Stronger Legs. Fewer Injuries. Coincidence? Probably Not.

For years, strength coaches have believed that stronger athletes are more resilient athletes.

Now we have growing evidence to support it — specifically when it comes to relative lower-body strength.

Not just how much you can squat.

But how much you can squat relative to your body weight.

And that distinction matters.

The Research: Relative Strength Predicts Injury Risk

A study published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research examined whether relative back squat strength (1RM ÷ body mass) could predict lower-extremity injury risk in collegiate athletes.

The findings were clear:

• Athletes with higher relative squat strength experienced significantly fewer lower-body injuries during the competitive season.

• Athletes below specific strength thresholds had a higher incidence of injury.

• Identified risk thresholds ranged approximately between 1.7–2.2× body mass (sex-dependent).

  
  

In other words:

Stronger relative to your size = lower injury risk. Weaker relative to your size = greater injury exposure.

That’s not coincidence. That’s physiology.

Why Relative Strength Matters More Than Absolute Load

Sport is not played in the weight room.

It’s played relative to your body mass.

Every sprint, cut, deceleration, and jump requires force production scaled to your size.

When an athlete changes direction at full speed, the forces at the knee and hip can exceed 4–6 times body weight.

If their ability to produce and absorb force does not match those demands, tissue stress accumulates.

And when stress exceeds tolerance — injury happens. An athlete who squats 315 pounds at 250 pounds bodyweight is not as relatively strong as an athlete who squats 315 at 175 pounds. Same absolute load. Very different force capacity relative to body mass.

Sport doesn’t reward absolute strength alone. It rewards usable force relative to the system being moved — your body.

The Identified Risk Threshold

The study observed that athletes falling below roughly: 1.7× body mass (female athletes) and 2.2 x body mass (male athletes) demonstrated a significantly higher injury incidence.

Meeting or exceeding those benchmarks appeared protective. This doesn’t mean squatting alone prevents injury.

But it suggests something critical:

Relative strength may serve as a screening tool for resilience.

And that has enormous implications for how we train.

Force Production and Tissue Tolerance

When an athlete lacks sufficient force capacity relative to body mass:

• Deceleration mechanics degrade

• Ground contact times increase

• Joint loading becomes less controlled

• Passive tissues (ligaments, tendons, cartilage) absorb more stress

  
  

Over time, this increases risk for:

• Patellar tendinopathy

• ACL injury

• Hamstring strains

• Stress reactions

• General lower-extremity overuse

  
  

Strength does not make athletes invincible.

But inadequate strength leaves them exposed.

Performance and Durability Are Intertwined

We often separate “Performance training” from “Injury prevention." But, the research suggests that’s a false divide.

Improving force production relative to body mass:

• Enhances acceleration

• Improves change of direction

• Increases jump performance

• Shortens ground contact time

• And reduces injury risk

  
  

Performance and durability share the same physiological foundation: force capacity.

Practical Implications for Coaches and Performance Staff

If you’re not tracking relative strength, you’re missing context.

Here’s what to consider:

• Track relative back squat strength, not just 1RM

• Identify athletes below key thresholds

• Normalize strength metrics to body mass

• Address deficits before peak competition

• Treat strength development as both performance enhancement and injury risk mitigation

Absolute strength matters.

But relative strength may be more predictive of resilience.

A Smarter Perspective on Strength

This research doesn’t suggest that back squats are the only answer. It suggests that force production capacity relative to body mass is foundational.

How you build it — bilateral, unilateral, eccentric emphasis, velocity-based progressions — is programming detail. But ignoring relative strength entirely? That’s a mistake.

The Takeaway

Stronger legs. Fewer injuries. Probably not coincidence.

If sport is played relative to body mass, then training should respect that reality.

Because the athletes who last the longest are rarely the ones who just lift the most.

They’re the ones who produce — and tolerate — the most force relative to their size.

And that changes everything.