Strength Training Isn’t the Problem. Bad Coaching Is.
Every few months, a headline pops up:
“Strength training is dangerous for kids.”
“Girls shouldn’t lift heavy.”
“This exercise ruins your knees.”
Here’s the truth backed by the latest research:
Strength training isn’t the issue.
Poor execution, poor supervision, and poor understanding are.
Several new studies published in this month’s Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research all point to the same conclusion—whether we’re talking about kids, teens, adults, or even coaches themselves.
What the Evidence Is Really Saying (and What Coaches Should Do About It)
The latest wave of research from the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research paints a very clear picture: strength training works—but how it’s taught, supervised, and executed matters more than ever. Across youth sport, adult resistance training, professional coaching practice, and biomechanical execution, the data consistently point to one conclusion:
Performance, safety, and long-term participation are driven less by programming novelty and more by competence, confidence, and execution quality.
Let’s break down what these papers collectively tell us—and what coaches should actually change on the floor.
1. Physical Fitness Alone Doesn’t Drive Activity—Perceived Competence Does
A large study in children aged 8–12 examined the relationship between physical fitness, physical activity intensity, and perceived athletic competence (PAC)
. The takeaway is uncomfortable for coaches who still believe “just getting kids fitter” is enough.
Key findings:
Cardiorespiratory and musculoskeletal fitness showed only weak direct relationships with moderate and vigorous physical activity.
Perceived athletic competence mediated much of this relationship, especially for musculoskeletal fitness.
Boys benefited more broadly from PAC; in girls, PAC mainly influenced vigorous activity.
Translation for coaches:
If kids don’t feel capable, they won’t move—regardless of how fit they actually are.
Practical implication
Technique mastery, positive feedback, and early “wins” are not fluff—they are behavioral levers.
Youth strength programs that rush load progression without building confidence are quietly sabotaging long-term adherence.
2. Resistance Training Injuries Aren’t Random—They’re Predictable and Preventable
A 10-year epidemiological analysis of resistance-training injuries treated in U.S. emergency departments revealed persistent sex-specific injury patterns
Key findings:
Males were more likely to present with exertional sprains/strains and dislocations.
Females had higher odds of concussions, fractures, and injuries from dropped or mishandled equipment.
The trunk was the most commonly injured region for both sexes.
This is not a “women are fragile” story. It’s a coaching and supervision story.
Practical implication
Set-up competence and equipment handling matter more for novice and female lifters than maximal load prescriptions.
Coaches who obsess over reps and sets but ignore spotting, rack height, walk-out mechanics, and spatial awareness are creating avoidable injury risk.
3. Sex Differences in Youth Lifting Are Mostly About Lean Mass—but Not Entirely
A controlled study of competitive youth weightlifters (ages 13–15) examined whether sex differences in performance could be explained by fat-free mass (FFM)
Key findings:
FFM explained a large portion of performance differences.
Squat jump power normalized to FFM was the strongest predictor of snatch and clean & jerk performance.
Neuromuscular and biomechanical differences still mattered, even after controlling for FFM.
Practical implication:
Equal programming does not mean identical programming.
Youth training should emphasize power development, coordination, and technique, not forced load parity.
Coaches should stop using absolute numbers as proof of “work ethic” or “talent.”
4. Most Exercise Professionals Are Underprepared—Including Coaches
Two papers should make the industry uncomfortable.
1) Strength training knowledge across professions:
A survey of over 1,200 exercise professionals found:
Strength coaches felt more confident—but did not outperform others on knowledge assessments.
Holding a CSCS nearly doubled the odds of acceptable knowledge scores
2) Biomechanical assessment competence
Another study tested exercise professionals on qualitative biomechanical analysis of resistance exercises
Key findings:
Average score: ~50% correct
No meaningful differences across professions or experience levels
Nearly all participants believed biomechanical analysis was important—and wanted more education
Practical implication
Experience ≠ expertise.
Most coaches are pattern recognizers, not biomechanical thinkers.
This gap explains why “technique cues” are often memorized phrases rather than force-based corrections.
If you can’t explain why a technique change reduces joint moment or redistributes load, you’re guessing.
5. The Bounce Squat : Performance Tool or Injury Risk?
A biomechanical study examined the acute effects of bounce squats on ground reaction force (GRF) and barbell velocity
Key findings:
Bounce squats increased GRF by ~20%.
Early concentric velocity increased, but late-phase velocity decreased.
Faster descent alone improved velocity without increasing GRF.
Practical implication
Bounce squats increase mechanical stress—full stop.
They may have a place for advanced lifters with high technical control.
For general population and youth athletes, uncontrolled bounce is more risk than reward.
This reinforces a theme across the literature: execution quality governs whether intensity is adaptive or destructive.
The Big Picture: Strength Training Is a Skill, Not Just a Stimulus
Across all six papers, one message is consistent:
Strength training outcomes are governed by competence—physical, psychological, and technical.
Kids need confidence before intensity.
Injury risk reflects supervision and execution, not just load.
Sex differences demand intelligent coaching, not blanket assumptions.
Most professionals need deeper biomechanical literacy.
Advanced techniques are only as safe as the athlete’s control.
What This Means for Modern Coaches
If you want to be ahead of the curve—not just louder on social media—your priorities should shift:
Teach movement like a skill, not a warm-up.
Build confidence before chasing numbers, especially in youth.
Audit your own biomechanics knowledge—don’t assume certification equals mastery.
Match technique demands to athlete readiness, not ego.
Standardize execution before intensification.
The future of strength coaching is not more content—it’s better thinking.
And the research is no longer subtle about that.
Want Training That’s Built This Way?
If you’re tired of:
Random workouts
“Just push harder” coaching
Guesswork disguised as intensity
Then Type 3 training may be exactly what you’re looking for.
Strength isn’t about being reckless.
It’s about being prepared.
David Arcemant
Strength & Performance Coach
Type 3 Strength Systems
References
Faigenbaum, A. D., & Myer, G. D. (2010).
Resistance training among young athletes: Safety, efficacy, and injury prevention effects.
British Journal of Sports Medicine, 44(1), 56–63.
— Establishes that properly supervised resistance training is safe and beneficial for youth.Myer, G. D., Faigenbaum, A. D., Edwards, N. M., Clark, J. F., Best, T. M., & Sallis, R. E. (2015).
Sixty years of pediatric resistance training research: What have we learned?
British Journal of Sports Medicine, 49(14), 973–977.
— Long-term review showing injury risk is tied to supervision and program design, not lifting itself.Lloyd, R. S., Oliver, J. L., Faigenbaum, A. D., Myer, G. D., & De Ste Croix, M. B. A. (2014).
Long-term athletic development and its application to youth weightlifting.
Strength and Conditioning Journal, 36(1), 12–23.
— Supports age-appropriate progression, technical competency, and coaching quality.Yard, E. E., Collins, C. L., Dick, R. W., & Comstock, R. D. (2009).
An epidemiologic comparison of high school sports injuries sustained in practice and competition.
American Journal of Sports Medicine, 37(5), 822–829.
— Demonstrates that injury risk is higher in poorly supervised or chaotic environments, not resistance training.Achermann, B. B., Drewek, A., & Lorenzetti, S. (2024).
Acute effects of the bounce squat on ground reaction forces and barbell kinematics.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 38(1), 1–8.
— Highlights how technique and execution—not the exercise itself—drive mechanical stress.