any truth behind this?

leahcollett1

hi everyone

so ive been told that i need to tone down my intensive body combat 4 times a week and swap it for walking as i burn more fat from having my heart rate at 120 than say intensive at 160-165 bpm. on my hrm? this is to result in starting to lose again following weeks of no losses.
is there any truth behind this? i do go some when i do combat as its high impact and i read anywhere between 140-170 depending my effort.

LKArgh

No

Hornsby

Untrue.

Scamd83

Don't let others dictate what exercise you do, any exercise is sufficient. Exercise you enjoy is the right choice.

Therealobi1

I wouldn't trust anything further that person had to say after that
How are you doing tracking your food intake

JoRocka

The only reason you would need to dial back on 4 days of HIIT training is if you were not recovering enough. I found 2-3 days of HIIT training is/was adequate for my needs. Doing it 4-5 times a week gave me repetitive strain injuries and I wound up with a form of tendenosis and had to go to PT and get ART done on it. It sucked- but it's 100% fixed- but I straight just over did it.

so listen to your body and what it needs- but no you don't need to do less if you're recovering and getting the results you need and still feel good.

sijomial

The fuel you use during your exercise is nearly always a blend of fat and glycogen in different proportions....
This unfortunately has been twisted into the myth of the fat burning zone.

Ignore the "advice" you have been given as the fuel you use during your exercise is of virtually no relevance in term of weight loss/fat loss. Your calorie deficit is the single most important thing.

If you enjoy your exercise carry on. And swapping a high calorie burning exercise for a low calorie burn exercise will slow down your weight loss.

leahcollett1

awesome thanks - the thought of me having to chill out on what i love and replace it with walking terrified me.

DavPul

Hell

aggelikik wrote: »

No

GsKiki

One part of this advice is true, and that is to change the workout. Your body might have gotten used to the moves of your current wourkout routine. I would advise you to keep intensity level the same (or higher) but change up what you do for 2 weeks, then go back to the old routine.
Yes it is true that you will burn more calories at 120 HR, but you will not have any after burn. What people forget is that when you do exercise at the higher HR you usually have bigger after burn, making it all together burning more calories.
tldr; don't lower you HR, but you can switch out your routine

drachfit

leahcollett1 wrote: »

i burn more fat from having my heart rate at 120 than say intensive at 160-165 bpm

this is a myth that started with a misunderstanding.

at lower heart rates a greater PERCENTAGE of energy burned is fat. For example at 50% Max heart rate, the calories you burn will come from ~50% fat and 50% carbs. At 80% MHR, the calories you burn will come from roughly 30% fat and 70% carbs.

but the overall Total calories you burn at 80% MHR is WAY higher than what you burn at a lower heart rate. So you are burning 30% of a much bigger number. more overall fat and more overall calories are burned with higher intensity exercise.

lastly, for weight loss it doesnt matter whether you are burning fat calories or carb calories during exercise. your body still has to make up the same over-all energy defecit and it will do that by burning off your fat stores.

BrianSharpe

GsKiki wrote: »

One part of this advice is true, and that is to change the workout. Your body might have gotten used to the moves of your current wourkout routine. I would advise you to keep intensity level the same (or higher) but change up what you do for 2 weeks, then go back to the old routine.
Yes it is true that you will burn more calories at 120 HR, but you will not have any after burn. What people forget is that when you do exercise at the higher HR you usually have bigger after burn, making it all together burning more calories.
tldr; don't lower you HR, but you can switch out your routine

There is so much wrong with this post I don't know where to start......

The OP's lack of weight loss has nothing to do with her body "getting used to" a workout but, I suspect, the fact she's not eating at a deficit (she doesn't mention whether or not she'd logging her food in the post) and do some reading on EPOC (BTW, she would not burn more calories at 120bpm, she would burn a higher proportion of fat but fewer calories).

OP, are you logging your food intake? Are you taking measurements? You mention not losing any weight for weeks.... and the only reasons this would happen are not eating at a deficit or putting on muscle (which is difficult to do to any extent if you're eating at a deficit). Ignore the whole idea of the "fat burning zone" it has no relevance in the context of weight loss but could be important if you were training for endurance sports (even skinny marathoners carry more fuel by way of fat than they do with stored glycogen)

MeanderingMammal

GsKiki wrote: »

. Your body might have gotten used to the moves of your current wourkout routine.

Umm, no...

...any after burn.

That extra couple of calories isn't going to make a substantive difference.

shor0814

Yet another myth that has some roots in reality. In the "fat burning zone" you burn a larger percentage of fat than carbs. If for some reason you truly care about fast vs carb calories burned then get out your calculator. At a 60:45 fat to carb split you will burn more total fat calories doing HIIT if you burn 34% more total calories vs low intensity.

200 low intensity calories burns 120 fat calories
268 (34% more) HIIT calories burns 121 fat calories.

500 low intensity calories burns 300 fat calories
670 (34% more) HIIT calories burns 302 fat calories.

All of this is moot anyway since your fat to carb ratio changes constantly with heart rate and for the most part a good HIIT session would burn enough additional total calories in the same time period to burn more fat calories.

Long story short, keep doing your HIIT.

Edit: Above post says the said the same thing as I was messing around with the calculator.

Vortex88

drachfit wrote: »

leahcollett1 wrote: »

i burn more fat from having my heart rate at 120 than say intensive at 160-165 bpm

this is a myth that started with a misunderstanding.

at lower heart rates a greater PERCENTAGE of energy burned is fat. For example at 50% Max heart rate, the calories you burn will come from ~50% fat and 50% carbs. At 80% MHR, the calories you burn will come from roughly 30% fat and 70% carbs.

but the overall Total calories you burn at 80% MHR is WAY higher than what you burn at a lower heart rate. So you are burning 30% of a much bigger number. more overall fat and more overall calories are burned with higher intensity exercise.

lastly, for weight loss it doesnt matter whether you are burning fat calories or carb calories during exercise. your body still has to make up the same over-all energy defecit and it will do that by burning off your fat stores.

Exactly right

kcjchang

What drachfit posted.

The only other thing I can think of is mixing/misinterpreting an advanced training method for endurance adaptation. This normally involves expending one's muscle glycogen stores targeting the two muscle types on separate days to increase the activity of PGC-1α (Baar et al., 2002; Pilegaard et al., 2000, 2003), a protein that has been called the master regulator of increased mitochondria and blood vessels, and other partners to increase transcription (production) of genes that ultimately lead to more mitochondria (Wu et al., 1999) and blood vessels. Mitochondria is your cells powerhouse and the more you have the more work you can do and at a higher intensity. The goal is to maximize power/velocity at lactate threshold since this is the best determinant of endurance performance (Coyle, 1999). It goes something like this: day one and two is high intensity work to burn off Type II muscle glycogen stores followed by low but high volume work on day three to tax Type I muscle glycogen stores. Carbohydrate consumption is keep low doing the “adaptive” session.

I'm more familiar with cycling workouts: high intensity is at or just below your anaerobic threshold (in reference to maximal aerobic power), or the onset of blood lactate accumulation, for 40-60 minutes or more (accumulated duration with intervals) while low/high volume work is something like 2.5-6 hours at 40-60% of your anaerobic threshold. It has been a staple of cycling for a long time (was exposed to it in the late 80s) although the likely mechanism was not known until research caught up.

I wouldn't recommend doing this type of training unless you have build up a sufficient base and are fairly fit (e.g. upper rung amateur competitor level).

leahcollett1

Thanks everyone.. Yes I weigh measure everything. I'm eating 1600 calories on tdee minus 25% I'm 31 215lbs and 5 ft7.
I swap and change the sessions of combat too. I never keep to the sane session. 1 week I can do body combat 61 the next I can do body combst 65. Each session is different but the basis is the same. Couple power tracks for boxing. A muai Thai track. 2-3 combat tracks involving kicks jump kicks. Lunges and squats it's for an hr. And I bloody love each and every one

Sam_I_Am77

leahcollett1 wrote: »

hi everyone

so ive been told that i need to tone down my intensive body combat 4 times a week and swap it for walking as i burn more fat from having my heart rate at 120 than say intensive at 160-165 bpm. on my hrm? this is to result in starting to lose again following weeks of no losses.
is there any truth behind this? i do go some when i do combat as its high impact and i read anywhere between 140-170 depending my effort.

Weight loss can plateau, just be patient. Also, re-evaluate your nutrition and make sure you're eating enough to support your goal. IF an issue exists, it's most likely in your nutrition and not in your exercise selection. If you're only goal is to lose weight, exercise preference doesn't matter much.