Category: Mindset & Method

It’s time to challenge that idea. Let’s look at what science really says.

🧠 STOP CHASING PERFECT MOVEMENT – START RESPECTING INDIVIDUAL STRATEGIES

In training and injury prevention, we’re often told to aim for “perfect” technique. But here’s the truth: the purpose of movement is not to repeat the exact same motion every time — it’s to succeed in a task under constantly changing conditions.

Trying to force every athlete into the same technical model ignores what modern science tells us: movement is individual.

Two recent studies illustrate this perfectly.

📊 STUDY 1: Movement Patterns Are Not One-Size-Fits-All

The 2018 study by Buisseret et al. (Corrigendum to “Supervised learning techniques…”) used machine learning to classify how different athletes perform a change of direction task. What they found is crucial:

🔹 Multiple movement strategies can achieve the same task
🔹 Athletes don’t all fit neatly into one pattern — some show fuzzy memberships, combining elements from multiple strategies
🔹 The ability to adapt and switch strategies might be more important than repeating the same one

👉 In other words, trying to correct every athlete into one “perfect” technique might limit their adaptability — and possibly even increase injury risk.

🦵 Rethinking Asymmetry: It’s Not Always a Problem

Afonso et al. (2025) challenged a long-standing belief in injury prevention: that limb asymmetry is inherently bad.

📌 What did they find?
Limb asymmetries are normal — and not necessarily a sign of dysfunction. What matters more is how the asymmetry is managed within the individual, not how it compares to some group norm.

🚫 Myth: Asymmetry = Dysfunction
✅ Reality: Asymmetries of 5–15% (or more) are common and often irrelevant to injury risk or performance. Some athletes maintain or even improve performance with asymmetries exceeding 30%.

💡 Key Takeaways

1. Track Over Time
   Asymmetries naturally fluctuate. Regular monitoring helps establish what’s “normal” for each athlete and separates meaningful change from normal day-to-day variation.
2. Symmetry Without Strength Isn’t the Goal
   An athlete might become more balanced while both limbs get weaker. Always assess limb-specific performance, not just symmetry percentages.
3. Consider Directionality
   Two athletes might both average a 5% asymmetry, but one consistently favors the same limb while the other fluctuates. Direction matters — consistent patterns vs. changing directionality tell different stories.
4. Be Careful With Thresholds
   Fixed cutoffs (e.g., “>15% = risk”) can oversimplify a complex, context-dependent variable. Even within one test, different metrics (e.g., RFD vs. jump height) show different variability. A small change in one might be meaningful; a big change in another might be just noise.

So rather than using fixed benchmarks to judge symmetry or technique, we should be asking:

• Is this athlete efficient in their own strategy?
• Can they adapt when the task or environment changes?

💡 THE TAKEAWAY FOR YOU AS A COACH OR THERAPIST

Stop looking for robotic repetition.

✅ Instead, look for movement strategies that work under real-world constraints
✅ Accept that variability is not a flaw — it’s a sign of adaptability
✅ Build performance and prevention strategies around the individual, not the average

Performance is not about producing perfect copies. It’s about producing success in the chaos of competition.
Let’s train for that.

Want to explore this more deeply?
We value our community of top professionals—and we’re building something for you. A coaching environment where you can pressure-test your ideas, sharpen your thinking, and level up your impact.