I read that article and it was completely unreferenced hyperbole while ranting against (sometimes poorly) referenced hyperbole. To describe it as "picks apart" gives it way too much undue credit.
The issue with CBL that most astute readers of internet diets will immediately notice is that it doesn't care to prescribe macros. That tells me that it is an incomplete blueprint of how to eat and must be combined with another method. IIFYM is macro based and lacks a timing component (I think), therefor matches perfectly with CBL which by and large simply recommends you focus your protein during the day and carbs post workout.
One of the dude's complaints is that sugar will give you diabetes and then he touts IIFYM, which may ironically utilize pure sugar as its carb source, one of the generalized complaints people have against it. Of course, there is no reason either diet needs to utilize pure sugar if you don't want it. The guy sounds more like a bio dropout than the biochem ph.d he is fronting to be.