An Objective Review of John Kiefer’s Carb Back-Loading (Part 2)

Continued from part 1

.

The Limitations of CBL

Some general concerns with CBL

Firstly, I don’t think that eliminating carbs all day is needed for most people, and is potentially detrimental to some, especially those who generally don’t feel good on low carbs, or athletes with high carb requirements. Given the requirement to train in the late afternoon/early evening, CBL is also not practical for those who train in the morning or afternoon. However, Kiefer does address this issue and adapts CBL for people who have work/family commitments that would clash with early evening training. To me, this somehow contradicts all what is said in the rest of the book with regards to physiology and circadian rhythms.

Though I mentioned that knowing you can include some junk food now and again without compromising fat loss is a strength of CBL, encouraging people to splurge on junk food in the evenings – especially when it is stated that goals will be compromised with “healthy” foods (more on that later) – would only serve to encourage unhealthy eating habits. In fairness to Kiefer, he does encourage the consumption of vegetables during the low-carb phase of the day, which if adhered to, would greatly reduce the risk of vitamin and mineral deficiencies.

I also find it ironic that Kiefer writes extensively about the GLUT4 glucose transporter with regards to its ability to shuttle glucose into the muscle cell after training (with the aim of promoting anabolism and muscle glycogen resynthesis), yet advises the consumption of sugar (sucrose) rich foods. As sucrose consists of half glucose and half fructose, the efficiency of muscle glycogen replenishment (and Kiefer’s perceived anabolic response) would be greatly reduced given that fructose is primarily metabolised in the liver. Furthermore, excessive fructose consumption may increase plasma triglycerides (a risk factor for cardiovascular disease).

Additionally, as “no calorie counting [is] necessary” with CBL (although AM protein and fat guidelines are given in the appendices), the vast consumption of “pizza, donuts, pasta, cupcakes, pretzels, popcorn, French fries, ice cream… pecan pie and [Kiefer’s] personal favorite, cherry turnovers” could quite easily result in a massive fat intake predisposing many to fat gain.

 .

Questioning some specific claims of CBL

.

Right off the bat in the first words of chapter one Kiefer writes:

“Carbs are a drug. As with any drug, knowledge of effects—and side effects—is the only way to guarantee the right outcome. Drugs often hit the market before all the effects show, leaving consumers scrambling for answers, alternatives and adjuncts.”

The comparison he makes between carbohydrates and drugs (and the development of drugs) is completely incorrect and bordering on the ridiculous. The term drug according to Wikipedia can be defined as:

“A substance which may have medicinal, intoxicating, performance enhancing or other effects when taken or put into a human body or the body of another animal and is not considered a food or exclusively a food.”

As carbohydrates ARE considered a food, they don’t fall under the definition of a drug. It therefore appears that Kiefer is willing to sacrifice scientific accuracy in order to get the reader’s attention. Straight away, this tactic puts carbs on a pedestal and heavily implies that knowing how to manipulate carbs – as outlined in the following chapters in the book – will create astounding results; this is simply false.

The book is also scientifically unsound throughout. Furthermore, Kiefer not only cherry-picks data for some of his claims, he also misrepresented some of the research thinks that by dumping 42 pages worth of references nobody would notice. Having checked up on some of the cited references for some of the more questionable claims, many do not support, and some actually contradict Kiefer’s assertions. For example, in chapter 15, Kiefer references the Keim et al. (1997), as discussed in part one, and states that:

“People who eat a big breakfast and start fasting at 7pm lose mostly muscle tissue. People who skip breakfast and eat after 7pm lose body fat and may actually gain muscle. This, dear readers, is fact.”

Notwithstanding the limitations of this study (i.e. the use of BIA and the small sample size of 10 women), the women in the late eating group did not gain muscle (as suggested by Kiefer). In fact, late night eating attenuated losses in LBM relative to consuming the majority of energy earlier in the day. Since this is one of two studies on which CBL is based, the following paragraph highlights why Kiefer may be prepared to bend the truth and state that his assumptions are ‘fact’:

“To maximize the burning of fat and growth of muscle tissue during Carb Back-Loading it seems obvious to eat in sync with how the body also achieves that goal, by having fewer calories in the morning and more at night.”

In order to justify the absence/minimisation of carbs during the day, Kiefer paints a dark picture with regards to insulin and fat gain:

“The earlier carbs slip into the diet, the earlier the body stops burning fat… Limiting carbs, especially in the first half of the day, forces the metabolism to rely on fat for energy needs… Limiting carbs—and therefore limiting insulin release—is crucial for another reason. This is when insulin affects fat cells and muscle cells the strongest, allowing them to store carbohydrates.”

The first statement about carbs increasing insulin release, which causes the body to stop burning fat (lipolysis) is true. However, fat gain can only occur if lipogenesis (fat storage) chronically exceeds lipolysis (e.g. with a 24 hour window). If lipogenesis exceeds lipolysis within a 24h period an individual’s fat balance will be positive (net fat gain). Conversely, if lipolysis exceeds lipogenesis fat balance will be negative (net fat loss). This fat balance is largely determined by total caloric intake, NOT carbohydrate intake. As such, lipogenesis will only exceed lipolysis in the hours after a meal (the postprandial period). The following graph, taken from an article on James Krieger’s Weightology site, demonstrates things nicely.

“After meals, fat is deposited with the help of insulin. However, between meals and during sleep, fat is lost. Fat balance will be zero over a 24-hour period if energy intake matches energy expenditure.”

“After meals, fat is deposited with the help of insulin. However, between meals and during sleep, fat is lost. Fat balance will be zero over a 24-hour period if energy intake matches energy expenditure.”

Regarding Kiefer’s second statement about carbs being stored as fat (AKA de novo lipogenesis: DNL), though the enzymatic pathway for converting dietary carbohydrate to fat exists in humans, DNL rarely occurs in quantitative amounts under most conditions. For example, one scenario in which a significant increase in DNL would occur is during chronic overfeeding of carbohydrates (whereby carb intake exceeds total energy expenditure). By this I mean 700-900g per day for several days, with already full glycogen stores. This doesn’t mean that carbs CAN’T make you fat; they CAN if you eat too many, just predominantly in an indirect manner. In other words, when you eat more carbohydrate, you oxidise more carbohydrate for energy and therefore oxidise less fat. When you eat less carbohydrate, you burn less carbohydrate and more fat. However, if your calorie intake is identical, you also eat more fat so things cancel each other out. Therefore, carbs WILL make you fat if you overeat, but they do so indirectly, by blunting fat oxidation, rather than being directly converted to fat per se. So, after taking protein into account, it would seem to come down to total calories, again.

What’s more, if raising insulin during the day did affect fat loss goals independent of total caloric intake, Kiefer’s recommendations to consume protein (including whey isolates), would compromise these goals due to the insulinogenic effects of protein.

In chapter 17, Kiefer attempts to make a case for evening training based on cortisol response to training (a hormone considered to be catabolic and therefore counterproductive for hypertrophy goals):

“training in the evening causes a lower cortisol response [relative to other times of the day]… This creates an anabolic and anti-catabolic environment greater for evening training than for morning training.”

However, a recent study by West and Phillips (2012), demonstrated that cortisol in response to weight training was positively correlated with gains in LBM over a 12-week period. As it is known that cortisol has the ability to liberate and utilise substrate (e.g. glucogenic amino acids) for fuel, it may be the case that the higher levels of cortisol in those who gained the most LBM was a typical response to simply training harder.

In order to justify his post-training dietary protocols, Kiefer goes as far as to create a straw man, and states that:

“The recommendation is to focus on low-glycemic carbs post-training to stay lean. The argument revolves around having carbs available for hours and avoiding insulin spikes which can make people fat.”

This notion is blatantly false as it is commonplace in gym lore to slam fast-acting carbs post-workout with the aim of spiking insulin.

He further states that:

“After the completion of training, stopping the proteolysis that occurs requires a large insulin spike: the larger, the better. Achieving a big spike takes high-glycemic, high-insulinemic carbs, which we can enhance by adding the right proteins and amino acids.”

Though a rise in insulin is required to inhibit protein breakdown, it needn’t be spiked, especially if the person isn’t training in a fasted state. Indeed, muscle protein breakdown appears to be inhibited with insulin just above fasted levels (15 mU/L), while muscle protein synthesis maximised with insulin 3-4 times fasted levels (15-30 mU/L). Following the consumption of a mixed pre-exercise meal (75g CHO, 37g PRO & 17g FAT), at the one hour mark, insulin is 5x fasting levels, and at the 5h mark, insulin is still elevated enough to minimise protein breakdown. Admittedly, insulin response of such a mixed meal may not be applicable to CBL since carbs are generally reserved for post-workout nutrition. However, Power et al (2009), demonstrated that 45g of a whey protein isolate was enough to elevate insulin enough to minimise protein breakdown for at least two hours, demonstrating the lack of urgency to spike insulin PWO if proper pre-workout nutrition is in place.

It seems as though Kiefer’s recommendations to massively spike insulin rationalise his use of extravagant around-workout supplement concoctions, highlighted in the figure below.

Screen Shot 2013-05-03 at 15.03.40

Kiefer’s specific formulas for pre, during and post-workout nutrition, respectively.

Though I could spend an entire article in itself detailing why these protocols are unnecessary, the crux of my issue is that having three different types of protein as well as added leucine, all in the same meal, is utterly ridiculous. If you recall from my article series on BCAAs, a whole protein containing 3-4g of leucine is enough to maximally stimulate muscle protein synthesis and inhibit muscle protein breakdown. As such, consuming sufficient amounts of a whey isolate (roughly 25-35g) would provide the same benefit but without the added hassle/expense, not to mention the horrid taste because of the free-form amino acids. Add a creatine monohydrate supplement on top of that (and perhaps some caffeine if you feel you need it) and you’re good to go.

Going back to Kiefer’s point about avoiding low glycaemic index (GI) carbs post-workout, he further states that:

“The few health and diet gurus who’ve jumped on the back-loading bandwagon suggest evening options based on pop-diet culture, e.g. low-glycemic carbs. Not only is this advice wrong, but fat-inducing… You need to eat very high-glycemic carbs for Carb Back-Loading to work… The body releases growth hormone at night, but it won’t begin doing so until insulin levels return to normal and stay at that level for about two hours. Eating the high-glycemic goodies causes a big rush of blood sugar and jolt of insulin, then a quick drop as things settle back to normal, leaving the nocturnal hours free of insulin and full of growth hormone.”

This reasoning is incorrect on several levels. Firstly, growth hormone is not anabolic within physiologic ranges (and perhaps even with supra-physiologic doses). In addition, it appears that growth hormone release occurs at the onset of sleep independent of the blood glucose and insulin levels that occur in response to a meal consumed in the hours prior to sleep. Furthermore, if someone trains at around 5pm, as Kiefer suggests, they would be consuming their post-training shake at roughly 6:30pm and start eating dinner at around 8-8:30pm. Assuming somebody would want to get to sleep by 11pm, this would allow a 2.5-3 hour window for insulin to return to basal levels. However, Tipton et al (2001) observed that only 6g of essential amino acids plus 35g of sucrose was enough to keep insulin elevated above basal levels for almost three hours. As such, it would be reasonable to suggest that a much larger meal, as recommended by Kiefer, would keep insulin elevated for much longer that three hours, regardless of GI of the carbs contained within the meal. Here’s the kicker, Kiefer in fact recommends consuming highly insulinogenic protein sources (e.g. eggs, milk and whey isolate) prior to bed, and according to his logic, would be shooting himself in the foot by doing so.

There are literally dozens more examples that I could’ve chosen from, but I aim to keep this review to a reasonable/readable length (to my standards, at least). To give you a taster, these include things such as:

  • Inventing cool-sounding phrases such as Modulated Tissue Response (MTR), which involves “the ability to select which tissues grow and which shrink”.
  • Vastly oversimplifying some physiological processes to the point of being incorrect (e.g. “Testosterone is anabolic for muscle tissue; estrogen is anabolic for fat tissue”).
  • In chapter 35, he states that whey isolate doesn’t interfere with fat burning (implying that it doesn’t affect levels of insulin or free fatty acids), but provides a reference demonstrating that the opposite is true.
  • In chapter 41 (I couldn’t believe my eyes when I read this), “The worst, in almost all protocols, is the supplementation requirements.” To be fair to Kiefer, I have seen much worse.
  • His recommendation to train fasted in chapter 43, in order to increase fat oxidation during exercise, doesn’t seem to make a difference in terms of 24 hour fat balance.
  • Finally, in chapter 50, Kiefer writes, “I don’t recommend cardio, at least not long duration, steady- state cardio. I don’t care about the goal: this type of cardio is essentially useless, even for marathon training.Research and the experience of many of the best coaches in the world would disagree.

Summary and Practical Recommendations

The general concept of CBL is supported by science. However, this science is limited to two studies with their fair share of limitations, rendering the topic inconclusive in the absence of compelling evidence. Moreover, if we consider shifting only carbohydrate as opposed to overall caloric intake, the data supporting the concept of CBL diminished to a single study. Nevertheless, if we consider the overall impact of calorie/carbohydrate placement on body composition from these two studies, though significant, in reality such differences are trivial.

Though CBL has some positive aspects to take away, as well as being generally supported by science and solidly referenced throughout, for me, it contains few too many incorrect and bold claims, which seem to rationalise specific recommendations (e.g. the elaborate supplement protocols).

Because of the rigidity of CBL with respect to its training and dietary recommendations, adherence may become an issue for all but the most dedicated dieters/trainees. After all, adherence to a specific protocol is the single most important determinant of long-term success.

In my opinion, the total macronutrients consumed by the end of the day will have the largest impact in terms of body composition changes; Kiefer even admits this (at least in regards to meal frequency), “the breakdown and distribution of calories and macro nutrients throughout the day matters far more than the number of meals”. At the end of the day, CBL will get some people results, but it will do so because of the caloric deficit and sufficient protein, not because of the intricate protocols.

As such, with respect to carb placement for body composition and performance, total intake is the primary consideration. A secondary consideration would be the positioning of these carbs in relation to training (around-workout nutrition) in order to optimise training performance. Once these factors are in place and consistently achieved, then, and only then, should someone have the option to experiment with hypothetical protocols.

26 thoughts on “An Objective Review of John Kiefer’s Carb Back-Loading (Part 2)

  1. Pingback: An Objective Review of John Kiefer’s Carb Back-Loading (Part 1) | Nutrition consultant

  2. Hey Joseph,

    Nice review. I think you hit on many of the concerns I had when reading CBL. I do think that partitioning carbs to later in the day and/or PWO. However, some of the cherry-picking throughout the book is quite obvious. I often felt like Kiefer was guilty of stretching studies to way beyond what they actually showed and in many cases what the original authors actually concluded.

    On the junk food thing however, it should be noted that Kiefer has more recently changed his stance a bit on this and seems to be advising ‘cleaner’ carbs like white rice, whilst avoiding the usual junk and gluten-containing foods.

    Overall, we must realise and accept that this is a book produced to make money (nothing wrong with that per se). It is not meant to be a scientific piece published for academics and so we shouldn’t judge the author too much for how he has presented this material. In order for it to appeal to enough people to sell (which it has done so very successfully) it had to be marketed with the claims of amazing results, cutting-edge science, and gimmicky phrases.

    As you say the science doesn’t seem to be there to back up the claims. Which is unfortunate because it would be so cool if it were all true. And in fairness to Kiefer he does put some good stuff out there.

    Anyway that’s enough from me.

    Good post Joseph!

    • Thanks, Danny. Think you’re 100% right, objectivity and mass marketing don’t mix well. As I said in the review, some good aspects to take away and some to take with a pinch of salt.

      Didn’t realise that Kiefer has changed his stance; good on him. As you’d appreciate, I can only critique what was in the book.

      Joe

  3. Pingback: Science vs. Broscience: a matter of economy? | Nutrition consultant

  4. Hi,
    Good review.. I am Paleo eater and pooring shity food down my trought just wasn’t for me, but when I follow some of his reccomendations in his book more paleoish or at least just have cleaner carbs the meal planning seems to work quite well.

  5. I’m not an advocate for CBL, just wanted to read up on it from your “objective” review, but this wasn’t objective at all. It was a blatant attack against his ideas. Now I’m off to find something I can actually see pros and cons for this diet. Well, more of a lifestyle when you train 6x a week.

    • I find it ironic that you sit and call my review nonobjective yet post such a biased comment. You quite clearly ARE an advocate of CBL. Let me know when you find a better review.

  6. Hi Joseph,
    Thank you for the review and all your work for this site. I am not sure how I stumbled across your work but I am glad that I did. As someone who was following cbl to a “T” I appreciate that you have opened my eyes to the broscience behind it. With that said after reading your articles on potential and setting up a diet I have a few questions if you have a chance to answer them:
    1. Any merit to increasing and decreasing the kcal number for days that you train as opposed to off days? Or stick to same macros every day? I normally follow a 5/3/1 template 4 days a week.
    2. What sorts of carbohydrates would you “recommend” to fill the carb quota?
    3. Advice on supplementing creatine, coffee, vitamins, etc?
    Again, thank you for all of your work.

  7. Nice to read this review. I am pretty much in favor of CBL, although I am fully aware that Kiefer tends to exaggerate to make a point (or make more sales). Good to see that you’re clearing up some misconceptions and such. Keeps CBL advocates (i.e. people like me) with both feet on the ground too.

  8. Of all of Earth’s creatures, the farthest removed from their instinctual drives and needs are humans. I would posit that CBL is just another protocol that people will follow in search of ‘the big secret’, when in fact we should be educating them on how to get back in touch with their bodies’ feedback mechanisms. Have you ever seen any fat wild creatures? You see them in zoos. Why? Humans prescribing ‘what is best’. CBL, IIFYM, and all such other ‘doctrines’ merely increase neurosis in my opinion….but of course each WILL work for a percentage of the population. All of that being said, I want to commend you on your work on here. Very enjoyable reads from an intellectual perspective. Well written. Thank you, Daz

  9. Hey Joseph, liked the analytical, indepth style of the article. I don’t agree with all your points but you do seem very knowledgable. My main bones of contention would be how you assume that it’s a hard diet to follow. I think it’s easy as long as you prep your food which I would advocate anyway. This is probably a moot question but did you try cbl? It would be interesting to see your comments if you were undertaking the diet. I know a lot of people that claim it works wonders, purely anecdotal I know. Personally I think it’s a good way to go and is helping me with my body composition.
    Thanks for your work and keep it coming

  10. Great review imo! When it comes to any imformation on diet, bodybuilding, health, ect. I read up and always find a bit of good info but understand that most of it is business and somewhat gimmicky. Over time after trial n error, its all about putting in the work and eating cleaner! When you workout, when you eat is all subjective to a persons schedule/lifestyle.

  11. Since I have an active job I don’t do ‘planned’ exercise too much, I rely on diet to reduce my weight when necessary. In this regard, I have been using Carb Nite solution, since I thought the logic held up quite well (from a different source, Lustig explains that insulin blocks leptin reception in the brain, so it would seem a normal response to generate more leptin to try and get the message through). Your review does rather cast a shadow on Kiefer’s other work, and I wondered whether you had a perspective on the efficacy of CNS?

    • Hi Graham, I see that you posted this many months ago, so you might not even care, but I just wanted to provide some clarification on Lustig re: leptin and insulin. Totally correct that insulin blocks leptin, but trying to generate more leptin will not necessarily result in “getting the message through.” Inappropriately high insulin levels seem to contribute to the brain not being able to “see” the leptin and the brain is “leptin resistant” meaning that it doesn’t seem to matter how much leptin is in the body, so long as the insulin is there to block the signal to the brain. Of course Lustig does a much better job of explaining this!

  12. Pingback: Ask A SBS Coach- Nutrition For Fat Loss

  13. Pingback: Carb Back-Loading Pearls and Criticism - The BJJ Caveman

  14. I’m not on it anymore, but CBL worked great for me when I was- maintained body weight, but lost 3-4 inches in my waist, so an obvious fat loss and muscle gain there. That being said, i was excited to read an objective review of it- until you nitpicked the “Carbs are a drug” thing. No shit carbs aren’t LITERALLY a drug, there’s a difference between hyperbolizing and “sacrificing scientific accuracy.”

      • he meants that carbs are drug like, sugar is addictive and can cause a drug like effect by stimulating release of hormones that elicit an addictive response…when I eat carbs, I want more more more….that’s kind of why I hate eating them…they make me tired and craving more….

      • Supermarkets put carbs in everything these days. If it isn’t from the earth you probably shouldn’t eat it. Sugar dependencies are well documented in animal studies. Not sure why anyone would fund a double blind sugar dependency study in humans, but I guess thats what you are looking for. I actually think a foreign government will fund a study in order to attack out US based increasingly multinational drug / sugar / food companies. Look for it.

  15. Hey Joseph, really good and thorough review on CBL. I’ve started following it and have pretty much remained at the same weight although i’m splurging PWO. I plan on stopping it as I haven’t really seen the results guaranteed and some of his statements have left me with more questions than answers. I am skeptical about which carbs to eat post workout since some of kiefer’s statements on carbs are correct. Which carbs would you recommend eating? Is low GI the way to go?

  16. I have been CBLing for 16 days now and have lost 11 pounds since. I feel better than I have in a long time, and have received more compliments than ever. So it is definitely working for me. With that said I am trying to eat “cleaner” carbs such as white rice and home-made breads. I also have changed my workout night to coincide with the times I am more likely to splurge (Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, Sunday), and eat no more than 30 grams of carbs on the other days. It’s working fantastic.

  17. Thank you for this review! Kiefer was just on Underground Wellness and I wanted a bit more information. I really appreciated your focus on the science and the claims. I completely support your critique of the statement that carbs are a drug. Carbohydrates are a macronutrient that the body needs to survive. Sugar in isolation and simple carbohydrates (almost all forms of processed foods) may act on the brain in a similar manner to drugs, but that does not mean that carbs as a class of nutrient are a “drug.”

    I’m not that surprised to hear that CBL works for many people because, based on my limited understanding, it is sort of a version of Intermittent Fasting and I would be inclined to think that there might be something to it. But I’m wary of some of the ways he dismisses the questionable ingredients in the foods that he encourages people to eat. I’ll be interested to see how the work he’s been doing with Dr. Rocky Patel (a family medicine doc) in Arizona plays out – though it would be nice to see him working with other doctors and scientists who are more focused specialists.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s