Lunge weight ratioklo to squats

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by Brian Link, Apr 3, 2006.

  1. Brian Link

    Brian Link Guest

    I have an assortment of dumbbells at home, and for various reasons
    haven't been able to get out to the gym recently.

    For glute and ham development, exrx tells me that I can do lunges.

    My problem is in figuring out what weights to hold while I'm doing
    these lunges.

    I typically squat 210 lbs for 10 reps X 2 at the top of my regimen
    (yes i'm a weenie).

    I have a pair of 30 lb dumbbells that I've been using for lunges,
    which make me beg for mercy after 10 reps.

    Does anyone have a quick algorithm for determining lunge weights based
    on squat weights?

    At some point I'm gonna need to buy heavier dumbbells, but I'm hoping
    to make the most of the ones I own - 30, 20, 15.

    Thanks for any pointers.

    Bush sucks.

    BLink
    --------------------------
    "The worst thing about censorship is [redacted]"
     
    Tags:


  2. Razonol

    Razonol Guest

    Brian Link wrote:
    > I have an assortment of dumbbells at home, and for various reasons
    > haven't been able to get out to the gym recently.
    >
    > For glute and ham development, exrx tells me that I can do lunges.
    >
    > My problem is in figuring out what weights to hold while I'm doing
    > these lunges.
    >
    > I typically squat 210 lbs for 10 reps X 2 at the top of my regimen
    > (yes i'm a weenie).
    >
    > I have a pair of 30 lb dumbbells that I've been using for lunges,
    > which make me beg for mercy after 10 reps.
    >
    > Does anyone have a quick algorithm for determining lunge weights based
    > on squat weights?
    >
    > At some point I'm gonna need to buy heavier dumbbells, but I'm hoping
    > to make the most of the ones I own - 30, 20, 15.
    >
    > Thanks for any pointers.
    >
    > Bush sucks.
    >
    > BLink
    > --------------------------
    > "The worst thing about censorship is [redacted]"


    I can't help you because you're stupid.
     
  3. "Brian Link" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >I have an assortment of dumbbells at home, and for various reasons
    > haven't been able to get out to the gym recently.
    >
    > For glute and ham development, exrx tells me that I can do lunges.
    >
    > My problem is in figuring out what weights to hold while I'm doing
    > these lunges.
    >
    > I typically squat 210 lbs for 10 reps X 2 at the top of my regimen
    > (yes i'm a weenie).
    >
    > I have a pair of 30 lb dumbbells that I've been using for lunges,
    > which make me beg for mercy after 10 reps.
    >
    > Does anyone have a quick algorithm for determining lunge weights based
    > on squat weights?


    There are so many ways one can perform a lunge, I don't think a formula
    is really possible, sorry.

    -S-
    http://www.kbnj.com


    > At some point I'm gonna need to buy heavier dumbbells, but I'm hoping
    > to make the most of the ones I own - 30, 20, 15.
    >
    > Thanks for any pointers.
    >
    > Bush sucks.
    >
    > BLink
    > --------------------------
    > "The worst thing about censorship is [redacted]"
     
  4. Ranieri

    Ranieri Guest

  5. Dr. Dickie

    Dr. Dickie Guest

    "Steve Freides" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "Dr. Dickie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>
    >> I would rather have someone that is true to their convictions and
    >> provides leadership to the nation while at war, that some well polished
    >> politician that speaks well but only stands behind the latest popularity
    >> poll.

    >
    > I fail to understand this argument every time it is raised. Hilter
    > thought he was doing the right thing for the world, and so have many other
    > leaders. Being true to one's convictions is not a reason to be elected
    > president.
    >

    I did not say that it was the only reason, bt i most certainly is it A
    reason, yes.
    I do not want someone who merely takes a poll and does whatever the great
    unwashed wants done at that moment (usually whipped into a frenzy by the
    media--who as usual have it compeltey wrong.)--think your buddy Clinton.

    >> But I see you are more interested in superficial fluff, we differ.

    >
    > Truth to one's convictions is not the opposite of superficial; indeed, in
    > the case of President Bush, it is the height of superficiality. Real
    > leaders are pragmatists who are true to the constitution of the United
    > States. President Bush has demonstrated little knowledge of, or respect
    > for, several of the most important principles on which our country was
    > founded.


    Sure.

    The separation of church and state has fared poorly during his
    > tenure, and one can argue that this, more than any other, was the reason
    > many who came to the New World did so in the first place.
    >

    I disagree. Look, I am as much against organised religion as you can get;
    however, I do not think that the foundation of this country was that every
    leader must be un-religious. Simply that they not estabish a State religion
    and make others unable to practice their religion. I haven't seen that
    happen (perhaps you live somewhere it does?). Bush is very religious, so
    what. His belief in a deity is his business.


    >> Fiscally, the Bush administration has been everything the democrats
    >> wanted to be, and that is sad.

    >
    > And this seems not to trouble him, either. Arrogance is perhaps the
    > biggest hallmark of his administration - "We're right because we say so,
    > and we don't want to play politics - just agree with us and everything
    > will be OK."
    >


    Okay, now you are simply being silly. Bush's concern or lack of concern
    about spending cannot be ascribed to arrogance. Does Bush hold to his
    convictions? Hell yes. If we cut and run (like Clinton did)every time things
    got tough you do not get leadership you get followship (take a poll, I need
    to know what to do next!). Bush's biggest failing (and the Republicans in
    control of the congress ) is that they give in to the America hating Left to
    easily. Whether you want to believe it or not, Clinton's foreign policy
    helped to open the door for the 9/11 attacks.
    Just grips your ass that someone who has the balls to do what is necessary
    will not cower and run like you want him to.
    With your form of followship, we would forever be under the threat and fear
    of attack from al-Qaeda. Like it or not, we are at war and at sake is
    western civilization. I know you would rather stick your head in the sand
    and say that 9/11 never happened or that it was our fault. You are allowed
    to believe whatever you want to believe. You and hank can swap hats and sit
    in your basement to keep the though police from hearing you. Just don't
    expect the rest of humanity to follow you.
    Whatever, dude. I for one, am thankful that Bush does not listen and give in
    to whiners like you.
    --

    Dr. Dickie
    Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
    Poking kooks with a pointy stick
    Repeal the 17th amendment; let's reinstate the proper checks and balances
    and end mob rule in my lifetime!
     
  6. "Dr. Dickie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > "Steve Freides" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> "Dr. Dickie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>
    >>> I would rather have someone that is true to their convictions and
    >>> provides leadership to the nation while at war, that some well
    >>> polished politician that speaks well but only stands behind the
    >>> latest popularity poll.

    >>
    >> I fail to understand this argument every time it is raised. Hilter
    >> thought he was doing the right thing for the world, and so have many
    >> other leaders. Being true to one's convictions is not a reason to be
    >> elected president.
    >>

    > I did not say that it was the only reason, bt i most certainly is it A
    > reason, yes.
    > I do not want someone who merely takes a poll and does whatever the
    > great unwashed wants done at that moment (usually whipped into a
    > frenzy by the media--who as usual have it compeltey wrong.)--think
    > your buddy Clinton.


    I agree with you that I don't want a poll taker for a President, and I
    was no big fan of Clinton, and less of a fan of Al Gore.

    >>> But I see you are more interested in superficial fluff, we differ.

    >>
    >> Truth to one's convictions is not the opposite of superficial;
    >> indeed, in the case of President Bush, it is the height of
    >> superficiality. Real leaders are pragmatists who are true to the
    >> constitution of the United States. President Bush has demonstrated
    >> little knowledge of, or respect for, several of the most important
    >> principles on which our country was founded.

    >
    > Sure.
    >
    > The separation of church and state has fared poorly during his
    >> tenure, and one can argue that this, more than any other, was the
    >> reason many who came to the New World did so in the first place.
    >>

    > I disagree. Look, I am as much against organised religion as you can
    > get; however, I do not think that the foundation of this country was
    > that every leader must be un-religious. Simply that they not estabish
    > a State religion and make others unable to practice their religion. I
    > haven't seen that happen (perhaps you live somewhere it does?). Bush
    > is very religious, so what. His belief in a deity is his business.


    I am not unreligious, nor am I against organized religion. I am in
    favor of exactly what I said, the separation of church and state.
    People should be free to practice their religion (or lack thereof) as
    they wish. Bush has shoved his religious agenda, which is shared by
    many in this county, down everyone's throat, and it is that to which I
    object. He has moved in the direction of a "State religion" much more
    than he should have on many issues - abortion rights, government funding
    of church initiatives, etc. When government starts telling us what to
    do in areas that should be matters of private decision or religion, we
    have a problem.

    >>> Fiscally, the Bush administration has been everything the democrats
    >>> wanted to be, and that is sad.

    >>
    >> And this seems not to trouble him, either. Arrogance is perhaps the
    >> biggest hallmark of his administration - "We're right because we say
    >> so, and we don't want to play politics - just agree with us and
    >> everything will be OK."
    >>

    >
    > Okay, now you are simply being silly. Bush's concern or lack of
    > concern about spending cannot be ascribed to arrogance. Does Bush hold
    > to his convictions? Hell yes. If we cut and run (like Clinton
    > did)every time things got tough you do not get leadership you get
    > followship (take a poll, I need to know what to do next!). Bush's
    > biggest failing (and the Republicans in control of the congress ) is
    > that they give in to the America hating Left to easily. Whether you
    > want to believe it or not, Clinton's foreign policy helped to open
    > the door for the 9/11 attacks.
    > Just grips your ass that someone who has the balls to do what is
    > necessary will not cower and run like you want him to.
    > With your form of followship, we would forever be under the threat and
    > fear of attack from al-Qaeda. Like it or not, we are at war and at
    > sake is western civilization. I know you would rather stick your head
    > in the sand and say that 9/11 never happened or that it was our fault.
    > You are allowed to believe whatever you want to believe. You and hank
    > can swap hats and sit in your basement to keep the though police from
    > hearing you. Just don't expect the rest of humanity to follow you.
    > Whatever, dude. I for one, am thankful that Bush does not listen and
    > give in to whiners like you.


    Sorry but I won't stoop to this level with you. I hope I've made my
    point for those who may be reading. I have no expectation of changing
    your mind. The reasons for our current situation are many and complex,
    and name calling and language like, "just grips your ass that someone
    who has the balls to do what is necessary" is, at best, adolescent and
    accomplishes nothing.

    I'm just hoping the Democratic Party manages to nominate someone other
    than Hillary Clinton, and I'd be delighted to vote for John McCain in
    the next election. Difficult times call for people of character, and
    George Bush is not such a person. Let's not mistake conviction for
    character.

    My further participation in this thread will also accomplish nothing so
    I'll bow out here - the last word is yours if you'd like it.

    -S-
    http://www.kbnj.com


    > --
    >
    > Dr. Dickie
    > Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
    > Poking kooks with a pointy stick
    > Repeal the 17th amendment; let's reinstate the proper checks and
    > balances
    > and end mob rule in my lifetime!
    >
    >
     
  7. Dr. Dickie

    Dr. Dickie Guest

    "Steve Freides" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "Dr. Dickie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >>
    >> "Steve Freides" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >>> "Dr. Dickie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>>
    >>>> I would rather have someone that is true to their convictions and
    >>>> provides leadership to the nation while at war, that some well polished
    >>>> politician that speaks well but only stands behind the latest
    >>>> popularity poll.
    >>>
    >>> I fail to understand this argument every time it is raised. Hilter
    >>> thought he was doing the right thing for the world, and so have many
    >>> other leaders. Being true to one's convictions is not a reason to be
    >>> elected president.
    >>>

    >> I did not say that it was the only reason, bt i most certainly is it A
    >> reason, yes.
    >> I do not want someone who merely takes a poll and does whatever the great
    >> unwashed wants done at that moment (usually whipped into a frenzy by the
    >> media--who as usual have it compeltey wrong.)--think your buddy Clinton.

    >
    > I agree with you that I don't want a poll taker for a President, and I was
    > no big fan of Clinton, and less of a fan of Al Gore.
    >
    >>>> But I see you are more interested in superficial fluff, we differ.
    >>>
    >>> Truth to one's convictions is not the opposite of superficial; indeed,
    >>> in the case of President Bush, it is the height of superficiality. Real
    >>> leaders are pragmatists who are true to the constitution of the United
    >>> States. President Bush has demonstrated little knowledge of, or respect
    >>> for, several of the most important principles on which our country was
    >>> founded.

    >>
    >> Sure.
    >>
    >> The separation of church and state has fared poorly during his
    >>> tenure, and one can argue that this, more than any other, was the reason
    >>> many who came to the New World did so in the first place.
    >>>

    >> I disagree. Look, I am as much against organised religion as you can get;
    >> however, I do not think that the foundation of this country was that
    >> every leader must be un-religious. Simply that they not estabish a State
    >> religion and make others unable to practice their religion. I haven't
    >> seen that happen (perhaps you live somewhere it does?). Bush is very
    >> religious, so what. His belief in a deity is his business.

    >
    > I am not unreligious, nor am I against organized religion. I am in favor
    > of exactly what I said, the separation of church and state. People should
    > be free to practice their religion (or lack thereof) as they wish. Bush
    > has shoved his religious agenda, which is shared by many in this county,
    > down everyone's throat, and it is that to which I object. He has moved in
    > the direction of a "State religion" much more than he should have on many
    > issues - abortion rights, government funding of church initiatives, etc.
    > When government starts telling us what to do in areas that should be
    > matters of private decision or religion, we have a problem.
    >

    Sorry I haven't seen this. No doubt you are persecuted.

    >>>> Fiscally, the Bush administration has been everything the democrats
    >>>> wanted to be, and that is sad.
    >>>
    >>> And this seems not to trouble him, either. Arrogance is perhaps the
    >>> biggest hallmark of his administration - "We're right because we say so,
    >>> and we don't want to play politics - just agree with us and everything
    >>> will be OK."
    >>>

    >>
    >> Okay, now you are simply being silly. Bush's concern or lack of concern
    >> about spending cannot be ascribed to arrogance. Does Bush hold to his
    >> convictions? Hell yes. If we cut and run (like Clinton did)every time
    >> things got tough you do not get leadership you get followship (take a
    >> poll, I need to know what to do next!). Bush's biggest failing (and the
    >> Republicans in control of the congress ) is that they give in to the
    >> America hating Left to easily. Whether you want to believe it or not,
    >> Clinton's foreign policy helped to open the door for the 9/11 attacks.
    >> Just grips your ass that someone who has the balls to do what is
    >> necessary will not cower and run like you want him to.
    >> With your form of followship, we would forever be under the threat and
    >> fear of attack from al-Qaeda. Like it or not, we are at war and at sake
    >> is western civilization. I know you would rather stick your head in the
    >> sand and say that 9/11 never happened or that it was our fault. You are
    >> allowed to believe whatever you want to believe. You and hank can swap
    >> hats and sit in your basement to keep the though police from hearing you.
    >> Just don't expect the rest of humanity to follow you.
    >> Whatever, dude. I for one, am thankful that Bush does not listen and give
    >> in to whiners like you.

    >
    > Sorry but I won't stoop to this level with you. I hope I've made my point
    > for those who may be reading. I have no expectation of changing your
    > mind. The reasons for our current situation are many and complex, and
    > name calling and language like, "just grips your ass that someone who has
    > the balls to do what is necessary" is, at best, adolescent and
    > accomplishes nothing.


    Sure, and you think that if you have convictions you are bad, because Hitler
    had convictions and he was bad. If you have no conviction, you are not
    superficial. I let those pass because I though you were better than that
    ridiculous logic Steve. Okay, to bring up hank WAS a cheap shot, sorry, I
    should not have, but, I am left guessing what it is that drives you folks
    out there to come to the conclusions you do. Abortion? Is that it? Look I
    am not antiabortion, but I also do not beleive that the Constitution
    guarreetes someone access to abortion on demand, the States should decide
    that.
    Trust me, I have no expectation of chaning your mind.

    > I'm just hoping the Democratic Party manages to nominate someone other
    > than Hillary Clinton, and I'd be delighted to vote for John McCain in the
    > next election. Difficult times call for people of character, and George
    > Bush is not such a person. Let's not mistake conviction for character.
    >


    There ya go. McCain has the conviction that he is great (just listen to what
    the media says). I see a lot to admire in McCain, then he goes and does
    something stupid (like the McCain-Feingold bill). Too wishy washy, has no
    base and not enough appeal to pull it off.
     
Loading...
Loading...