Bodyweight Squats Vs Hindu Squats: Which One Takes The Cake And Which One Is A Dumpster Fire?

Thick Thighs Saves Lives as they say. When it comes to a debate, you analyze what the topic is, the benefits, the pros, the cons, the dirt, the shining star and what it could do for the greater good. In the fitness world, there's going to be debates that at times can get ugly because one may get offended by who thinks what's better or how this method should be done. Some will even go to great lengths to not only believe in their own hype but will rant over and over again about how right they are and anybody who disagrees is a loser. Here on earth, in certain cases like this, it comes down to the individual and their goals.

For the sake of argument, which one of these ESSENTIAL exercises formulates the top of the food chain when it comes "Leg Day" from a bodyweight perspective:

First, let's be civil about the benefits of both shall we?

They're awesome to do anywhere and at anytime, you can do them fast, you can do slow, toss them into your routine, can be a warm up or finisher and they both can be a test to how conditioned you are from a fitness point of view. 

Either one has the potential to make your workouts either a living hell or something that makes the rocking world go round by utilizing their purposes suited to your goals. High rep, low rep, one set or dozens of sets it doesn't matter, both will kick your ass and make the legs like jello when you work specific methods of training for them. 

Now that we got some of that out of way, let's have the contest to see which one is better (Hypothetically)....

The most common squat among the two is the bodyweight squat where you move the body up and down working the legs in the  "natural" positioning of squatting down until you're parallel to the floor with the feet in a more diagonal pattern with the feet. It's essentially the non weighted version of the barbell squat. The perks of this movement is the basic formality of being able to squat down and pick things up or in time, be able to go down without pain and getting back up. It has been said that the first thing you lose as you age is the legs. 

Bodyweight Squats can be done in a variety of ways and is used in all major sports, research programs, beginner levels to progress to harder variations and has multiple variations that are easier or harder depending on your fitness level and adaptation. Some do them in very high reps for conditioning purposes, others will use them for rehab or to help with maintaining strength for longevity. 

Hindu Squats on the other hand is a specific movement geared towards the conditioning practices of wrestlers in the art of Kushti or Pehlwan Wrestling. They're a staple mainly in the sport that transferred over to other parts of the world where they became the cornerstone exercise to test a man's will. The two most men who brought Hindu Squats into a mainstream outline was Karl Gotch & Matt Furey. Furey made them the public image for his main 3 exercises in Combat Conditioning. Karl kept it more to the tune of how to train his wrestlers and other coaches who caught wind of them taught them in other circles of pro wrestling. 

In the training camps (such as Verne Gagne and Tryout Beasts like Ole & Gene Anderson) called these Free Squats and made everyone do hundreds of them or up to 1000 of them before they even got in the ring. Many guys ended up quitting because of how bad the lactic acid built up and couldn't walk for days. The movement itself consists of the following:

Arms straight out

Pull the arms in and inhale

Ass you go down, bring the heels up which bends the knees forward

exhale

swing the arms as you stand back up bringing the heels back down flat

Some may get it right away, some may have balance issues and others may get confused cause it has both an arm motion and raising the heels which isn't the normal type to squat on. 

These in most cases are done in high reps where the "gold standard" was to do up to 500 or more on a consistent basis within 15 minutes or less if you were a wrestler or some kind of athlete. From a fitness perspective, it gives you the idea of where your level of cardio is and the kind of condition you're in within other aspects of exercise and workout protocols.

Where does the debate come in? Good question...

They're both used for different purposes when it comes to training while one is more rhythmic and utilizing a circular pattern with the arms, the other does have a more strength based pattern working the legs in a fashion that is more understood by training the knees and ankles in a low skilled format. 

Bodyweight Squats is more basic compared to the Hindu Style which has a greater complexity. Are they effective on their own? That depends on your goals. Anyone that can make a youtube video has some variation of how to do them and many think they're style is the style that matters which is a narrow minded and narcissistic way of doing things. I first learned Bodyweight Squats in PE when I was a kid and did a few here and there when I tried out for wrestling back when I was a senior in high school. I just followed along and was never given a direction to how to train them.

When it came to Hindu Style, those were when I started out with Combat Conditioning when I was 21 years old recovering from my leg injuries. I did what I could to learn and understand them and eventually got good at them to where I did over 1000 of them in a workout within 4-5 months of training them. Eventually, my friends gave me tips on how to do them better and picked up on other variations from other people. Almost no one outside of my friends really knew what they were around the time I started on them. Hindu Squats had made traction in the few years they became mainstream but other than a couple guys who showed me better quality of them, I never saw anyone outside of a MMA or wrestling background that knew how to do them. 

Now they're just as common as any type of squat these days. Although still known for being a high volume movement, some use them to work their balance and tendon building by doing them much slower and building strength that way. 

Bodyweight Squats have their perks in learning how to do the most basic format of training and should be used whether you're a beginner or a vet of the game. Me personally, I take a variation called Pan Squats or a bodyweight version of the Goblet Squat and have done 500 of these in deck of cards workouts or do what are called Step Squats which I learned from mimicking the Bioneer. I would do these in intervals at times and go for 5-7 minutes. For the Hindu Squats, I did them in high reps using decks of cards, countdown methods or just going straight through them, my fastest 500 was 11:48 and my fastest 1000 was 33 minutes. These days, I would put them in my circuits with the Dopamineo Band and after doing the band exercises, I would 30-40 Squats. Throughout the circuit, it would be around 300-380 give or take. 

Does one take the cake and the other is a dumpster fire? From a realistic point of view, no. Both have their own pros and cons and don't necessarily have a generalized outlook to who should do what more, that's not my thought process. My outlook on it is to do both and master them but only at the expense of what gives you the biggest benefit and maintaining levels of fitness and enthusiasm within your goals and needs for specific training you're trying to achieve. Use what provides you the necessary steps to achieving whatever in your journey. 

Be amazingly awesome and get some solid leg training in so you can have that vitality and level of fitness that makes people's jaws drop. You got this and go kill it.    

Step Ups Or Split Squats?

Aren't debates fun? Maybe not presidential debates since it's mainly who's got the bigger dick or brains to "run" the country but when it comes to fitness, debating on a good leg exercise can spark either something controversial or a elementary whinefest of "my dad can beat up your dad" mentality. To it's extent, both have their pros and cons and they work the leg muscles in similar but different aspects to work the lower body.

Now, when it comes to Step Ups, unless you utilize weight or some form of variation, I see it more of a conditioning type exercise because the big objective is to work the cardio effect of the exercise. Maybe not to the extreme level of high reps Bob Backlund does but Step Ups can be a continuous strength movement because you're moving the legs upward in a higher elevated capacity as opposed to walking up a flight of stairs which is only a few inches off the ground. When you're working a step around average of 12-15 inches high, you're utilizing most of the leg muscles (roughly the quads and hamstrings) and working the hips in a longer capacity. Going for high reps isn't easy but it does save pressure on the knees and you can keep going for an extended period of time depending on how many reps per leg. Some do a 3x15 per leg approach but others like myself work each leg to a minimum so we can keep going for sometimes up to a half hour or longer. 

With Split Squats, IMO, it's more of a strength based exercise because whether with bodyweight or even with dumbbells in each hand, you don't have to do a ton of reps to get the effect and it hits a lot more of the quads along with the repeated movement for the knees. You're going to be more sore from these than from Step Ups because although both are unilateral movements, SS focus more on elevating the lactic acid effect in the quad muscles. You can do high reps per leg if you wish but you're not going to feel all that great the next day and you're putting greater pressure on the knee joints than you would with Step Ups.

I utilize both in some capacity although I prefer Step Ups because it works better for my previous leg injuries. When I do Split Squats, I either use my strap to put one foot in and work a few reps that way or do them Isometrically which strengthens the joints and avoids the lactic acid buildup. Split Squats are my least favorite leg movement but I do see the value in them in some form while others are fanatical about them with a love/hate relationship. I would never do one or the other to failure because for one, that can lead to an injury, two, I want to be able to walk upright the next day and not feel like an 80 year old man wanting to die and three, I want to have that strength and lung capacity to keep going without tiring when I need to do something that's important or staying active without being in horrible discomfort. 

Both have their place whether for bodybuilding, sports training, rehab or whatever. Just be smart about how you do them and not let ego get the best of you. Trying to break records all the time will only cause pain and agony, let them be effective so you can stay strong in the long run. If you need more than a couple days to recover from either one, you're pushing too damn hard. Be objective and focus on making both work to your advantage and progress without needing to do a ton of recovery. The most I would ever do for Split Squats would be a few sets of 10-15 per leg and that's it. I'm not trying to go so hard that I can't walk right afterwards, that's just not my thing. For Step Ups, I pick a number I know I can do for an extended period of time and do that per leg and keep going, At the end, I'm able to do on average around 300-500 total in a workout, around 700 in just over 30 minutes and get in 1000 within 41-45 minutes. This works for me and it keeps me in solid condition and be able to hike, ruck, play and other things without gassing out quickly. You always should have some gas left in the tank after every workout. 

So which one should you do? I say go for both in some capacity but if you had to pick just one, do what gives you the best benefit. Either one will. Be amazingly awesome and work them legs.