8/17/14 BURN Fitness 101: Lunges or Squats? Which, and why?
(A repeat from March 2014)
I'm a big advocate of lunges as opposed to squats for my clients, like MYSELF, with low-back issues. Simply put, the less compressive load you can put on your disks/spine, the better. And lunges allow an athlete to reach back-squat loads with MUCH less compressive forces on the lower back! Here's how...
Take a 200 lb athlete as an example. Give them a 100 lb barbell to squat (on their shoulders). The total load on their feet is 300 lbs (athlete weight, plus bar weight). That is 150 lb per leg.
Take the same 200 lb athlete. Have them do a stationary back lunge with NO WEIGHT. Assuming the athlete has 75+% of his/her weight on the front foot, that adds up to 150 lbs on the front leg.
It's the SAME weight per leg as a 100 lb barbell squat. Load on the disks? ZERO.
Now, lets load up! Put a 50 lb dumbbell in each hand. Now the athlete's total weight goes up to 300 lb with a VERY low center of gravity (safer for the spine). In a back lunge with 75% load on the front foot... That's 225 lb on ONE leg. To bar-squat an equivalent load, the total athlete+bar load would have to be 450... or a 250 lb barbell!!!
If the athlete wants to do legs without a spotter... back lunges are a LOT safer! If he/she gets to rock bottom and can't come up, the dumbbells are only inches from the ground. DROP 'EM!
Yeah... I know... SQUATTING is the "panacea" of strength training... BS... I have 2 herniated disks, 2 with degenerative disk damage... and visible damage to 10 more! There's no WAY I'm loading up my spine THAT heavy!
I'm 240 lbs today. I'm doing sets of back lunges... with 70 lb dumbbells.
Total load = 240+140=380
75% load per leg = 285!!!
285+285=570 on both legs
570 - 240 (bodyweight)= a 330 lb barbell squat for 8-10 reps.
Not bad for an old dude with an f-ed up back...
You can provide PLENTY of stimulus for growth in your legs with MUCH lighter stress on your spine, by simply switching it up to stationary lunges!
(A repeat from March 2014)
I'm a big advocate of lunges as opposed to squats for my clients, like MYSELF, with low-back issues. Simply put, the less compressive load you can put on your disks/spine, the better. And lunges allow an athlete to reach back-squat loads with MUCH less compressive forces on the lower back! Here's how...
Take a 200 lb athlete as an example. Give them a 100 lb barbell to squat (on their shoulders). The total load on their feet is 300 lbs (athlete weight, plus bar weight). That is 150 lb per leg.
Take the same 200 lb athlete. Have them do a stationary back lunge with NO WEIGHT. Assuming the athlete has 75+% of his/her weight on the front foot, that adds up to 150 lbs on the front leg.
It's the SAME weight per leg as a 100 lb barbell squat. Load on the disks? ZERO.
Now, lets load up! Put a 50 lb dumbbell in each hand. Now the athlete's total weight goes up to 300 lb with a VERY low center of gravity (safer for the spine). In a back lunge with 75% load on the front foot... That's 225 lb on ONE leg. To bar-squat an equivalent load, the total athlete+bar load would have to be 450... or a 250 lb barbell!!!
If the athlete wants to do legs without a spotter... back lunges are a LOT safer! If he/she gets to rock bottom and can't come up, the dumbbells are only inches from the ground. DROP 'EM!
Yeah... I know... SQUATTING is the "panacea" of strength training... BS... I have 2 herniated disks, 2 with degenerative disk damage... and visible damage to 10 more! There's no WAY I'm loading up my spine THAT heavy!
I'm 240 lbs today. I'm doing sets of back lunges... with 70 lb dumbbells.
Total load = 240+140=380
75% load per leg = 285!!!
285+285=570 on both legs
570 - 240 (bodyweight)= a 330 lb barbell squat for 8-10 reps.
Not bad for an old dude with an f-ed up back...
You can provide PLENTY of stimulus for growth in your legs with MUCH lighter stress on your spine, by simply switching it up to stationary lunges!