- This topic has 5 voices and 13 replies.
-
Posts
-
Not sure if anyone has had a chance to listen to the newest podcast of Physique Science Radio, but it's a Q & A and has a segment that i'm not sure if it directly targets or at the very least indirectly targets CBL. He basically states that he assumes that fat burning would be the same overall through the day weather or not you have carbs in the morning or at night. Both he and Sohee (SP?) recognize the importance of carbs around training, but I guess it kind of bugs me that he is making these public claims based off speculation and assumption alone. I really respected him in that he comes from both the field of practicle application as well as science, but this seems like an unvalidated and unnecessary affront. I would love to see some kind of scientific backing to this postulation.I did really enjoy the segment about time under tention though, and that the study validating it used the same weights for the same reps, which is a no brainer that TUT would have more effect when the same load and volume is applied. I've personally noticed greater composition changes as I have taken a sabaticle from eccentric focused lifting to more explosive lifting for greater intensity at lower reps/high weights. I figured it's more to do with the periodizations change, but hey, whatever works I guess.
Layne has been a CBL skeptic since it came out in 2011. Him and Kiefer definitely have their differences. Despite the fact Kiefer has said quite a few time that he has a deep respect for Layne. Kiefer actually heavily cites Layne's research on leucine and hypertrophy.
IMO it's business. Although cheap shots are generally frowned upon in business, it happens and this business seams to be the worst for it. Layne has given a few at many respected people in the industry, some are deserved some not.I do like reading Laynes stuff and many others. When it comes to achieving ours goals we should be a bit self centered and do what's best for ourselves.I find in this business (and fitness in general) it is so competitive, they all have to give out so much info for free you take what works for you and let the rest go.I'm just glad I'm on the benefiting side of all the competitive bullshit.
I doubt it would happen, but I would really love to see some sort of collaborative effort between Layne and Kiefer. Not necessarily a product or anything, but just an open exchange of ideas and what not. They're both incredibly smart guys and from my layman's view, have a lot of overlap in their work.I was listening to episode 1 or 2 of Physique Science and Layne made a comment about calories that I really liked, it was something along the lines of "People think it's all just a matter of calories in calories out. Which is basically true, but what they don't understand is the macronutrient composition of those calories can change how much energy your body is burning." And I thought that went nicely hand in hand with Kiefer's comments on the year end ranting episode about "do calories matter," when he was talking about the body being a thermydynamic machine that can operate at different input/output levels efficiently. Just observation 🙂
Yeah. I heard the podcast and did also notice what he said about cbl (and nutrient timing overall). I too think that Layne is a really smart guy and his information is of great value. His stuff with reverse dieting have helped me a lot in getting my calories up (although, I did it a lot more aggressively than he suggests) and I've used his PHAT program with good success. With that said, I think he is very one-sided in saying that IIFYM you'll be fine. Okay, but I also think he will say that eating all your calories for breakfast (including carbs) and training at night would be a suboptimal thing to do – so he must value nutrient timing more than he says. As Kiefer said on Bpak's podcast, IIFYM only works for people that everything works for and who trains every hard….I immediately thought of Layne, hah. The most funny thing is that Layne actually said on an earlier podcast (can't remember which one) that he kind of carbs backloads – training in the afternoon, and eating most of his carbs around his work out. I don't think we'll ever see Layne and Kiefer do anything together (although I would like it). I actually think Layne is a bit too ignorant, which I think is his weak point, and why I like Kiefer more.
See, I kind of look at CBL as a slightly more refined version of IIFYM. Or at least how most of us are doing it. For the most part, it seems like people have determined levels of macros they need to hit for their CBL setup, and they plug in foods to hit those numbers. Sounds like IIFYM. The exception being that instead of PERI workout carbs, we on CBL limit carbs to POST workout.But really, IIFYM and CBL can both just be used as an excuse to eat like an asshole, and most anyone who does that won't really have success anyway. There needs to be a modicum of common sense applied to any diet, especially these types that "allow" or "encourage" some of the "bad" foods. That was a lot of quotation marks.
See, I kind of look at CBL as a slightly more refined version of IIFYM. Or at least how most of us are doing it. For the most part, it seems like people have determined levels of macros they need to hit for their CBL setup, and they plug in foods to hit those numbers. Sounds like IIFYM. The exception being that instead of PERI workout carbs, we on CBL limit carbs to POST workout.But really, IIFYM and CBL can both just be used as an excuse to eat like an asshole, and most anyone who does that won't really have success anyway. There needs to be a modicum of common sense applied to any diet, especially these types that "allow" or "encourage" some of the "bad" foods. That was a lot of quotation marks.
IMO the two diets are apples vs oranges. IIFYM works for anyone. CBL works better but only for those fit the criteria that takes advantage of how it works.Agree on the point that nothing works if the protocol isn't followed at least a majority of the time.
See, I kind of look at CBL as a slightly more refined version of IIFYM. Or at least how most of us are doing it. For the most part, it seems like people have determined levels of macros they need to hit for their CBL setup, and they plug in foods to hit those numbers. Sounds like IIFYM. The exception being that instead of PERI workout carbs, we on CBL limit carbs to POST workout.But really, IIFYM and CBL can both just be used as an excuse to eat like an asshole, and most anyone who does that won't really have success anyway. There needs to be a modicum of common sense applied to any diet, especially these types that "allow" or "encourage" some of the "bad" foods. That was a lot of quotation marks.
A lot of people on this forum have "macros", but that isn't how CBL was designed. I personally do not have set macros, except I try to get in a certain amount of protein. I'm sure I end up eating a fairly consistent amount fat, carbs, and calories on training and non-training days, but CBL is a nutrient timing diet. You can use IIFYM with CBL if you want, but Kiefer always advocated for more instinctive eating except in special circumstances.
See, I kind of look at CBL as a slightly more refined version of IIFYM. Or at least how most of us are doing it. For the most part, it seems like people have determined levels of macros they need to hit for their CBL setup, and they plug in foods to hit those numbers. Sounds like IIFYM. The exception being that instead of PERI workout carbs, we on CBL limit carbs to POST workout.But really, IIFYM and CBL can both just be used as an excuse to eat like an asshole, and most anyone who does that won't really have success anyway. There needs to be a modicum of common sense applied to any diet, especially these types that "allow" or "encourage" some of the "bad" foods. That was a lot of quotation marks.
A lot of people on this forum have "macros", but that isn't how CBL was designed. I personally do not have set macros, except I try to get in a certain amount of protein. I'm sure I end up eating a fairly consistent amount fat, carbs, and calories on training and non-training days, but CBL is a nutrient timing diet. You can use IIFYM with CBL if you want, but Kiefer always advocated for more instinctive eating except in special circumstances.
This is true.I generally have to at least have an eye on macros because my eating instinctive is eat till I'm fat again.From being so overweight I actually have really poor satiety signals. I could eat till I puke but never actually feel full.
Same here on the instinctive eating. I figure if I get a craving, I'm missing something nutrient wise.Fortunately I've never been overly fat nor thin so my satiety signaling tells me I'm done so I go with that.
Yeah I also have som set macros that I'm trying to hit, just as a guideline, otherwise I could easily go 500 or more calories over (not under haha). So my macros is only a guideline.. If I “hit” my macros but is still hungry and do not feel replenished, I'll eat more and vice versa.
Layne seams to be on a roll lately with the bashing. IMO not even worth reading his stuff anymore. Sorry Layne but I'm out.
Layne seams to be on a roll lately with the bashing. IMO not even worth reading his stuff anymore. Sorry Layne but I'm out.
What stuff does he write? All I ever see from him is podcasts. I personally can't follow anyone who does podcasts. I just hate that format when it comes to information. I like the written word.
He used to share articles. Not so much stuff written by him but stuff he agreed with but lately it's bashing this guy or that guy. Poliquin seams to be popular target among others. Not into podcast either.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.