Deadlifting and squatting. Any kind of shoulder press. Calf work. Good form. Hard work.
I fucking hate my high school weight room.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Der Candy wrote:
are you even jacked?
Yeah, I’m nearly as jacked as Mike Boyle or Alwyn Cosgrove.[/quote]
about as jacked as a ham sandwhich
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
majicka wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
majicka wrote:
fabiop wrote:
Single-leg exercises, such as bulgarian split squat, lunges, step up…I rarely (if ever) do them, and I can safely bet nobody at my gym even know them.
x2. I get very funny looks when doing Bulgarian Split Squats but then most of the people at my gym just seem to do workouts consisting of five different chest or bicep exercises…
There’s no such thing as a “Bulgarian Split Squat”. You’re doing static lunges with the rear leg elevated. Very simple.
Thou shalt not overly complicate exercise names.
Any exercise that has you in a lunge position is a lunge, not a squat. A squat is not a unilateral exercise, so stop calling lunges “split squats”.
You knew exactly what we meant, the name we used is not uncommon. I don’t see what the fuss is about.
It’s just sloppy and a sign of bad rhetorical form.[/quote]
…and we all know that bad form is very bad.
At my gym, very few people squat. Never seen anyone deadlift heavy other than me (lots of stiff leg DLs with a rounded back mind.) Lots of people do walking lunges.
I’ve seen a full depth squat maybe 2 times in total at my gym.
And barbell bent over rows. I think I’m the only person in the gym doing them.
There’s a lot of that medicine ball stuff thought.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
How the FUCK is “Bulgarian Split Squat” more complicated than “static lunges with the rear leg elevated”.
The only logical explanation in my mind for your statement is that you are being facetious and your previous behavior on this site has caused the rest of us to actually believe that you are being serious when you say nutty shit.
Because the latter is logical and intuitive. A person familiar with the basic lunge movement could easily deduce the exercise based on my description, but not the former.
The former description is fundamentally misleading, as I have pointed out in my last post. To whom are you doing a service by calling it a squat, when it’s not? The country of Bulgaria? Forget tradition, think outside the box, and make a contribution to a lost virtue: the precision of language.
Naming conventions are important in fitness for the same reasons as elsewhere: Names ought to be descriptive to facilitate communication and comprehension.
You’ve heard coaches like Cressey and A.C. lecture about the importance of understanding functional anatomy as a “basic prerequisite” of working in this field? Well, along with that comes the ability to label exercises properly and scientifically. You sound like a novice a when you say things like “Bulgarian Squat” or “Turkish get-up”. It isn’t proper, it isn’t scientific, you won’t find it in any kinesiology textbook.
Giving different names to fundamentally alike exercises, such as the lunge and “Bulgarian split squat”, also exhibits a lack of understanding. “Front Squats” and “Back Squats” have similar names precisely because they’re two variations of the same basic movement. With lunges and “static lunges”, it ought to be the same. Take some pride in your work and label the exercises properly.
I’m almost never facetious online. I don’t see the point. This is the one chance I have to say exactly what I think in the way that I want. Why would I want to post facetious nonsense? It seems like the biggest waste of time in the world to me.
If the sole purpose of a name was to accurately and completely describe and illustrate the nature of something, there would be no need of names at all. Rather than “Pine”, we would say “Coniferous evergreen indigenous to the majority of the Northern Hemisphere, often cultivated for timber”. You seem to be reaching so valiantly to appear intellectual to others here on this board that you are forgetting the basic tenants of the things you discuss.
Had you actually had any relative training experience, you would know that a lunge and a split squat, while similar, are not the same movement. If they were, then why would the “with rear foot elevated” modifier be necessary at all? If you want to argue semantics, we can certainly do that, but you’re starting off (forgive the pun) with the wrong foot.
In a lunge, the trainee’s weight travels forwards…they quite literally lunge forwards. In a split squat, the trainee’s weight travels down, which is facilitated by the elevation of the rear foot. These differences in eccentric action are what differentiate the movements from each other.[/quote]
I didn’t read more than 10 words of this, but I’d say debating this is a waste of time.
(Time spent lifting, eating, sleeping) > (arguing stupid shit)
And I agree with Austin…unless you’re a fortunate mofo and lifting in a certain gym in Columbus, NJ, or somewhere similar you don’t see the big, bad, muscle building, ball breaking lifts performed.
There are actually a decent number of people who dl and squat at my gym (granted most of them can’t go over 315 or only do partial squats). The things I don’t see is people doing are prehab and/or mobility drills and also powerlifting exercises (board presses, floor presses, use of chains, etc.).
I’m the only one doing stiff legged deads in my gym, but that’s nothing to brag about. More a sign I need to join another gym.
my gym pretty much lacks leg work in general. other than me and my partner, I’ve only seen maybe 3 people train legs with any vigor. and I mean any leg work, squats are almost never performed, leg press never sees more than 180lbs, unless we’re using it, NOBODY does calf work, hack squats, lunges, you name it. Even the leg extension machines are damn near unused.
another thing I VERY rarely see in my gym: Curls with good form. Nothing fancy, just good old fashion standing dumbell curls, nobody can do them properly, and they all use way too much weight.
do see- the high-schoolers have been doing doing (quarter) squats, clean and jerks, and deadlifts. The older crowd and women are doing one arm DB presses on medicine balls and step ups. Bench press and curl are the most common exercises by far.
don’t see- chains, band work, etc…
Can someone please give me some advice? I have been training for 17 years and I competed in 2 natural bodybuilding shows. I know plenty about the bodybuilding world. But over the past 3 weeks my bench press strength has gone done around 60-70%. I usually bench 225 10-12 reps for 3 sets. Now I can barely do 225 1 rep. My other muscles are as strong as they normally are, and nothing has changed about my training sessions. I don’t have an injury, that I’m aware of. Does anyone know what could cause this? It’s making me mad as hell, seeing little high schoolers bench 3 times as much as me, and I didn’t take a month off or anything drastic like that. Thanks to all who respond.
Jeff
I’ve seen one person at my gym do Bulgarian Split Squats and he was wearing a T-Nation shirt; first time I’ve ever seen anyone wear one.
It kills me to see all of the people saying deadlifts, etc. I just find it hard to believe because I work out at a very suburban, very soccer mom friendly YMCA, but I almost ALWAYS see people deadlifting and squatting heavy.
Granted, it is a busy place with a lot of members, but I even know a couple of guys in their 50’s and one in his 60’s that deadlift regularly. We have all type of course, but even some women who lift hard and heavy.
[quote]GuerillaZen wrote:
It kills me to see all of the people saying deadlifts, etc. I just find it hard to believe because I work out at a very suburban, very soccer mom friendly YMCA, but I almost ALWAYS see people deadlifting and squatting heavy.
Granted, it is a busy place with a lot of members, but I even know a couple of guys in their 50’s and one in his 60’s that deadlift regularly. We have all type of course, but even some women who lift hard and heavy.[/quote]
X2… I must agree with you on all points.
Being the OP AND 50 years old, i’m happy to see you express your recognition of us old farts
who deadlift regularly. I incorporate a minimun of 2 deadlift variations and 2 squat variations on a weekly basis. It takes me 72 hours to recover but I love it.
[quote]Stuntman Mike wrote:
Just kill yourself. Seriously.
Bulgarian Split Squats are what the exercise is called.[/quote]
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
If the sole purpose of a name was to accurately and completely describe and illustrate the nature of something, there would be no need of names at all. Rather than “Pine”, we would say “Coniferous evergreen indigenous to the majority of the Northern Hemisphere, often cultivated for timber”. You seem to be reaching so valiantly to appear intellectual to others here on this board that you are forgetting the basic tenants of the things you discuss.
Had you actually had any relative training experience, you would know that a lunge and a split squat, while similar, are not the same movement. If they were, then why would the “with rear foot elevated” modifier be necessary at all? If you want to argue semantics, we can certainly do that, but you’re starting off (forgive the pun) with the wrong foot.
In a lunge, the trainee’s weight travels forwards…they quite literally lunge forwards. In a split squat, the trainee’s weight travels down, which is facilitated by the elevation of the rear foot. These differences in eccentric action are what differentiate the movements from each other.[/quote]
I just wanted to point out that Mike Boyle agrees with me.
It’s on the front page, in case you missed it.
I must say, I have an uncanny ability to be right. What now?
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
I must say, I have an uncanny ability to be right. What now?[/quote]
I wouldn’t go that far. The original guy called it a Bulgarian Split Squat, not a lunge. You’re the one that incorrectly called it a lunge:
It’s generally known as a Bulgarian Split Squat, I’ve never heard anyone call it a “static lunge with the rear leg elevated”.
Mike Boyle actually says you are wrong. He doesn’t call it a lunge, you do. Why would you call it a lunge when it is actually a squat?
I’ve never seen anyone do a Zercher squat, and I’ve been training since the 70s. Never seen anyone do snatches, either.
The point I’m trying to make is that naming conventions matter to people who take their work seriously. Presumably, Mike Boyle is one such person. And so am I.
The movement is a lunge because it’s performed on one leg and looks like this:
http://hockeytrainingpro.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Bulgarian-Split-Squat.bmp
This is how a lunge terminates:
You’ll notice the final positions are completely identical aside from the elevated rear leg. But that’s an extraneous variable.
This is how a squat terminates:
That is clearly not the same movement. If you have trouble seeing it, I can call in a five year old to provide expert testimony.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
In a lunge, the trainee’s weight travels forwards…they quite literally lunge forwards. In a split squat, the trainee’s weight travels down, which is facilitated by the elevation of the rear foot. These differences in eccentric action are what differentiate the movements from each other.[/quote]
It’s fallacious to assume that all lunges need be “walking lunges”, though this may be the conventional definition of the exercise.
For my part, I consider walking lunges to be a poor exercise for developing muscle. A person can’t achieve sufficient TUT when taking a minor rest between each set of an exercise. That’s why I never do or recommend walking lunges, only static variations of the exercise.
There is always some degree of horizontal movement of the knee, even if one makes an effort to sink straight down. The only way of preventing this and keeping the lower leg perpendicular to the ground would be to compensate with an excessive degree of forward trunk lean, in which case the individual would be performing neither a squat nor a lunge but a good morning (or forward lean).
Different types of squats also exhibit different degrees of horizontal and vertical movement, but we don’t call them “two legged lunges” when the knees travel far forward horizontally.
Both the lunge and squat involve hip and knee flexion with ankle dorsiflexion on the descent phase. The differentiating aspect between them is that squats are a bilateral exercise, while lunges are unilateral.
There’s no such thing as a “unilateral squat”, per se.
A lunge is a unilateral squat and must be referred to as such.
I hope this is clear now.
The proper form for describing an exercise is to identify the basic, fundamental movement which is being executed and following that, any physical modifications which have been made as well as the type of resistance employed (when deemed necessary).
Hence, “Static Lunge with rear-leg elevated” or “Static DB Lunge with rear-leg elevated”.
Sorry, there’s just no such thing as a Bulgarian Split Squat.
Names matter. Precision of language is precision of thought, and one of the highest virtues.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
The point I’m trying to make is that naming conventions matter to people who take their work seriously. Presumably, Mike Boyle is one such person. And so am I.[/quote]
The point I’m trying to make is that Mike Boyle directly contradicts what you’re saying. You are calling it a lunge, and Mike Boyle specifically says, “…despite the fact it didn’t originate in Bulgaria and isn’t a lunge”.
A lunge requires lateral movement forward, or back. Squats require vertical movement. The Bulgarian Split Squat is called a squat because it only involves vertical movement.
If you have trouble seeing it, I can call in a five year old to provide expert testimony.
I normally couldn’t care less what people call it, but you’re incorrectly calling the guy out, and deserve to be called out in turn.