Dr. Brandon Luu cites 68% injury drop

The claim making the rounds is directionally right, but the packaging matters. A post from Dr. Brandon Luu highlighted a “68% injury drop” from strength training. That number does come from a real meta-analysis in sports medicine. But it was not 25 strength-training trials all showing the same thing. It came from a 2014 review that pooled 25 randomized controlled trials across several kinds of exercise interventions, then found the biggest effect inside the smaller strength-training subset. (bjsm.bmj.com) ### What study is this actually from? The source is a 2014 systematic review and meta-analysis in the *British Journal of Sports Medicine* by Jeppe Bo Lauersen and colleagues. The paper asked a broad question: can exercise interventions prevent sports injuries? To answer it, the authors gathered randomized controlled trials on stretching, strength training, proprioception, and mixed programs, then compared injury rates between intervention and control groups. (bjsm.bmj.com) ### Where does the 25-trial number fit? The 25 trials refer to the full review, not just strength training. In the overall pool, the paper reported that exercise-based prevention programs reduced sports injuries. But the authors also split the evidence by intervention type, because “exercise” is too broad to be useful on its own. Stretching, balance-style work, and strength work are not interchangeable. (bjsm.bmj.com)e from? It comes from the strength-training subgroup analysis. In that part of the paper, strength training reduced sports injuries to less than one-third of the control rate — roughly a 68% reduction. A later strength-specific review by many of the same researchers described that result the same way: “just above two thirds,” based on four studies. Basically, the viral number is real, but it belongs to a narrower slice of the evidence than some posts imply. (bjsm.bmj.com) ### What about stretching? This is the part people care about most. The 2014 review found consistently favorable estimates for most prevention measures except stretching. In plain English — stretching did not show the same meaningful injury-protection signal that strength training did. That does not mean stretching is useless for everything. It can help with range of motion or sport-specific prep. But as a general injury-prevention tool, it was the weak link in this analysis. (bjsm.bmj.com) ### Why might strength work help more? Because a lot of sports injuries happen when tissue capacity loses the argument. Muscles, tendons, and joints get asked to absorb force, decelerate, or repeat load under fatigue. Strength training raises that capacity. Think of it less like a warm-up trick and more like upgrading the chassis. If the body can tolerate more force and control movement better, fewer situations cross the line into injury. (bjsm.bmj.com)e and later reviews, not a single directly proven pathway. (bjsm.bmj.com) ### Did later research back this up? Broadly, yes. A 2018 review focused specifically on strength training argued it was superior, dose-dependent, and safe for preventing acute and overuse sports injuries. More recent reviews in youth team sports and track and field also keep treating exercise-based prevention — especially programs with meaningful strength components — as a serious lever, though effect sizes vary by sport and program design. (bjsm.bmj.com) ### What’s the catch in using this number? The catch is overgeneralizing. The 68% figure is striking, but it came from a small subgroup, across different sports, with different programs, and from studies available up to 2013. It is best read as a strong signal that strength training deserves priority — not as a universal promise that any lifting routine cuts injuries by exactly two-thirds. (bjsm.bmj.com)f someone frames this as “25 trials proved strength training cuts injuries 68%,” that is too loose. The better version is: a 25-trial meta-analysis found the strongest preventive effect in the strength-training subgroup, where injuries fell by about 68%, while stretching did not show the same protection. (bjsm.bmj.com)