Squats vs Walking Lunges

[Collin304]

I would also like to add to ditch the smith machine squats, it has its time and place for specifically targeting muscle groups but I don’t think it aligns with what you’re trying to accomplish. I wouldn’t worry about the knees over toes on your squat unless it’s causing you pain. Plenty of powerlifters out there with a more narrow stance with a “knees over toes” squat, squatting upwards of 8-900 pounds. It’s more about your biomechanics and building tendon strength over years of training. I wouldn’t worry definitely subscribe to knees over toes guy on YouTube and integrate some of his stuff into your training. Most back country injuries occur on the decent loaded and a lot of those are from knee instability. I start each of my workouts with 3-5 minutes of backward sled drags. That has helped with my overall general physical preparedness and built up my knee strength and stability drastically. I also agree with some of the others use to use uni lateral exercises to build up stability. I would still squat to build overall strength and be sure to brace correctly to build core strength. Suitcase carries would be great for what you’re wanting. I would also focus on postural muscle strengthening. Upper back strength to keep yourself upright and in a good strong position. I think this gets overlooked. I also add farmers carries into my daily warmup along with the backwards sled drags and focus on good posture. Hope some of this helps, best of luck!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Poser]

If your goal is to hike with a heavy pack in the mountains, you will see your hiking performance improve the most with single leg exercises. Personally, I get the most benefit from walking toe lunges holding a dumbbell, followed by banded monster walks. Those two exercises do a terrific job of building muscular endurance for mountain hunting with a pack.

What metric are you using to measure this and draw this conclusion?

Also, I do hope that you aware that a lunge is not a "single leg" exercise. It may emphasize one leg more than the other, but your planted leg is still bearing a non-insignificant amount of load and stress and contributing to the movement. For that matter, hiking uphill is ever a "single leg" event with a shared sequence between the two legs, the planted leg pushing and contributing along with the full body under load. Probably most any example of a "single leg sport" anyone can name short of toe wrestling (yes, that is a real sport) involves distribution of load to both legs. Take a football kicker, for example: the planted foot is just as critical to the execution as the swing leg. Even an arm wrestler is leveraging the crap out of the grip on the table with their non competitive arm. If an arm wrestler had to compete with a limp non competitive hand, they would presumably produce noticeably less force.

Yeah, sure, its an easy sell to make a blanket statement: You are hiking up hill so you will benefit more from lunges vs. squats. But, if you strip it back just a little bit and I think that falls apart. You referenced 2x bodyweight for example. I'm not sure if there are very many people in true "mountain shape" who are maintaining a 2x bodyweight squat year around. I've been there before, but not when I'm doing quite a bit of conditioning and its difficult to imagine maintaining the amount of necessary aerobic capacity and muscular endurance training while also maintaining a 410# squat (I'm 205#) as there is just too much cumulative stress going on. I'm not suggesting that lunges can't be beneficial and it may be the case that the less access you have to mountains the more beneficial they may be, but, end of the day, the are an accessory movement and not "the king".

I have not performed a lunge since my crossfit days, at least 10-12 years ago. While I won't be "that guy" who makes the bold claim (which I hate) that "I do X" or "I don't X and have no problem in the mountains", which, anyone who is doing anything hard in the mountains is having problems from time to time at a minimum (I routinely get my ass handed to me in the mountains), I'm quite sure the millions upon millions of uphill steps performed per season drives the necessary muscular endurance adaptations in a manner that is more productive than doing sets of 15 reps for lunges.

The adaptation is to build the desired amount of strength, which the squat is much more efficient at, and then drive the adaptation associated with increased capillary density which is what we call muscular endurance: performing a submaximal movement over and over again without excessive fatigue. These sessions will usually require an hour or more of the specific activity to drive the adaption. I'm sure there are folks out there doing lunges for an hour straight, but doesn't seem to be what is mentioned in this conversation. Beyond that, You can add all of the vocabulary you want: "resilience", "balance", "movement patterns" etc, but the fact it is, we're talking about hiking: a low skill activity. One could even call it a mindless activity that requires no dedicated skill or rehearsal, just the necessary adaptations.

End of the day, do lunges all you want. If you like doing, do them. If you find them beneficial, do them. It doesn't affect anyone else. That being said, they are not "the king" of anything, rather they are a subordinate movement and the reality is they aren't even a "single leg" exercise and nor is hiking/rucking a single leg activity.

 

[JDT1982]

For rucking and climbing up mountains- walking lunges. Or just put a ruck on and find a hill or long flight of stairs ie a local stadium to walk up and down.

 

[Marbles]

Lunges will generally be more useful hunting as they are a single leg exercise. Particularly if using a Smith machine for squats which means even less stability is worked on doing them.

Squats can serve a purpose, doing full range back squats (butt to heels) with more then body weight makes getting a 100 plus pound pack on much easier.

Box step ups and box step downs are also valuable, as are split squat jumps.

 

[JDT1982]

Don't think these guys were ever worried about how much they could squat, but I know they had no problem rucking

 

[Coach Chris]

I'll choose walking lunges over squatting anything anyday. I really sucks at squatting

This is the reason to preferentially choose one exercise over another.
Don't choose a gym movement because you believe it's "more functional for the mountains".

 

[thinhorn_AK]

Skip both and do calf raises with the smith machine.

 

[mtwarden]

Skip both and do calf raises with the smith machine.

fixed—isolation dumbbell curls; I saw a really hot chick two seasons ago in the backcountry; really wishing I had paid more attention to my biceps!

 

[Poser]

Skip both and do calf raises with the smith machine.

Better make those single leg calf raises on the Smith machines while standing on a bosu ball because, you know, you might otherwise neglect the stabilizer muscles.

 

[thinhorn_AK]

fixed—isolation dumbbell curls; I saw a really hot chick two seasons ago in the backcountry; really wishing I had paid more attention to my biceps!

Curls for the girls....

I always make sure to do 3 sets of 10 at the end of every workout, seems lame but its a habit I've kept up for a decade.

 

[Poser]

Curls for the girls....

I always make sure to do 3 sets of 10 at the end of every workout, seems lame but its a habit I've kept up for a decade.

I didn't do any curls for years, just chin ups. I finally started doing them again for the first time since high school to help take care of my elbows. Elbow health improved, arms got a bit bigger and I can finally manhandle those trekking poles.

 

[thinhorn_AK]

I didn't do any curls for years, just chin ups. I finally started doing them again for the first time since high school to help take care of my elbows. Elbow health improved, arms got a bit bigger and I can finally manhandle those trekking poles.

Exactly. I used to do chin-ups but elbow issues made me switch to pull-ups and those don't hit the biceps the same.

 

[3325]

Don't think these guys were ever worried about how much they could squat, but I know they had no problem rucking View attachment 838406

The late Dave Boltz was a retired Special Forces Master Sergeant who became a physical therapist after retiring from the Army. His approach to getting candidates ready for Special Forces selection? High repetition circuit training, often using isolation/single joint exercises on machines (non-functional, right?), and rucking.

His idea was to condition muscles in isolation to the greatest extent possible and then teach them to work together in a functional fashion with the rucking. This is controversial and goes against conventional wisdom, but how do you tell someone who has BTDT that his approach is wrong, or that he should have had candidates squatting for sets of five?

Hey, I’d never say there are not benefits to squatting for most people. But the other side of that coin is there have been a lot of physical studs that didn’t train the squat. I suspect the Spartans didn’t train the squat, except when taking a dump in the field. But that’s mobility, not strength training, and nobody said you shouldn’t be able to squat down and stand back up.

So, the point of this rambling post is this: if you want to squat, squat; but, if you want to lunge, lunge. You wouldn’t be the first to go against conventional wisdom and still be fine, if not better. You don’t need to justify the choice or apologize for the choice and it will improve your performance in the mountains.

 

[littlebigtine]

What metric are you using to measure this and draw this conclusion?

Also, I do hope that you aware that a lunge is not a "single leg" exercise. It may emphasize one leg more than the other, but your planted leg is still bearing a non-insignificant amount of load and stress and contributing to the movement. For that matter, hiking uphill is ever a "single leg" event with a shared sequence between the two legs, the planted leg pushing and contributing along with the full body under load. Probably most any example of a "single leg sport" anyone can name short of toe wrestling (yes, that is a real sport) involves distribution of load to both legs. Take a football kicker, for example: the planted foot is just as critical to the execution as the swing leg. Even an arm wrestler is leveraging the crap out of the grip on the table with their non competitive arm. If an arm wrestler had to compete with a limp non competitive hand, they would presumably produce noticeably less force.

Yeah, sure, its an easy sell to make a blanket statement: You are hiking up hill so you will benefit more from lunges vs. squats. But, if you strip it back just a little bit and I think that falls apart. You referenced 2x bodyweight for example. I'm not sure if there are very many people in true "mountain shape" who are maintaining a 2x bodyweight squat year around. I've been there before, but not when I'm doing quite a bit of conditioning and its difficult to imagine maintaining the amount of necessary aerobic capacity and muscular endurance training while also maintaining a 410# squat (I'm 205#) as there is just too much cumulative stress going on. I'm not suggesting that lunges can't be beneficial and it may be the case that the less access you have to mountains the more beneficial they may be, but, end of the day, the are an accessory movement and not "the king".

I have not performed a lunge since my crossfit days, at least 10-12 years ago. While I won't be "that guy" who makes the bold claim (which I hate) that "I do X" or "I don't X and have no problem in the mountains", which, anyone who is doing anything hard in the mountains is having problems from time to time at a minimum (I routinely get my ass handed to me in the mountains), I'm quite sure the millions upon millions of uphill steps performed per season drives the necessary muscular endurance adaptations in a manner that is more productive than doing sets of 15 reps for lunges.

The adaptation is to build the desired amount of strength, which the squat is much more efficient at, and then drive the adaptation associated with increased capillary density which is what we call muscular endurance: performing a submaximal movement over and over again without excessive fatigue. These sessions will usually require an hour or more of the specific activity to drive the adaption. I'm sure there are folks out there doing lunges for an hour straight, but doesn't seem to be what is mentioned in this conversation. Beyond that, You can add all of the vocabulary you want: "resilience", "balance", "movement patterns" etc, but the fact it is, we're talking about hiking: a low skill activity. One could even call it a mindless activity that requires no dedicated skill or rehearsal, just the necessary adaptations.

End of the day, do lunges all you want. If you like doing, do them. If you find them beneficial, do them. It doesn't affect anyone else. That being said, they are not "the king" of anything, rather they are a subordinate movement and the reality is they aren't even a "single leg" exercise and nor is hiking/rucking a single leg activity.

One thing I would like to extrapolate in this. Do you think that the adaptation from 5x5 pryamid max squat lifts can be transferred into long duration rucking? No doubt you gain some strength from it but it does not strike me as the most direct or effective training regime if the desired transition is a slow twitch, long duration, muscle endurance activity. Instead, ive always thought the squat was more directed towards fast twitch, explosive events like sprinting, jumping etc… id like your honest response here as I do not mean to offend but I disagree with you that the lunge has less(sounds like none in your opinion?) utility than the squat? I personally love the lunge movement-weighted step ups step downs, weighted walking lunges, side lunges etc and I think that it serves the mountain hunter quite effectively in the gym and leads to a more efficient transition to rucking strength than say the squat. Just by virtue of the fact that the lunge is itself a walking movement would mean that the muscles are taught that direction and synergy better than a squat.
On top of that I do not think the science supports high intensity, fast twitch work to pay off for a desired low intensity slow twitch outcome.
For a mountain hunter to succeed day after day for an entire season, he must build a cardio base that supports long duration zone 2-3 events and muscle that supports long duration strength events. Rucking up and down mountains. Pack outs. The way you train in the gym for this best is with movement patterns that mimic rucking and with muscle endurance designed sets. Not with hypertrophy and pure strength style sets. Then, if you have the ability, you should try to specialize training with just plain old rucking in the type of terrain you hunt in.

 

[Poser]

One thing I would like to extrapolate in this. Do you think that the adaptation from 5x5 pryamid max squat lifts can be transferred into long duration rucking? No doubt you gain some strength from it but it does not strike me as the most direct or effective training regime if the desired transition is a slow twitch, long duration, muscle endurance activity. Instead, ive always thought the squat was more directed towards fast twitch, explosive events like sprinting, jumping etc… id like your honest response here as I do not mean to offend but I disagree with you that the lunge has less(sounds like none in your opinion?) utility than the squat? I personally love the lunge movement-weighted step ups step downs, weighted walking lunges, side lunges etc and I think that it serves the mountain hunter quite effectively in the gym and leads to a more efficient transition to rucking strength than say the squat. Just by virtue of the fact that the lunge is itself a walking movement would mean that the muscles are taught that direction and synergy better than a squat.
On top of that I do not think the science supports high intensity, fast twitch work to pay off for a desired low intensity slow twitch outcome.
For a mountain hunter to succeed day after day for an entire season, he must build a cardio base that supports long duration zone 2-3 events and muscle that supports long duration strength events. Rucking up and down mountains. Pack outs. The way you train in the gym for this best is with movement patterns that mimic rucking and with muscle endurance designed sets. Not with hypertrophy and pure strength style sets. Then, if you have the ability, you should try to specialize training with just plain old rucking in the type of terrain you hunt in.

The squat is generally not a "fast" movement. You can perform it in a more explosive manner than a conventional squat and certainly there is benefit to having the fast twitch muscle fiber genetics in relation to squatting at a high level, but you're not going to do a whole lot to train the actual fast twitch muscle fibers with the squat. In fact, there isn't a whole lot a trainee can do to develop fast twitch muscle fibers significantly beyond their genetic positioning. For example, there is data that supports the conclusion that a trainee can only add about 20% to their standing vertical jump through training. That's not insignificant, but, if you consider a high school athlete with a 20 inch SVJ can, at best, only add ~4 inches to that SJV through training, a squat will never put them on par with the athlete who has a 32 inch SJV out of the gate. So, no, I would not suggest that the lunge is more effective at training slow twitch muscle fbers than the squat.


What you seem to be suggesting, and this is a super common conclusion out there in the world, is that strength is a specific adaptation and therefore there the more your strength training looks like your sport, the more sport specific strength a trainee will develop. i.e. "lunges look more like hiking therefore they are better"

Unfortunately, this just is not the case as strength is much more of a general adaptation than a specific adaptation. With that in mind, the squat is more effective at making a trainee stronger than the submaximal variant the lunge is, so, if the goal is to be stronger, the squat is more effective. Where the specific adaptation takes place is practicing/training your sport. In our case, this is muscular endurance developed through rucking is there isn no more effective training for rucking than rucking. The quad's only job is to extend the knee. The glute's only job is to keep you upright. These muscles do not know what larger task they are performing, they just perform these simple tasks as instructed by the brain -your quad does not know or care that you are performing a squat, a lunge or a ruck, pedaling a bike, or standing up from the toilet -its just going to extend the knee.

Another common suggestion is "stabilizer muscles". I think this component is incredibly over exaggerated. Sure, you can emphasize some individual muscle a bit more with lunges vs squats, but consider this: Are these "stabilizer muscles" getting more work from a heavier load of the squat or the lighter load of the lunge? Take a trainee with a relatively modest 250 lbs squat. How much would he be working with on a lunge? 135 lbs at best? (Probably lighter as I seldom see people lunging with more than 135 lbs). So, our trainee can place 250 lbs of stress on their body or they can perform lunges with 60% less weight. Are these "stabilizer muscles" getting more stress from ~60% more weight on the body or slightly more isolated but much lighter weight? If we were (best case) to call this stress equal, then would the trainee not benefit from the overall more systematic stress of the squat?

Since strength is a general adaptation, it need not look more like any specific sport to be effective. If your sport requires strong quads, strong hips, strong posterior chain, then training these muscle groups in the most effective manner to get stronger is the most effective strength training. Furthermore, since most of us are not professional athletes, our training is just as geared towards day to day life and longevity as it is towards performance in the mountains. You don't need to be particularly strong to be a great mountain athlete, but you certainly benefit from not hurting your back moving the couch or picking up the grandkids or retaining the ability to stand up from the toilet unassisted as you age. These aspects and the additional benefits of maintaining bone density as you age are going to be more important for the general population than being marginally more efficient for what amounts to a hobby.

So, yes, I contend that the squat is more effective for developing strength than the subordinate accessory lift known as the lunge. I'll further contend that being stronger vs. weaker sets a trainee up better to develop sport specific muscular endurance. Is there a tipping point where strength will offer diminishing returns? Of course. Are most people who are living a very active lifestyle, taking vacations, sleeping 5 or 6 hours a night, working 40 hours a week, raising families, mowing the grass, eating marginally well in danger of exceeding this tipping point? No. not even close.
And even if they do, this is just a hobby, so does it really even matter? I'd rather be a little too strong than a little too weak.

 

[littlebigtine]

The squat is generally not a "fast" movement. You can perform it in a more explosive manner than a conventional squat and certainly there is benefit to having the fast twitch muscle fiber genetics in relation to squatting at a high level, but you're not going to do a whole lot to train the actual fast twitch muscle fibers with the squat. In fact, there isn't a whole lot a trainee can do to develop fast twitch muscle fibers significantly beyond their genetic positioning. For example, there is data that supports the conclusion that a trainee can only add about 20% to their standing vertical jump through training. That's not insignificant, but, if you consider a high school athlete with a 20 inch SVJ can, at best, only add ~4 inches to that SJV through training, a squat will never put them on par with the athlete who has a 32 inch SJV out of the gate. So, no, I would not suggest that the lunge is more effective at training slow twitch muscle fbers than the squat.


What you seem to be suggesting, and this is a super common conclusion out there in the world, is that strength is a specific adaptation and therefore there the more your strength training looks like your sport, the more sport specific strength a trainee will develop. i.e. "lunges look more like hiking therefore they are better"

Unfortunately, this just is not the case as strength is much more of a general adaptation than a specific adaptation. With that in mind, the squat is more effective at making a trainee stronger than the submaximal variant the lunge is, so, if the goal is to be stronger, the squat is more effective. Where the specific adaptation takes place is practicing/training your sport. In our case, this is muscular endurance developed through rucking is there isn no more effective training for rucking than rucking. The quad's only job is to extend the knee. The glute's only job is to keep you upright. These muscles do not know what larger task they are performing, they just perform these simple tasks as instructed by the brain -your quad does not know or care that you are performing a squat, a lunge or a ruck, pedaling a bike, or standing up from the toilet -its just going to extend the knee.

Another common suggestion is "stabilizer muscles". I think this component is incredibly over exaggerated. Sure, you can emphasize some individual muscle a bit more with lunges vs squats, but consider this: Are these "stabilizer muscles" getting more work from a heavier load of the squat or the lighter load of the lunge? Take a trainee with a relatively modest 250 lbs squat. How much would he be working with on a lunge? 135 lbs at best? (Probably lighter as I seldom see people lunging with more than 135 lbs). So, our trainee can place 250 lbs of stress on their body or they can perform lunges with 60% less weight. Are these "stabilizer muscles" getting more stress from ~60% more weight on the body or slightly more isolated but much lighter weight? If we were (best case) to call this stress equal, then would the trainee not benefit from the overall more systematic stress of the squat?

Since strength is a general adaptation, it need not look more like any specific sport to be effective. If your sport requires strong quads, strong hips, strong posterior chain, then training these muscle groups in the most effective manner to get stronger is the most effective strength training. Furthermore, since most of us are not professional athletes, our training is just as geared towards day to day life and longevity as it is towards performance in the mountains. You don't need to be particularly strong to be a great mountain athlete, but you certainly benefit from not hurting your back moving the couch or picking up the grandkids or retaining the ability to stand up from the toilet unassisted as you age. These aspects and the additional benefits of maintaining bone density as you age are going to be more important for the general population than being marginally more efficient for what amounts to a hobby.

So, yes, I contend that the squat is more effective for developing strength than the subordinate accessory lift known as the lunge. I'll further contend that being stronger vs. weaker sets a trainee up better to develop sport specific muscular endurance. Is there a tipping point where strength will offer diminishing returns? Of course. Are most people who are living a very active lifestyle, taking vacations, sleeping 5 or 6 hours a night, working 40 hours a week, raising families, mowing the grass, eating marginally well in danger of exceeding this tipping point? No. not even close.
And even if they do, this is just a hobby, so does it really even matter? I'd rather be a little too strong than a little too weak.

Good reply, ill squat more

 

[InkedElkSlayer]

Hands down the most functional OTC, DIY, hardcore backcountry exercise that will push you up high, all the way to the top, is the shake weight. Close second is obviously the thigh master

 

[Sccritterkiller]

FS, BS, weighted lunges, jumping lunges, squat cleans are all in my routine..I like Turkish Get Ups for core strength and shoulder stability I make sure get a couple sets in every week.

 

[littlebigtine]

Hands down the most functional OTC, DIY, hardcore backcountry exercise that will push you up high, all the way to the top, is the shake weight. Close second is obviously the thigh master
View attachment 839349

Dont need one of those if your gay, explains all the rainbow flags on mtn tops

 

[Poser]

Good reply, ill squat more

In the immortal words of Ronnie Coleman: "Everybody wants to be a hunter, but nobody wants to lift no heavy-ass weights!"