all posts post new thread

Uphill Lunges for Strong Endurance, Health, and Fat Loss

JPCross

JPCross

Level 6 Valued Member
The article posted today was excellent, IMO!

Definitely something I am interested in trying out as a compliment to some deadlift training I am getting back into and the rowing / erging training I've been doing.

I may be a bit biased as I have been doing a lot of lunges, both bodyweight and with a weight vest, for quite some time as lower body strength work (accompanied by pullups and pushups as well) when traveling for work, when pressed for time and want to get a full body session in, or if I am doing a little work in advance of The Murph.

Does anybody have any experience with a protocol like this or is anyone going to be giving it a go?

www.strongfirst.com

Uphill Lunges for Strong Endurance, Health, and Fat Loss | Pavel Tsatsouline

In intense full body exercise our hearts can supply only 1/3-1/2 of the muscles. To deal with this limitation, blood vessels in muscles and organs that are not too busy constrict while those in the working muscles dilate. This redistributes the blood flow, delivers more oxygen where it is needed...
www.strongfirst.com
 
I just walk up and down my steep hilly drive way and stairs to the beach multiple times a day, sometimes in a lunge-ish manner.

Seems to make a difference -- my conditioning for hilly hikes is much better than it was.
 
JPCross said:
The article posted today was excellent, IMO!

Definitely something I am interested in trying out as a compliment to some deadlift training I am getting back into and the rowing / erging training I've been doing.

I may be a bit biased as I have been doing a lot of lunges, both bodyweight and with a weight vest, for quite some time as lower body strength work (accompanied by pullups and pushups as well) when traveling for work, when pressed for time and want to get a full body session in, or if I am doing a little work in advance of The Murph.

Does anybody have any experience with a protocol like this or is anyone going to be giving it a go?

www.strongfirst.com

Uphill Lunges for Strong Endurance, Health, and Fat Loss | Pavel Tsatsouline

In intense full body exercise our hearts can supply only 1/3-1/2 of the muscles. To deal with this limitation, blood vessels in muscles and organs that are not too busy constrict while those in the working muscles dilate. This redistributes the blood flow, delivers more oxygen where it is needed...
www.strongfirst.com
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'll be looking for a 15-30 degree hill, and /or will give it a heat check on a WOODWAY set at 15 degrees and low speed.
 
Don Fairbanks said:
Yeah, I'll be looking for a 15-30 degree hill, and /or will give it a heat check on a WOODWAY set at 15 degrees and low speed.
Click to expand...
Good luck in finding a 30° hill, unless it’s on a trail or otherwise off road. As you know it’s pretty hilly where I am Don, and the steepest grade roads around here are only 21°, and that’s rare.

But just as in hill sprints, steeper is better for sure.

Let us know how the Woodway works out…
 
I was thinking more about this protocol compared to the lunges I do on my street at home (about 6% grade), the steps I get in and the distance I cover over a certain period of time, and the pace of 200m in 2:00 - 2:30 as outlined within the protocol, even though Pavel mentions focus on time over distance, and I can't help but think the athletes in the study were moving!

I am typically getting in about 20 steps (10 per leg) and covering about 1m per step, give or take, in about 60 seconds, again give or take. That would be roughly 60 - 75m or so in a 2:00 - 2:30 time domain, nowhere close to the protocol distance. That said, my lunges are typically done where I touch my back leg's knee to the ground (I try to very carefully graze the ground) and pause there for a short count, then step up and pause at the "finish" before going into the next step. I'm going to coin this the "controlled lunge" approach for purposes of the post.

There is a lunge mile world record which has a pace a tad slower than the protocol outlines, which is on a flat track. Looking at the way that was done via video, as well as some other videos where people are attempting distance for time which more closely aligns with the protocol time and distance references, I can't help but think they are more along the lines of a "speed lunge" for a lack of better words.

With all of that said, would it be more valuable to attempt this using a more "speed lunge" type of approach or using more of a "controlled lunge" type of approach? Or, am I flat out overthinking and overanalyzing this and just need to go out and lunge for 2:00 - 2:30, take a bit of a rest, and do repeats, such that HR stays where the target mentions?

An additional note - I've been doing some controlled intervals on the erg lately where I am performing 1k repeats (call it 3:45 in time) targeting lactate threshold type efforts (40:00 to 60:00 max pace / power) with short rest (1:00); anywhere from 6 - 10 1k repeats. I've been seeing quite a bit of success with this. This is a bit different than the protocol of 2:00 - 2:30 work, equal to slightly more rest to work. I may experiment with both methods - the protocol durations and then something where I simply lunge for time or distance targeting a HR, walk back to the start to recover (should be much shorter time than lunging the same time / distance), and repeat.
 
offwidth said:
Good luck in finding a 30° hill, unless it’s on a trail or otherwise off road. As you know it’s pretty hilly where I am Don, and the steepest grade roads around here are only 21°, and that’s rare.

But just as in hill sprints, steeper is better for sure.

Let us know how the Woodway works out…
Click to expand...
Good point.
I'm about 1 mile north of South Mountain Park, plenty of hills, but probably not 30 degrees.
I'll give the WOODWAY a heat ck. on Fri. or Sat. (clients home gym)
 
sfast said:
Did anybody find the original source "Toupiev 2012"?
Click to expand...
Was this in the video? I don't think it's in the article.

Anyway, I'll go ahead and register my doubt that this "study" actually exists. It's all a bit Joe Weider, but for nice bourgeois Patagonia-wearing types instead of the "I wanna get jacked" crowd.
 
psmith said:
Was this in the video? I don't think it's in the article.

Anyway, I'll go ahead and register my doubt that this "study" actually exists. It's all a bit Joe Weider, but for nice bourgeois Patagonia-wearing types instead of the "I wanna get jacked" crowd.
Click to expand...
I don‘t find it either. Interesting…
 
JPCross said:
I was thinking more about this protocol compared to the lunges I do on my street at home (about 6% grade), the steps I get in and the distance I cover over a certain period of time, and the pace of 200m in 2:00 - 2:30 as outlined within the protocol, even though Pavel mentions focus on time over distance, and I can't help but think the athletes in the study were moving!

I am typically getting in about 20 steps (10 per leg) and covering about 1m per step, give or take, in about 60 seconds, again give or take. That would be roughly 60 - 75m or so in a 2:00 - 2:30 time domain, nowhere close to the protocol distance. That said, my lunges are typically done where I touch my back leg's knee to the ground (I try to very carefully graze the ground) and pause there for a short count, then step up and pause at the "finish" before going into the next step. I'm going to coin this the "controlled lunge" approach for purposes of the post.

There is a lunge mile world record which has a pace a tad slower than the protocol outlines, which is on a flat track. Looking at the way that was done via video, as well as some other videos where people are attempting distance for time which more closely aligns with the protocol time and distance references, I can't help but think they are more along the lines of a "speed lunge" for a lack of better words.

With all of that said, would it be more valuable to attempt this using a more "speed lunge" type of approach or using more of a "controlled lunge" type of approach? Or, am I flat out overthinking and overanalyzing this and just need to go out and lunge for 2:00 - 2:30, take a bit of a rest, and do repeats, such that HR stays where the target mentions?

An additional note - I've been doing some controlled intervals on the erg lately where I am performing 1k repeats (call it 3:45 in time) targeting lactate threshold type efforts (40:00 to 60:00 max pace / power) with short rest (1:00); anywhere from 6 - 10 1k repeats. I've been seeing quite a bit of success with this. This is a bit different than the protocol of 2:00 - 2:30 work, equal to slightly more rest to work. I may experiment with both methods - the protocol durations and then something where I simply lunge for time or distance targeting a HR, walk back to the start to recover (should be much shorter time than lunging the same time / distance), and repeat.
Click to expand...
I gave this a whirl today and found that I had to make my “lunges” into swallow long steps to cover the ~200m in the suggested time. That said, my heart rate shot to 160bpm (approx 85%) faster with shallower, faster steps rather than true strict knee-to-ground lunges. With the latter, I felt a muscular "burn" and my HR hardly hit 150 by the end of 2 mins. (I live on the side of a mountain, so my local hill is ~22 degrees.)
 
psmith said:
Was this in the video? I don't think it's in the article.

Anyway, I'll go ahead and register my doubt that this "study" actually exists. It's all a bit Joe Weider, but for nice bourgeois Patagonia-wearing types instead of the "I wanna get jacked" crowd.
Click to expand...

Xene said:
I don‘t find it either. Interesting…
Click to expand...
It is in the top "chart." I was unable to find it via Google or PubMed @sfast .
1708032067696.png
 
For arguments sake, let’s say the study doesn’t exist, does it really matter? Does it mean his programs don’t produce results?

I would be surprised if Pavel was making it up. Not much to gain and lots to lose.
 
RAH1977 said:
I gave this a whirl today and found that I had to make my “lunges” into swallow long steps to cover the ~200m in the suggested time. That said, my heart rate shot to 160bpm (approx 85%) faster with shallower, faster steps rather than true strict knee-to-ground lunges. With the latter, I felt a muscular "burn" and my HR hardly hit 150 by the end of 2 mins. (I live on the side of a mountain, so my local hill is ~22 degrees.)
Click to expand...
Really insightful data - thank you!

I have to travel for work tomorrow and have quite a long day - 5 hours to a location, a meeting, about 4 hours before a second meeting, then a meeting and about a 5 hour drive home. On days like this, I normally pack my weight vest with me in the car as I like to find a park with a pull up bar and knock out rounds of pull-ups, push-ups, and walking lunges as a way to get in a full body workout while traveling.

I may give this lunge protocol a bit of a go instead as I will be in a place where I have access to some steep hills.
 
Jtminster said:
For arguments sake, let’s say the study doesn’t exist, does it really matter? Does it mean his programs don’t produce results?
Click to expand...
I am not saying he is making up anything. But a couple thoughts...

Bad science to justify good methods is pretty typical in training communities. Humans love to rationalize WHY something works after the fact and then subconsciously convince themselves that they had planned that from the beginning. So if he is misquoting or misunderstanding or misapplying a study or even an entire field of science... Meh, if the method works, no biggie if the science backing it isn't great.

But if someone is completely fabricating something, that would indicate that they are unethical and lack integrity. This would "cast shade" on any results they then propose as proof and now we ONLY have the results of individuals that choose to be vocal about it independently of the author, and with some sort of "history" in the community, leaving the majority of folks with the inability to determine when, where, and why to apply a particular training method - and whether or not it actually works. After all, everything works ... for six weeks. (I believe that is a @Dan John quote.)

In the case of the article and study in question, if there was no study, then this protocol has no evidence of having been used, let alone having been used with well trained athletes and provided significant benefit. It might as well have been concocted on the back of a bar napkin and put out as content to generate sales for a new product. This is fairly significant. And since most of us do not have time to try the protocol for 3 or 4 months prior to making a decision if the product is worth buying, it would change the relevance of the protocol to generating sales leads.

Imagine two well respected coaches, and one says "I've used this program with hundreds of clients just like you over the past decade and it is proven to work!" and the other says "I wrote this on the back of a napkin at a restaurant last night, and because I'm so experienced I think it is a killer!" They both might be good programs, and you might get good results on either one, and both are a "try it for a few months and get back to me how well it worked" sort of situation, but I think there's a level of confidence that changes with the former. It doesn't mean the latter is worthless, but perhaps it is worth less. Now imagine that the latter coach is well known to make up client testimonials/results to "pad" his resume. It might still not be worthless, but now it is worth even less.

This is why I think it does matter, and why - if you are going to justify decisions or training methods with studies - you should provide appropriate references for those studies (as discussed in another post, there are a variety of reference formats, but in general you need more than simply an author and a date).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom