too high HR- "muscle burning"?

Options
RNChristie33
RNChristie33 Posts: 144 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Today I had a trainer tell me if my HR got higher than 164 (I'm a 27 yo female) while working out that my body would enter the "muscle burning" zone instead of the "fat burning" zone. I've never ever heard of this. I run, I have a great resting HR of 55-60 bpm but when I'm doing HIIT or sprints, my HR is always in the high 160s or low 170s. I have a hard time understanding that term "muscle burning", and believing that my higher intensity workouts are causing me to destroy my muscle instead of build it. Can anyone shed some light on this idea?
«1

Replies

  • SuggaD
    SuggaD Posts: 1,369 Member
    Options
    Nonsense.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Options
    SuggaD wrote: »
    Nonsense.

    Cosigned
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,701 Member
    Options
    The trainer is incorrect. Exercising burns calories. More from glycogen than "muscle burning". More than likely the trainer is trained in broscience training.
    To actually burn muscle as a source of energy, glycogen would have to be totally depleted from cells (a rare occurrence) and an extreme calorie deficit would usually also accompany this.
    Just stick to what you're doing.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png
  • myheartsabattleground
    myheartsabattleground Posts: 2,040 Member
    Options
    following.
  • WhatMeRunning
    WhatMeRunning Posts: 3,538 Member
    Options
    Trainer is full of crap. I can't explain this well enough so I'll let some article try and do so.
    http://breakingmuscle.com/health-medicine/understanding-energy-systems-atp-pc-glycolytic-and-oxidative-oh-my
  • glevinso
    glevinso Posts: 1,895 Member
    Options
    Ridiculous. Get a new trainer
  • chivalryder
    chivalryder Posts: 4,391 Member
    Options
    I'd also like to add: The "fat burning" zone is a myth as well.

    What is true, is when you are at a lower heart rate, the PERCENTAGE of calories you barn from fat is greater than the PERCENTAGE you burn from glycogen. However, as you increase your heart rate, you increase the TOTAL number of calories burned. The PERCENTAGE of calories you burn from fat decreases, but since you are burning more calories in total, you end up burning more fat in total.

    Your body will not, for the most part, feed off of your muscles unless you completely deplete your glycogen stores (possible in an hour or more), you do not feed your body during your workout, and you are training at an intensity where your body cannot convert fat to glycogen fast enough to feed your muscles.

    If I were you, I'd get a new trainer. The one you are talking to doesn't know Jack about heart rate zones.

    More evidence that you don't need an education to be a personal trainer.
  • jennifer_417
    jennifer_417 Posts: 12,344 Member
    Options
    SuggaD wrote: »
    Nonsense.

    +1

  • RNChristie33
    RNChristie33 Posts: 144 Member
    Options
    Awesome, thanks for the replies. Definitely was feeling pretty skeptical when she said that.. She isn't my trainer, I just joined a new gym and they have free training consults. I was looking to get a little more structure into my free weight training so I signed myself up but without getting long winded, the hour I spent with her was a complete waste of time.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    RNChristie33 wrote: »
    Awesome, thanks for the replies. Definitely was feeling pretty skeptical when she said that.. She isn't my trainer, I just joined a new gym and they have free training consults. I was looking to get a little more structure into my free weight training so I signed myself up but without getting long winded, the hour I spent with her was a complete waste of time.

    Send her a bill for your time ... $90 an hour sounds about right.
  • Cherimoose
    Cherimoose Posts: 5,209 Member
    Options
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    To actually burn muscle as a source of energy, glycogen would have to be totally depleted from cells (a rare occurrence) and an extreme calorie deficit would usually also accompany this.

    Actually, the body doesn't wait until the gas tank is empty to switch on gluconeogenesis, the process of burning muscle as fuel. It happens each morning before breakfast (triggered by high morning cortisol) and increases if you exercise then.. especially at higher intensities:
    In humans, as hepatic glycogen stores are reduced during fasting, glucose production (GP) is maintained by an increased contribution of gluconeogenesis... Compared with rest, increases in GP were sustained by 92 and 135% increments in [gluconeogenesis] during moderate- and hard-intensity exercises, respectively.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8755648

    So exercising at a high HR could be called a "muscle burning zone" if you're in a fasted state. Granted, it's not a huge amount of muscle lost, but it's still not a favorable state for an athlete to train in.. in my opinion. :+1:

  • yopeeps025
    yopeeps025 Posts: 8,680 Member
    Options
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    The trainer is incorrect. Exercising burns calories. More from glycogen than "muscle burning". More than likely the trainer is trained in broscience training.
    To actually burn muscle as a source of energy, glycogen would have to be totally depleted from cells (a rare occurrence) and an extreme calorie deficit would usually also accompany this.
    Just stick to what you're doing.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png

    I am still going with this.

  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    Cherimoose wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    To actually burn muscle as a source of energy, glycogen would have to be totally depleted from cells (a rare occurrence) and an extreme calorie deficit would usually also accompany this.

    Actually, the body doesn't wait until the gas tank is empty to switch on gluconeogenesis, the process of burning muscle as fuel. It happens each morning before breakfast (triggered by high morning cortisol) and increases if you exercise then.. especially at higher intensities:
    In humans, as hepatic glycogen stores are reduced during fasting, glucose production (GP) is maintained by an increased contribution of gluconeogenesis... Compared with rest, increases in GP were sustained by 92 and 135% increments in [gluconeogenesis] during moderate- and hard-intensity exercises, respectively.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8755648

    So exercising at a high HR could be called a "muscle burning zone" if you're in a fasted state. Granted, it's not a huge amount of muscle lost, but it's still not a favorable state for an athlete to train in.. in my opinion. :+1:

    So the "fat burning zone" is a myth, but not the "muscle burning zone"?

    Same concept, different substrate. Can't have it both ways.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    RNChristie33 wrote: »
    Today I had a trainer tell me if my HR got higher than 164 (I'm a 27 yo female) while working out that my body would enter the "muscle burning" zone instead of the "fat burning" zone. I've never ever heard of this. I run, I have a great resting HR of 55-60 bpm but when I'm doing HIIT or sprints, my HR is always in the high 160s or low 170s. I have a hard time understanding that term "muscle burning", and believing that my higher intensity workouts are causing me to destroy my muscle instead of build it. Can anyone shed some light on this idea?

    There is no limit on how far faddist "trainers" will go to jump on the anti-cardio bandwagon.

  • beemerphile1
    beemerphile1 Posts: 1,710 Member
    Options
    More proof that someone calling themselves a trainer means nothing. How many years of secondary education does this person have? What is their degree? Or do they only have a online certificate?
  • Cherimoose
    Cherimoose Posts: 5,209 Member
    Options
    Azdak wrote: »
    Cherimoose wrote: »
    Actually, the body doesn't wait until the gas tank is empty to switch on gluconeogenesis, the process of burning muscle as fuel. It happens each morning before breakfast (triggered by high morning cortisol) and increases if you exercise then.. especially at higher intensities:
    In humans, as hepatic glycogen stores are reduced during fasting, glucose production (GP) is maintained by an increased contribution of gluconeogenesis... Compared with rest, increases in GP were sustained by 92 and 135% increments in [gluconeogenesis] during moderate- and hard-intensity exercises, respectively.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8755648

    So exercising at a high HR could be called a "muscle burning zone" if you're in a fasted state. Granted, it's not a huge amount of muscle lost, but it's still not a favorable state for an athlete to train in.. in my opinion. :+1:

    So the "fat burning zone" is a myth, but not the "muscle burning zone"?

    The way the trainer explained it, the "muscle burning zone" is a myth. But like with most broscience, there's a grain of truth in it. Muscle burning does commonly happen, and while it's usually an insignificant amount, some people, like athletes & bodybuilders, may wish to be aware of which factors increase the amount of muscle burned (length of time since last meal, and exercise intensity & duration).
  • gothchiq
    gothchiq Posts: 4,590 Member
    Options
    I don't think yr going to burn muscle. If yr really concerned, have a protein shake before your workout. I seem to have more energy/feel better by doing this.
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,239 Member
    Options
    Hornsby wrote: »
    SuggaD wrote: »
    Nonsense.

    Cosigned

    Complete and utter nonsense.
  • trusty48
    trusty48 Posts: 75 Member
    Options
    RNChristie33 wrote: »
    Today I had a trainer tell me if my HR got higher than 164 (I'm a 27 yo female) while working out that my body would enter the "muscle burning" zone instead of the "fat burning" zone.

    Um....what?!?

    Training at 164 HR (or higher during HIIT) seems very reasonable for someone in your age group. Keep doing cardio- in my experience your far more likely to gain muscle than lose it.
  • losingitseattle
    losingitseattle Posts: 90 Member
    edited May 2015
    Options
    You know...science is always changing with each new "study" and somebody, somewhere probably published something that said something like what the trainer repeated but maybe she misunderstood it, or repeated it verbatim. Here's another viewpoint on that...

    http://www.builtlean.com/2013/04/01/fat-burning-zone-myth/

    I will say at some point I probably spouted off lots of info regarding the "fat burning zone" back in the day as I've been teaching Spin for a decade and there was a lot of research on the subject.

    I think in extreme cases if someone exercises at high intensity for long periods repeatedly without refueling properly, their body could start using muscle for fuel. I personally lived that scenario in my wayward youth but it was because of ridiculous amounts of high intensity cardio every day with no lifting, no rest and not a lot of calories, nor quality calories. Skinny fat was the result of that in case you are wondering.

    Maybe that's what she was trying to articulate??

Categories