Adarq.org

Here was an interesting article from the sometimes good, sometimes bad T-Nation earlier this week that I enjoyed.

http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/unilateral_movements_make_you_weak

Arguing that the Split squat is a single leg exercise is and always has been rubbish, but also his argument is pretty absolutist in comparing pistols etc versus barbell squats.

why is it rubbish? it's unilateral in the sense that only one leg is performing hip extension.. so even though there's two legs "on something" (one on ground, one on bench), they both have very different roles, the majority of movement comes from one limb.. i see your point though.. and ya, unilaterals/stepups would be considered far more unilateral.. weighted pistols etc, i'm not a fan.

I would also argue that getting strong on certain single leg exercises such as step ups and walking lunges (especially UPHILL walking lunges - but that does require a hill and the ability to carry your really heavy shit to a hill, and in some cases, a portable pair of squat stands to get some decent weight to walk up hill with onto the bar - unless you ar ehappe to clean it off the ground...but I digress) are extremely beneficial for running and jumping athletes, who were admittedly not really mentioned in the article.

it's a powerlifter/olylifter/bodybuilding vibe article, so, from a performance standpoint it does a disservice. Getting strong on bilateral movements is very important for athletes, you can recruit far more mass in each rep, cause significantly more fatigue/supercompensation, etc. Because the weight can be so much more (eventually), it really helps you tap more into the 'innate reserves', or the potential motor activity that is hidden/protected except in the most life threatening cases.. You can't achieve that using weighted pistols. You can achieve it to a point on unilaterals, but heavy bilateral training is far more effective, and shock/real plyos/BIG ADA can even be more effective.

You don't get scared/elevated HR/super aroused mentally before doing pistols, you do however achieve that before unilateral lunges, and even more so before heavy squatting.. that is a VERY important factor regarding tapping into protected motor potential.

Also, I have had back trouble recently and have not been able to squat or deadlift (ironically I was installing a new, very expensive, power rack into my gym when I injured myself - I haven't squatted on it at all  ) and have been doing nothing but dumbell lunges and weighted step ups for about 6 weeks now. It will be interestign to see how much my squat has dropped off when I get back to it (and I am expecting a drop off - ass the author of the article noted - for weighted exercises the transfer doesn't necessarily go the other way).

damn that sucks man..

it'll still have transfer.. regardless, if you gain strength/mass unilaterally, it will transfer, it's just that squat/lunge is such a different movement that of course it won't transfer perfectly, that's why the article bugs me, of course you're going to have to re-learn the squat a bit, but of course it will transfer... For example, if you weren't hurt, and focused on doing some massive unilaterals, barbell walking lunge, barbell bss, barbell stepup, and you did this for 12 weeks, comparing a pre-test squat 1RM vs post-test, there'd be no doubt that post-test squat would be way higher.

But overall the article is ok.

peace man, thanks for teh post!

it'll still have transfer.. regardless, if you gain strength/mass unilaterally, it will transfer, it's just that squat/lunge is such a different movement that of course it won't transfer perfectly, that's why the article bugs me, of course you're going to have to re-learn the squat a bit, but of course it will transfer... For example, if you weren't hurt, and focused on doing some massive unilaterals, barbell walking lunge, barbell bss, barbell stepup, and you did this for 12 weeks, comparing a pre-test squat 1RM vs post-test, there'd be no doubt that post-test squat would be way higher.

Not doubting your experience or knowledge, but I find that pretty hard to believe. In my opinion you could be happy to squat the same weight after 12 weeks of unilaterals - very happy - but certainly you would not squat more than before except the case that you were pretty untrained in the squat before. You can take a rank novice, measure what he squats on day 1 and then let him ride the bicycle for 12 weeks a lot and measure his squat after and it might have increased. But that does not mean that cycling does have a big transfer to squatting for anyone but a relatively untrained individual (untrained in the squat that is).

I actually believe that unless my back injury takes a loooong time to recover from whatever drop off I will experience will probably come back pretty quickly.

Raptor I agree with most of the article too, but it wasn't written for running and jumping athletes so much. If all I wanted to do was get big and strong I wouldn't do much in the way of unilaterals either.

Still, as with anything training related, there are no real absolute's. There are pro's and a con's for nearly everything.

Jack

you're using a bicycle analogy, when we're talking about heavy barbell unilateral training?

<-- confused

My point with that analogy was that transfer depends on the level of the lifter and that very untrained people will have a lot of carryover from unilaterals to squats - just like they will have a lot of carryover from pretty much any hard physical activity, probably even from riding a bicycle.

so, say you have an intermediate lifter who is experienced with all lifts in question, you pre-test squat, then hit barbell walking lunges, barbell bss, barbell stepup hard for 12 weeks, with significant increases on each lift, say 30% increases on each lift, you don't think he would get much transfer to squat? if not, why? you're still learning to activate more mu's, activate the fastest mu's, achieving hypertrophy, improving strength in other things that matter like core etc, improving strength/hypertrophy in all muscle groups related to squat, reducing inhibitory mechanisms, improving things like neural drive, increasing strength/composition of other biological structures such as bone/tendon, improving intermuscular coordination that is somewhat similar to squatting, etc... EDIT: plus you still have very heavy barbells on your back.

There are holes in that argumentation, for example that we are starting from the assumption, that an intermediate lifter can gain 30% on say his 1rm lunges weight from training with unilaterals alone which I can imagine will be hard for an already reasonably strong person.
But even if he can, without at least maintaining coordination and specific strength for the squat, I don't think the unilaterals will have direct carryover. I could imagine that with several weeks of training the squat again, that it would progress rather well since some of the mentioned adaptations might have taken place, but honestly, I don't even think this rate of unusually fast progress (for an intermediate that is) would last for long. I think you are overestimating the potential regarding the adaptation from training with unilaterals exclusively - at least for intermediate trainees - and underestimating the importance of maintaining squat efficiency and specificity of the loads that will be handled with that. Since you mention core strength especially - I do in fact think that strength in the trunk musculature would suffer quite a bit and that suddenly testing a squat max after weeks of unilaterals will hit the athlete quite unprepared.

Of course, I am speculating here. Maybe you can convince me to make a point and try unilaterals exclusively for 4 weeks with a pre and post test of squat 1 rm. But right now I am pretty convinced that this is a horrible idea.

Quote from: adarqui on November 15, 2010, 06:34:33 pm

you're using a bicycle analogy, when we're talking about heavy barbell unilateral training?

<-- confused

My point with that analogy was that transfer depends on the level of the lifter and that very untrained people will have a lot of carryover from unilaterals to squats - just like they will have a lot of carryover from pretty much any hard physical activity, probably even from riding a bicycle.

Quote from: adarqui on November 15, 2010, 06:34:33 pm

so, say you have an intermediate lifter who is experienced with all lifts in question, you pre-test squat, then hit barbell walking lunges, barbell bss, barbell stepup hard for 12 weeks, with significant increases on each lift, say 30% increases on each lift, you don't think he would get much transfer to squat? if not, why? you're still learning to activate more mu's, activate the fastest mu's, achieving hypertrophy, improving strength in other things that matter like core etc, improving strength/hypertrophy in all muscle groups related to squat, reducing inhibitory mechanisms, improving things like neural drive, increasing strength/composition of other biological structures such as bone/tendon, improving intermuscular coordination that is somewhat similar to squatting, etc... EDIT: plus you still have very heavy barbells on your back.

There are holes in that argumentation, for example that we are starting from the assumption, that an intermediate lifter can gain 30% on say his 1rm lunges weight from training with unilaterals alone which I can imagine will be hard for an already reasonably strong person.
But even if he can, without at least maintaining coordination and specific strength for the squat, I don't think the unilaterals will have direct carryover. I could imagine that with several weeks of training the squat again, that it would progress rather well since some of the mentioned adaptations might have taken place, but honestly, I don't even think this rate of unusually fast progress (for an intermediate that is) would last for long. I think you are overestimating the potential regarding the adaptation from training with unilaterals exclusively - at least for intermediate trainees - and underestimating the importance of maintaining squat efficiency and specificity of the loads that will be handled with that. Since you mention core strength especially - I do in fact think that strength in the trunk musculature would suffer quite a bit and that suddenly testing a squat max after weeks of unilaterals will hit the athlete quite unprepared.

my point is that unilaterals exclusively, when done with barbells, with the focus of progressive overload & max intensity, will not lead in as much strength loss as one would think. shit i have to go hah dunk .

Of course, I am speculating here. Maybe you can convince me to make a point and try unilaterals exclusively for 4 weeks with a pre and post test of squat 1 rm. But right now I am pretty convinced that this is a horrible idea.

do two tests, pre/post testing after 4 weeks lunges, and pre/post testing after 4 weeks of bicycle.

that an intermediate lifter can gain 30% on say his 1rm lunges weight from training with unilaterals alone which I can imagine will be hard for an already reasonably strong person.

?? then how does a reasonably strong person increase squat 30%? how else would you improve your unilaterals, other than unilaterals alone? it's just progressive overload and of course an intermediate lifter could improve their 1RM lunge 30% by using unilaterals alone.

peace

Quote from: Raptor on November 15, 2010, 08:18:59 pm

Well he didn't said "ditch the unilaterals all together". I think that article is more aimed at "functional guy X" who swears by the unilateral. That's why I said I agree... do your heavy stuff first and go unilateral second. Squat + Lunge. Squat + One-leg deadlift. Deadlift + BSS. Etc.

i agree that unilaterals for the most part should be kept to assistance, but still, you could have sessions which focus primarily on them.. they can be effective for strength/power in singles or in sets of 3 each leg, or for hypertrophy in sets of 5-8 each leg.

for example, say you have a session which focuses on heavy squatting one day (+ assistance) and heavy unilaterals another day (to not burn yourself out squatting). if your squat is pretty high, that could be very effective, especially for people who ascribe to the very low frequency squatting ideology.

pc

Oh yeah absolutely. And if you go with very heavy step-ups, that can have a very good potentiating effect I suppose.

This shit is apples and oranges.

Why not just do both and reap the benefits they provide?

If you're an athlete(that involves running), and you want to only do bilateral work, it will catch up to you.

IMO, there's no point attacking a single 'method' b/c of what it lacks. No single 'method' is all inclusive to get you strong, powerful, fast, and ripped, etc. Use each 'method' what it's meant for.

Comparing lunges and squats is retarded. You can do max effort squats, but why the fuck would you do max effort lunges?

If you have 2 lower body days a week, one day do bilateral movements, the other day do unilateral. WOW that was hard to think up.

T-nation btw, has been on a rapid decline in article quality. Go surf thru the archives if you want to find something useful.

On another note, imo, training articles/information has been beaten to death. I would like to see recovery be the new 'it-girl' trend in strength training articles/media. It's easy to beat the shit out of yourself in the gym, but if you're not recovering in time then you're just spinning your wheels. More recovery=more progress.