The Real Injury Risks of Lifting and How to Train Safely

Keywords: Resistance Training, Weightlifting, Injury Epidemiology, Risk Assessment, Musculoskeletal, Injury Prevention, Metabolic Disease, Powerlifting

Introduction

Resistance training (RT) encompasses a broad spectrum of physical activity modalities in which muscles contract against an external load to improve strength, power, hypertrophy, or endurance. These modalities include traditional strength training, Olympic weightlifting, powerlifting, High-Intensity Functional Training (HIFT)/CrossFit, and strongman. Over the past two decades, participation in structured resistance training has increased substantially across all demographic groups, driven by growing evidence of its role in preventing sarcopenia, improving metabolic health, reducing all-cause mortality, and enhancing quality of life [1,2].

Within the longevity and preventive medicine paradigm, resistance training is now recognized as an indispensable pillar of health promotion alongside aerobic conditioning. The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), the World Health Organization (WHO), and numerous national bodies advocate for resistance training at minimum twice weekly for all adults. For individuals with metabolic disease, older adults, and those at cardiovascular risk, the therapeutic benefits of structured loading extend to improvements in insulin sensitivity, glycaemic control, lipid profiles, bone mineral density, and functional independence [3,4,5].

Despite these benefits, resistance training is not without risk. Musculoskeletal injuries represent the most common adverse event, with acute muscle strains, tendinopathies, ligamentous sprains, and stress-related bone injuries all documented across the literature. The heterogeneity of training methods, individual risk profiles, and the inconsistent use of injury definitions in the literature have historically complicated meaningful epidemiological synthesis [6].

This review aims to consolidate current evidence on (1) the epidemiology of weightlifting and resistance training injuries; (2) the anatomical injury profiles by modality; (3) modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors; (4) population-specific injury considerations; (5) clinical assessment frameworks for pre-participation screening; and (6) evidence-based prevention strategies. It is intended as a practical resource for physiotherapists, sports medicine physicians, exercise physiologists, and strength and conditioning professionals working across clinical and performance settings.

Epidemiology and Resistance Training Injuries

Defining Injury in the Resistance Training Context

A critical challenge in synthesizing injury data from resistance training research is the absence of a universally accepted operational definition of injury. Definitions range from “any musculoskeletal complaint resulting in cessation or modification of training” to more restrictive criteria requiring formal medical diagnosis or documented time loss from training. This definitional heterogeneity partly explains the wide range of prevalence and incidence figures reported in the literature. Of 28 studies included in a recent systematic review by Serafim and colleagues, only 21 (75%) had explicitly defined the term “injury” in their methods [6,7].

For clinical purposes, a working definition should capture injuries that (a) produce pain or functional limitation, (b) necessitate at least a temporary modification of training, and (c) are attributable to resistance training activity. This captures both time-loss and non-time-loss events and aligns with best-practice recommendations for sports injury surveillance [8].

Incidence and Prevalence by Modality

Across the breadth of resistance training modalities, reported injury incidence ranges from 0.21 to 18.9 per 1,000 hours of participation, and prevalence estimates span 10% to 82%. This wide variation reflects differences in study populations, observation periods, injury definitions, training volume, and competitive level [7].

Traditional strength training (TST), characterized by machine-based and free-weight exercises at moderate intensity, demonstrates the lowest injury rates of all modalities. Three studies reviewed by Serafim et al. reported a mean injury prevalence of 12.6%, with no studies providing incidence data, suggesting that lower training intensities and the absence of complex movement patterns confer a protective effect [7].

Olympic weightlifting (OWL), which involves two highly technical multi-joint lifts (the snatch and the clean and jerk), carries an injury incidence of approximately 2.4 to 3.3 per 1,000 training hours and a period prevalence ranging from 16.9% to 76% depending on the population sampled. Competition surveillance data indicate that 10.7% to 68% of athletes sustain injuries during or around competition periods, underscoring the elevated physiological demands of maximal-effort lifting in a competitive environment [7,9].

Powerlifting, comprising the squat, bench press, and deadlift, demonstrates a mean injury incidence of approximately 4.0 per 1,000 training hours and a mean prevalence of 56.6%. This higher incidence compared to OWL likely reflects the sustained high absolute loads characteristic of the sport, particularly through the lumbopelvic region during the squat and deadlift [7,10,11].

HIFT/CrossFit, which combines high-intensity gymnastics, Olympic lifting, and metabolic conditioning, demonstrates the widest prevalence range in the literature (12.8% to 73.5%) and a mean incidence of 4.2 injuries per 1,000 hours. Strongman training, characterised by maximal effort events such as atlas stones, farmer’s carry, and log press, carries the highest reported injury prevalence (82%) and an incidence of 5.5 per 1,000 hours [7,12].

Anatomical Injury Profiles

Shoulder

The shoulder complex represents the most frequently injured anatomical region across resistance training modalities, particularly in HIFT/CrossFit and Olympic weightlifting. The glenohumeral joint’s inherent mobility and dependence on dynamic muscular stabilization render it highly susceptible to both acute traumatic events and overuse pathology. Common presentations include rotator cuff strains and tears (supraspinatus being most affected), superior labrum anterior-to-posterior (SLAP) lesions, acromioclavicular joint sprains, bicipital tendinopathy, and subacromial impingement syndrome [7,31,14].

In the snatch and overhead squat, the shoulder undergoes end-range external rotation and abduction under substantial compressive and shear forces. Repeated exposure, particularly with suboptimal technique, progressively loads the supraspinatus insertion and the superior labrum. Bench press and overhead press variations are implicated in anterior shoulder pathology, including anterior glenohumeral instability and pectoralis major strains, the latter particularly in master’s athletes performing heavy loading [13,14].

Lumbar Spine

The lumbar spine is the second most commonly injured region, with the highest burden observed in powerlifting, strongman, and HIFT. The squat, deadlift, and clean movements impose significant compressive and shear forces across the lumbosacral junction, particularly when spinal flexion is maintained under load. Injury presentations include lumbar disc herniation, facet joint syndrome, erector spinae strain, spondylolysis (particularly in younger competitive lifters), and sacroiliac joint dysfunction [7,11,15].

Biomechanical analysis demonstrates that excessive forward trunk lean during the squat and deadlift, whether from hip flexor tightness, inadequate thoracic mobility, or technical breakdown under fatigue, substantially increases posterior disc and facet loading. Core stability and breathing mechanics (specifically intra-abdominal pressure generation through the Valsalva maneuver) are critical protective factors for lumbar injury prevention during heavy loading [15,16].

Knee

Knee injuries are particularly prevalent in Olympic weightlifting, where deep squatting positions under maximal load are routine. In the snatch and clean, the athlete descends into maximal knee flexion with significant valgus torque, especially during the catch phase of an overhead squat or front squat. This loading pattern is associated with patellofemoral pain syndrome, patellar tendinopathy, medial collateral ligament sprains, and in competitive athletes, meniscal tears [9,17].

In recreational lifters, squatting with knees tracking medially (dynamic valgus collapse) is a common technical error linked to VMO weakness, hip abductor insufficiency, and foot pronation. This movement fault substantially increases tibiofemoral and patellofemoral contact stress and is a modifiable risk factor amenable to targeted neuromuscular training [17].

Wrist, Hand, Elbow

The wrist and hand account for a meaningful proportion of injuries in Olympic weightlifters, particularly during the catch phase of the clean where the wrist undergoes rapid forced extension into a front-rack position. Distal radius fractures, scaphoid stress injuries, TFCC (triangular fibrocartilage complex) tears, and first carpometacarpal joint injuries have all been described. The elbow is similarly vulnerable in the clean and front squat, where forced elbow flexion and forearm pronation load the medial structures [9,18].

Other Regions

Although less frequently reported, hip and groin injuries, including hip flexor strains, labral pathology, and proximal hamstring avulsions are encountered in powerlifters and HIFT athletes, particularly in those with cam or pincer morphology who perform deep hip flexion under load. Thoracic injuries, including rib stress fractures, have been reported in weightlifters during maximal overhead loading. Foot and ankle injuries occur infrequently but are associated with rapid descent exercises performed in inadequate footwear [15].

Risk Factors for Weightlifting Injury

Modifiable Risk Factors

Technical proficiency is arguably the most influential modifiable risk factor across all resistance training modalities. Inadequate technique, including loss of neutral spine, excessive forward lean, knee valgus, and improper bar path increases joint loading beyond what is appropriate for a given tissue’s adaptive capacity. Research consistently identifies lack of formal coaching, training without qualified supervision, and premature progression to maximal loads as key contributors to injury [7,19].

Training load management is equally critical. Rapid increases in training volume or intensity, whether measured as total weekly tonnage, sets, or session duration exceed the adaptive capacity of the musculotendinous unit and bone, precipitating overuse pathology. The acute-to-chronic workload ratio (ACWR), originally described in team sport contexts, has theoretical applicability to resistance training. A ratio exceeding 1.5 is associated with substantially elevated injury risk [20].

Recovery adequacy, encompassing sleep quality, nutritional support, and training periodization, profoundly influences injury susceptibility. Insufficient sleep (< 7 hours per night) has been independently associated with increased injury risk across athletic populations. Similarly, training in a fatigued state reduces neuromuscular control, compromises proprioception, and impairs the motor patterns that protect joints under load [21].

Anabolic-androgenic steroid (AAS) and performance-enhancing drug (PED) use represent a significant and underreported risk factor for tendinous injury in competitive and recreational lifters. AAS accelerates muscle hypertrophy and contractile force production at a rate that outpaces collagen remodeling in tendons and ligaments, increasing the risk of tendon rupture, most notably the distal biceps, quadriceps, and patellar tendons [22].

Non-modifiable Risk Factors

Age is a fundamental non-modifiable risk factor. Advancing age is associated with reduced tendon vascularity, decreased type I collagen synthesis, diminished muscle fibre recruitment efficiency, and reduced proprioceptive acuity, all of which increase vulnerability to both acute and overuse injuries. In master athletes aged 35 years and older, injury prevalence in Olympic weightlifting ranges from 12% to 42%, with male athletes generally reporting higher rates than female counterparts [23].

Sex-related anatomical and hormonal differences influence injury patterns. Females demonstrate a higher incidence of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries across sports, attributed to wider Q-angle, hormonal influences on ligament laxity, and neuromuscular control differences. However, in resistance training specifically, the sex-related injury differential is less pronounced than in field sports, and female athletes may in fact demonstrate lower rates of certain overuse pathologies due to lower absolute training loads [17].

Genetic predisposition to connective tissue pathology, including variants in collagen genes (COL1A1, COL5A1) associated with tendon and ligament laxity has been explored in the sports injury literature, although clinical application of genetic screening in routine practice remains limited. Pre-existing anatomical variants such as cam morphology of the femoral head, os acromiale, and tibial plateau geometry may predispose individuals to specific injury patterns under heavy loading [24].

Population-Specific Injury Considerations

Recreational Lifters

Recreational lifters, defined as adults engaging in unsupervised or minimally supervised resistance training for general health and fitness represent the largest and most heterogeneous segment of the resistance training population. In this group, technical deficiencies, inappropriate load selection, and inadequate warm-up are the predominant injury risk factors. Studies report injury prevalence of 13%–46% in recreational HIFT/CrossFit participants, while those engaging in traditional strength training demonstrate lower rates (approximately 10%–14%) [7,19].

Recreational lifters frequently lack the structured periodization and coaching support available to competitive athletes, and many self-prescribe training program from digital or social media sources of variable quality. This context elevates the risk of inappropriate loading patterns. Clinicians working in preventive or sports medicine settings should prioritize movement screening, technique assessment, and education about training load management when consulting with this population.

Older Adults and the Longevity Context

The importance of resistance training for healthy ageing is firmly established. Progressive resistance training attenuates sarcopenia, reduces fall risk, improves bone mineral density, and preserves functional independence in older adults. For longevity-focused practitioners, the benefits of maintained resistance training participation substantially outweigh the injury risks when programs are appropriately designed [25].

A cross-national survey of 1,051 Master weightlifters aged 35–88 years from six countries found that male Master athletes had a higher prevalence of training-related injuries than females, with prevalence ranging from 12% to 42%. Chronic musculoskeletal conditions, particularly osteoarthritis and rotator cuff degeneration were prevalent in this cohort and were independently associated with elevated acute injury risk. Machine learning models applied to this dataset demonstrated moderate-to-good predictive accuracy (AUC 0.644–0.876) for injury at specific anatomical sites (back, hips, knees, wrists), suggesting the feasibility of data-driven risk stratification in this population [23].

Clinical considerations for older adult lifters include the need for extended warm-up periods, reduced training density (longer inter-set recovery), lower absolute loading with emphasis on time under tension, exercise selection that avoids provocative end-range positions, and heightened attention to cardiovascular and bone health co-management. Falls during Olympic lifting or heavy lower-body exercises are a specific safety concern and warrant careful environmental and spotter assessment.

Individuals with Metabolic Disease

Resistance training is a therapeutic intervention for metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and obesity. It improves insulin sensitivity, reduces visceral adiposity, and positively modulates inflammatory markers including C-reactive protein and interleukin-6. For this reason, resistance training is recommended as part of standard clinical management for these conditions. Nevertheless, metabolic disease confers several specific injury risk considerations [4,26].

Tendinopathy represents a significant comorbidity in T2DM. Hyperglycaemia promotes non-enzymatic glycation of collagen fibrils, reducing tendon extensibility and increasing stiffness. Individuals with T2DM demonstrate a substantially higher prevalence of tendon abnormalities, including partial-thickness rotator cuff tears, Achilles tendinopathy, and trigger finger compared to euglycaemic controls. These structural vulnerabilities may be exacerbated by resistance training loads, particularly at the Achilles, patellar, and rotator cuff tendons. Clinicians should therefore prioritize eccentric-based tendon loading protocols and avoid high-velocity ballistic movements in unfit individuals with poorly controlled T2DM [27].

Obesity increases joint compressive forces during lower-extremity exercises. High body mass index (BMI) amplifies patellofemoral contact stress during squatting and lunging movements, and the associated biomechanical compensation patterns (genu valgum, excessive forward lean) compound this effect. Modified exercise selection, emphasizing seated, supine, or reduced-range movements initially may reduce injury risk while preserving the therapeutic benefit of loading in this population. A supervised, graduated introduction to resistance training with attentive technique coaching is strongly recommended [28].

Peripheral neuropathy in T2DM impairs proprioception and balance, increasing the risk of falls during standing barbell exercises and single-leg movements. Cardiovascular risk stratification prior to initiation of a vigorous resistance training program is essential for individuals with metabolic disease, particularly those who are deconditioned or have multiple cardiovascular risk factors [4].

Competitive Athletes

Competitive weightlifters (Olympic discipline) and powerlifters represent a population at elevated injury risk due to the extreme mechanical demands placed on the musculoskeletal system, the frequency and volume of training required for performance optimization, and the psychological pressure to train and compete through pain [9,10].

In elite competitive weightlifters, the back, knees, and shoulders collectively account for approximately 64.8% of all injuries, with strains and tendinitis comprising 68.9% of injury types.29 The lumbar spine is the predominant injury site in powerlifting, owing to the high spinal compression forces generated during the squat and deadlift at near-maximal loads. In powerlifters, the injury rate has been estimated at 0.3 injuries per lifter per year, equating to approximately 1 injury per 1,000 hours of training [10,11].

At the elite level, injury underreporting is a recognized problem, as athletes may minimize symptoms to maintain selection and competitive standing. This has important implications for injury surveillance and underscores the need for ongoing clinical monitoring by embedded sports medicine staff. Periodized loading programs, technique refinement, and individualized recovery protocols are central to injury risk management in competitive populations.

Clinical Risk Assessment and Pre-Participation Screening

Components of a Pre-Participation Evaluation

A structured pre-participation evaluation (PPE) is the cornerstone of injury risk stratification for individuals commencing or resuming a resistance training programme. The PPE for resistance training should encompass five domains: medical history, cardiovascular risk assessment, musculoskeletal examination, functional movement screening, and psychological readiness [30].

Medical history should specifically inquire about prior musculoskeletal injuries (location, mechanism, treatment, and recovery status), current medications that may affect bone density or tissue healing (e.g., corticosteroids, fluoroquinolones, which are associated with tendon rupture risk), endocrine conditions, and neurological symptoms. Family history of connective tissue disorders (Marfan syndrome, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome) should be documented [4].

Cardiovascular risk assessment following ACSM guidelines identifies individuals who require physician clearance prior to participation in vigorous exercise. This is particularly important for middle-aged and older adults, individuals with metabolic disease, and those with multiple cardiovascular risk factors, for whom vigorous resistance training represents a physiologically demanding stimulus [3,30].

Musculoskeletal examination should assess joint range of motion, muscle strength, and the presence of pre-existing tendinopathy or joint pathology at the shoulder, lumbar spine, hips, and knees, the anatomical regions carrying the highest injury burden. Passive and resisted tests for rotator cuff integrity, lumbar segmental mobility, hip impingement, and knee extensor mechanism function should be included.

Functional Movement Screening

Functional movement screening (FMS) tools, such as the Functional Movement Screen developed by Cook and colleagues, assess movement quality across fundamental patterns (deep squat, hurdle step, inline lunge, shoulder mobility, active straight leg raise, trunk stability press-up, and rotary stability).31 Composite FMS scores below 14 have been associated with elevated injury risk in athletic populations, and asymmetries detected on the screen provide targeted intervention foci [31].

In resistance training–specific contexts, the overhead squat assessment (OSA) is particularly informative. Inability to maintain an upright torso, neutral lumbar spine, or vertical arm position during the OSA identifies mobility limitations at the ankle, hip, or thoracic spine, each of which predisposes the individual to compensatory loading patterns that elevate injury risk during squatting and overhead movements.

Risk Stratification and Program Design Principles

Based on the PPE findings, individuals can be stratified into low, moderate, or high injury risk categories. Low-risk individuals may commence resistance training with standard supervision. Moderate-risk individuals benefit from a period of supervised technique coaching, load monitoring, and movement remediation. High-risk individuals, those with active injury, significant comorbidity, or marked movement dysfunction may require clearance from a sports medicine physician or physiotherapist prior to commencing loaded exercise.

Program design principles grounded in evidence for injury prevention include progressive overload (limiting weekly training load increases to 10%–15%), adequate warm-up (general aerobic and sport-specific components, each 5–10 minutes), post-session cool-down with mobility work, sufficient inter-session recovery (48 hours minimum for the same muscle groups), and periodization incorporating planned deload phases [20,32].

Evidence-Based Injury Prevention Strategies

Technical Coaching and Supervision

The single most effective injury prevention strategy in resistance training is consistent, competent coaching of lifting technique.19 A randomized controlled trial context for coaching efficacy is ethically challenging; however, prospective cohort data and qualitative surveys consistently identify inadequate technique as the primary proximate cause of acute and overuse injury. Resistance training programs for novice participants should mandate an introductory period of technique-focused supervised sessions before progressing to heavier loads [7,19].

Progressive Overload and Periodization

Periodized training programs, whether linear, undulating, or block-based, distribute loading across training cycles to maximize adaptation while minimizing cumulative overload. Meta-analyses have demonstrated that periodized training produces superior strength gains compared to non-periodized approaches, and the structured variation in volume and intensity inherent to periodization inherently reduces the risk of accumulating excessive tissue stress. For clinical populations, including older adults and individuals with metabolic disease, undulating periodization (varying loads session-to-session) may offer a favorable injury risk profile compared to linear progression [32].

Neuromuscular Training and Prehabilitation

Targeted neuromuscular training, addressing hip abductor strength, core stability, scapular motor control, and proprioceptive function, addresses movement deficiencies identified on screening and reduces the biomechanical risk factors for injury. In female athletes, neuromuscular training programs incorporating hip and knee strengthening, plyometric landing mechanics, and balance training have demonstrated efficacy in ACL injury prevention.17 Analogous principles apply to resistance training injury prevention: strengthening the stabilizers of the shoulder girdle, lumbar stabilizers, and knee extensors/abductors creates a robust musculoskeletal environment for loaded exercise [17,33].

Prehabilitation, the proactive prescription of injury-prevention exercises prior to high-risk training exposure has gained traction in clinical practice. For individuals preparing to commence a heavy powerlifting or Olympic weightlifting program, prehabilitation targeting the rotator cuff, thoracic extensors, hip external rotators, and ankle dorsiflexors is recommended [33].

Recovery Optimization

Recovery adequacy is a foundational injury prevention strategy. Evidence supports the roles of sleep hygiene (7–9 hours per night for adults), protein intake (1.6–2.2 g/kg/day for those engaged in resistance training), hydration, and psychological stress management in optimizing musculoskeletal recovery. Heart rate variability (HRV) monitoring and subjective wellness questionnaires are increasingly used by practitioners to guide training load adjustments based on individual recovery status, with low HRV indicating elevated injury risk from accumulated fatigue [21,34].

Equipment, Environment, and Safety Culture

Appropriate equipment, specifically weightlifting shoes (which improve ankle dorsiflexion and tibial alignment during squatting), lifting belts (for abdominal support under maximal loads), and wrist wraps (in Olympic lifting) contributes to injury risk reduction when used appropriately and not as a substitute for technique development. Training environment safety, including adequate spacing, stable flooring, functional safety bars and collars, and a culture of spotting during heavy lifts, is an often-overlooked but important institutional risk management consideration [19].

Discussion

This review synthesizes a substantial and growing body of evidence regarding the injury epidemiology, anatomical profiles, risk factors, and prevention strategies pertinent to resistance training and weightlifting. Several key themes emerge with direct clinical relevance for practitioners working in sports medicine, physiotherapy, exercise physiology, and longevity-focused health care.

First, resistance training is, on the whole, a relatively safe form of physical exercise. When compared to team contact sports, running, and many recreational activities, the absolute injury rates in most resistance training modalities are modest. Traditional strength training, in particular, demonstrates injury prevalence rates comparable to or lower than other health-promoting activities. The narrative that resistance training is inherently injurious is not supported by the evidence and should be actively challenged in clinical consultations where it may discourage participation [7].

Second, the injury risk is not uniform across modalities, individuals, or life stages. HIFT/CrossFit and strongman carry substantially higher rates than traditional strength training, and competitive contexts amplify risk relative to recreational settings. This knowledge should inform clinical programming decisions. For a sedentary individual with metabolic syndrome beginning a resistance training program, traditional strength training with machine-based exercises and progressive resistance offers the optimal risk-to-benefit profile. For a trained recreational athlete seeking performance gains, the higher injury rates in HIFT or powerlifting may be acceptable in the context of enhanced benefits and preference-aligned adherence.

Third, the longevity and metabolic medicine context deserves special emphasis. The evidence that resistance training reduces all-cause mortality, preserves skeletal muscle mass through ageing, and improves glycaemic control is compelling. For clinicians working at the intersection of longevity science and preventive medicine, facilitating safe participation in resistance training across the lifespan, not merely treating injuries when they occur is a core clinical responsibility. This requires investment in pre-participation screening infrastructure, collaborative relationships with qualified exercise professionals, and ongoing education about population-specific risk profiles [1,4,25].

Fourth, the injury prevention literature, while methodologically heterogeneous, consistently identifies modifiable risk factors that are amenable to clinical intervention. Technical coaching, load management, neuromuscular prehabilitation, recovery optimization, and pre-participation screening are all evidence-supported strategies. Their implementation requires interdisciplinary collaboration between clinicians, coaches, and individuals, a model that should be the standard of care in both clinical and community resistance training settings.

Methodological limitations within the existing literature warrant acknowledgement. Study populations are often convenience samples from gym-based or online survey platforms, limiting generalizability. Retrospective and cross-sectional designs dominate, with few prospective injury surveillance studies providing high-quality incidence data. Injury definitions remain inconsistent, and self-reported data are susceptible to recall and response bias. Future research should prioritize prospective designs with validated injury definitions, population-representative sampling, and longitudinal tracking to better characterize injury trajectories across the lifespan.

Conclusion

Resistance training and weightlifting encompass a spectrum of modalities with distinct injury profiles, risk factor constellations, and population-specific considerations. The evidence robustly supports the safety and therapeutic value of resistance training across recreational, clinical, and competitive populations when implemented with appropriate clinical oversight. Injury risk is highest in high-intensity, technically demanding modalities such as HIFT/CrossFit, strongman, and powerlifting, and is amplified by technical deficiencies, excessive loading, inadequate recovery, and comorbid health conditions including diabetes and advancing age.

For clinical practitioners working at the interface of sports medicine, longevity, and metabolic health, the imperative is not to restrict resistance training participation but to optimize its safety through structured pre-participation evaluation, evidence-based programmed design, ongoing injury surveillance, and interdisciplinary collaboration. A population-aware approach, recognizing the distinct vulnerabilities and needs of recreational lifters, older adults, individuals with metabolic disease, and competitive athletes is essential for translating the substantial health benefits of resistance training into clinical practice while minimizing preventable harm.

Future research priorities include the development and validation of population-specific risk stratification tools, prospective injury surveillance in clinical exercise populations, and clinical trials evaluating prehabilitation and load management protocols in high-risk cohorts. Advancing this evidence base will further empower clinicians and exercise professionals to promote resistance training as a safe, effective, and essential component of preventive and therapeutic medicine.

Reference

1. Westcott WL. Resistance training is medicine: effects of strength training on health. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2012;11(4):209-16.

2. Lauersen JB, Andersen TE, Andersen LB. Strength training as superior, dose-dependent and safe prevention of acute and overuse sports injuries: a systematic review, qualitative analysis and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52(24):1557-63.

3. American College of Sports Medicine. ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription. 11th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer; 2022.

4. Colberg SR, Sigal RJ, Yardley JE, Riddell MC, Dunstan DW, Dempsey PC, et al. Physical activity/exercise and diabetes: a position statement of the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2016;39(11):2065-79.

5. Fragala MS, Cadore EL, Dorgo S, Izquierdo M, Kraemer WJ, Peterson MD, et al. Resistance training for older adults: position statement from the National Strength and Conditioning Association. J Strength Cond Res. 2019;33(8):2019-52.

6. Meeuwisse WH, Tyreman H, Hagel B, Emery C. A dynamic model of etiology in sport injury: the recursive nature of risk and causation. Clin J Sport Med. 2007;17(3):215-9.

7. Serafim TT, de Oliveira ES, Maffulli N, Migliorini F, Okubo R. Which resistance training is safest to practice? A systematic review. J Orthop Surg Res. 2023;18(1):296.

8. Fuller CW, Molloy MG, Bagate C, Bahr R, Brooks JH, Donson H, et al. Consensus statement on injury definitions and data collection procedures for studies of injuries in rugby union. Clin J Sport Med. 2007;17(3):177-81.

9. Aasa U, Svartholm I, Andersson F, Berglund L. Injuries among weightlifters and powerlifters: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2017;51(4):211-9.

10. Keogh JW, Winwood PW. The epidemiology of injuries across the weight-training sports. Sports Med. 2017;47(3):479-501.

11. Siewe J, Rudat J, Rollinghoff M, Schlegel UJ, Eysel P, Michael JW. Injuries and overuse syndromes in powerlifting. Int J Sports Med. 2011;32(9):703-11.

12. Winwood PW, Hume PA, Cronin JB, Keogh JW. Retrospective injury epidemiology of strongman athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(1):28-42.

13. Kolber MJ, Beekhuizen KS, Cheng MS, Hellman MA. Shoulder injuries attributed to resistance training: a brief review. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(6):1696-704.

14. Lintner D, Noonan TJ, Kibler WB. Injury patterns and biomechanics of the athlete’s shoulder. Clin Sports Med. 2008;27(4):527-51.

15. Hides J, Stanton W. Can motor control training lower the risk of injury for professional football players? Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44(12):2244-50.

16. McGill SM. Ultimate Back Fitness and Performance. 6th ed. Waterloo: Backfitpro Inc.; 2017.

17. Hewett TE, Myer GD, Ford KR, Paterno MV, Quatman CE. Mechanisms, prediction, and prevention of ACL injuries: cut risk with three sharpened and validated tools. J Orthop Res. 2016;34(11):1843-55.

18. Rettig AC. Athletic injuries of the wrist and hand. Part I: traumatic injuries of the wrist. Am J Sports Med. 2003;31(6):1038-48.

19. Haff GG, Triplett NT, editors. Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. 4th ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2016.

20. Gabbett TJ. The training-injury prevention paradox: should athletes be training smarter and harder? Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(5):273-80.

21. Milewski MD, Skaggs DL, Bishop GA, Pace JL, Ibrahim DA, Wren TA, et al. Chronic lack of sleep is associated with increased sports injuries in adolescent athletes. J Pediatr Orthop. 2014;34(2):129-33.

22. Stannard JP, Bucknell AL. Rupture of the triceps tendon associated with steroid injections. Am J Sports Med. 1993;21(3):482-5.

23. Climstein M, Walsh J, Heazlewood IT, DeBeliso M, Adams KJ, Kettunen J, et al. Health challenges and acute sports injuries restrict weightlifting training of older athletes. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2022;14(1):121.

24. September AV, Cook J, Handley CJ, Van der Merwe L, Schwellnus MP, Collins M. Variants within the COL5A1 gene are associated with susceptibility to anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Br J Sports Med. 2009;43(5):352-6.

25. Fiatarone MA, O’Neill EF, Ryan ND, Clements KM, Solares GR, Nelson ME, et al. Exercise training and nutritional supplementation for physical frailty in very elderly people. N Engl J Med. 1994;330(25):1769-75.

26. Strasser B, Siebert U, Schobersberger W. Resistance training in the treatment of the metabolic syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of resistance training on metabolic clustering in patients with abnormal glucose metabolism. Sports Med. 2010;40(5):397-415.

27. Abate M, Schiavone C, Salini V, Andia I. Occurrence of tendon pathologies in metabolic disorders. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2013;52(4):599-608.

28. Wearing SC, Hennig EM, Byrne NM, Steele JR, Hills AP. Musculoskeletal disorders associated with obesity: a biomechanical perspective. Obes Rev. 2006;7(3):239-50.

29. Calhoon G, Fry AC. Injury rates and profiles of elite competitive weightlifters. J Athl Train. 1999;34(3):232-8.

30. Riebe D, Franklin BA, Thompson PD, Garber CE, Whitfield GP, Magal M, et al. Updating ACSM’s recommendations for exercise preparticipation health screening. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015;47(11):2473-9.

31. Cook G, Burton L, Hoogenboom BJ, Voight M. Functional movement screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function – part 1. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2014;9(3):396-409.

32. Rhea MR, Alderman BL. A meta-analysis of periodized versus nonperiodized strength and power training programs. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2004;75(4):413-22.

33. Malone S, Roe M, Doran DA, Gabbett TJ, Collins K. Protection against spikes in workload with aerobic fitness and playing experience: the role of the acute:chronic workload ratio on injury risk in elite Gaelic football. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017;12(3):393-401.

34. Buchheit M. Monitoring training status with HR measures: do all roads lead to Rome? Front Physiol. 2014;5:73.