r/bodyweightfitness' Recommended Routine[1] is a great place to start. They have a section on squats.[2]

[1] - https://www.reddit.com/r/bodyweightfitness/wiki/kb/recommend...

[2] - https://www.reddit.com/r/bodyweightfitness/wiki/exercises/sq...

For shy lazy people there's not much I'd recommend more strongly than lifting anyway.

I’m pretty sure “shy lazy” is a cover for “proud”. I’ve been there, and i soon realized nobody cares at the gym.

I'd still recommend learning to squat under load. I'm fine under my own body weight. Put a bar on my back and problems show themselves again.

In case you are travelling and cannot bring the bar with you ;-) a good alternative is the "prisoner squat". Place both hands behind you head crossing your fingers. With elbows out as much as you can do the squat like prisoners do it, veeery sloooowly, start with 4 x 12.

I would also recommend "Wall Sits". Very similar.

If it's your back your worried about, I would recommend deadlifts over squats. They're much easier to do from a technique standpoint & have less risk. Also squats are more for leg strength. Deadlifts are great for your back and also work several other muscles, including your legs.

Squats are great for building leg strength but have a high risk of back & knee injury under heavy loads if done incorrectly. Even if you do them correctly, a heavy load might force you to lean forward which can damage your back. There are much safer lifts for those of us who aren't experts, such as hex bar squats.

According to Rippetoe if it's a low bar squat it's OK to lean forward as long as your back is straight[1].

Of course as anything in fitness it's always up for debate.

[1]https://startingstrength.com/article/squat-mechanics-a-clari...

From my own experience in the gym, leaning forward can cause an almost instinctual movement to lift the bar by "pushing back" with the back.

That is, rather than lifting the bar using the legs, lifting the bar by bending back. Of course, Rippletoe would never recommend doing this, and while leaning forward doesn't guarantee improper form, it can sure make it easier.

Thank you for clarifying that. That is exactly what I meant but obviously failed at communicating.

Leaning forward is okay while doing squats. A heavy weight causing you to lean forward out of your position is bad.

> Even if you do them correctly, a heavy load might force you to lean forward which can damage your back.

Leaning forward damages your back? Then why are you suggesting deadlifts?

Squats are not hard to do correctly. Risk of injury is probably not higher than deadlifts. And squats work more than just legs. They do work the legs hard, but they also work the back. Front squats will also work the upper back quite a bit.

It appears "leaning forward" was not a great phrase to use. I meant to say it may force you to lean forward an additional amount into a bad position where you need to lean backwards to correct it. This is where hurting your back would occur.

I agree, front squats are great! But I personally feel squats do minimal to back muscles.

Those back muscles are doing a ton of work keeping you from falling forward. They don't work as much in the squat as in the deadlift, but they still do a lot of work in the squat.

The amount of work the lower back does is directly related to how far forward the body leans (at the hips; I'm assuming we're not discussing bent-back lifts). The lower back does a lot of work in a deadlift to counteract the torque the weight creates via the upper body lean. In a low-back back squat, the amount of work the lower body does is reduced somewhat because the lean and therefore the torque reduced. It's reduced even further in a high-bar squat, and in a front squat the back muscles are mostly doing isometric work in conjuction with the abs to keep your spine from collapsing.

Even if your squat form is bad and you're leaning excessively, you're probably not putting more stress on your back than in a deadlift. Unless maybe you're dive-bombing your squats and letting your lower back round a ton at the bottom.

Why not both? Plus other mobility and cardio work. It's all beneficial in various ways.

Of course do both. I was not advocating otherwise. :)

That's the whole point of doing the exercise in the first place. You get hurt and have bad form because you are weak. Squats are not just for leg strength. They work the entire posterior chain. Any exercise has the potential to hurt you if you do it incorrectly.

I don't disagree. My argument is that getting the technique right on certain exercises is harder & have a higher risk than others.

In traditional calisthenics, there is a progression beyond a simple squat with your body weight. Uneven squats, half one-leg squats, assisted one-leg squats, all leading up to one-leg squats.

I'm also a big believer in calisthenics and bodyweight progression, but it's worth noting that pistol squats and several other advanced bodyweight squats can strengthen your quads and glutes very well, but end up teaching you a different movement pattern from a biomechanically-sound (i.e. straight-spined) squat. It's basically impossible to avoid tucking the pelvis and rounding the spine when doing a pistol.

E.g.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NvOuty_Fnc

Edit: Shrimp squats are an exception, I suppose.

Safe alternative: hip belt squat. Don't load your back/spine. Google it.

Yes, take the back entirely out of the exercise. That will definitely help with strengthening the back.

There are safer exercises for strengthening the back. Squats are good for the legs.

Squats are awesome for the back and quite safe unless done very improperly. If you can’t squat the weight safely, it’s too much for your legs anyway. You have an imbalance, by definition, if the weight that is appropriate for your legs is enough to put your back at risk.

Legs are stronger than your back. So a good load for the legs will probably be too much for the back. Also there is only a limited amount of repeated compression that the vertebral discs can handle.

> Legs are stronger than your back. So a good load for the legs will probably be too much for the back.

Well, yes and no. In unnatural movements like the hip belt “squat” where you have no range of motion and have almost created an isolation movement, sure. In more natural movements like a lunge or squat, where the muscles must work together and you use reasonable range of motion, not necessarily true. It’s more commonly the legs that fail in a squat.

You do realize that the glutes and hamstrings are part of the legs, right? They execute the hip hinge that makes bending at the hips possible. When you take the back out of a squat, you largely remove these as well.

> Also there is only a limited amount of repeated compression that the vertebral discs can handle.

This is a definite “citation needed” sort of claim. The spine produces synovial fluid and heals like the rest of the joints.

Obviously there are limits to how much it can heal, but that applies to every joint and consistently studies indicate better joint health among strength training individuals. A few dozen squats a week is definitely not the maximum the spine can handle.

I’m not sure what problem you’re trying to solve.

Back squats and front squats are good because they involve the posterior chain.

Often all of that has to work together. A squat with a small load will show you where you are deficient and will help you improve as you learn to squat properly.

As the article states:

> At best, we might undertake ［squatting］ during Crossfit, pilates or while lifting at the gym, but only partially and often with weights (a repetitive maneuver that’s hard to imagine being useful 2.5 million years ago)

I kind of go along with that. Squatting with a bar on your back is a weird maneuver.

Squats under load are pretty fundamental. Carrying a killed deer on your back, or stone, clay, or a mate or a child all require effective loaded squats.

Where is the rest of the movement, then? Why not pick a big bag of sand and place it on your back, walk around with it, and set it back down again?

Wouldn't our ancestors carry far less, maybe max 90kg, then people do today? It doesnt make sense to brutally punish your joints with much more than that for part of that action and completely ignore the other part of it.

Sandbag carries and farmer walks do just that :). As for the idea that you are brutally punishing your joints, I don't believe that to be the case. Controlled squats vs running? Yeah, controlled squats will be way better on the knee. I do weighted exercises regularly and have a marketed reduction in joint pain from before. A barbell squat with good form will not put undue stress on the knee joint and builds muscle that supports it. For me, the added muscle also removed my lower back pain. This also comes with the caveat that you need to stretch and mobilize too.

“Studies have shown that an ant can carry one hundred times its own weight, but there is no known limit to the lifting power of the average tiny eighty-year-old Spanish peasant grandmother.” ― Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man

Bodyweight fitness is awesome! It also trains a lot more muscles at the same time when doing a single exercise.

For the doubters who think you need heavy weights, try to do:

- 1 arm pull-ups

- 1 arm, 1 foot pushups

- Dragon flag (for abs)

- 1 leg squats (pistol squats)

Of those I can only do the 1 leg squats and 1 arm-1 foot pushups (working on the rest ;)).

Also search YouTube for "calisthenics" to get a bunch of stuff you can do. There are things from absolute beginners to insane.

That's a bit like saying you can do anything in C, working from scratch though.

Yes you CAN. That doesn't mean it is not a hell of a lot easier to get the same results by using other tools though.

If you want to get fit (build muscle), and you're not using a barbell, you're most likely making things harder for yourself. If that is what you want to do, fine, but recognize that you're taking a more difficult route.

I partly agree with you.

Using weights indeed allows you to fine-tune your workouts more. Want to do 8 reps instead of 5? Just take some weight off. This is indeed harder to finetune with bodyweight progression.

If you talk about bodybuilding, max strength gains, etc, I agree you need to use weights for the fastest/best results.

But if your goal is to "get fit", my personal opinion (or preference) is that there is nothing better than bodyweight. Different muscle groups working together, balance, etc.

I guess it all comes down to personal preference. I got bored lifting weights, but absolutely love those bodyweight trainings. All I'm saying is that it's a viable option where you can build a lot of strength. Is it optimal for size, strength or endurance? Probably not. But it's not something to dismiss either.

You equate getting fit with building muscle but for me it would be doing these crazy positions like dragon flag or planche. Not sure how much barbells can help with that.

Actually, no, you are making it a LOT more difficult to get into proper shape WITHOUT injuries if you are starting from scratch and use heavyweights instead.

Your body needs time to adapt to exercise, and body-weight exercises can provide a longterm plan to get that growth without threatening some serious injuries.

I think you two are talking past each other. You don't jump straight into 300 lb squats. You start with squatting with no barbell. Then you add an empty one. Then you add 20 lbs. Then another 20 lbs. In a few months, you have a lot of weight. This is going to get you stronger faster and safer than trying to do pistols (one legged squats) because you control the weight advancement. This is true for all weighted exercises vs body weight that I can think of. Pistols are hard and rough on your knee and the form is hard to get right. My back squat is over 2x bodyweight and is still find pistols hard and rough on my knees.

First off, you are wrong if you think that bodyweight exercises cannot injure you. Even something as simple as doing pushups with bad form for too long can have a detrimental effect on your posture and cause back issues.

Also, that's a false comparison. Nobody said that you need to get off the couch and go straight to squat 500lbs to be in shape. You need a proper training plan with reasonable progression, and you need to start as low and as light as necessary, no matter the training stimulus (BW, barbells, dumbbell, kettlebells, bands, ...). The difference is that weights can provide an external force that can be scaled to your strength in many ways that BW training cannot, because in BW training the only weight is your body and you need to use leverages to modify your training stimulus.

Finally, BW versus weights is a dumb debate. They complement each other, and a well-rounded athlete should do both.

You are right though, this is not a fight for either, I should reiterate that I think that STARTING with BW first to help your body adjust, and when you have an initial, flexible and durable base to work with, you can go crazy with whatever next goal you set. That is what I would prefer for myself I could go back in time, anyway :P

I kind of disagree and agree at the same time. I'd recommend that a new trainee start with simple bodyweight stuff* but for different reasons: it's an excellent teacher of proprioception, which is one of the things that couch-to-barbell people like myself tend to lack, and it's now starting to bite me in the ass now that my numbers have grown more respectable and that I can find myself squatting 450lbs with ease but having a hard time doing unweighted lunges.

*to be fair, I'd recommend that a new trainee start with anything but barbell stuff. Simple bodyweight training 3-4 times a week, playing a real sport once-twice a week and doing some form of cardio twice a week should be the starting point of any athletic career, at least for 3-6 years. I started training with people who had an athletic past like this and they blew past me at an incredible speed progress-wise, and ended up stronger, healthier and in better shape than I ever was.

Don't use heavy weights, use light weight and add slowly.

When I was around 16 years old and started training with weights (just like what my father recommended me doing), and gradually increased the weights, there were joints and muscle groups in my body that just could not adjust. I had no way of improving triceps reasonably alongside the rest for pushups for example, and my right shoulder had the weirdest pain points whenever I moved weights with it beyond the initial smaller scales. So I eventually gave up.

Fast forward a decade, and my right shoulder still remembers these pains - I dunno if the weights caused it or some previous injury, but when I started training with my own weight, one sign that I was getting ahead of myself was that small pain. Now I can progress slower, but still I have to be very careful. Some of the exercises with heavy weights are just not natural for the body and simply exhaust/strain it more than it should. If you are experienced, you can work around these limitations, but I prefer body-weight exercises now.

Your issue is that you were 16. I don't mean that weight training young is bad, but that you were a 16 year old training himself. People think that because lifting weight is a meathead sport you would have to be an idiot to do it wrong, but that is incorrect. Lifting weights is easy, but lifting weights in a way that makes you progress towards your goal and emphasizes longevity in the sport is hard and the domain of experienced strength coaches who have seen it all.

You were increasing the weights at a rate that your body couldn't handle. It is very frequent with new trainees because the neurological adaptations that appear at the beginning of training are always impressive: you finally learn how to use those muscles you always had and make them work towards a simple common goal, lifting that barbell. The main problem is that the rest of your body sometimes cannot keep up with that speed, and that results in this sort of issue. Had you been to a professional strength coach, he or she would have forced you to lower your pace and think about long-term progress over short term gain, which would probably have been at your 16 year old self's annoyance (as it was to mine).

Yeah, you are right, most likely. I remember quitting then due to being frustrated over lack of progress. Hah!

Ah, so what is the training equivalent to Rust?

Adding onto this

Get a ironmaster superbench + attachments / or powerrack + bench, and some suspension trainers. Makes a huge difference on what body weight exercises you can do

For example, I do bulgarian split squats. But I have a TRX suspension trainer on a ironman adjustable bench, so I can have one leg suspended and have a more natural movement doing bulgarian split squats. This is a much easier progression going into a pure 1 legged pistol squats.

I use a modified reddit r/recommended routine /bodyweight fitness / callisthetics

Also, I'd recommend picking up a kettlebell. Plenty of videos on YouTube with workouts you can follow.

What subs would you recommend for someone starting out?

/r/bodyweightfitness has a great progression in their wiki.

/r/fitness also has a great wiki with a number of programs, including a recommended progression of programs.

/r/bodyweightfitness has a nice routine that is suitable for beginners