GST and Carb Backloading

I have been following John Keifer's diet Carbnite (a cyclical ketogenic diet) for the past six months. It has worked wonderfully and I would recommend it to anyone (lost 20 of fat and gained 10 lb of muscle). The only problem is that on the diet you ingest 30 grams or less of carbohydrates a day. This causes insulin to be absent from the bloodstream. Being that insulin is the anabolism hormone king it is difficult to build muscle without it. 

Furthermore, I will be starting another program of his, carb backloading, that is specifically designed to take advantage of Modulated Tissue Response. The only thing is that it requires resistance training. My question is, does GST count as resistance training. 

CalebStahl said:

I have been following John Keifer's diet Carbnite (a cyclical ketogenic diet) for the past six months. It has worked wonderfully and I would recommend it to anyone (lost 20 of fat and gained 10 lb of muscle). The only problem is that on the diet you ingest 30 grams or less of carbohydrates a day. This causes insulin to be absent from the bloodstream. Being that insulin is the anabolism hormone king it is difficult to build muscle without it. 

 

Furthermore, I will be starting another program of his, carb backloading, that is specifically designed to take advantage of Modulated Tissue Response. The only thing is that it requires resistance training. My question is, does GST count as resistance training.

Yes

I have used CBL and variations of it with GST and found it works really well.

Mark Collins said:

I have used CBL and variations of it with GST and found it works really well.

Thanks, your comment was helpful.

On 27 December 2015 at 7:17 PM, Caleb Stahl said:

I have been following John Keifer's diet Carbnite (a cyclical ketogenic diet) for the past six months. It has worked wonderfully and I would recommend it to anyone (lost 20 of fat and gained 10 lb of muscle). The only problem is that on the diet you ingest 30 grams or less of carbohydrates a day. This causes insulin to be absent from the bloodstream. Being that insulin is the anabolism hormone king it is difficult to build muscle without it. 

Protein also rises insulin, so lacking carbs doesn't necessarily mean less insulin to the extent which makes building muscle harder. Anyhow, I think carb loads to utilize the modulated response after a restriction is a good way to go, and suits GST well.

Works well for physique competitiors, but in my experience the carb back loading as currently structured is contraindicated for performance athletes.  

Several of my senior students have attempted to implement it, but all failed as the diet simply did not provide them with sufficient work capacity to be able to complete a GST workout.  They were fine for approx 20 min and then consistently simply ran out of gas.

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

I usually don't go under 100 grams of carbs per day, and high protein offsets the low amount a bit due to gluconeogenesis, which means that excess protein is turned into glucose. But very true, with under 50 grams of carbs you are going to hit a wall pretty darn quick if doing anything else but 1-5 repetition maxes, or heavy static holds for a few seconds.

I have to agree with Coach on this one. CBL is not a good choice for long term athletic performance development. 

In the nutrition tool box there is a million tools. The trick is to know when you use a specific tool. How you determine what tool to use is easy; what is the goal? 

If the goal is to look good standing still on a specific day then the tool you use is different than if you want to be able to train w/ Coach on a regular basis and not get crushed. One is not better than the other it is just whats important to you. However this is Gymnastics Bodies and everything here is curtailed towards performance. 

Arro, I cant say that I am okay with the idea of relying on gluconeogenisis, I go into more in detail in Thrive but the idea is why not eat within limits of protein synthesis then eat the appropriate amount of carbs? Why not be more precise? Also, maybe you can share some of your personal experience on this one. I feel like 50g to 150g of carbs is nutritional Chernobyl. To low to gain any mass and too high for ketosis (the basis of most CLB, cyclical carb gigs). Basically you are getting the worst of both worlds Ive found, obviously what you have seen differs. One of the benefits of sub 50g carbs is increased HDL-C and decreased Trigs but I don't see that in the 50-150 zone, I see the opposite. When carbs are above 150 I see better cortisol profiles but agin I see the opposite below 150. Basically blowing yourself up like Chernobyl.

Also on a separate note as it applies to training as much as nutrition. 1-5 reps and maxes are nervous system dominant work and do require glucose to recover from in the training cycle. The fact that a max rep may only take a few seconds puts the demand on the anaerobic alactic system but what many fail to consider is recover(and replacing the ATP) after the workout. Resting metabolic rate is greatly increased after a training session like that and needs to be accounted for. A great place to look at information on this is the sport of weightlifting, shot put, and powerlifting. Sports where the "test" is 1 rep at a time for a limited number of attempts. These guys may possibly do "low carb" but when they show up to world championships they are eating carbs. Being that they are weight class sports they aren't eating them for any other reason that energy. 

@Jeff Serven I actually agree a lot more with you than what would seem based on my previous post. I'm not sure if I understood if Caleb was using this diet approach with the purpose of just leaning out and retaining strength while doing GST, or as a lifestyle diet to fuel performance oriented exercise.

For getting lean quick I utilize very low calorie diet (a modified version of Lyle McDonald's RFL) with low carb days with very high protein, where the high protein and the following gluconeogenesis is a tool for getting calories low, while avoiding ketosis. A couple of days of working out with low carbs and I notice no performance drop, but then I refeed with a good amount of carbs (300-500 g per day). Usually my cut is over in a month.

You are correct, Jeff, the glycogen retained from gluconeogenesis is nowhere near enough to power a good or even a decent workout, but helps a bit when carbs are somewhat low (~100 grams) for a couple of days. I personally don't notice any performance dip as mentioned before. However performance is the ultimate priority number 1, I would stay away from low carb phases all together. In the past I have succesfully dieted down to sub 10% bodyfat with carbs constantly around 200-300 grams per day, and would recommend this to most well trained individuals who prioritize performance.

Gotcha. So your approach is to go as low as you can in carbs while avoiding ketosis. Your plan is short duration and specific to the goal of fat loss. This isn't your day in and day out plan this is just a tool in your toolbox? Cool, thanks for the explanation. 

You sound like a pro carb guy like me as well as performance orientated too. Thanks for the info. 

I have to watch what I say here because our next nutrition course is Extreme Fat Loss and it deals with this very topic; a short term micro cycle of fat loss for performance. GST is a relative strength(maximum force an athlete can generate per unit of bodyweight) sport and obtaining optimal body composition is a factor in performance to a degree. 

My ways are a little different than yours in that gluconeogenisis is counter productive to the all mighty fat loss tool of 'improved insulin sensitivity'.  More than total calorie deficit I value insulin sensitivity for 3 main reasons 1) heath; the more insulin sensitive you are the longer you will live(within reason) 2) once insulin sensitive you can literally lose weight on a high carb diet(as you have proven). This way you don't have to be a prisoner to your diet 3) The more insulin sensitive you are the leaner you will be. Which is important as the name of the course is Extrem Fat Loss. 

But again, there is multiple ways to skin a cat and I aways enjoy listing to people who have produced results for themselves so please share any thoughts. 

You got it. The low-carb phase is indeed a tool in the toolbox, and the minor benefit of short-term glycogen depletion is the slight supercompensation once carbs are reintroduced in the loading phase. The major reason for this is however just to get calories lower for a couple of days. For a guy like me, the faster the diet is over (I stay around 10% around year and cut down to 7-8% for summer), the less my body will even notice what hit it, and the faster I can get back to training with full calorie amount and ample amount of carbs.

However, I still keep the low carb days to a maximum of 2-3 consequent days, since getting depleting glycogen too much would be just detrimental, and the following glycogen supercompensation is not worth the performance drop, not to even mention the near suicidal mental state while being almost totally empty of glycogen! Talk about searching amazon.com for a rope to hang yourself off. A diet like Lyle's Ultimate Diet 2.0 with weekly cycle alternating between maximum strength workout with huge carbload, and a depletion phase with high-rep tension workouts is probably the most optimal protocol for physique athletes, but the total glycogen depletion which is part of the weekly cycle (and the specific training required to get it done) is detrimental in the context of GST. Me being a mixture of performane orientation and physique type of person, my current approach suits both my goals pretty good, but for a person only interested in maintaining maximum performance while dieting I would tell to just cut down with carbs as high as possible while losing weight in a good fashion.

Naturally, everyone has to find the balance between how fast they want to get rid of the dieting phase (modified RFL being one of the fastest approaches), and what a degree of performance they want to be enjoying during the diet. Diet only 4 weeks with RFL while suffering some performance hit and then get quickly back to full calorie training, or diet for 6 weeks while having a slightly better performance, but having to spend 2 weeks longer with a negative calorie balance and training performance?

As for ketosis, I don't see how anyone except maybe a very small minority of the population would gain any real benefit of.

Aaro,

Thanks for the explanation. Great info and food for thought. And yes glycogen depletion when not fat adapted is "searching Amazon for a rope to hang yourself"! Haha. Thanks again

On 4. 4. 2016 at 7:09 PM, Jeff Serven said:

My ways are a little different than yours in that gluconeogenisis is counter productive to the all mighty fat loss tool of 'improved insulin sensitivity'.  More than total calorie deficit I value insulin sensitivity for 3 main reasons 1) heath; the more insulin sensitive you are the longer you will live(within reason) 2) once insulin sensitive you can literally lose weight on a high carb diet(as you have proven). This way you don't have to be a prisoner to your diet 3) The more insulin sensitive you are the leaner you will be. Which is important as the name of the course is Extrem Fat Loss. 

How can you know, how insulin sensitive one is?

The most accurate method is blood work. Most of the time you can go see your doctor for the bloodwork and usually your insurance will cover it. 

11 hours ago, Matic Balantic said:

How can you know, how insulin sensitive one is?

As a rough answer, good insulin sensitivity can be taken as granted if you are both lean (at least under 15%) bodyfat, work out regularly and don't have diabetes or so. Resistance training increases the insulin sensitivity of muscle mass, and so does being lean. If you are both of these things and eat mostly the types of food recommended in Thrive, you are insulin sensitive enough to really not worry about how much carbs you eat.

Would be interesting to get the bloods, though!

In theory however there just because you are lean does not mean you are insulin sensitive. I have a number of guys who are ripped to the bone and not sensitive to insulin. 

If we went off of the bell curve I would agree with you that in general if your lean, etc. etc. That does apply in most cases. 

Hum, that is interesting. Do you maybe know why? And if they are not ... what then? Keto?

2 hours ago, Jeff Serven said:

In theory however there just because you are lean does not mean you are insulin sensitive. I have a number of guys who are ripped to the bone and not sensitive to insulin. 

If we went off of the bell curve I would agree with you that in general if your lean, etc. etc. That does apply in most cases. 

I've read that some people are insulin resistant both in muscle and fat mass, which means they have a hard time gaining lean mass or fat mass. Do you remember if these guys were insulin resistant in muscle mass only or fat mass also? Wouldn't being insulin resistant only in lean mass mean that a person is basically diabetic?

Insulin resistance is a continuum that we arbitrary draw a line in. Fasting blood glucose is 'ideal below 80' pre diabetic is 110 is nothing to worry about yet 120 is pre diabetic. But, at 110 you are already 90% of your way to 120 so again arbitrary lines in the sand. 

The continium of insulin resistance does not only apply to muscle and fat but all tissues with an insulin receptor. Its not as clear cut as insulin sensitive in fat and not in muscles, that would be just drawing a line in the sand somewhere. But to answer your question; yes it would be difficult to gain muscle if our prime anabolic nutrient storage mechanism(insulin) was not getting the nutrients into the muscle cells.

Matic, thats a great question, Keto does do a great job at increasing insulin sensitivity. However, it has its issues too. But using it like a tool in the toolbox is great. Long term egh....

Jeff when will exteme fat loss be coming out.. 

Soon!

I wouldn't do CBL because it encourages high amounts of processed food. For your mitochondria you have a need of micronutrients per burned macronutrient. If your ratio is off, your cellular health will suffer. That means every cell in your body will be fundamentally more fragile.

@Jeff Serven

Is the Extreme Fat loss going to be a component of Thrive or is it going to be a separate program?  Also when is it supposed to be released? 

I recently realized that I'm about 40 lbs overweight(over 30% bodyfat) all gained in the last three years and need to get back into shape.  A heavy part of which is losing this extra fat.

Thanks,
Max

Max!

Thanks for the question. Thrive is the "base" program. Its the day in day out, year in year out program. From there you would do EFL, I mean what good would it to be to loose 10lb of fat if you don't have the basics mastered. 

On that note - no one wants to work on the basics, everyone wants the secret sauce. Its the hunt for that secret sauce and the disregard for the basics that keep people from achieving their goal. 

So my advice to you is "master the basics"! You may not need anymore than that.

This is my first post after reading lots and lots on this forum. I love the culture nd environment here so far. Can't wait to dive more in. 

Anyways, my thoughts.

There are a lot of people that will argue for one particular way of eating over another and give general reasons why they liked that diet or way of eating. i.e. i lost 50lbs and gained lots of strength.

Those kinds of statements don't really take into consideration what the person was doing before not only nutrition wise, but other factors such as stress levels, sleep patterns, life habits and training routines. But to stick with the topic of the thread CBL, I'd recommend listening to this interview with John Kiefer http://www.fitnflexed.com/article/john-kiefer-admits-carb-backloading-wrong

You can read the article if you like, but I'd suggest the interview. More specifically Kiefer himself, the big take away I get from him is that he is striving to always be "right" and that wanting to be "right" does sometimes require being wrong. Nutrition like other sciences is not 100% exact/correct at all times. There is a reason why studies are done, why there is peer review, why new ideas are formulated from old with the increase in knowledge we all gain. 

I'd say to use the information gained from the "experts" as a base point and then progress from there. Experiment ith a Variety of diets/methods of consuming nutrition to find what best fits your "individual" needs. But, other things that need to be considered when deciding if a particular diet is best for you. what other factors are involved when you decided on the new diet. How did you change your sleep, exercise, life, work, stress habits ? These all will affect your "diet" results. So, it may not "only" be your diet.