Knees Over Toes / ATG: What the Science Actually Says

“Don’t let your knees go past your toes” — everyone who’s ever set foot in a gym has heard this. Ben Patrick, better known as @KneesOverToesGuy, built an empire on challenging it: millions of followers, an online coaching program (ATG), proprietary equipment, and a message that polarizes.

But what’s science and what’s marketing? This article checks the core claims, one by one.

Who Is Ben Patrick?

Ben Patrick is an American fitness coach and social media creator who developed the ATG program (Athletic Truth Group). His story: severe knee problems since his youth, multiple surgeries, told he’d never be able to play sports properly. Through his own training system, he claims to have “healed” his knees and can now dunk pain-free.

The story is impressive — but it’s an n=1 anecdote. No medical documentation, no controlled study. That doesn’t make it false, but it’s not evidence in the scientific sense. Let’s look at the individual building blocks instead.

The Core Claims — Evidence Check

1. “Knees Over Toes Is Safe” ✅ Strong Evidence

This is ATG’s most famous message — and it’s correct.

Schoenfeld (2010) analyzed squat biomechanics and showed: artificially restricting forward knee travel shifts stress to the hips and lower back. Letting the knees travel forward isn’t dangerous — it’s biomechanically natural.

Hartmann et al. (2013) confirmed in a systematic review: deep squats are not harmful to healthy knees. Net shear stress on the cruciate ligaments actually decreases at depth because calf and thigh tissue meet and absorb the compression (“wrapping effect”). The highest retropatellar load occurs at ~90° knee flexion — at half squats, not at full depth.

Bottom line: ATG is right here. The old myth has been debunked for years — ATG just made it popular.

Important caveat: “Healthy knees” is the key term. People with meniscal damage, advanced osteoarthritis, or post-surgical knees need individual assessment, not a blanket prescription.

2. “Deep Squats Are Better Than Half Squats” ✅ Strong Evidence

Bryanton et al. (2012) showed: deeper squats increase the relative muscular effort of the gluteus maximus and hip extensors — more muscle work, more growth.

Schoenfeld & Grgic (2020) confirmed in a review: full range of motion training produces more hypertrophy than partial ROM. Pallarés et al. (2020) compared full and half squats over a training period — full squats produced superior neuromuscular adaptations and less pain.

Bottom line: Those who squat deep get stronger and build more muscle. But: not everyone can squat deep. Individual anatomy (hip socket depth, femur-to-tibia ratio) determines achievable depth. Forced depth with compensation (butt wink, lumbar flexion) shifts risk to the spine.

3. “Nordic Curls Prevent Injuries” ✅ Very Strong Evidence

This is the strongest component of the ATG program — and it’s not an ATG original. It’s established sports medicine.

Al Attar et al. (2017) showed in a meta-analysis: programs including Nordic hamstring curls reduced hamstring injuries by ~51%. Van der Horst et al. (2015) confirmed this in an RCT with ~580 soccer players.

The mechanism: eccentric strengthening of the hamstrings increases their load tolerance. Mjølsnes et al. (2004) showed that Nordic curls markedly increase eccentric hamstring strength.

Bottom line: Nordic curls belong in every training program — regardless of ATG. The evidence is top-tier.

4. “Backward Walking / Reverse Sled Heals Knees” 🟡 Moderate Evidence

Backward walking (retro walking) has genuine biomechanical advantages:

• No eccentric braking phase like in forward walking
• Reduced ground reaction forces — less impact stress
• Concentric quadriceps work without high patellofemoral compression

Gondhalekar & Deo (2013) showed in an RCT: retro walking as an adjunct to physiotherapy substantially improved pain and function in knee osteoarthritis compared to physiotherapy alone.

Bottom line: Reverse sled and backward walking are useful for knee rehab and low-impact training. Not revolutionary — physiotherapists have used this for years — but ATG made it accessible to a broader audience.

5. “Tibialis Training Prevents Shin Splints” 🟠 Weak Evidence

This is where it gets problematic. ATG sells a specialized “Tib Bar” and positions tibialis training as an almost magical solution for shin pain and knee health.

The reality:

• There are no large RCTs or meta-analyses showing that isolated tibialis anterior training prevents shin splints (medial tibial stress syndrome) or knee injuries
• The anatomical logic is plausible — a stronger tibialis anterior could act as a shock absorber
• But “plausible” is not “proven”

Bottom line: Tibialis training is probably not harmful and may help some people. But marketing it as a cornerstone of knee health is ahead of the evidence — and ATG happens to sell the equipment.

6. “Jefferson Curls Are Safe and Beneficial” 🔴 Controversial

Jefferson curls — loaded spinal flexion with weight — are the most controversial exercise in the ATG program. Many spine specialists and physiotherapists advise against them, especially for people with disc issues.

Bottom line: Possibly acceptable for healthy, mobile trainees. For the broad audience ATG targets (often people with pain and injury history): risk-benefit ratio unclear. This point isn’t adequately addressed in ATG marketing.

The Evidence Table

What ATG Gets Right

For all the critical analysis: ATG has made real positive contributions.

1. Popularized debunking the knees-over-toes myth — millions of people now train better because ATG spread this message
2. Made Nordic curls mainstream — one of the best-evidenced exercises that was previously only known in professional sports
3. Promoted full ROM training — aligned with research (Schoenfeld & Grgic, 2020)
4. Normalized backward walking as training — low-impact option for knee issues

What ATG Oversells

1. Tibialis training as a cornerstone — the evidence is thin, the equipment is expensive
2. Personal story as proof — n=1 anecdote, not a controlled study
3. “Bulletproof your knees” — no program can prevent injuries. Even Nordic curls only reduce risk by 51%, not 100%
4. One-size-fits-all approach — online coaching doesn’t account for individual biomechanics, injury history, or contraindications
5. Jefferson curls without adequate warning — loaded spinal flexion is contraindicated for many people

The Big Picture: None of This Is New

Most ATG principles aren’t new — they’re well-packaged sports medicine:

• Full ROM squats: Charles Poliquin promoted this since the 90s
• Nordic curls: established in sports medicine since Mjølsnes et al. (2004)
• Backward walking: standard physiotherapy tool
• “Knees over toes”: recognized as a myth by biomechanists for decades

ATG packaged these concepts for social media and reached millions who would never have read a sports medicine paper or a Poliquin article. That’s a genuine contribution. But claiming to have “discovered” something is an overstatement.

Who Is the ATG Program Suited For?

Suited for:

• Healthy trainees who want to improve their ROM and knee resilience
• Athletes who want to incorporate injury prevention (Nordic curls, reverse sled)
• People with mild knee discomfort looking for low-impact options (after medical clearance)

Not a substitute for:

• Physiotherapy after surgeries or serious injuries
• Individualized coaching for complex biomechanical issues
• A complete strength training program — ATG focuses almost exclusively on the lower body

Conclusion

ATG has good and bad sides. The good: full ROM training, Nordic curls, backward walking — all scientifically grounded. The bad: tibialis hype, Jefferson curl risk, anecdote as proof, one-size-fits-all marketing.

The best approach: take the scientifically supported elements (Nordic curls, deep squats, reverse sled), ignore the hype (Tib Bar as a miracle cure), and consult a sports medicine professional for real knee problems — not an Instagram account.

References

• Hartmann H, Wirth K, Klusemann M (2013). Analysis of the Load on the Knee Joint and Vertebral Column with Changes in Squatting Depth and Weight Load. Sports Medicine, 43(10):993-1008.
• Schoenfeld BJ (2010). Squatting Kinematics and Kinetics and Their Application to Exercise Performance. JSCR, 24(12):3497-3506.
• Al Attar WSA et al. (2017). Effect of Injury Prevention Programs that Include the Nordic Hamstring Exercise on Hamstring Injury Rates in Soccer Players. Sports Medicine, 47(5):907-916.
• van der Horst N et al. (2015). The Preventive Effect of the Nordic Hamstring Exercise on Hamstring Injuries in Amateur Soccer Players. Am J Sports Med, 43(6):1316-1323.
• Mjølsnes R et al. (2004). A 10-week Randomized Trial Comparing Eccentric vs. Concentric Hamstring Strength Training. Scand J Med Sci Sports, 14(5):311-317.
• Bryanton MA et al. (2012). Effect of Squat Depth and Barbell Load on Relative Muscular Effort in Squatting. JSCR, 26(10):2820-2828.
• Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J (2020). Effects of Range of Motion on Muscle Development During Resistance Training Interventions. SAGE Open Medicine, 8:2050312120901559.
• Gondhalekar GA, Deo MV (2013). Retrowalking as an Adjunct to Conventional Treatment in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis. North Am J Med Sci, 5(2):108-112.