I'm curious if there is a real difference between the Bulgarian split squat and raised static lunge. I know you are holding a plate vs. barbells, and the BSS is on a higher box, but it seems like the exact same movement. Are we doing anything different in these two exercises, or are they just there for the sake of variation?
The BSS is WAY harder! With the rear foot elevated on the bench, this movement is killer! Don't get me wrong, the static lunge with the small elevation is difficult, too, but the BSS takes it waaaay up!
Hmm, I guess I didn't remember how hard/easy the static lunge was in comparison since I did it a couple of days earlier. They were both really hard. If they are the same movement, though, just one harder than the other, why is one called a squat and the other a lunge?
I did my A workout last night and my gym doesn't have aerobic steps so I had to make due with a step that's probably about 8' for the static lunges, and I think that is too high. They were killer! I plan on using a bench for the BSS when I get to it tomorrow, so there will at least be a height difference, but is this 8' too high for this exercise?
I'm curious if there is a real difference between the Bulgarian split squat and raised static lunge. I know you are holding a plate vs. barbells, and the BSS is on a higher box, but it seems like the exact same movement. Are we doing anything different in these two exercises, or are they just there for the sake of variation?
IMHO BSS recruits more of glute and static lunge (even slightly raised one) hits quad primarily.
With the Bulgarians, the top (laces side) of your elevated foot is touching the step, so you get very little, if any, assistance from your rear foot. With a static lunge you're doing some pressing with the toe of your rear foot so it's less of a one-sided exercise. Bulgarians are much harder.
I plan on using a bench for the BSS when I get to it tomorrow, so there will at least be a height difference, but is this 8' too high for this exercise?
Hee hee...8 feet is definitely too high...
Sorry, I couldn't resist!
__________________
"Men are taught to apologize for their weaknesses, women for their strengths." - Lois Wyse
IMHO BSS recruits more of glute and static lunge (even slightly raised one) hits quad primarily.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emoore
With the Bulgarians, the top (laces side) of your elevated foot is touching the step, so you get very little, if any, assistance from your rear foot. With a static lunge you're doing some pressing with the toe of your rear foot so it's less of a one-sided exercise. Bulgarians are much harder.
Bingo.
__________________
Life's a Journey ... Enjoy the Ride!
Your questions are already answered really, but I just wanted to chime in!
Quote:
Originally Posted by marygrace
why is one called a squat and the other a lunge?
There's not a lot of conformity in terminology in the fitness industry. Where you learn a movement first usually determines what you like to call it. A static lunge = split squat like LisaS said. If you think about it, static lunge doesn't make sense. The word lunge implies motion. In my own mind, split squat makes a whole lot more sense. But it doesn't matter as long as the author clarifies what he wants done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalia
IMHO BSS recruits more of glute and static lunge (even slightly raised one) hits quad primarily.
Exactly the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emoore
With the Bulgarians, the top (laces side) of your elevated foot is touching the step, so you get very little, if any, assistance from your rear foot. With a static lunge you're doing some pressing with the toe of your rear foot so it's less of a one-sided exercise.
And that's why you get the difference in recruitment of the muscles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emoore
Bulgarians are much harder
I'm sure this is true for most of you, but it depends on where a person is weakest. If a person (read ME) is stronger in their glutes/hams, then the static lunge with foot elevated is going to be the more unpleasant of the two.
Or maybe it's just because I make clients do BSS's all the time, and therefore I'm always demo'ing them and I keep them in my own workouts too, but I don't usually do a static lunge with rear foot elevated.
I'm sure this is true for most of you, but it depends on where a person is weakest. If a person (read ME) is stronger in their glutes/hams, then the static lunge with foot elevated is going to be the more unpleasant of the two.
This must be the case for me as well, because the BSSs, while difficult, weren't the torturous affair for me that a lot of other people were making them out to be. It was the lunges that really hurt.
Quote:
If you think about it, static lunge doesn't make sense. The word lunge implies motion. In my own mind, split squat makes a whole lot more sense.
LOL, yeah, well, but for the sake of continuity with the book, we're gonna call them static lunge with rear foot elevated, even if that is totally cumbersome!
This must be the case for me as well, because the BSSs, while difficult, weren't the torturous affair for me that a lot of other people were making them out to be.
i was surprised to find that this was the case for me too. it's those darn step-ups that are going to be the death of me! karen
I am used to doing BSS with two dumbbells held at the sides versus one plate or dumbbell like the book shows. It is much more comfortable for me to hold the weights that way. Does it make a difference in the effectiveness of the move if I do it this way?
I am used to doing BSS with two dumbbells held at the sides versus one plate or dumbbell like the book shows. It is much more comfortable for me to hold the weights that way. Does it make a difference in the effectiveness of the move if I do it this way?
No, it does not. I actually used to always use dumbbells, but I have found the plate to be more stabilizing for me.
BSS and Static Lunge
karen
Linear Mode
