Thread: DO you see anything wrong with this diet ?

That heart rate isnt bad. As for the diet, well thats an extremely unhealthy way to cut weight. Almost no protein, very little essential fats, and not the best carb choices.

Originally Posted by Super Hulk

about 3 years ago i cut out most fat from diet, rarey ate meat,
ate moslty fruit for 2 meals a day 3ird meal would be something like a light portion of spahetti. ran 2-3 miles a day for 3 months and lost only 8 lbs.

i would test my heart rate in one of those machines by the pharmacy in the grocery store , walking/light activity heart rate would be 67-68 ,resting would be like 64-63
. is this heart rate healthy ? i think it was mostly due to heart not having to work as hard since i cut out fat

1. A resting HR of 60-80 is 'normal'

2. Your diet sucks. Big time. Not only from a fat-loss point of view but also from a health point of view too.

When trying to lose weight the worst things you can do are to completely cut out protein and fats. Protein helps you maintain your muscles, maintains your metabolism, helps in keeping you full, stabilises blood glucose/blood insulin and increases thermogenesis (slightly).

Fats (specifically healthy fats like those in fish and specific nuts/seeds) help in mobilising fats and increase the rate at which you burn fats for fuel. They also help in keeping you healthy. They maintain the health of your hormones, nerves, joints, intenstines, kidneys, skin, hair AND your heart and blood vessels!

Cutting fats would have done much more harm than good.

My resting heart rate is 51. And yes, your diet sucks.

Originally Posted by musclepump

My resting heart rate is 51. And yes, your diet sucks.

unless your a super athlete i would think thats not good.
i remember in high school class everyone taking pulses. the athletes types who played sports were like 67, so i thought mine at 63-65 was pretty good

The lower the better. Lance Armstrong is at 31.

Originally Posted by Super Hulk

unless your a super athlete i would think thats not good.
i remember in high school class everyone taking pulses. the athletes types who played sports were like 67, so i thought mine at 63-65 was pretty good

Younger people will usually have faster HRs, so even athletes in your class would have not had super low readings.

But, as I said, 60-80 is "normal" for a resting HR. Athletes resting HR can be lower than this. My RHR is 40. I am perfectly healthy and there are men in the tour de France who have RHR in the ranges of 28-36. For average people - sure, this would indicate a HUGE health problem - but for these athletes it is an effect of their increased cardiovascular capacity.

Originally Posted by Emma-Leigh

Younger people will usually have faster HRs, so even athletes in your class would have not had super low readings.

But, as I said, 60-80 is "normal" for a resting HR. Athletes resting HR can be lower than this. My RHR is 40. I am perfectly healthy and there are men in the tour de France who have RHR in the ranges of 28-36. For average people - sure, this would indicate a HUGE health problem - but for these athletes it is an effect of their increased cardiovascular capacity.

Why would a low HR be a health problem? I've always thought it indicated good cardiovascular health.

Originally Posted by musclepump

Why would a low HR be a health problem? I've always thought it indicated good cardiovascular health.

If you are meant to have a low HR (eg: you are a fit person) then a low HR does reflect cardiovascular health. It usually indicates that the heart has enlarged due to exercise - so with each pump of the heart it ejects more blood and so it doesn't need to pump as frequently to supply your body with the blood it needs.

In other people, a low HR can be a bad thing. This is because the heart is NOT enlarged - and so the body (and importantly, the brain and heart itself) are deprived of required oxygen.

For example, diseases like hypothyroidism can decrease your heart rate. Electrolyte disturbances (especially potassium disturbances) will decrease your heart rate, as can hypothermia and some toxins or drugs.... It can indicate that your heart muscle is damaged (eg: in anorexia - when you 'eat' your heart tissue, or following an 'infarct' - which is what happens in a heart attack - when some of your heart vessels become blocked and your heart muscle is deprived of oxygen).... It can also indicate things like 'heart block', which is when the electical impulses in the heart (these cause your heart to contract) don't happen correctly. You can also get low heart rates when you have problems with other things in your body - like if you have some brain diseases that raise the pressure in your skull, you can get a decrease in heart rate as a result.

All of these things are bad things!

Originally Posted by musclepump

Why would a low HR be a health problem? I've always thought it indicated good cardiovascular health.

just something i picked up from somwhere, i assumed it was true.

Originally Posted by XcelKrush

That heart rate isnt bad. As for the diet, well thats an extremely unhealthy way to cut weight. Almost no protein, very little essential fats, and not the best carb choices.

i would still eat meats like lean turkey,unbreaded chicken. i tried to cut out most fat.
i was trying a low calorie(1800/day)+exercize diet

-My HR rests at around 44

You need some fat in the diet Eat more fish and try flaxseed oil and olive oil as fat choices. Your protein is too low again you can get your protein from fish, chicken, and turkey, egg whites, tuna.