Possibly.
At least that's the theory Mike Boyle puts forward, that single leg exercises are both safer in terms of injury potential, and more effective in how quickly and how much strength they build. He goes into it here (only a short article):
http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/5_superior_single_leg_exercises&cr=
Opinions?
Disagree (but also sort of agree).
What Boyle discounts is that various split squats and lunges all allow some degree of 'drive' from the supporting leg. So they're not so much truly unilateral as they are asymmetrical. The asymetrical nature of split squats/lunges can be good but also limits ROM compared to full Oly squat or front squat.
Now other truly unilateral leg exercises that allow a full ROM like pistols can be good but are arguably more dangerous and doing full squats. They difficult to load up in a manner that is safe for both lower-back and knee.
That said, you can still get pretty darn strong just doing various unilateral leg exercises. You won't be able to compete on the lifting platform, but you'll be plenty competitive in sports.
i'm a big fan of single leg exercises. i feel that they are very effective and much safer for a guy like me with back problems. i'm especially a fan of the single leg squat variations.
i do think, however, that the single leg deadlift variations just aren't as safe. when you're pulling big weight, it is difficult to keep your lower back in a safe position because of the balance required. so i don't do those anymore.
the slideboard lunges look awesome too. i need to try those out sometime.
Mike Boyle should just admit he is a physical therapist now
He's wrong, nothing can replace the squat for a size and strength builder.
Leigh - I read something like this before, I think from Boyle. Saying Bulgarian split squats were the best strength builders. I think it was posted here. He's wrong.
Boyle did have that posted here before. And, like you, I disagree.
Boyle has some good ideas, but unfortunately, he has let his dogma go to his head. In his book Functional Performance Training, the guy tries to strike a balanced tone, but in the years since, he's gone straight to "true believer" status.
Let's look at his approach to leg training, namely, that using single leg exercises is superior to two leg exercises at almost all times.
1. While there are plenty of sports activities that are done on a single leg, many (especially in any power sport) are done on two legs, even if they are slightly unbalanced. Whether it be a lineman coming off his stance, a wrestler doing a belly to back suplex, or a boxer throwing a punch, all are very athletic motions completed on two legs. To not also include two leg training is therefore not preparing athletes.
2. While we can try to mimic the motions of our sports in training, the reality is that many motions that strengthen the muscles are not actually copied in sport, nor can they be. For example, in judo, few of the throws are done from a squat position deeper than a "half squat." Any deeper, and most players will go to their knees to complete a throw. Same in football, or hockey. Rarely, if ever, will a player go as deep as we do in the weight room in a squat. Yet, why do we train full ROM? Because it strengthens the muscles the best and to the best balance of agonist and antagonist. Not for "sport specificity."
Boyle's ideas were born from his background in hockey. In fact, if you look at the athletes Boyle tends to picture in his articles, and the groups he lists in his self published biography, he tends to focus on his hockey background. Now, perhaps for the needs of hockey, Boyle has some good ideas. Hockey is a sport where one leg balance is necessary, as your legs are constantly actually off balance (unless you call being on a 1/4 inch wide piece of steel balanced). For all the padding, hockey is evolving into a speed sport, with the rules reflecting a favoring of speedy, agile players over the thugs of earlier years. Also, with Boyle's Olympic experience being with the women's hockey team, this tendency is even more favored.
However, a great trainer for Olympic hockey is not going to be a great trainer for football, or wrestling, or other sports, if they are dogmatic to what works for their core sport. Hell, if they are as dogmatic as Boyle has become, they won't even be the best coach for a young trainer as opposed to a high level player.
Just do what works for you. If single leg training isn't your thing, leave it out of your program.
IMHO single leg training is extreamly valuable for athletes and people who chose to leave it out are missing on some great benifits. However, nothing can replace heavy bilateral lifts.
Boyles athletes all clean, snatch, trap bar deadlift and front squat some heavy ass weight. The article makes it seem like they don't do those things.
Pelvis is put into a different position in single leg vs. double leg exercises. Glute medius/adductors/ql play a greater role as stablizers just as they do while running/change of direction/deceleration.
Greater hip flexor mobility with single leg, something just about everyone can benefit from.
Greater hip/knee stability is the biggest thing for me. Doesn't matter how strong someone is, if they can't stabalize(knees, low back) effectively, those joints will eventually pay the price.
Squat/deadlift heavey weight to get stronger. Throw in some single leg work for the above mentioned. Be awesome!
Love lunges myself!
Usually do 5x5 with a 70kg bar.
They can be a damn tough excercise at times.
Boyle changes his mind every few years... just as his latest product/marketing comes out..
^^^
And that's one of the main reasons I respect Boyle, he's not afraid to say he was wrong about something he used to do in the past. And he's going to give you the best of what he knows at that time. If he trys out a new method or technique and it gets his athletes the results he wants, he'll put that info out there(article/dvd).
Give me someone who puts stock in continuing to learn/evlove and admit mistakes any day of the week.
spelling.....how does it work?
"Give me someone who puts stock in continuing to learn/evlove and admit mistakes any day of the week"
Except the majority of S&C coaches are fine with doing unilateral work. Boyle is the one who is trapped in his own dogma by refusing to have his athletes do certain exercises
Very true.
If his athletes are consistently getting better,stronger and faster, I highly doubt they give a shit what exercises they are or aren't doing. Then again, only they know for sure.
Anyway....enough from me about Mike Boyle. Back to original thread topic.
That's a fucking joke. Heavy spine loaded exercises will always be superior for raw strength. Show me an 800 pound squatter vs. a guy that only does lunges and we'll see how his theory holds up. Typical fucking fitness moron.
Single leg work is useful for sports that are single leg dominant, for example track cycling. They do squats too, but I believe the Australians do a lot of single leg press variations and they do very well on this.
One of the guys behind this is Hamish Ferguson: http://hamishferguson.blogspot.com/
From what i understand, his reasoning is that back strength is the limiting factor in squats and deadlifts, and that people can continue to improve their leg strength (via single leg lifts) past the point where they would risk injury to their back by using more weight in a squat or deadlift.
His reasoning looks logical to me, but as a non expert, are there any flaws i'm missing?
One of the main flaws, I think HULC, is that in any sporting aspect, the "weakest link" is going to control the day. Basically, it doesn't matter if your legs can handle 500 pounds, or 300 pounds, or whatever, if your back is limited to less than that, then that is what you are going to stop at.
Perhaps for a bodybuilder, this could make sense, because added strength means more muscle, which is better for a bodybuilder.
Chocolate Shatner - One of the main flaws, I think HULC, is that in any sporting aspect, the "weakest link" is going to control the day. Basically, it doesn't matter if your legs can handle 500 pounds, or 300 pounds, or whatever, if your back is limited to less than that, then that is what you are going to stop at.
Perhaps for a bodybuilder, this could make sense, because added strength means more muscle, which is better for a bodybuilder.
not sure if i agree with that statement. there are plenty of movements in sports where it is useful to have strong legs without necessarily having a back that is as strong. running and jumping come to mind.
Don't his guys also do front squats?