Unsurprisingly, the paper concludes that most people in their own minds associated lifting with a rounded back posture as dangerous; and to be fair this is all it set out to do, no conclusion is drawn on the actual rate of incidence of back pain related to each method. Within the discussion section of the paper there are references to several earlier studies which argue variously for and against the amounts of risk that are attached to lifting methods, and this seems to be where the press are deriving their headline from, but there's certainly nothing in the original paper to suggest that lifting with a straight back and bent legs has now been debunked as plain wrong!
We need to cast the net a bit wider to see the logic in why squatting makes sense. In the same way as as many of us have "forgotten" how to run with a mid-foot strike (ostensibly the "right way", another blog for another day) and now heel strike when running - this article from NPR describes how the ability to lift by "hinging" through the hips with straight(ish) legs and a flat "table back" is still common in developing nations but has faded from western societies. This non-squatting method of lifting does make sense if one has the required hip flexibility, hamstring length, and core stability to support the spine in a horizontal position for a length of time, but the truth is many living and working in western societies don't - hence the need to squat to lower ourselves to the object safely.
So if it ain't broke don't fix it, we have been correctly advising for years to squat to lift and this - in this osteopath's opinion - mitigates the possibility of any inflexibility and instability in our western frames, and the recent article from Scandinavia does nothing to change that view.
