Originally published in British Strength Magazine.
With the growth of powerlifting and strength training, barriers and records are being broken more frequently. The advent of social media means that there is now a lot more general exposure to said feats, which is motivating people to seek out information, optimise their lifting and progress as quickly as possible.
As the demand for information grows, the fitness industry answers by pumping it out on social media. No coach wants to be seen as just another strength coach. So, as a result, the information becomes overly complex and confusing. Don't get me wrong, this isn't a dig at informative posts. We understand more about training than ever, and the average strength coach has easy access to a lot of great information. However, in order to navigate the confusion caused by information overload, it's important to understand some key guiding principles.
Unfortunately, in the strength training world, there is no manual on the gold standard of movement. Everybody, whether lifter, coach, expert or spectator, is left to create their own version of what "right" or "wrong" should be in the context of technique and training.
It's important to be able to think critically when reviewing any information. We should question everything, to see if it aligns with our core beliefs, and, if it doesn't, to see if we need to rethink our core beliefs.
We should question everything. "What is the principle behind this cue?" "What concept is this achieving?" "Why is this way better?"
To have answers to these sorts of questions, we need to have a guiding light: a gold standard. The best place to start for this is a very simple question.
What is good technique?
This question is hard to define with an answer, right? Everybody has an answer to that question, even if they don't want to admit it. When you watch a squat, bench press or deadlift, you automatically catalogue it against every other lift you've seen and place it on a spectrum between "good" and "bad". However, if there's no definition of what "good" technique is, it's a futile endeavour in the first place.
Everyone will have their own interpretation of what good technique is and how it's displayed.
A common way to describe "good" technique is:
The strongest, safest and most efficient way to perform the movement for the individual.
Sure, that sounds great. But if someone were to ask you the direct question of why that's the case, could you answer? If that statement is going to be a definition, it needs to be globalised and measurable. Let's unpack each aspect of that definition.
Is safety measurable?
It's practically impossible to measure and categorically deem something as safe or unsafe.
We can assess injury risk to some extent, through a variety of measures. Namely, anecdotal experience and assessment of key variables, such as training volumes and recovery factors.
We can assess the absence of injury. However, that doesn't equate to safety. For example, let's say an individual has an extremely rounded back while deadlifting and never hurts their back. Next to them is an individual that deadlifts with a perfectly neutral spine and herniates a disc performing a deadlift. Does that mean that deadlifting with an extremely rounded back is safer than deadlifting with a perfectly neutral spine? Of course not. There are too many other factors at play here to make that assessment.
Because we cannot categorically deem a movement as safe or unsafe, it cannot be a part of our definition.
How can we measure efficiency?
This question is a little easier to answer, because there are characteristics that contribute to moving the bar more efficiently.
For example, the bar path and range of motion of a lift is the most common method of assessment here. A straight bar path and shorter range of motion can signal a more efficient movement. Analysing the velocity of the movement can be useful too.
However, it's important to highlight that efficiency requires a definition. Efficiency in the moment doesn't necessarily equate to longer term strength outcomes. That is, the body will move in its strongest, most efficient movement at any given point in time, which may not be the best technique to yield the strongest results.
Additionally, one must then also reconcile between the attributes of strength, efficiency and safety. What if the way that appears most efficient also appears to be unsafe to the coach? What if the most efficient technique is less strong than one that is deemed less efficient? For example, what if a lifter satisfies the concept of bar path and speed in a deadlift, but has an unstable back position, and hitches the bar on the way to lockout? Does that still satisfy "good technique" if it's ticking the box of efficiency but undermines our idea of safety?
What about strength?
Strength is the easiest attribute to measure and monitor. If the weight on the bar, or the volume able to be completed, is increasing, a lifter is getting stronger. If we refer back to the "good technique" definition, there too can be a conflict in ideologies with this. If the "strongest" way isn't how we see safety or efficiency, then how can it be part of our definition?
Just because something is the strongest right now doesn't mean that way will be the strongest in the future. Often, making a technical change in a lift immediately makes the lift feel (and be) LESS strong for a period of time before it produces positive strength outcomes. This means that if we use strength in our definition of good technique, we have to have a clear interpretation on whether that refers to immediate strength, or a projected outcome.
Individual differences?
The unpopular opinion: you're not a special snowflake! Now, let me explain.
Although we are all built differently, are different genders, have different proportions, bodyweights, heights, etc., we are all human beings performing the same movements (squat, bench press, deadlift). Within that there are biomechanical rules that apply to everyone.
Look at it in the same context as a physiotherapist would, where there are applied systems, based on the human anatomy.
If you hurt your shoulder and go to the physio for a diagnosis, they don't need to do an X-ray, MRI, CT scan and take measurements so they can produce a perfect model of your shoulder. They will just reach under their desk and produce a generic model of a human shoulder, explain how it works and what to do to fix your injury. Why? Because you are a human and you have A shoulder. And, human to human, shoulders are built, and function, the same way.
So, when we take that into consideration and see it within strength training, you'll see that the human animal has far more similarities than differences.
Of course, individuality does come into play in strength training. However, this component should be addressing how we can get the individual to position themselves in such a way that allows them to express the global principles. This may mean modifying hand or foot position, to change the actions at the shoulders or hips, for example.
So, what is good technique?
I'm sure you're reading this and think it's starting to sound like I'm insinuating a one-size-fits-all approach! Not quite, but very close to it! It's more about a one-principle-fits-all approach, recognising that, again, we are the same animal, performing the same movements. And, within those movements there are certain biomechanical actions that apply to everybody.
Once you acknowledge that fact, you'll begin to notice that breakdowns of varying degrees, occurring in most lifters, are generally the same issues, expressed differently. Identifying the root issue often means using the same problem-solving pathways to address, and prevent, multiple breakdowns.
So, is there such a thing as "perfect technique"? Yes, but it lives in the heads of coaches. Every coach has a gold standard, a picture of what perfect technique is to them, in their head, that they move every client towards. Ultimately, the best technique will be the one that yields the strongest outcome, in the most efficient way, with the lowest risk of injury. However, until we as an industry can agree upon what that gold standard technique is, you will continue to see arguments be made for and against whatever technique is flavour of the month.
What I can say for sure is that approaching technique using a gold standard built upon recognising the similarities in people is likely to be the solution, because it's the undeniable truth in movement, and the bedrock of almost every other sport.
In the next instalments, we'll break down the squat, bench press and deadlift in turn, so we can extract a gold standard to work with. Start with Part 2: the three biomechanical rules of the squat.
