Crossfit Vs Conventional Cardio: Which is better for fat loss?
Crossfit vs Endurance. Whats the dealio?
Over the past few years HIIT training or interval training has received recognition as an efficient way of exercising that could illicit the same benefits if not more than conventional cardiovascular. The argument being that the body continues to “burn” energy even after the training session.
So is it true that HIIT style training like Crossfit can lead to greater fat loss?
Without fail, every week I get DM’s with messages somewhere along the lines of “I’ve been Crossfitting for years, why am I not losing weight?”
Sure enough, you’ll see individuals that start Crossfit in the hope of looking like some of the elites you see at the Games, only to become more frustrated with their bodies.
Stronger? Absolutely! But leaner? Not quite.
Tough workouts don’t always equate to higher energy expenditure.
If you’re a Crossfitter yourself, you’ll know that each WOD you do rarely exceeds the 20 minute time frame. Sure, some boxes might do weekend partner wods that’ll have you moving for 45 minutes and beyond, but most classes are really short workouts.
These workouts might be incredibly tough and have you questioning your life, but tough doesn’t equal energy expenditure.
Take a short workout like Fran for example. It might take an average person 6-9 minutes to complete, and they might have given it everything they had in the tank, but ultimately, it was just a 9 minute workout at the very most.
What’s more interesting is that high intensity workouts require more glycogen (stored form of carbohydrates in your muscles), which means you’ll need to replenish this even more. This often leads to people eating more and gaining more weight in the process.
Now, there is no doubt that interval training has many benefits like increased cardiorespiratory fitness and improved insulin activity, so it’s definitely a great form of exercise, but from a weight loss stand point, it’s quite limited.
Endurance training.
Cardiovascular requires consistent movement for a minimum of 30 minutes at a time.
Conventional cardiovascular or endurance training, usually requires consistent aerobic exercise anywhere from 30 to 60 minutes or more of effort where participants are applying a steady amount of energy at around 60% VO2max.
One study that compared the body composition of overweight adults found that those who had performed conventional cardiovascular exercise lost up to 1.3% body fat, whereas those that performed HIIT or interval training lost up to only 0.7%.
Another research that took sixty-two middle-aged male volunteers through a 12 week research, found that HIIT training was effective in facilitating conditioning responses. However, it did not have any superior results to conventional cardio when it came to fat loss or improved body composition.
Which is better?
I feel like the more pertinent question here isn’t necessarily what burns more calories, but rather which form of exercise improves body composition. The term “improve”, is subjective, so for the sake of clarity I will define it as: less body fat and more muscle.
Answering this question is virtually impossible without looking at other factors involved like genetics, frequency of training, personal preference, diet just to name a few. However, we know that exercise is an excellent strategy for maintaining good health both physical and mental, but when it comes to fat loss, an individual’s diet is more crucial to getting those results.
Sure, you might lose weight in the initial stages of taking up exercise but let’s not forget that exercise itself makes up a small percent of your overall energy expenditure across the 24 hour period.
Research across various sources have shown that regardless of the form of exercise you choose, the efficacy of exercise for fat loss without some form of calorie restriction is limited. In other words, you have to be in a calorie deficit in order to see a change in your body composition. Exercise alone is not enough to change this.
Sources
