The lean muscle diet (Schuler and Aragon) - anyone read it yet?

gmallan wrote: »

Hi, just wondering if anyone has got their hands on a copy of The lean muscle diet by Lou Schuler and Alan Aragon yet? Looks like to could become a new go-to book. I'm thinking of ordering a copy

I am almost done it. It's a great book and has taught me a good deal. It's broken up into three sections 1. Background/basics 2. Nutrition and 3. Exercise. It's a bit focused on men, but overall, great read.

I would suggest it to anyone.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I just listened to a discussion of it on a podcast. Seems very MFP friendly in approach (as modified by the extra info discussed on the forums, I mean, like about TDEE and macros) and sensible, though probably nothing new.

What podcast?

I love Schuler but I hate this title. Heh. I'll watch for the book in the library, though, and listen to people talk about it.

Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I just listened to a discussion of it on a podcast. Seems very MFP friendly in approach (as modified by the extra info discussed on the forums, I mean, like about TDEE and macros) and sensible, though probably nothing new.

Very intelligent individuals. I imagine they don't say anything about eating-back exercise calories.

Probably not, because as the poster said, they are using the TDEE approach where exercise calories are already accounted for and factored into your daily calorie count.

Whew. Sorry, my sarcasm meter is busted. I blame it on reading the sugar threads.

psulemon wrote: »

Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »

kgeyser wrote: »

Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I just listened to a discussion of it on a podcast. Seems very MFP friendly in approach (as modified by the extra info discussed on the forums, I mean, like about TDEE and macros) and sensible, though probably nothing new.

Very intelligent individuals. I imagine they don't say anything about eating-back exercise calories.

Probably not, because as the poster said, they are using the TDEE approach where exercise calories are already accounted for and factored into your daily calorie count.

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. Individuals like them are much more sensible when it comes to planning nutrition.

They actually have a fairly cool way of looking at calories.. it's eat like the person you want to be, so weight loss will automatically taper and you will automatically get to a point of maintenance as opposed to the traditional cut/maintain or cut/bulk cycles. So if you weigh 200 lbs, and your goal is to be 175 lbs, you would the maintenance calories of a person who is 175lbs. Grant it, that is probably a rather over simplified way of putting it, but it's the general gist. It's the same thought process of Fat2Fit.

But Alan does lay out for variable such as adding mass while losing fat... but I need to go back and read it again to understand all the variables but all the studies I have seen said isn't possible..

Unfortunately I think that was something known to those that have a background / education in this area but not necessarily easily available to the general public. I've listened to Alan speak before and he's very intelligent on the subject-matter and I'm sure put the information in a great format for reading.

Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »

psulemon wrote: »

Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »

kgeyser wrote: »

Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I just listened to a discussion of it on a podcast. Seems very MFP friendly in approach (as modified by the extra info discussed on the forums, I mean, like about TDEE and macros) and sensible, though probably nothing new.

Very intelligent individuals. I imagine they don't say anything about eating-back exercise calories.

Probably not, because as the poster said, they are using the TDEE approach where exercise calories are already accounted for and factored into your daily calorie count.

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. Individuals like them are much more sensible when it comes to planning nutrition.

They actually have a fairly cool way of looking at calories.. it's eat like the person you want to be, so weight loss will automatically taper and you will automatically get to a point of maintenance as opposed to the traditional cut/maintain or cut/bulk cycles. So if you weigh 200 lbs, and your goal is to be 175 lbs, you would the maintenance calories of a person who is 175lbs. Grant it, that is probably a rather over simplified way of putting it, but it's the general gist. It's the same thought process of Fat2Fit.

But Alan does lay out for variable such as adding mass while losing fat... but I need to go back and read it again to understand all the variables but all the studies I have seen said isn't possible..

Unfortunately I think that was something known to those that have a background / education in this area but not necessarily easily available to the general public. I've listened to Alan speak before and he's very intelligent on the subject-matter and I'm sure put the information in a great format for reading.

Definitely agree. I tried to read his stuff as much as possible. This is actually my first exposure to Lou Schuler and I think I will buy a few more of his book.. I like how they read.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

WalkingAlong wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I just listened to a discussion of it on a podcast. Seems very MFP friendly in approach (as modified by the extra info discussed on the forums, I mean, like about TDEE and macros) and sensible, though probably nothing new.

What podcast?

I love Schuler but I hate this title. Heh. I'll watch for the book in the library, though, and listen to people talk about it.

Fitcast (with Kevin Larabee, as that might be a common title, I don't know).

I hate the name too. The funny thing is that he had some other planned name for it (slipping my memory now) and the publisher wanted Lean Muscle, and (as he tells it) he said "great idea." (I was wondering if perhaps he was less excited about the change, but I get why that would be expected to be a good marketing term.)

Maybe I will go ahead and read it.

Thanks. I actually found it and just listened to it on my dog walk. I think I'll pass on the book. Aragon kinda bugs me and it sounds like more of the same.

Their original title was The Macro Diet or something, referring both to macronutrients and looking at health at the macro (big picture) level. I don't love that title, either, but 'lean muscle diet' is worse. But the latter was pre-tested so I guess people said they'd buy that title. I just read Lee Labrada's "Lean Body Promise". Maybe it's the same publisher.

Hello, everyone, time to do an MFP drive-by, heh. Below should clear up some stuff (especially for women). There are only 2 (possibly 3) simple adjustments that women will need to make in order to properly ‘hack’ the dietary programming to fit them:

• Use the lower end of the Standard Formula’s 9-11 multiplier (this will make sense to those who’ve read Chapter 5 of the book), unless you’re someone who’s struggling to gain weight. In practice, I’ve used a multiplier range of 8-10 for women. Right in the middle of that (a multiplier of 9) typically hits most women’s requirements best. Keep in mind that this is not the case with all women. I have a colleague who used the upper end of the 8-10 multiplier range and it still wasn’t keeping weight on his college female strength athletes who were trying to gain weight.

• When predicting gains in lean mass, go with the lower end of the ranges listed in the book. In my field observations, women tend to gain lean mass at about half the rate men do. However, don’t be too surprised if you discover that you’re one of the minority of women who can pack on muscle at the same rate as men. On a general note to both sexes, over-fat people who are either novices or deconditioned can experience recomp (concurrent muscle gain and fat loss) to the greatest degree, whereas people close to their limits in leanness or muscle mass have to focus on a singular goal. The closer you are to your potential in either goal, the less either phenomenon occurs.

• This next one is sort of an optional tweak. It’s not crucial since overdoing protein a little bit is rarely ever a bad thing, especially for dieters. Although using target bodyweight (in pounds) as a protein gram target will still work for women, they can choose to shoot lower with this type of protein target since women typically have a lower proportion of lean mass & higher proportion of fat mass. A more technical protein target would be approximately 1-1.4 g/lb of lean mass (as reflected in recent work by Helms, et al). Just remember that basing protein intake on target bodyweight is merely a proxy for lean mass plus a safety buffer. Let me emphasize the important principle that the numbers derived from formulas are not The Gospel; they are merely educated estimations.

Kalikel, did you time things perfectly to be the 10,000th person to riff on the book title? Impressive.

Just listened to the podcast, book now on my amazon 'to buy' list. Doubt it will be there too long before it's on my bookshelf!

AlanAragon wrote: »

Kalikel, did you time things perfectly to be the 10,000th person to riff on the book title? Impressive.

I'm talented like that. I didn't know people did that. Sorry, not trying to dump on your book. I hope it sells a million copies.

When they came out with organic food, I was clueless. "What is organic food?" What? I don't know. "What does organic mean?" Contains carbon, as all living things do. "So why are some carrots organic and some carrots aren't?" I don't know.

I'm still trying to revise my fiber speech to explain it, but not include the only words that everyone has actually heard, since God Forbid we use those two words again.

And now you come along with lean muscle.

I can see it now:

"What is lean muscle?" I don't know. "What does it mean?" I have no idea. You have different kinds of muscles, like your heart gets a kind, just for it. I assume "lean muscle" means "skeletal muscle," like the kinds you use, your biceps and triceps - your muscles that go along with your skeleton - skeletal muscles - and help you move. Your muscles. But I have no idea what it means.

Send me some business cards. I'll tell them to call you.

Good luck with your book.

AlanAragon wrote: »

Kalikel, did you time things perfectly to be the 10,000th person to riff on the book title? Impressive.

Alan, when are you going to be on Laurent Bannock's Podcast again?

I got the book for my Kindle and it's fantastic.

It's honestly just what the industry needs. A no-BS book that's pretty much addressed to general population. This is a book I'll be recommending to quite a few people.

Makes a change from Alan having to deal with Fred...

Kalikel wrote: »

AlanAragon wrote: »

Kalikel, did you time things perfectly to be the 10,000th person to riff on the book title? Impressive.

I'm talented like that. I didn't know people did that. Sorry, not trying to dump on your book. I hope it sells a million copies.

When they came out with organic food, I was clueless. "What is organic food?" What? I don't know. "What does organic mean?" Contains carbon, as all living things do. "So why are some carrots organic and some carrots aren't?" I don't know.

I'm still trying to revise my fiber speech to explain it, but not include the only words that everyone has actually heard, since God Forbid we use those two words again.

And now you come along with lean muscle.

I can see it now:

"What is lean muscle?" I don't know. "What does it mean?" I have no idea. You have different kinds of muscles, like your heart gets a kind, just for it. I assume "lean muscle" means "skeletal muscle," like the kinds you use, your biceps and triceps - your muscles that go along with your skeleton - skeletal muscles - and help you move. Your muscles. But I have no idea what it means.

Send me some business cards. I'll tell them to call you.

Good luck with your book.

"Skeletal Muscle Diet" sounds much more catchy. O wait....