...In which the Strength & Conditioning Journal teaches us how to coach the Squat

[Austin Baraki]

In what has actually been described as "the most complete resource on squatting kinematics currently published," a slew of CSCS authors at the Strength and Conditioning Journal give us:

The Back Squat: Targeted Training Techniques to Correct Functional Deficits and Technical Factors That Limit Performance

Direct PDF Link / ResearchGate page

This article serves as the successor to their first piece describing a method for assessing said "Functional Deficits and Technical Factors that Limit Performance," Direct PDF Link / ResearchGate page. In this piece they "outlined ideal back squat technique with 10 position and movement criteria and pinpointed 30 functional deficits that can be identified with the back squat assessment". Although we have our differences in how the squat should be taught, most of their criteria are fairly reasonable.

With that said, there are 1) several glaring contradictions and inconsistencies in their model (e.g. "torso must remain upright" ... compared to the "model" squatter's back angle in Figure 2), 2) multiple recommendations that demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of how anthropometric variation affects squat technique (e.g. knee positioning, tibial angle, back angle, etc.), and 3) several "correct" squatting images showing a lifter blatantly squatting high or making other quite obvious errors (e.g. Figure 5).

But I'd rather not focus on the first article right now; the much more entertaining bit comes in part 2, where they "provide corrective strategies for each biomechanical deficit criteria." The 60-page paper is filled with corrective exercises for each of their proposed deficits, many of which are highly amusing, and very few of which involve actually squatting. Just a couple of their "functional deficits" (among many, many others) include:

• insufficient head and neck proprioception (...for people who don't know where their heads are in space?)
• insufficient neck stabilization strength (...for babies who aren't strong enough to hold their head up?)
• insufficient physiological range of motion of the neck (...how much neck range of motion is necessary to squat?)
• lack of mobility of the hip flexors (e.g., iliopsoas) and trunk flexors (e.g., abdominals) (...abdominal mobility???????)

Amazingly, these have failed to ever manifest themselves as problems at all, much less as problems requiring specialized corrective exercises, in the thousands and thousands of people we regularly coach to execute perfect squats in just a few minutes. (Although I'm sure the authors and their intended audience will be quite skeptical of this.)

One of my favorite techniques, designed to correct the apparently rampant problem of "insufficient neck stabilization strength" under the barbell involves this genius exercise:



Other amusing techniques involve squatting with a bean bag on top of the head, "single leg hip tilts," squatting on a BOSU ball, lifting your toes off the ground to "promote heel down mechanics," and just whatever the hell these are:



They also list sample verbal cues for each of their 10 criteria, including such profound instructions as: "Hold head flat", "straighten your shin", "point bellybutton forward," and "grip the floor with your heels to descend". These cues make you wonder whether these people have ever actually coached someone to squat, because I'm imagining getting utterly bewildered looks from clients if I actually tried using any of these.

These publications demonstrate serious problems in all four of our fundamental aspects of coaching, but show particularly ineffective and inefficient correction due to silly cues and exercises that rarely translate into the desired movement pattern under the bar. With all the errors routinely made during the squat, if I were to correct them all using their methods, it would easily take me days to weeks to get the lifter to a workable squat.

Fortunately many of the problems portrayed are quite easily fixed in seconds under the eye of a competent coach who has an understanding of the model, can teach it effectively, can quickly and accurately evaluate their lifter based on deviations from the model, and can communicate effective cues to rapidly fix errors within the context of the parent movement itself.

...Well that was quite the rant (although I tried really hard to keep it civil). So since I've actually been feeling my blood pressure rise as I type this out, I'll just let you guys take it from here.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Amazingly, these have failed to ever manifest themselves as problems at all, much less as problems requiring specialized corrective exercises, in the thousands and thousands of people we regularly coach to execute perfect squats in just a few minutes. (Although I'm sure the authors and their intended audience will be quite skeptical of this.)

Here's a deal: We will comp the two lead authors of this study, Kushner and Brent, to any seminar they wish to attend. So they may become better informed. They may contact us at my email address.

[CJ Gotcher]

... just a hot mess. Definitely some examples of items in your your bullshit article tucked in there. I saw the original summary when it came out, but not the full document with the corrective exercises- thanks for the share.

What amazes me is how often they intentionally use a more difficult variation to fix a fault in the main movement. For people with asymmetrical hips in the frontal plane, they recommend doing squats on a bosu ball to practice "maintain[ing] even hip position during more difficult task." If the lifter is able to square their hips on a more difficult variant of the exercise, why can't you cue them to do it during the movement?

[Jacobnorton]

Here's a deal: We will comp the two lead authors of this study, Kushner and Brent, to any seminar they wish to attend. So they may become better informed. They may contact us at my email address.

Do you think there is any chance they would actually attend? Or are they more likely under the impression they already know what they are talking about and don't need help?

[Bobr]

Last author: Stuart McGill. Wow.

[chrisd]

lifting your toes off the ground to "promote heel down mechanics,"

Well, I don't know about "Heel down mechanics", presumably this means not lifting the heels. However "Assume your squat stance, pick up your toes and rock back onto your heels" does appear in a Starting Strength. Only for three or four reps and as a corrective for knees forward errors, but I suppose this might be connected to "Heel down mechanics".

To give the authors their due, pushing someone face first into the floor with a pole looks fun. I fully expect to see personal trainers poking their clients with poles in the near future. I can see this having two great advantages. It requires two pieces of equipment and two people, so no self training and it will establish dominance on the part of the trainer. Shoving clients around so that they are in helpless positions is a great way of making them dependent on you.

[Joe Tandy]

I can't even.

[MWittmer]

if I were to correct them all using their methods, it would easily take me days to weeks to get the lifter to a workable squat.

There it is, justification for dozens of personal training sessions so "functional deficits" may be corrected.

[Bill Been]

Hats off to anybody with the persistence to read that whole thing. Once the words "functional deficits" came up, my BS Detector began to flash slowly, warning me of a high potential for BS. Once I got to "with 10 position and movement criteria and pinpointed 30 functional deficits that can be identified with the back squat assessment (BSA)", it went off full force and I was only able to proceed for a few more paragraphs.

How in the name of Beelzebub's bunghole can anybody fail to see that 30 of anything is too many to accomplish anything but paralysis? Something popped into mind as I read these guys trying to deal with something they find overwhelmingly complicated: I used to teach rank noobs how to close back into fingertip formation from a position a mile laterally and usually 1,500' above the other airplane - from a mile wide to 3 feet off the guy's wing while he's turning into you. It's a helluva lot more complicated than a squat. I'd bet you a small fortune I could not identify 30 distinct "deficits" in the performance of that whole "movement". And if I had tried to teach that maneuver by breaking it apart into tiny chunks then putting it back together, I would not only have been unsuccessful, I would've been a laughingstock for thinking anything so preposterous could ever work, and it would be understood that I had tried to do that because I didn't understand the maneuver.

[AndrewLewis]

It's almost like they want to inflate the price of their certifications, because "LOOK HOW COMPLEX THE SQUAT IS". It's not that complex. It's most simple, but hard.

As if bullshit trainers didn't have enough variation that they can sell.