The number one factor in injury risk is load on the bar.
If you have bad technique or too much volume with your 25RM, injury is stille way less likely than if you just train normally with your 5RM.
Training in the 5-10 reps range is categorically more risky than the 15-20 range.
Source: https://youtu.be/jOTVZaSRV0s?si=CfAFL9B7eSPphUMa&t=298
No, they’re not correct or representative of the literature. Quickly:
If #1 were true, 1RM testing in untrained, older individuals would be very risky. It is not based on available data. The biggest risk factor is training load that is excessive for what the individual is prepared for. And luck.
#2 is repackaged #1, now with more unsubstantiated claims. If true, we’d see more injuries with lower rep sets vs higher rep sets, which is also not what the data says comparing different modalities with different rep ranges. It’s all about the same. It also suggests technique is a unique risk factor, which has no evidentiary support (e.g. either changing technique or adopting a specific technique reduces injury).
#3 is the same claim stated differently.
It is unfortunate that this narrative continues to get perpetuated by Dr. Israetel. We apparently (and respectfully) disagree and while I would be happy to debate this (again), the format we used last time was not compatible with an actual discussion. FWIW, another Mike, Mike Boyle, says similar things and I already made a rebuttal you may have seen:
