Originally Posted by
Mark Rippetoe
Here's what he says at the start if the video, talking to Diane left out:
"Now, one of the problems is that we express external rotation torque by screwing the feet in. In the language of strength and conditioning, knees out allows you to create more torque. ...Now, typically when we've turned an athlete's feet out, what we've done is we've un-impinged the hip mechanically, but we've lost the mechanical advantage of being in stable position. So, we've solved one problem, have more room, but before Diane ended up in the same position."
Let's assume Kelly is addressing our method -- he may not be. I normally do not understand his explanations. He seems to want the feet forward with the knees out, a position which places the distal femur out in abduction/external rotation and the distal tibia internally rotated. Either the knee joint or the ankle joint must be placed in a non-anatomically normal position for this to occur, and all the mobility in the world cannot alter this fact.
First, torque is produced by muscles generating force, not the joints across which it is transmitted. Second, our job is to squat the weight up, out of the bottom, not to keep a guy from pulling your knees together with his hands. This test is terribly subjective in both his and her responses to the situation. Neither of them know how hard the other is actually pushing/pulling, and both of them know what they want to happen. And yes, neither position she assumes in the video is the one we coach.
Since Kelly advocates the same basic femoral angle that we do, and since the toes-in position therefore affects the structures below the knee, he must be of the opinion that an internally rotated tibia is beneficial to the knees-out position. If the tibia is internally rotated, this would potentially tighten up the IT band and the vastus lateralis, producing some lateral tightness that would not otherwise be there, to repeat your point. This explains an increase in the knees-out capacity at the bottom. But at what cost? If the tibial and femoral condyles are not lined up symmetrically, the stress across the joint is not symmetrical. Our method is primarily designed for novices that don't need their knees injured -- even though Malanichev uses the same stance to squat 1038, and all of the heavy squatters I am familiar with line their thighs up with their stance.
The bottom is not the only position in which the knee operates. The entire range of motion in the squat certainly affects the knee and its long-term integrity. This misalignment effect only operates at the bottom, but what about the effect of an internally-rotated tibia on an externally rotated femur through the rest of the ROM?
And more to your point, if the knees are outside the ankles, you have created a moment arm between knee and foot that is the horizontal distance between the knee and foot. I've never seen anyone squat deep and heavy like this. I know Westside advocates this, but they compete in the APF -- where depth is not really judged the same way we do, and their videos do not show people actually squatting with toes in and femurs out. Watch them. Kelly says she squats 330, and I'd like to see 330 squatted this way, with knees outside the feet and toes in/femurs out. I'll bet she lines up her thighs and feet, like everybody else does under a heavy weight. I'd like to see any video that demonstrates a toes in/knees out position at 1RM load for an advanced lifter.
My take is that knees don't like to be treated this way, and that at heavy weight you won't find many people with an intentional misalignment. Because it's hard on the knees. And because you can squat more weight when the knees operate in an non-pathological manner, more "torque" at the bottom or not.