REF-600 · Lloyd, Faigenbaum, Stone et al., 2014 · British Journal of Sports Medicine, · Paper · PubMed
2014 International Consensus on youth resistance training: RT is safe & effective for children/adolescents when supervised and age-appropriate; it does NOT stunt growth
Key Findings
(Full text; the abstract states only that the paper is the UKSCA-derived, multi-organisation-endorsed consensus, so none of the following is checked against the abstract.)
Supervised, age-appropriate RT is SAFE and EFFECTIVE for children/adolescents; the "RT stunts growth / damages growth plates" myth is not supported (historic plate injuries came from unsupervised maximal/ballistic lifts, not proper programs).
Pre-pubertal strength gains are predominantly neural (recruitment/coordination), not hypertrophic (low androgens).
RT improves strength, motor skill, bone health, psychosocial wellbeing, and reduces sports-injury risk — endorsed as part of youth development, not postponed until after puberty.
Requires qualified supervision, technique-first coaching, individualized progression.
Practical Application
The consensus position: RT is appropriate from a young age if supervised, technique-first, progressed gradually — no need to wait for a certain age or puberty.
Emphasize movement competency and submaximal loads over maximal 1RM in children.
Reassure parents directly: proper strength training does not stunt height or damage growth plates.
Limitations
Consensus, not an experiment; youth-specific — don't transfer the "neural-dominant, technique-first" framing to adult hypertrophy goals; safety is conditional on supervision.
The indexed abstract has no content (endorsement note only); the entry's statements are from the full text and were not abstract-checked on 2026-09-27.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level
regraded 2026-09-27 from B: major consensus / position statement (rubric A); the published abstract carries only the endorsement note, so the findings below are from the full text
Content correction 2026-09-27
Level B -> A per rubric (major consensus / position statement). Tier "N/A" -> Tier 0-2 (developmental population).
Key Findings labelled as full-text: the abstract contains no substantive content to check against.