By Rob Braat
Contents
1. Summary
2. Introduction
3. Where Does This Obsession Come From?
4. Paralysis by Analysis
5. Final Thoughts
6. References
7. About the Author
Summary
Chasing perfect technique can hold athletes back more than it helps. This article argues for purpose-driven coaching, where context, intent, and adaptability matter more than textbook form. Real progress comes from smart load management, not over-cueing. Sometimes, the best coaching is knowing when to stay quiet.
Introduction
As S&C coaches, our exercise selection should be the product of thoughtful analysis. We consider the demands of the sport, the athlete's position (primarily in team sports), injury history, training age, and more. Each chosen exercise must serve a clear purpose that fits into the logic of the microcycle, mesocycle, and macrocycle. In other words, if we do our job correctly, every weight room decision should be explained in context. This is why I believe in purpose over form.
Whether priming, chasing peak power, developing maximal strength, or opting for specific isometric work, the purpose of the session dictates the execution and, potentially, the form itself. Take, for example, a trap bar deadlift performed with slight lumbar flexion. A coach might feel compelled to reduce the load to "fix" the problem immediately. However, is that the right call if our goal is maximum strength?
The question is, is lumbar flexion truly dangerous — or just "imperfect" according to textbook standards? In most cases, minor deviations from neutral are tolerable and expected under heavy load. Reducing the weight to chase some arbitrary idea of perfect form might undermine the training effect we are after. In this sense, the coach's intervention, meant to protect, may hinder the athlete's progress.
Where Does This Obsession Come From?
The idea that lumbar flexion during a lift is dangerous has existed for decades. It is a belief deeply embedded in the strength and conditioning world, often passed down more through tradition than evidence. More recently, however, studies have started to challenge this assumption. For example, Saraceni et al. (2020) found no direct evidence that lumbar or spinal flexion under load predicts low back pain or differentiates between those with and without it. Despite this, the stigma remains.
At the same time, we are seeing the rise of social media experts and influencers constantly preaching the importance of perfect form. Scroll through Instagram or TikTok, and you will see hundreds of videos saying every lift should look the same, no matter the load. This messaging creates a culture where coaches are afraid to let go of control, holding athletes back any time from deviating from some textbook model.
Another layer to this is the pressure coaches place on each other. In many environments, there is an unspoken expectation that they are always doing something, constantly giving feedback, shouting corrections, and appearing hyper-engaged. However, what we often see in these situations is not strategic cueing; it is a flood of external feedback, which is a problem.
Too much external feedback creates athletes who are over-reliant on coaching. There is a crucial distinction here: While external cueing (e.g., "push the floor away") is generally more effective than internal cueing (e.g., "activate your glutes"), both should be minimal and intentional. We do not want constant feedback interrupting the athlete's ability to develop internal feedback mechanisms.
If we want athletes to be adaptable, self-sufficient, and robust, especially under load, we must create space for them to feel, experiment, and self-organize. Standing silently and watching an athlete work through a movement is not passive; it is coaching restraint, and it is often more valuable than drowning them in technical commentary mid-set.
"Too much external feedback creates athletes who are over-reliant on coaching."
To be clear, I am not suggesting that any athlete can perform any lift at any intensity without risk. This perspective is explicitly targeted toward healthy athletes with training experience in programming phases where output, load, or intent may naturally come at the expense of "perfect" form. We should want to gradually expose athletes to loads and positions where they are slightly misaligned and successful. That is where resilience is built; that is where robustness comes from.
It's our job to load them correctly, progress them gradually, and, most importantly, know the difference between a breakdown caused by ego and a breakdown that happens in pursuit of purpose.
Paralysis by Analysis
While our analysis as coaches should be thorough, rooted in the needs of both the athlete and the sport, it has to end somewhere. There's a fine line between informed coaching and overcoaching. This is not just about what we do in the weight room. It applies equally to biomechanical assessments of sprints, changes of direction, or any other athletic movement.
Our bodies are incredibly good at self-organising. Most athletes will find a movement strategy that's efficient for them, even if it does not match a textbook model. When we start overanalysing and overprescribing so-called "optimal" mechanics, often under the guise of injury prevention, we risk prioritising aesthetics over performance. The result? Athletes lose fluidity, power, and confidence. All because a coach cannot accept that not all movements need to look perfect.
Here is a question for coaches: Would you try to change Usain Bolt's sprinting mechanics? If you broke them down frame-by-frame, you would find several deviations from the "ideal" model. Nevertheless, he is the fastest human in history. If we would not dare to tinker with Bolt, why are we so quick to correct our semi-pro U21 footballers?
That said, not all mechanical issues are benign. Research shows that some sprinting patterns influence injury risk. For example, excessive anterior pelvic tilt can lengthen the proximal hamstring and increase strain. At the same time, trunk lateral flexion can reduce pelvic flexion stability and impair force transfer (Bramah et al., 2023). These are not minor quirks; they are potential red flags. In those cases, intervention may be necessary.
However, we have to weigh the trade-offs. Changing deeply ingrained motor patterns can affect performance—and not always in a positive way. If we choose to intervene, we must do so intentionally, gradually, and with full awareness of the consequences.
"Athletes lose fluidity, power, and confidence — all because a coach cannot accept that not all movements need to look perfect."
Final Thoughts
Injury prevention is a myth. No matter how carefully we plan or how textbook our technique looks, we cannot prevent injuries; we can only manage risk, build resilience, and hope for the best. Chasing total safety often comes at the cost of real adaptation. Ironically, the more "risky" exercises tend to drive the most meaningful progress if loaded and progressed intelligently.
The real threat is not spinal flexion. It is not a slightly rounded back during a heavy deadlift. The real risk lies in poor load management, not the movements themselves.
We need to let go of the fear around movement, let go of the obsession with rigid technique, and stop throwing technical models at athletes like they are robots we can program. Instead, prescribe exercises and loads that are optimal for the individual before you, including their history, sport, and current training phase.
Furthermore, stop blaming exercises for injuries when sometimes, shit happens. Not everything has a root cause. Not everything is preventable. Our job is not to eliminate chaos but to prepare athletes to handle it.
Lastly, do not be afraid of silence. Constant cueing does not make you a better coach; over-coaching often reveals insecurity more than insight. Sometimes, the best coaching is watching, listening, and knowing when to let the athlete figure it out.
Progress > perfection. Always.
References
Bramah, C., Mendiguchia, J., Dos’Santos, T., & Morin, J. (2023). Exploring the Role of Sprint Biomechanics in Hamstring Strain Injuries: A Current Opinion on Existing Concepts and Evidence. Sports Medicine, 54(4), 783–793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-023-01925-x
Saraceni, N., Kent, P., Ng, L., Campbell, A., Straker, L., & O’Sullivan, P. (2019). To Flex or Not to Flex? Is There a Relationship Between Lumbar Spine Flexion During Lifting and Low Back Pain? A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis. Journal Of Orthopaedic And Sports Physical Therapy, 50(3), 121–130. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2020.9218
About the Author
Rob Braat
Rob is the Founder of The Athlete Forge and Premium Movement & Performance (PMP). Rob holds a Bachelor of Science in Sports and Exercise Science from Victoria University in Melbourne, Australia, and is currently completing his Master’s degree in Strength and Conditioning at St. Mary’s University in London, Twickenham.
In addition to his academic background, Rob works within the Academy of a professional football club in the Eredivisie (Netherlands), where he helps develop and enhance the performance of athletes training at the highest level. With extensive experience in both coaching and performance science, Rob is dedicated to advancing the field and supporting athletes to reach their full potential.
Add comment
Comments