Comparing Static to Moving Lunges

[petramom]

Is there some benefit to moving the leg for each lunge? I feel static lunges more strongly than "moving" lunges, and am able to use better form. So I'd like to substitute static lunges for front lunges, but was wondering if I'd be missing out on something by doing so.

Anyone?

 

[PhyllisG]

Good question. I also wonder about this and prefer static lunges because my form is better.

 

[jthornton202264]

I, too, like static lunges much better. Would love to know!

 

[FiddleFit]

If this helps at all, my physiotherapist recently told me that static lunges are much, much better for the lower back, than moving lunges (and especially step-back lunges). She doesn't advocate anything except for static lunges, even for people who have no back issues. Moving lunges put too much shearing in the lower back, apparently. So, if you prefer the static lunge over the moving lunges, there are good medical reasons for doing so.

Cheers,
Sandra

 

[PhyllisG]

Thank you for that information. I usually substitute static for moving but then feel guilty that I am taking the "easy way out". Now I can be guilt free! I knew I liked static better.

 

[jansherman]

I've also recently read that front squats (holding the barbell in front rather than across your traps) is much better for the back and knees that traditional back squats. Works the muscles equally as well, but with less force on the areas that don't need it!