too high HR- "muscle burning"?

Options
2»

Replies

  • lushiie
    lushiie Posts: 4 Member
    Options
    False, false, false! Your trainer is just trying to secure his job! My resting hr is 52 and my max is 195 when I do HIIT my rest time is 165 Hr and my 30sec-1min work time my HR is 190-192 that's fat burning not muscle! Similar specs to you as well im 27.
  • Chieflrg
    Chieflrg Posts: 9,097 Member
    Options
    Negative...hopefully he might of misspoke although there are people that were and still are trained to think this way, but its rubbish.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,541 Member
    edited May 2015
    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.

    Apart from being utter nonsense, how can your trainer know your maximum heart rate? The usual equations often don't work for women as (I only read that, not sure if true!) many have somewhat smaller hearts that need to beat faster. Many women have a much higher heart rate than the usual 220-your age as I noticed from spinning classes with the heart rate projected to a wall. That equation would bring me to 179bpm. Yet my maximum heartrate is around 205, maybe even a little bit higher. See the problem?
  • archanajoyce
    archanajoyce Posts: 219 Member
    Options
    :/
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    Azdak wrote: »
    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.
    losingitseattle wrote: »
    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??

    I think she was basing her comments on research that shows that with extended exercise at threshold intensities, amino acids
    can make up as much as 15% of fuel substrate used. In the average cardio workout, AA use is negligible, but 10-15 years ago, research showed a higher use of AAs during the workouts described above.

    As often happens, the research was misunderstood by some, and overgeneralized. As with the "fat burning" idea, it is a common mistake to assume that acute, transient responses to exercise during a workout represent permanent alterations in body composition. As long as protein intake is sufficient, there is no evidence I know of suggesting that using AAs during exercise has any significant effect on "muscle".
  • Sam_I_Am77
    Sam_I_Am77 Posts: 2,093 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:

    ^

    Have you trainer trade in his training certification for a garbage man certification.

Categories