One of my go-to lines with fitness professionals is that forcing people to adopt a perfectly symmetrical stance during lifts like deadlifts or squats often does more harm than good. I even joke that symmetry doesn’t exist and drop a playful unicorn line to keep people on their toes.
You’re not broken if you’re asymmetrical. You’re normal.
The human body is built to be asymmetrical, and if it were truly harmful, natural selection would have fixed it by now. I know that’s a hard pill to swallow—the idea that symmetry is a myth. For years I read that we should aim for perfect balance in posture and during sets, but as I worked with people of different injuries and body types, I realized a one-size-fits-all standard didn’t make sense. The turning point came from learning with the Postural Restoration Institute, where I saw just how asymmetrical the body really is—and that’s not a flaw, it’s how we’re designed. Subsequent in-services from coaches and researchers reinforced that the body is complex and, in many ways, imperfect, but in a good way.
In some contexts, symmetry matters. A ballet dancer or a stage athlete often benefits from a symmetrical look. But for performance or function, symmetry shouldn’t have to be the default goal. It’s a bold claim, and it invites pushback. Some people say, “What about cars? If we don’t stay aligned, tires wear and damage accumulates.” I get the comparison, but the human body isn’t a Volvo. We’re not mass-produced clones either—we’re unique, and that’s a feature, not a flaw.
In our Complete Shoulder & Hip Blueprint work, we emphasize that asymmetries are normal and that pushing everyone into one standard can do a disservice. We all have differences in bone structure. For example, pelvic shapes vary, femoral angles differ, and hip socket depth can vary between people; each side can be retroverted or anteverted, which affects how someone flexes, extends, abducts, adducts, and rotates the hip. With that in mind, when coaching a squat, we should use those differences to help each person succeed.
Think of it like an eye exam: you don’t just pick one stance for everyone. You try different setups to see what feels more stable, powerful, and balanced. Often, we end up forcing square pegs into round holes by insisting on a symmetrical stance, even though the variance is real and meaningful.
How do we know what works? If you had X-ray vision, that would help, but lacking that, a thorough assessment provides meaningful feedback to guide the right approach for someone. You can also observe how someone moves through a hip scan or hip-related drill to see what stance feels better. I’ve seen people benefit from a staggered stance or a little extra external rotation on one foot, and after a few reps they’ll look at me and say, “That feels so much better,” and we celebrate that progress. We’re not causing harm by accepting asymmetry—we’re simply acknowledging and adapting to people’s differences.
