I made a video about knee valgus a few months ago, and the responses were quite positive. Among the likes and shares, one comment on Instagram from user @dombericdarrion stood out: “Nice explanation. When does this become a problem? When the foot is not stable? Is that expected on heavy singles or triples, and is it not a problem?”

This is an excellent question, not only concerning knee valgus but also about other form and technique issues. Let’s explore how we should classify a flaw in technique, how to address it, and whether we should repeat the weight or continue increasing it.

The Most Simplistic Approach – Use Common Sense

We can approach this practically by asking, “Was it bad?”

If you think it’s a significant issue, you should repeat the weight or even drop it to address the problem. If it’s “not too bad,” you can let it pass.

While this method effectively identifies obvious bad situations, it falls short in the grey areas. When does it classify as “not too bad,” and how severe does it need to be to warrant action?

The Competition Standard Test – Red Light or White Light?

Many lifters and coaches use this approach. They judge whether the lift would pass as a white light from the referee.

Here are some examples:

Not squatting to depth – RED

Successful squat, regardless of femur collapse – WHITE

Failure to fully lock the elbows in the bench press – RED

Bar rotating while pressing but ending in a lockout – WHITE

Failure to fully lock the hips and knees in deadlift – RED

Severe rounding of the back while pulling the deadlift – WHITE

These examples demonstrate that while competition standards are good for determining whether lifts are valid in competition, they are less effective for assessing whether a lift has been performed efficiently and “safely” in a training context.

Using this approach to answer @dombericdarrion’s question, “When does this become a problem?” we would conclude that “This will not be a problem.”

Regarding “Does this become a problem when the foot is not stable?” the answer is, “Only if the lifter needs to change their stance to regain balance,” which is illegal in competition.

Most people care more about their form than what is written in the rulebook. We want to practice movements with a high degree of efficiency or with ‘good form.’

Moreover, in competitions, each attempt is performed only once – one rep. To be considered successful, you should achieve two white lights out of a possible three. In training, we do multiple reps. So, how many bad reps should be considered a no-pass, and how many can be “forgiven”? Do we apply the 2 out of 3 rule? As long as the majority are good, is that acceptable?

Conclusion – while there are more precise guidelines for executing lifts that warrant attention, they often neglect the efficiency of the lifts. This approach also doesn’t effectively address how to measure performance.

The Checklist

While many believe common sense can resolve this issue, it’s helpful to enumerate what constitutes common sense.

I’m trying to be creative with the following approach. I draw inspiration from recalling my experience taking my motorcycle license at driving school. They provided precise requirements and penalties for each obstacle. For example, the “Slalom” obstacle must be completed in under 6 seconds. Four demerit points are given for completing it between 6 and 6.99 seconds, six demerit points for finishing between 7 and 7.99 seconds, and immediate failure for exceeding 8 seconds.

You fail to obtain your license if you accumulate 20 points or more across all obstacles. There are also non-negotiables in the testing criteria; for example, in the same slalom course, you receive an immediate failure if you fall off your bike or hit a pylon, even if you perform perfectly on other obstacles.

After considering various criteria and assigning weight to each issue, I created this checklist.

The Non-Negotiable: Was the Lift Successful?

No means no. Try it again in your next training session! However, even if you know you can’t add weight next time, continue through the list and tally your ‘demerit points.’

The Almost Non-Negotiable: The Risk of Falling

While I’ve framed this as the risk of injury in the checklist, I specifically intend it to assess whether there’s a risk of the lifter falling or the weight falling onto them.

When that happens, it’s almost always catastrophic.

When it nearly happens, it’s terrifying for both the coach and the lifter.

If it occurs once due to a misgroove, that’s already a significant demerit point. If it happens more than once, you’re out!

Next, we consider why other risks of injury are included, such as back rounding during a deadlift. It could lead to a back injury, right?

There are differing opinions on this. Some argue that it might increase your risk of injury. Others believe the human body is resilient; if you progressively overload it and become stronger, it shouldn’t matter. I take a middle ground. Thus, I categorize this under the other important factor: how efficient is the lift? If you believe this factor is critical in determining injury risk, feel free to modify this list accordingly.

Other Important Factors

1. Efficiency/Validity of the Lift: How significantly does the error affect your lift performance?

2. Frequency of Error: How often does this happen in today’s training?

3. Ability to Fix the Error: Can you take steps to correct it?

4. Re-occurrence of the Error: If this is repeated, investigate why it’s happening. Check for tendencies, such as whether the error is weight-related, etc.

I hope this serves as a starting point for us to think clearly about what makes a form deviation acceptable or intolerable. As a lifter or coach, having a more logical framework is always good rather than relying solely on intuition.

However, this checklist is by no means perfect, so if you have any additions or suggestions, please let me know by commenting or emailing me at marvin@hygieia.com.sg. Until next time!