Ellipitical machine: burning fat & resistance levels

I asked this in a somewhat related thread and didn't get any responses. I apologize in advance if it's been discussed recently but I didn't find anything!

My question is this:

What's better for burning fat on an ellipitcal? Going fast with little resistance, or going slower with a harder resistance? Or is it some combination of the both?

I usually do the hill interval program -- meaning the incline starts off slightly elevated with a pretty easy resistance level (about a 4), then goes way up so that I focus more on my hammies/glutes witha slightly harder resistance level (about a 10), for about 2 minutes each, repeated.

Just want to make sure I'm doing what's best for fat loss.

Thanks!

I am not an expert and hence really cannot answer your question but here is my opinion:

I think both are kinda equal in producing the same goal via a different method.

I think that the going fast with very little resistance is great for helping increase stamina (in folks that already have the stamina to do the run) and strenghten the heart muscle and you burn a ton of calories. The going slower with harder resistance allows you to burn calories without the higher heart rate and for those of us with developing staminas it allows us extra time to burn off the same amount of calories as those going faster....however it just takes us a little longer. I think the slower interval with more resistance is better for folks like myself who are really out of shape. I am working toward the faster intervals though as my stamina increases.

Now according to Kathy Smith (fitness guru) in her fat burning video, she states that the first 30 minutes of a work out mainly burns glycogen and then you start to burn fat. So IF this is true, the slower....longer...interval would be better for burning fat if the slower routine lasts longer. But if you are going to do a 30 minute routine either fast or slow....then you'll burn more calories by going fast. And at the end of the day, it is the amount of calories in vs the amount of calories out that really counts.

Sorry, I don't have any scientific facts nor websites to point you to on my opinion..because it is just that....my opinion.

i'd have to say up the resistence if you can, if you can go for 50 minutes at level 6, aim to do fifty minutes at level 7 etc.

you burn calories, it doesnt matter where from (fat or glycogen stores)

you burn more calories at higher resistence,

just dont be one of those that keeps it on level 1 and does a workout for 30 minutes just to burn 200 calories when you can do it in 15 at level 7,

i just see it as more time consuming

and i dont really thing it gets you fitter or burn more calories unless you push your heart rate (personally i do the cardio setting and keep the heart rate around 172-5, though i started out at 164 as a target)

hill training is good though

just keep that heart rate up :]

---

madetoshine, it's really your call.  for calorie burning, they're exactly the same (so long as you raise your heart rate, you're burning calories, whether thru speed or resistance).  but here are my thoughts: 

the most efficient way to go about this is to build muscle in the weights section and burn calories in the cardio section.  so what i do is set the cardio machine at the highest resistance that i can go fast on--i basically match my strength.  and as i've gotten stronger over time (and incorporated interval training to increase my oxygen uptake as i exercise), i have increased resistance.  so i'm NOT advising that you set it at a low resistance.  i'm saying, set it to the highest resistance your muscles can go fast on.  (also, if you set the resistance too high, you'll be tortured and might not exercise as long as you would if you just decreased it a bit.)

is eliptical the running one?if it is,i got a question too..15 incline with speed 4 can burn more than 200 calories under 10 minutes..is it even posible?i usually do 2-3incline at different speed for 30m for 300-400 calories..which is better?

I guess the real question is, do you only want to burn fat while you're on the machine or your main goal is to burn fat period.  It is practically agreed uniformly in the  fitness world that the first 20-30 min of a workout session the main source of the energy used in the workout is from glycogen. To over simplify, when we're talking glycogen, we're talking about muscle mass. So, to focus your time only on cardio machines, while you still burn calories, your activity kinda negates your muscle building.  My understanding is by keeping your muscle mass, you increase your metabolic rate, which means you are burning more calories while away from the gym.

That's why, personally, I prefer incorporating both cardio and weight training; whenever I can. :)  If I only do cardio in a session, then I would do higher intensity, not necessary high speed, and make sure I don't swing the movement from the joints. 

By the way, speed is not the only thing that could elevate your heart rate. Doing activity that involves more muscle groups in your body, also increase your heart rate.  (Measured using an HRM) my heart rate can go up to 150-160s easy just by doing squats with weights.

Sweet_tart:  I do do weight training. :)  And I always do it before cardio (aside from a 5-10 min cardio warmup) so I'm using glucose first.  And I definitely do get my heart rate up when I'm doing weights.  My main goal is to burn fat period.