U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness > Diet and Weight Loss
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
Old 06-20-2012, 07:12 PM
Location: In a house
13,250 posts, read 42,238,593 times
Reputation: 20198


Pulse lower than 75-85? Anywhere from 60-100 is normal, according to the first dozen google searches I found (for resting heart rates). Which obscure source are you getting your information from? Or should you just add a tagline to all your posts saying "courtesy of Ray Peat?"

And if you are athletic, then it's not uncommon for your heart rate to be slower. That is a sign of *good* physical health, not bad. If your resting heart rate is at 85bpm, you probably could use some cardio exercise to get that stamina up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 06-21-2012, 10:02 AM
5,342 posts, read 9,650,464 times
Reputation: 9755
Originally Posted by markymarc View Post
I ate this type of diet for 10 years, very stressful & unhealthy. You need to start monitoring your pulse & temperature to see if you metabolism is dropping. It will. A pulse lower than 75-85 beats per minute indicates a slow metabolism.
A low pulse rate is usually a sign of a healthy heart. People who are very athletic often have heart rates less than 40. In our clinic we see some men who are exceptional fit who have resting heart rates of 35 to 39 beats per minute.

Occasionally there can be health issues that are associated with bradycardia but a slow heart rate by itself is not a problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-21-2012, 02:18 PM
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,299 posts, read 13,949,239 times
Reputation: 8097
Originally Posted by Woof View Post
Everyone has a diet theory.

I remember reading about some guy who was at one time the oldest man in America. He still lived independently, and if I remember correctly said that he'd been eating his meals mostly out of cans for decades. I think it was only one meal per day.
If I could rep myself I would. I've finally come to the conclusion that diet is not nearly as important to health as I once thought, unless you become overweight. I mentioned above that the Japanese are long-lived, but Icelanders, Australians, and the Swiss live almost as long on diets that are fairly heavy in meat, dairy and saturated fats (especially the Swiss with the world's highest consumption of dairy products). There's really no significant difference in the longevity of those nations even though they traditionally eat extremely different diets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-21-2012, 02:26 PM
Location: Las Vegas
14,230 posts, read 29,562,138 times
Reputation: 27663
A diet similar to this is what works for me. But I do exercise. After being fat all my life, I finally figured it out. For me, carbs were the villain. I tried low fat, low cal for years and got no results at all. I did it because that's what was SUPPOSED to work. Now, I finally know what works.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-27-2012, 12:05 PM
Location: Elsewhere
85,598 posts, read 80,995,230 times
Reputation: 110702
Originally Posted by doss1 View Post
Humm. Did they smoke? Red meat eaters tend to smoke, and also often ate other bad foods. Red meat eaters don't really care about their health...so that's why you get all of that bad press on how red meat is bad for you.
Not necessarily. My ancestors didn't smoke, but beef was their main protein source and the center of the main meal. People didn't eat as much chicken as they do now until the 80s when the whole hoopla about cholesterol came out. If you could fly back in time to the early 70's or before, you'd have a hard time finding something called "boneless chicken breasts" in a supermarket case. Chicken was sold whole or cut up into parts, on the bone.

Before the 80s, nobody had ever even HEARD of cholesterol and nobody thought red meat was "bad", whether they were smokers or not, so to say red meat eaters didn't really care about their health is kind of silly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-27-2012, 03:49 PM
Location: State of Transition
100,923 posts, read 103,866,189 times
Reputation: 113735
Originally Posted by doss1 View Post
Basically, I've been eating what our ancestors ate: lots of fat, butter, cheese, fish, red meat (I eat mostly bison), ton of eggs, dark chocolate, heavy whipping cream protein shakes, and a little bit of yam and veggies here and there.

I eat virtually no sugar (though I do have to have it in my tea, but it's not much) and drink lots of tea. My carb intake is extremely small.

results? Best shape of my life, blood tests are spectacular, no longer take Omega3 fish oil.

Back in the early 1900s, a French explorer met with the Eskimos in the Yukon and he subsisted on nothing but fish and red meat. There were no other forms of foods. No veggies grew up there. The result after 2 years? Extremely healthy and became a major study that is now known pretty much as the Atkins or even parts of the South Beach Diet.

I do exercise, but we're not seeing evidence exercise helps with weight loss. The only real reason that exercising seems to help with weight loss is because people generally eat healthier. Exercise is important for a number of reasons, but weight management and controlling disease risk are not on the list, at least according to the best available evidence.

Here's a good infographic on this topic: Massive Health - Carbs Are Killing You [infographic]
I'm guessing you're a guy. The high protein, low-carb diets work great for everyone, but women usually can't do the extra fat, like whipped cream, and so forth, because it causes them to stall in their weight loss. But I've done the meat, cheese, fish, very low carbs, and gotten spectacular results. However, I must add that it is important to work out 3x/wk, but not so much for added weight loss, though they say that building lean muscle mass does burn more calories. The main reason working out is important is that building the lean muscle mass helps you trim up. Without that muscle mass, people tend to turn to jello when they lose weight. This may be more true of women than men, but the book I read (Protein Power) had photos showing that men, too, got a little dumpy. If you build lean muscle mass, you'll actually come down more sizes, because you're trimming up as well as losing weight.

Your experience sounds like it was different, hard to say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness > Diet and Weight Loss

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2023, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top