Facebook Pixel
Brookbush Institute Logo

Tuesday, June 6, 2023

Wide stance squats: Good or Bad?

Brent Brookbush

Brent Brookbush


Panel Discussion: Does the picture below demonstrate good squat mechanics?

For the best in Human Movement Science Education head to - http://b2cfitness.com/

Moderated by Brent Brookbush DPT, PT, MS, PES, CES, CSCS, ACSM H/FS

This Panel Discussion was originally posted on my facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/brent.brookbush - on

Brent Brookbush Let's get this debate started: THIS IS A TERRIBLE SQUAT (IMHO), a squat that should make hips, knees, and LPHC's shutter. The question is not "if" this individual will end up with orthopedic pain, injury, or some chronic pathology, but simply "when." So why is this squat taught… why have certain influential organizations and individuals started promoting this technique?

October 5 at 10:49am · Like · 7

Ryan Crandall There is no one way to squat.

October 5 at 10:51am via mobile · Like

Brent Brookbush Agreed Ryan Crandall, but you know that is not enough to convince the proponents of this technique… WHY is this a terrible squat?

October 5 at 10:58am · Like

Terance Reddick I would also add that in order to see if in fact the " squat" is being deemed incorrect it would need to be a video no a picture.

October 5 at 10:59am via mobile · Like · 3

Matt Cleary Clearly evident that the individual has very little upper body stability and tension on the bar. It'll also be incredibly hard to prevent valgus collapse with heavier weights due to the flared foot position. Not to mention depression of the navicular, losing the arch of the foot which is likely to cause ankle issues.

October 5 at 11:01am · Edited · Like · 1

Brent Brookbush I think we can tell plenty from that bottom position Terance Reddick, but feel free to infer what the rest of this squat would look like… knees out, feet out, and in the case of this individual low back arched. This debate is really about the two different squat forms that are taught. Feet parallel, hip to shoulder width, knees tracking over second and third toe, neutral pelvis, etc


what you see above… feet turned out and wide, knees bow out, and occasionally this squat is taught with an arch in the low back.

October 5 at 11:03am · Like

Brent Brookbush Nice Matt Cleary, until I saw your point I hadn't even considered how the wide feet increase the moment arm on the medial longitudinal arch (relative to a central load) and the potential for navicular depression… if this were a game show, you would have just got a couple points. 2 for Cleary!

October 5 at 11:05am · Like

Alexander Kaufman Not if you want to lift 700 Lbs.

October 5 at 11:06am via mobile · Like

Ryan Crandall I see nothing wrong per say. Not every body is built the same. So what he toes out. Normal anatomical is not pointing straight forward, in fact the norm is a few degrees toed out. Maybe he did ballet and his femur is presenting with retroversion.

October 5 at 11:06am · Like

Michelle Langsam I was always told studies have shown far more damage from back rounding than back arching , of course I'm aware of neutral spine being the best choice but have I missed something with the arch rounding thing ?

October 5 at 11:10am via mobile · Like

Rick Daigle I dont think there is a wrong way persay but rather a wrong way for a specific person. In my opinion this guys is compensating for a lack of core stability and IMO im talking inner core firing and sequencing. Hips have to IR to squat so squattinf with toes straight can give us information if they can or cant… though again you have to assess where the baseline is and decide biomechanically what the person is or isnt capable of.

October 5 at 11:11am via mobile · Like · 2

Brent Brookbush Questions Ryan Crandall,

What is the normal amount of toe out, and what is being represented by this photo?

Further is that toe not compensated for elsewhere in the lower extremity?

So this individual is retroverted? Does that mean everyone who does this type of squat is retrovered? I we so unsuccessful as a species that everyone who has been taught this squat has a genetic or structural abnormality that makes this position normal?

And ballet would not retrovert the femur… retroversion would have to happen in development.

October 5 at 11:12am · Like

Michelle Langsam He looks to me like he has hip flexibility issues cause he is only squatting to 90degrees and appears to be compensating by widening his squat

October 5 at 11:12am via mobile · Like

Brent Brookbush So Rick Daigle, my question really regards if this is an appropriate way to teach a squat to new exercisers? Further, if you can fix the compensation pattern… shouldn't you? I personally would rather give this individual a corrective warm-up and try to bring this person back to more neutral alignment.

October 5 at 11:16am · Like · 3

Rick Daigle Agreed Brent. If you can fix it. Then fix it. If they cant do the base movement, I dont let them squat. Earn the rigjt first and regress to progress.

October 5 at 11:19am via mobile · Like · 4

Rick Daigle And just because it looks like there is a mobility issues does not mean it truly is… got to adress diaphragm and inner core sequencing

October 5 at 11:20am via mobile · Like · 1

Michelle Langsam All I know is when I do security work and see a big dude I look at their legs , if the walk feet turned out I know their fist can't get me cause I can get them off balance in a heartbeat and I'm only a small girl . Also I am a core trainer and over and over I find overtraining with feet turned out weakens the back half of the pelvic floor …. And by the way this over time apparently shortens the ability to hold an erection .. So a big reason to do some feet forward training I reckon !

October 5 at 11:20am via mobile · Like · 2

Ryan Crandall Wolffs law.

October 5 at 11:22am · Like

Brent Brookbush We may differ a bit in our opinions about mobility Rick Daigle. IMHO a motor sequencing problem is going to include a mobility issue, a strength issue, a stability issue, etc… in essence, once one piece of the kinetic chain falls, all other systems (muscular, skeletal, fascial, and neural) must comply and in so doing will adapt (maladaptation in this case). I will admit that adaptive shortening of connective tissue takes longer than changes in motor sequencing (especially in response to pain), but given enough time all parts of the system will be involved.

October 5 at 11:24am · Like · 1

Brent Brookbush Nice Ryan Crandall, but Wolff's law is an immensely slow process… we would need some pretty aggressive "ballet training" at a really young age and over the course of decades for 45 degrees of retro-version… that is a tremendous amount. This individuals hips would look like what your blender spit out if that was the case.

October 5 at 11:26am · Like

Rick Daigle Mobility and motor control sequencing are very different IMO. Yes they can be related but if it is TRUE mobility (such as a CAM lesion on yhe frlemoral neck). If thats the case how do you suggest we fix that? True mobility limitations will be consistent in loaded vs unloaded and active vs passive.

October 5 at 11:31am via mobile · Like

Ryan Crandall Normal toe out according to my gait analysis book from PT school is 7 degrees in standing. Not sure of standard deviation. The variation in humans varies considerably…I go with success. Try getting my wife's feet to point forward which makes her knees feel like they are driving in. Success for her is toed out. No big deal.

October 5 at 11:34am · Like · 1

Dan Hellman It is hard to comment on a static photo that shows only one view. However from the photo I see the following. 1. terrible head and neck alignment. 2. A hug lumbar lordosis 3. Poor eye position 4. Not sure about the feet position, because I didn't assess him.

October 5 at 11:37am · Like · 2

Dan Hellman sorry that was HUGE lumbar lordosis

October 5 at 11:42am · Like · 1

Brent Brookbush Hey Rick Daigle,

This is a very large philosophical debate we are starting in on… in the case of the CAM lesion I would correct as much as I could. If someone does not have mobility, this is evidence of altered length/tension relationships which by itself is going to affect muscle spindle activity and change motor sequencing. If this alteration in mechanics has existed for a long enough period of time (more than a couple of weeks), there is going to be significant adaptive shortening and a need to focus on mobility…. but to your point, I always work on activation and integration of motor sequences as well

October 5 at 11:43am · Like · 1

Rick Daigle Agreed. Very large debate on this one. Which makes it fun

October 5 at 11:44am via mobile · Like

Brent Brookbush Ryan Crandall, so you are saying that the person above has 7 degrees? And why not just fix your wife's compensation pattern? (you could start by stretching and releasing the calves)

October 5 at 11:45am · Like · 1

Brent Brookbush Sounds like a great podcast Rick Daigle

October 5 at 11:45am · Like · 1

Ryan Crandall Pretty big assumption that she lacks mobilty in her calves/DF. She doesn't. She is 40 and doesn't need fixing. Her normal is more than 7 degrees toed out…try fixing her and she'll slap ya, lol.

Not everyone moves and is structured the same.

October 5 at 11:49am · Edited · Like

Brent Brookbush What do you think, I got the marketing right here

"Daigle versus Brookbush" -

12 rounds of non-stop multi-syllabic words, motor theory, and human movement science - dance like a cadaver and sting like a herniation - Who will be the bigger Geek! tune-in to find out!

October 5 at 11:48am · Like · 1

Brent Brookbush Not that big of an assumption Ryan Crandall, and I have yet to find someone who does not appreciate my lower leg workout. "Her mobility is fine" means one thing to me (WFL - We Forgot to Look).

October 5 at 11:49am · Like

Spencer Cuckney Brent if the person is on the particularly tall side would advise a wider foot and knee stance?

October 5 at 11:56am via mobile · Like

Spencer Cuckney 'Would you'

October 5 at 11:59am via mobile · Like

Brent Brookbush Personally Spencer Cuckney, I would not… I am 6'3"… I do a feet parallel squat. I am not a strength competitor… but I am 33, post knee surgery, 220 pounds and can still dunk… I certainly do not jump from that position, so why would I train that way?

October 5 at 12:00pm · Like · 1

Spencer Cuckney Ok that's cool….I am 6'1" 45 years, used to be feet parallel but now have gone much wider - finding it beneficial, my sport has always been boxing but now cable Wakeboarding….just curious

October 5 at 12:05pm via mobile · Like

Spencer Cuckney I have to admit though my mobility and flexibility from ankle upwards has not always been the best but now I do spend a lot of time on the roller and flex work! Great debate though mate

October 5 at 12:07pm via mobile · Like

Brent Brookbush I was just giong to ask if you had checked your ankle mobility Spencer Cuckney… keeping working at it.

October 5 at 12:08pm · Like

Ryan Crandall Very funny

October 5 at 12:08pm via mobile · Like · 1

Spencer Cuckney I guess it might have to do with the fact that I am now more focused on mobility and flexibility because I want to be pain free that the wider squats are working for me Brent

October 5 at 12:15pm via mobile · Like

Spencer Cuckney More flex, mobility and some placebo

October 5 at 12:16pm via mobile · Like

Nick Chertock I think the larger picture is this:

Why is it that an exercise which is not self limiting is considered a standard exercise for new lifters?

This is what makes sense to me: You must be able to execute a beautiful front squat and nail all the olympic lifts before you are given permission to back squat since the loads are so high.

As for this squat, my untrained eye fixates on the ribcage sitting very low low compared to the knees, I'm seeing about 4 compensations starting from the poor foot mechanics, knees being kicked out so they have room to go valgus and present as a 'good squat' to a fitness magazine editor. the huge lumbar curve, .

Are those running shoes?

October 5 at 12:18pm · Unlike · 3

Brent Brookbush Hey Spencer Cuckney,

In the short-term you will see benefits from the wider squat. If you work around your compensation you will feel stronger, just like putting heel lifts under someone with tight calfs… the important thing is the long-term. When your piriformis, adductor magnus, and biceps femoris start becoming over-active and low-back and SIJ start barking at you… you will wish you had put more work into modifying your flexibility and activation program for your lower leg. Keep in mind, you may need some PT to work on arthrokinematic dysfunction that is keeping you from getting benefits from your release and stretching program.

October 5 at 1:05pm · Like · 2

Jacob Redmon im still learning and feel sure i always will be, but im very confused on why someone would do a squat this way! seems like over time its just going to cause injury, if not right away while doing the excercise! plus major muscle imbalances in the lower extremities! i may would be able to lift more with that form but what real gain is it to lift more with a bad technique? i can bench more if i arch my back too, but that doesnt make it worth the risk. if there is a purpose for this kind of squat im confused on what it is?

October 5 at 1:43pm · Like

Ryan Crandall http://realconstipationremedies.com/online-courses/online-courses/…/01/AsianSquat.jpg

October 5 at 1:53pm · Like · 2 · Remove Preview

Ryan Crandall ^ My kinda squat. Not worried at all about that little rotation (which is normal).

October 5 at 1:54pm · Like

Senza Nome I'm still reading through the comments so my question might be redundant, still I curious regarding the "wide feet" issue; the gentleman in the picture has, to me at least, a wide upper body thus raising his centre of gravity.

Wouldn't a wide stance be more appropriate in this case?

October 5 at 1:58pm via mobile · Like

Nick Outlaw Nick Chertock, why would someone learn to Olympic Lift ( Snatch and Power Cean) before they learned to Squat correctly? Sounds like a backward progression.

October 5 at 2:04pm · Edited · Like

Jacob Redmon Sorry Ryan Crandall. Im not in a position were I can view your video, and read over my last post and realized it may of come off rude?! Just curious really! Like I said im still learning! I wouldn't be worried about a little rotation either to continue, but what is the purpose of a 45 degree rotation for lifting? Is it corrective for something other than constipation remedies? Im still confused? Would this not cause major issues in a persons knee, hip, and ankle? I apologize for any miss communication! I was raised on a farm and im almost completely technology illiterate! The biggest word I had to learn growing up was fertilizer, and my process of learning is slow, but capable of doing so! Please feel free to correct me if im wrong, but wouldn't this kind of squat add to most peoples problems rather than improving anything? What kind of individual should I use this exercise for if I should use it, assuming they can do it with out the awful arch in the back?

October 5 at 2:32pm · Like

Nick Chertock Nick Outlaw I never said that. Squatting does not require a loaded barbell on the back. Pictured is one type of squat movement, there are many that should be learned before this one IMO. Goblet squat being a good starting point.

October 5 at 2:43pm · Like · 1

Brent Brookbush Ryan Crandall, wasn't it you who claimed 7 degrees was normal… and both of the individuals in your video are demonstrating only about 15. The guy in the picture above is at 45 degrees. You are going to need to come up with a better excuse for why you are working around compensation then pointing out other peoples dysfunction. And there is a huge difference between "Normal" and "Optimal"… Low back pain is "normal" (experienced by 85% of the population according to some studies (McGill)), I would hardly call it optimal.

October 5 at 2:56pm · Like

Brian Flynn There have been some great point here but lets not forget training specificity and the persons enjoyment of the movement . Although the compensations are not ideal If the individual is presenting with the numerous compensations listed above but surely isnt the end of their ankles,knees, hips, back etc. if they decide to move a little more three dimensionally. An ideal situation would be your client not experiencing pain with his squat. Maybe parallel just hurts the person. Maybe decades of "improper movement" causes the person to compensate? I haven't seen a corrective exercise protocol that will clean that up, let alone right away. I agree corrections like Brent Brookbush listed are not only important but necessary but working towards correction (if the body allows the correction) should be a goal not a deal breaker.

October 5 at 3:13pm via mobile · Like · 2

Brent Brookbush Hey Brian Flynn, may the question is the effectiveness of your corrective strategy… As we mentioned above, compensation is the precursor to injury, and no one is having fun while injured.

October 5 at 3:19pm · Like

Scott Mitchell Yes. It's one of many ways to squat. Actually squatting with feet wide, narrow, externally rotated, internally rotated, staggered, one foot elevated etc are all great ways to squat (loaded or not). variability actually enhances flexibility, neural activity, and tissue health. Careful with the terms "optimal", "ideal", "compensation" etc.

October 5 at 3:19pm via mobile · Like · 5

Ryan Crandall Excellent Scott Mitchell! Ido Portal and Scott Sonnon put out some great info regarding the variability in human movement.

October 5 at 3:29pm via mobile · Like · 1

Brent Brookbush Scott Mitchell, there is a difference between practice and loaded resistance training. In practice of sport we must use varied motor patterns to achieve our goals, but as we increase load we must mitigate risk. The back loaded squat is one tool, within a very narrow scope of training (specifically resistance training for strength gains). Unless you are going to come out against overloading he muscular system for strength gains specifically… I will stick by my definition of optimal, compensation, and ideal.

October 5 at 3:34pm · Like · 1

Jacob Redmon Just curious and may be way off topic, but does this present any extra pressure on the intestines? I've heard stories about people blowing their intestines out and just assumed it was from the load, but now im kind of curious on how big of a factor the form may of be? Does anyone know??

October 5 at 3:56pm · Like

Robert Brookbush I don't think so Brent Brookbush because he seems a little to low anad his stance a bit too wide

October 5 at 4:06pm via mobile · Like

Leanne Earley- Neville I would be concerned with the concentric phase of this deep, wide-stance, squat pattern. Can he stay in a stable arch and not slip into hyper-extension of his lumbar spine as he comes out of that deep hip flexion? He could definitely be in a safer position to engage his hips. However, with the joint angle increased, I think he could gain some greater training effect, specifically if he maintains the ability to maintain neutrality of the spine in the acceleration phase. He needs some strong hip extensors and deep spinal stability to make it work…jmo…love this debate…brilliant minds in action here

October 5 at 6:12pm · Like · 3

Paul Crush Pivarnik Back squats generally are dangerous depending on a lot of factors. They're just not for everybody. If we're looking for a safe squat I'd ditch this for the front squat. Also, I agree with Ryan concerning there is not a universal form here. But this man could narrows his grip for more stability throughout.

October 5 at 6:35pm via mobile · Like · 1

Chuck Gonzales This is a great thread. Thanks for posing the question. I think the photographer didn't cue the actor correctly. Really though, slight flexion, slight increased shear forces (possibly), and this position would be good if he was an Olympic Weightlifter as he's developing strength in his receiving position.

October 5 at 6:36pm via mobile · Like

Scott Mitchell Brent Brookbush , are you saying that as we increase load, we should only use "feet straight / optimal"type of squatting? If so, I am ok in us disagreeing on this. By varying up the stance (even with high loads)we can more effectively mitigate the stress on various tissues of the body, resulting in 3dimensional strength, neural activation, and ultimately reducing the risk of injury. to me there should be little difference between "practice" and "loaded resistance training". To train with increased loads WITH variability, will mitigate the forces along the various tissue lines that are also stressed with the tremendous 3 dimensional forces in life and sport. Obviously you work up to this type of training though.

Just a note on this: I am talking about the the varied foot placement in a squat for this discussion. Thanks for creating the dialogue Brent.

October 5 at 6:54pm via mobile · Unlike · 5

Brent Brookbush My concern with squat form, dare I start an emotionally charged debate about schools of thought, is this is the way some are teaching the squat, including crossfit, some kettlebell companies, and power-lifting inspired personal trainers… regardless of whether the actual goal is competition. Many of you have commented on there not being a universal perfect squat… but the form above is being taught as the "correct" squat… "air squats" have been made popular by the new book "Supple Leopard" and teach a similar form.

Your thoughts?

October 5 at 6:56pm · Like · 1

Ryan Crandall Scott nails it again and echos my sentiments.

October 5 at 6:57pm via mobile · Like

Brent Brookbush Scott Mitchell, as NASM faculty, how do you align this thinking with the teachings of the CES, the corrective warm-up, and the success NASM has had preventing injury by working toward optimal mechanics and reinforcing those mechanics during resistance training? - if we want to look at evidence we can turn to the incredible success this model has had in the NBA.

October 5 at 7:00pm · Like · 1

Dan Hellman The above may be "universal" however it is NOT perfect! If you came to me with a L5 S1 disc pathology you would probably get 3 exercises. 1 roll and unroll the spine 2. L5 S1 ELDOA and 3. The SQUAT but a squat done properly not like in the photo above!

October 5 at 7:31pm via mobile · Like · 1

Jared Anderson I think our body was meant to do both. Either way gravity will eventually degenerate the spine. We are not meant to just move linear and like a robot. The best form of movement is no form but just moving. Obviously there is some function involved but we just need to move more but not too much of any movement. Too much of anything leads to tissue damage and not enough as well. Pick your poisen.

October 5 at 8:11pm · Like · 2

Brent Brookbush I think this discussion, although I appreciate the direction, has gone a little off the rails. The squat above is being taught as the "right" squat, compensations be damned…

I agree that we have to work in multiple plains, through various movement patterns, but that is not where this discussion started….

To repost my comment from a couple of statements ago:

My concern with squat form, dare I start an emotionally charged debate about schools of thought, is this is the way some are teaching the squat, including crossfit, some kettlebell companies, and power-lifting inspired personal trainers… regardless of whether the actual goal is competition. Many of you have commented on there not being a universal perfect squat… but the form above is being taught as the "correct" squat… "air squats" have been made popular by the new book "Supple Leopard" and teach a similar form.

Your thoughts?

Are we just throwing corrective exercise, optimal movement patterns, postural dysfunction, length/tension relationships, recruitment patterns, muscular synergy, receptor activation and reflexive changes in tonicity, optimal arthokinematics, motor programming and the cumulative injury cycle out the window? Essentially, everything we have learned about human movement science in the last 50 years?

I'll tell you what I think the real motivation is, be it extremely pessimistic - people don't want to take the time to learn, practice, and master something that is going to require them to think on a daily basis… so… we'll just work around compensations and justify it with "well this works for me"

"The hardest work you will ever do is think… which is why so few people do it" - Henry Ford

Again I look forward to your thoughts…

October 5 at 8:21pm · Edited · Like · 5

Josh Stephens what do you think Matt Whittingham?

October 5 at 8:26pm via mobile · Like

Josh Stephens Shawn Brannon

October 5 at 8:28pm via mobile · Like

Scott Mitchell Brent Brookbush as faculty I have made an effort in being open to different trains of thought, even if I didnt quit agree right away. It's how we grow. I too thought for years that the CES was the only way to dot it. Now I see it as "A way" of doing it. The "issue" is not always a result of an overactive and under active muscle. Yes there has been success with this approach, and no one would argue that. But, I have also had impressive, quick and lasting success with the manipulation of the feet. By manipulating the foot print in a squat we directly enhance the ankle, knee, and hip structures too. I dont take you to be close-minded Brent, and I am sure you see the wisdom in a multifaceted approach- even if I am faculty.

October 5 at 8:55pm via mobile · Like · 2

Brent Brookbush Hey Scott Mitchell, Mobilizations are definitely part of an optimal model, and although not taught in the CES are part of Mike Clark's approach. However, manual work is not with in the scope of personal trainers, and further has a direct effect on muscle activity via arthokinematic receptors (in essence, changes in muscle activity are always present in movement impairment). I find that much easier to find congruence with what we know to be effective than the squat at 45 degrees of external rotation, which could have a deleterious effect on the hip over time.

October 5 at 9:00pm · Like · 2

Robyn Paula I don't know anything about weight lifting or personal training, but as a massage therapist, the arch in this guy's lower back freaks me out. I'm not too thrilled with the knees out over the toes either, but the low back in this picture makes me cringe.

October 5 at 9:05pm via mobile · Like · 1

Scott Mitchell Wasn't talking about mobilizations, but loaded resistance training. As for the 45 degrees, or the 52 degrees or the 22 degrees, I see a place for all of them. I find it hard to believe that squatting with various degrees has a "deleterious" effect on the hip if done often and with variety. The stress is actually mitigated nicely. Thoughts?

October 5 at 9:16pm via mobile · Like · 1

Scott Mitchell Brent Brookbush see above. Thanks brother and again, love the conversation

October 5 at 9:29pm via mobile · Like

Brent Brookbush Scott Mitchell, but that is not what I am talking about… People are teaching the above as dogma… as in this is the proper squat. Not variety, but only 45 degrees. Yes, maybe it is okay to do a variety of foot positions, but the above is going to have some serious effects on arthrokinematics and length/tension relationships. Consider what the angle above would do to force distribution on the superior labrum…

October 5 at 9:34pm · Like · 2

Scott Mitchell Brent Brookbush I apologize then. I agree, being dogmatic about the human body / movement can be dangerous and egotistical. If the above pic was one of many squat types of squats, then I am sure we'd agree that the above pic Is just fine. If it was "the only way to squat" then there would be some issues. So tough communicating clearly online like this. God bless bro

October 5 at 9:44pm via mobile · Unlike · 1

Jacob Redmon I'm clearly not as advanced as all the brilliant minds on this topic, but I love variety in any exercise with safety being considered! The squat in the picture doesn't look safe at all to me. If turning the feet out, just my opinion, but the knees should stay over the feet and the back should be somewhat neutral. Which would make it very difficult with a barbell on your back to lower yourself very far while keeping the form. Am I wrong in thinking this way? My way of thinking leads me to believe the angle with the barbell on the back is going to put added pressure on the knees. Maybe wrong?

October 5 at 10:05pm · Like

Vivian Bresnitz No !!

October 5 at 10:27pm via mobile · Like

Vivian Bresnitz I assumed you were referring to the standard , regardless of the reality of the huge load he's handling. Other input makes sense.

October 5 at 10:30pm via mobile · Like

Jacob Redmon Sorry VivIan, im confused on what the "no" was about?

October 5 at 11:11pm · Like

Jason Erickson Though I could debate various aspects of the squat shown in this picture, some context would strongly influence my comments. For some clients, squatting like this would represent a major functional improvement. For an experienced lifter, this might represent some problems.

I have taught clients to squat in a variety of ways, and have used something similar to this as part of a client's progression. This position is less problematic when the client is lifting well under their capacity, and if they don't squat like this forever.

October 6 at 2:21am · Like · 1

Orlando Carmona Great questions. I'm not as experienced as many who have commented, but NASM does an outstanding job at teaching why proper Dynamic posture is essential to the kinetic chain. The feet turning out creates compensation, which leads to synergistic dominance; altered length tension relationship, arthokinematics and force coupled relationship. The afore motioned will all lead to cumulative injury cycle, including lower back pain, due to an under active Gracilis; knee pain due to an under active sartorious and popliteus (key to the knee). Does anyone agree?

October 6 at 6:57am via mobile · Unlike · 4

Brent Brookbush Exciting stuff… This is shaping up to be a tremendous discussion. Thank you for your contributions Spencer Cuckney, Ryan Crandall, Scott Mitchell, Jason Erickson, Jacob Redmon, Nick Chertock… and all of the other wonderful professionals who continue to add to this discussion.

I may never agree that the squat above (taught in dogmatic - "this way is the right way" fashion) is okay. I simply cannot justify the lower body alignment… well that and… I have the skills to fix the lower leg dysfunction and LPHC dysfunction that would make this squat "feel more comfortable" for the individual.

BUT…. that really is not the point of these discussions. Everyone in this discussion has been respectful, inquisitive, intelligently critical, and has supported their post with rationale/logical arguments. Thank you to everyone for "raising the bar"

October 6 at 10:05am · Like · 2

Ryan R. Fairall After reading these posts, I think there are a lot of good points, but most of all I agree with the post on specificity. This guy's definitely not a powerlifter or offensive lineman, but this form may be beneficial to athletes like that. I think just like anything else, there's no one size fits all. You have to tailor the exercise to the individual. I teach squats so the movement can be used in real world settings…sport or otherwise.

Simple example, picking up a heavy box on moving day. You're going to have to take a wider stance with some external rotation at the hip and not be worried about always having the toes forward.

October 6 at 1:37pm via mobile · Like

Jeremy Katzen I believe that the feet should not be to far outside the waist which could cause the knees to adduct and internally rotate with added load. Also, load over the shoulder puts a lot of pressure on the spine increasing the risk for bulging disk and possible QL strain.

October 6 at 3:04pm · Like

Shawn Fears My position on this hasn't changed since 2011. If the knees drift then the glutes are week. There is no obvious compensation in this photo. Without an actual assessment this is all assumption based in a weak argument that this position is a compensated position. The knees aren't drifting, the hips aren't butt winking and depth is sufficient. If any of these were different I would say there are compensations but as is it takes mobility and stability to get in this position there are no obvious compensations.

As for teaching a neutral position that is fine but you aren't loading 600lbs in a neutral stance back squat. There is a reason why you don't see that in power lifting or Olympic lifting its just not a strong position.

Should you be able to do a neutral squat? Sure it's a base human movement, but to say that's the only position to load lacks evidence.

Anthropometry should dictate squat stance.

October 6 at 7:00pm via mobile · Like · 1

Michael Colvin · 3 mutual friends

Geez. Can one of y'all train Me? My brain hurts and at least ill know you're doing your best to look out for my best interests

Yesterday at 9:58pm via mobile · Like · 3

© 2014 Brent Brookbush

Continue the conversation using the comment boxes below – questions, comments, and criticisms are welcomed and encouraged!!!