[quote]greggio wrote:
The question, what would you do instead of lunges if you could no longer do them? I have been trying a bunch of other stuff for a while, but I am curious what others would do. Maybe I can get some ideas I haven’t thought of yet.[/quote]
Since there are a lot of other leg exercises that don’t require your toes bending - squats, Bulgarian split squats (although I hate them), barbell or machine hack squats, leg press, leg extension, leg curl … I don’t think not being able to lunge will ruin you
Recently Dave Tate went on a pants shopping adventure and was able to find some that fit at Buckle I believe.
[quote]I Don’t Have a Need for Pants With Zippers
I just wear sweatpants all the time. But now I’m getting ready to go on a cruise and my wife is making me buy pants so we can go out to dinner at a nice place. But my legs just don’t fit.
It didn’t matter when I was a fat pig. When I wore 42’s it wasn’t a problem buying pants because the legs in those things were huge.
So I’m in Macy’s the other day sweating my ass off. I’m like, motherfucker. None of 'em fit so I have to go out and grab another stack of ten different pants and try them all again. I was there for half an hour. Screw it, I’m done. So I went to the Gap and couldn’t find anything there.
Now I’m just thinking that my wife and I aren’t going to a fancy place for dinner. There are other options on the ship. We’ll eat pizza.
So I’m walking by the Buckle on my way out of the mall and this hot salesperson says, “I saw you come out of the Gap. What were you looking for?”
So now I’m in the Buckle and this girl is throwing me pants and shirts over the dressing room door. I found a pair that fit, but somehow that turned into me buying like $800 worth of shit. I walked out of there with two pair of pants, two pair of shorts, a fucking swimsuit, and five t-shirts. I have no idea what happened. I didn’t feel swindled, though. She was a hell of a salesperson. And she was hot. Did I already say that?[/quote]
Gregg- To me, the main benefit of lunges isnt how it makes my quads feel, its how it makes my hams/glutes feel. That being said, to not be able to do lunges would mean youd need to substitute it with something that drastically targets the back end. Glute ham raises are a good one.
Also, something that just came to me lol, you could try ‘In the Hole Squatting.’ <— Movement would be something to do on top of regular squats, dont substitue, but essentially im thinking you start the movement from In the hole of a squat, down at the bottom, and dont come up all the way.
Granted, this is all theory, but basically at/near the bottom of a squat is going to be where you get the most Ham/glute stimulation, so you remove the top half of the movement (taking quads of the equation) and turn it into Half squats. Sounds like it could work, though id have to try it out to give you a definite lol.
Gregg,
like akuma suggested, glute ham raises done either on a glute ham bench or on a lay pulldown (which are much tougher) are in
my opinion the best way to hit the glutes and hams. They are an extremely humbling exercise for many, but if you can get strong on them, you will see a massive improvement in your hammies and glutes along with weights going up in the more compound exercises.
[quote]David1991 wrote:
Man I wish I could train squats, but they have been really fucking up my back lately. I did them about 6 hours ago and I can hardly move. Hopefully front squats will be OK.
Akuma, when doing lunges and RDL’s do you just really focus on contracting and feeling the muscle? You use less weight than I do on both of those but you’re obviously much bigger/stronger. [/quote]
for RDLs, yes i really focus on the ham stretch. I keep my legs straight and close together (touch your toes style) and remove my back completely out of the equation, not coming up high enough to pop the back, and going low enough to where the plates touch the ground, and returning to the starting position through hip motions and leg flexing.
As for the lunges, i just ensure i have a really wide gap in my lunge and also that my knee hits the ground. I mean, if you can do walking lunges w/ more than 135 for 10 reps, you are a champ. Personally i dont go too deep into Low rep range when lunging, a lunge isnt really about maxing. Coleman did them with 135, ipso facto, perfect the lunge form and do more of them, dont raise the weight.[/quote]
Hm, I don’t know. I did 10x185 last time I did lunges but those were static lunges. I would think that would make it harder though since it’s constant tension on the leg. Walking is probably harder on balance though.
No, static lunges are a lot easier than walking lunges, they are two different exercises. Back when i did static lunges, at my best i was able to get up to 315. After experiencing walking lunges, i will never do static again, as an exercise they dont stack up and in my eyes really arent worth an exercise slot in my routines.
[quote]Akuma01 wrote:
No, static lunges are a lot easier than walking lunges, they are two different exercises. Back when i did static lunges, at my best i was able to get up to 315. After experiencing walking lunges, i will never do static again, as an exercise they dont stack up and in my eyes really arent worth an exercise slot in my routines.[/quote]
x2
An intense set of walking lunges, preferably barbell, will not only destroy your entire lower body and get your heart racing, but also be a mental challenge because you are always staring at the finish line and giving up isn’t an option. IMO as well, they are much more effective than static lunges…theyre also really badass when done across the gym with heavy weight
[quote]Akuma01 wrote:
No, static lunges are a lot easier than walking lunges, they are two different exercises. Back when i did static lunges, at my best i was able to get up to 315. After experiencing walking lunges, i will never do static again, as an exercise they dont stack up and in my eyes really arent worth an exercise slot in my routines.[/quote]
X2…and do them from one step right into the next. No stopping in the upright position before the next step.
Do you guys feel that lunges with a barbell build up your obliques? Asking out of ignorance- I’ve never done them and I’m wondering if the stability factor hits your core hard
[quote]dka1344 wrote:
Do you guys feel that lunges with a barbell build up your obliques? Asking out of ignorance- I’ve never done them and I’m wondering if the stability factor hits your core hard[/quote]
Only in a way that you have to hold your body upright. But thats about the same as counting your squats towards one of your calf exercises of the day. “Well i did squats, so i can check 1 quad, 1 ham, and 1 calf exercise off the list”
Does anyone have experience with reverse lunges? Ive done them maybe twice, holding the bar is a FS position and going backwards, it is a tough exercise.
[quote]Akuma01 wrote:
No, static lunges are a lot easier than walking lunges, they are two different exercises. Back when i did static lunges, at my best i was able to get up to 315. After experiencing walking lunges, i will never do static again, as an exercise they dont stack up and in my eyes really arent worth an exercise slot in my routines.[/quote]
Doesn’t that take the tension off of the legs though? I guess I’m surprised since it seems like with a lot of exercises you focus on constant tension.
[quote]Akuma01 wrote:
No, static lunges are a lot easier than walking lunges, they are two different exercises. Back when i did static lunges, at my best i was able to get up to 315. After experiencing walking lunges, i will never do static again, as an exercise they dont stack up and in my eyes really arent worth an exercise slot in my routines.[/quote]
Doesn’t that take the tension off of the legs though? I guess I’m surprised since it seems like with a lot of exercises you focus on constant tension.
How so? You’re still standing on your legs, and trying to balance the weight you have on your shoulders between your legs. its called equilibrium. Just because you’re taking 1 step at a time and not jumping, doesnt mean you’re only training one leg at a time.
And secondly, Yea Mr hobson says fuck 135, but coleman says “i love 135 lunges.” Im training to bodybuild, Ipso facto, I listen to bodybuilders. Mr Hobson loses.
[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
Does anyone have experience with reverse lunges? Ive done them maybe twice, holding the bar is a FS position and going backwards, it is a tough exercise.[/quote]
I’ve only done them with db’s, but yes they suck. Toss in some pulse reps at the end for fun.
