Much of the development of human movement comes from coaches comparing techinques. Better coaches hang out with other coaches, go on their courses, read their blogs, learn, analyse, video, and humbly put stuff up for criticism. Many sport science papers purport to do the same thing. However, the only value of a report of an experiment is, if you can reproduce the experiment yourself.
Do you remember those basic physics and chemistry experiments we did at school? We followed the exact doses, mixed , shook, heated and retreated to a safe distance. The instructions told us, how much, in what container , in what proportion. to what temperature.
This often isn’t the case in sport science journals. Sport scientists casually say they are testing the efficacy of , say, the deadlift and squat but often fail to explain what they mean. This frequently means back specialists often prescribe or ban movements where there is no correct understanding about what the movement is and how to perform it. I often see clients who have been banned from performing movements they do well and perfectly, and being set drills and movements, which, clearly, the instructor had not the faintest idea of the correct form or the correct mechanics .
The picture here is from a leading book on back issues and is supposed to be the correct form of the deadlift. It is, unfortunately not brilliant, (probably for all the best reasons), but, if you deadlifted in this way, you would , eventually, overload your back ( as always, poor form needs to be mixed with repetition and escalating load weight to be truly nasty).
This is not an attack on sport scientists ( I do that elsewhere). After all, all research is useful , it is a plea to look for the instructions or method in the report you are reading. Can you reproduce what they did? If not, treat the information with caution.
We will post later the correct way to deadlift.