I use eliptical but thats because it has the least joint impact and my joints are my failing point on legs...plus the leaner the iam the easier my joints get damaged so ya low impact cardio makes more sense to me.
I've always thought cardio is over-rated. 10 sets of 20 reps on the leg press with 1 minute of rest between sets with moderate weight 3 times per week leans me out with a clean diet. I wouldn't attempt strength training at this time but when I go back to heavier weights I find I have lost very little and it comes back quickly.
I use the elliptical for my cardio. I have been doing 30 minutes every day because I was a little to careless with my diet and put on to much fat over the winter. I do notice my legs are taking longer to recover after leg day with this amount of cadio.
For me, my ass and quads disappear when I'm doing a lot of incline walking and step mill so I do almost all my cardio on the bike. I'll do intervals, steady state (but hard), and/or a combination of the 2 and my legs blow up and helps me maintain size/strength when cutting.
Cycling with its concentric only movement is touted as one mode that tends not to interfere with resistance training. Of course, volume (distance), intensity, and frequency like RT needs to be considered too so no "century rides" or anything like that
Excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC) or in Layman's terms, the afterburn effect of high-intensity training, is unlikely to contribute to greater fat loss than regular steady state cardio
Cool study by Tucker and colleagues (2016) comparing EPOC, energy expenditure and fat oxidation rates (amongst other things) between sprint interval exercise, high-intensity interval exercise and steady state exercise
EPOC is often touted as the reason that HIIT is the only way to do cardio, but it really depends what your goal is. The primary goal of cardio for most people is to create an energy deficit and lose body fat. Therefore, steady state exercise should be utilised as this burns more calories, which the current study supports nicely
However, if your primary goal is to stimulate the metabolic adaptations caused by performing endurance based exercise, e.g. mitochondrial biogenesis. Then interval training may be a more time-efficient way to go ️
What's often not considered by people is what effect will the form of cardio have on subsequent exercise or which population can perform the interval routines. Although 6 back-to-back wingates may cause beneficial adaptations, they are often not tolerated well and would definitely put people off. Certainly, an athletic population may tolerate them well, but as seen in the present study even a recreationally active cohort did not
Finally, if a person is primarily looking to improve their muscle mass or strength through resistance training, then performing demanding interval training for their cardio may have negative impacts on subsequent performance in the gym. Therefore, lower intensity steady state exercise may be more appropriate, or a combination of both
The full text to the current study can be read here: http://tinyurl.com/jq44u7y
I'm an admin on a research page so I can post more