompany the junky sugary carb sources.
He actually said stuff like pizza and mashed potatoes are fine. He said it's the sugar. While I really hate to use the "Kiefer said so" argument, but no one has anywhere near the empirical data and troubleshooting experience with CBL that he has.This lines up with my experience as well. I always did fine when I backloaded with pizza and French fries, but not so much when I had candy and sweet potatoes drenched in maple syrup.
I will agree with Ibob here. I backload with pizza a lot. And mashed potatoes or fries are probably the most common side dish I use. I do better if I limit the sugary stuff and when I do use it go for things that are still really bread based like brownies or cookies rather then candy and ice cream.
Mashed potatoes work? I thought he said they have to be baked to get them high gi? Would perogies work?
Mashed potatoes work? I thought he said they have to be baked to get them high gi? Would perogies work?
There's conflicting information on mashed potatoes. Some say they are low GI, but others report they are high. Kiefer said mashed potatoes though in the podcast.Don't know about pierogies. My guess would be they are ok.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.