Sport Sciences for Health (2022) 18:11–20

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11332-021-00847-3

REVIEW

Benefits, risks and possibilities of strength training in school Physical

Education: a brief review
Miguel Angelo dos Santos Duarte Junior1,4 · José Francisco López‑Gil2,3 · Guilherme Cortoni Caporal4 ·
Júlio Brugnara Mello5

Received: 11 May 2021 / Accepted: 24 September 2021 / Published online: 11 October 2021
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag Italia S.r.l., part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
Background Strength training (ST) uses different training methods, such as free weights, body weight, elastic bands or
machines to generate resistance force. There is evidence of the ST benefits, however, many professionals have resistance
about the applicability of this type of training for children and adolescents, especially at schools.
Purpose To describe the possible risks, benefits and pedagogical possibilities of ST in school Physical Education.
Methods The search was carried out in the databases PubMed, SciELO, Web of Science and Scholar Google, using fol-
lowed terms: (i) strength/endurance training, (ii) risks, benefits, (iii) children/adolescents and (iv) physical education. Studies
published in the last twenty years in English, Spanish and Portuguese were included.
Results There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that ST promotes a growth deficit or a higher injure risk. The ST
benefits for this population are extensive, such as an increase in muscular fitness and bone mass, production of IGF-1 growth
factor, regulation of body fat, cardiovascular and lipid profile, increase in motor development or sports performance. Physical
Education teachers can include ST for students from the age of 6 years and older, through training strategies with their own
body weight and simple equipment (e.g., balls and ropes). The focus of ST for prepubertal children should be neuromuscular,
that is, in the quality of the movements’ execution.
Conclusion ST is positive for children and adolescents development and evidence indicates many benefits. It is recommended
that it be included in Physical Education classes through pedagogical activities and adapted strategies.

Keywords Resistance training · Physical fitness · Exercise · Child · Adolescent

Introduction

Current evidence showed the relationship between muscular

* Miguel Angelo dos Santos Duarte Junior
miguel.nutricao@hotmail.com
1
Departamento de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública,
Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid,
Madrid, Spain
2
Departamento de Educación Física y Deportiva, Facultad
de Ciencias del Deporte, Universidad de Murcia, San Javier,
Spain
3
Health and Social Research Center, Universidad de
Castilla-La Mancha (UCLM), 16071 Cuenca, Spain
4
Departamento de Educação Física, Faculdade de Educação
Física, Centro Universitário CESUCA​, Cachoeirinha, Brazil
5
Faculdade SOGIPA, Physical Education Department,
Research Group in Physical Activity, Sport and Health,
Porto Alegre, Brazil
fitness and health indicators, such as nutritional status, car-
diovascular risk, cognition and bone health, among others,
especially in children and young people [1–3]. In the last
two World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for physi-
cal activity and sedentary behavior, muscular fitness was
recommended for children and adolescents between 6 and
17 years old, highlighting the muscle and bone strengthening
exercises three times per week (e.g., strength training), as
well as 60 min of aerobic physical activities [4].
In this way, strength training can contribute to the meet
of physical activity recommendations, and according to
Faigenbaum et al. [5] specific recommendations to address
neuromuscular deficiencies early in life are an important
first step to support ongoing participation in moderate-
vigorous physical activity. Strength training is a structured

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
12
and planned method based on efforts against a resistance
force, with the main objectives of increasing muscular
strength, volume, endurance, recovery/rest and power, or
even a combination of these variables [6, 7]. Similarly,
several training protocols use different combinations of
volume, intensity and speed [7–9]. In general, these con-
ditions are determined based on the aim of the program,
using more repetitions and fewer loads or fewer loads and
more repetitions, as well as by variations in speed execu-
tion [7, 10].
Due to the increase in the percentage of childhood obesity
[11], and the low rates of physical activity practice [4], the
importance of physical exercise is more widely recognized.
Children and exercise for the treatment/prevention of obesity
were in the top 5º in every ACMS's survey between 2007
and 2013, and appearing at number 11º in 2014 and number
17 in 2015, in addition to returning to the top 20 in 2020
[12]. In addition to the treatment of obesity, children and
adolescents seek strength training as a method to improve
their athletic performance, muscle strength, mental health,
physical activity, and even injury prevention and treatment
[8–10, 13]. Even so, trend studies have shown a decrease in
strength levels (core strength, muscular power, and lower
limb strength) in recent decades in both children and ado-
lescents [1, 14]. Notwithstanding, a recent systematic review
has shown an improvement in the handgrip strength of chil-
dren in the last years [15].
The increased demand for training centers for children
is not novel; however, even after years of development of
several training methods for children, strength training is
still questioned about it would be suitable for children and
young people, especially in school Physical Education. This
controversy arose between 1979 and 1987, when the reports
published by the NEISS (National Electronic Injury Surveil-
lance System) in the United States, yielded some data on
injuries in children and adolescents who practised strength
training. Said publications resulted in the non-recommen-
dation of this method in children and young people [7, 16].
Currently, this fact still provokes conflicts among Physi-
cal Education teachers, due to the opposition between differ-
ent pedagogical approaches and fear of prescribing exercises
that can increase the risk of injury among students. Some
teachers still resist understanding that must and can address
content related to strength training on Physical Education
curricula [17–19]. In addition, evidence showed that Physi-
cal Education with strength training or muscular fitness pro-
gram in curricula improves some health indicators, such as
musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, bone mass, cognition, obe-
sity prevention, motor skills, etc.). Nevertheless, a summary
of benefits, risks, and mainly, strategies for strength train-
ing application at school can support Physical Education
teachers to adhere to this training method. In this way, this
scoping review aims to describe the possible risks, benefits
13
Sport Sciences for Health (2022) 18:11–20
and pedagogical possibilities of strength training in school
Physical Education.
Methods
A scoping review was performed to provide an explora-
tory overview of the literature related to strength training
in school Physical Education. Thus, three research ques-
tions were addressed: "What are the risks of strength train-
ing in children and adolescents?"; "What are the benefits of
strength training in children and adolescents?"; "What are
the main strategies for strength training application in school
Physical Education?".
Search strategy
The scoping was carried out using the following electronic
databases: PubMed, SciELO, Web of Science and Google
Academic. Moreover, for our purposes, we applied the next
terms: (i) strength/endurance training, (ii) risks, benefits,
(iii) children/adolescents and (iv) school physical education.
The four elements were linked by the Boolean operators
“AND” and “OR” following the terminology of the Medical
Subject Headings (MeSH)—(“strength training” OR “resist-
ance training”) AND (risk OR benefits) AND (children OR
adolescent) AND (physical education)—their correspond-
ing descriptors were used for Portuguese and Spanish. The
search was conducted in 2020 and updated in July 2021. The
references sections of the included articles were manually
and accurately searched to include additional studies and not
to lose relevant information.
Eligibility criteria
Studies published in the last 21 years (2000–2021) carried
out in children and/or adolescents (6–17 years old) that met
the following criteria were included: (1) It offers relevant
information about strength training among children and/or
adolescents; (2) Review studies (meta-analyses or narra-
tives), original (cross-sectional, prospective, interventions
in school or similar and longitudinal); (3) Studies with a
sample only with girls, only with boys or both; (4) Study
with different strength training methods such as functional,
pure strength training, bodybuilding, callisthenics, cross-
training kids; plyometric training, body weight training and
integrative neuromuscular training; (5) Studies published
in Spanish, English or Portuguese. As an exclusion crite-
rion, articles that dealt with strength training related to any
pathology, use of medications or consumption of dietary
supplements were removed. Similarly, studies with general
training methods that did not focus on strength training as
characteristics were also excluded.
Sport Sciences for Health (2022) 18:11–20
Study selection
First, the authors screened all titles and abstracts and
selected the articles that met our predetermined inclusion
and exclusion criteria. After the studies were selected, the
authors independently extracted data from all results, con-
clusions and main evidence (differences were resolved by
consensus). For the posterior analysis, we have divided the
literature review section according to the main findings and
questions: strength training in childhood and adolescence;
strength training risks for children and adolescents; benefits
of strength training for children and adolescents; prescrip-
tion of strength training at school; strength training in School
Physical Education curricula.
Literature review
Strength training in childhood and adolescence
Strength training, also called "resistance training," uses dif-
ferent training methods. Free weights, body weight, elas-
tic bands, and machines can be used to generate resistance
force. It is important to note that strength training is not
limited to weight rooms but can be done in recreation cent-
ers, schools, and training grounds [6, 7, 10, 13, 16, 18, 20].
Another important variable within the context presented
is muscle strength, this being the ability of a muscle or mus-
cle group to exert resistance against a load with maximum
vigor [21]. Kgnutem and Kraemer [22] described muscle
strength as the maximum capacity to generate force with a
specific pattern of movement and at a certain speed. They
also emphasize that to increase muscle strength, a stimulus,
an overload, is necessary. In other words, it is necessary
to impose a higher requirement than the conventional one.
Therefore, progressive resistance training implies that as
muscles become stronger, proportionally greater resistance
is needed to stimulate additional strength gains [21]. Thus,
it is understood that strength training is a program that con-
sists of the periodic organization of progressive loads and
intensities.
Supporting this notion, the importance of knowing the
possible risks, benefits and possibilities for children and
adolescents is emphasized since childhood and adolescence
are characterized by the onset of puberty and for involving
intense changes resulting from the transition between these
age phases and adult life. These phases promote accelerated
growth, increased hormone production and sexual matura-
tion [23, 24]. For instance, these factors are directly related
to the physical condition and nutritional status. In this way,
monitoring these aspects might be relevant for the control
and adaptation of the stimuli without harming the growth
process [24, 25].
13
Strength training risks for children and adolescents
Regarding the risks of strength training, there was a rela-
tionship between this training method with possible growth
retardation in children and adolescents for a long time. How-
ever, it has been pointed out that this association is not cor-
rect [17, 26]. Scientific literature has indicated that an imbal-
ance in training volumes, intensities, and frequencies may,
in fact, compromise the functionality of the growth hormone
(growth factor-like insulin (IGF-1)) [6, 13]. However, this
commitment does not depend on the training method, but
on too high training loads. This fact can also lead to a nutri-
tional deficit, which in this age group could interfere with
the longitudinal growth of children and young people [27,
28].
In this same perspective, Benedet et al. [13] advise about
the possible risk of injury, such as muscle strains as a con-
sequence of overtraining. However, these injuries are not
related, exclusively, to strength training and might occur in
any sport. What has been supported by the scientific litera-
ture is that there is no evidence demonstrating that a height
deficit and a higher prevalence of injuries due to strength
training, especially when training intensities and volumes
are adequate [13, 17]. Strength training can be used to
improve maximal strength, endurance strength, and power
levels [29]. Thus, power training often uses plyometric or
'high impact training', where body mass accelerates when
falling from a predetermined height, according to the ath-
lete's ability and fitness level [30]. It is considered that this
type of training may present a greater risk of injury, due to
the assessment of the impact forces applied to the athlete's
body (muscles, bones, tendons and ligaments) are not easily
measured, compared to free weights and equipment weight
training [16, 30].
In general, some authors have suggested that plyometric
training presents a higher risk of injury for children and ado-
lescents. Nonetheless, it can be used as a training method if
it is well programmed, that is, respecting the physical abili-
ties of the practitioners, the knowledge of the execution tech-
niques, as well as the familiarization with the movements.
In addition, adequate orientation and constant observation
of the trainers are essential for the success of this type of
training [16, 30, 31]. We can still observe movements that
are very similar to plyometric training in children's games,
as well as in other playful activities. For example, during
"hopscotch", where children perform jumps in sequence,
with the quadriceps stretching eccentrically when in con-
tact with the ground and concentrically shortened when the
child jumps [16, 26].
Regarding injuries, many studies sought to evaluate the
prevalence of injuries in strength training programs, high-
lighting that there is no relationship between this type of
training and a higher prevalence of injuries [8–10, 30].
13
14
Ughini et al. [10], for example, showed in their study that the
injury prevalence in sports such as rugby or soccer is higher
compared to strength training. Furthermore, these authors
pointed out that strength training could be an adequate strat-
egy for the prevention of injuries in other sports modalities.
Therefore, it is suggested that the risks of strength train-
ing are common to any type of training and can be reduced
with some preventive attitudes, such as adequate supervi-
sion, warm-up, correct execution of movements, amplitudes,
appropriate techniques and progression consistent with the
physical evolution of the individual [10, 26, 30]. It is under-
stood that the presence of a properly qualified Physical Edu-
cation coach and/or teacher is essential to reduce possible
risks during the execution of activities.
Similarly, the study performed by Hamil [32] attempted
to counter the US NEISS reports, showing data related to
a lower incidence of injury and shorter recovery time with
adolescents who practised strength training, compared with
their counterparts who played sports such as soccer, football,
and basketball, among others. Likewise, the NEISS data did
not distinguish injuries associated with properly planned
strength training from those that were poorly performed and
unsupervised; which could have been inadequate [16]. This
fact is extremely relevant, since strength training, as well as
any other training method, will offer more risks when is not
planned correctly.
Finally, the study by Fort-Vanmeerhaeghe et al. [26]
points out some variables that can increase the risk of injury
in children and adolescents (mainly athletes). These vari-
ables include muscle fatigue, alteration in the time and mag-
nitude of muscle activation, a strength deficit, frontal plane
knee control (dynamic valgus), a neuromuscular imbalance
between limbs, inadequate muscle stiffness, deficit in the
stabilization posture, altered proprioception, and Feedfor-
ward mechanism (preactivation or anticipation). This knowl-
edge of the risk factors provides important information to
coaches, strength and conditioning professionals, physi-
otherapists and School Physical Education teachers. There
is a consensus that these professionals must be able to design
neuromuscular tasks that can be adapted to age, maturational
status and youths' aims (e.g., sports, health, performance)
[9, 33, 34].
Benefits of strength training for children
and adolescents
Scientific literature has pointed out several benefits of
strength training for children and adolescents. Among them,
an improvement in muscle fitness, bone mass and optimiza-
tion in the production of growth factor IGF-1, body com-
position, body adiposity, mental health and cognition, car-
diovascular health and lipid profile, among others [1–3, 8,
9, 35]. In addition, strength training in children and young
13
Sport Sciences for Health (2022) 18:11–20
people contributes to the development of motor skills, physi-
cal fitness, neuromuscular development and sports perfor-
mance [1, 8, 13, 36].
Muscular fitness
It has shown that resistance training contributes to increas-
ing muscle strength, power and endurance [9, 29]. Similarly,
the available evidence suggested that neuromuscular adapta-
tions can be identified after 8 weeks of continuous training,
even so, the individual conditions can influence early adapta-
tions (3, 4 or 5 weeks). The adaptations in strength increases
can vary from 30 to 50% under good training conditions [9,
10, 29]. On the other hand, the increase in muscle strength
during childhood would be related to the maturation of the
central nervous system and, consequently, neuromuscular
adaptations occur, such as greater recruitment of motor
units, a greater capacity for muscle contraction and muscu-
lar adaptations [9].
According to Faiguenbaum et al. [36] as children and ado-
lescents increase their muscular fitness they gain confidence
and competence in their physical abilities. Children and ado-
lescents that do strength training increase their resistance
to activity-related injuries, mainly due to the increment in
muscular strength [37]. An increase in muscular fitness is
indirectly related to long-term health promotion. A recent
systematic review [1] showed a prospective negative asso-
ciation between muscular fitness in childhood/adolescence
and adiposity, cardiometabolic parameters and bone health
in later life. On other hand, a brief review by Faiguenbaum
et al. [38] showed that focusing only on the technical and
tactical aspects could not be sufficient to preparing young
athletes and protecting them from injury. Thus, these authors
claim that a systematic approach to physical conditioning
that optimizes gains in muscular strength is vital for long-
term athletic development.
Bone mass
Some authors also suggest that resistance exercises contrib-
ute to better bone mineral density [3], especially in children,
where these improvements resulting from training appear
to be more durable. This is because mechanical loads are
applied to bone structures, which is the mechanism respon-
sible for this strengthening of bones [9, 13, 29, 30]. Child-
hood and adolescence (especially after peak height velocity)
are critical times for bone mineral acquisitions [39], and as
a consequence, increasing bone mass accumulation during
childhood and adolescence, especially during the peak of
bone mass phase, is considered an effective way to prevent
osteoporosis and maintain bone health in adulthood [40].
In this sense, evidence indicates that muscle fitness is
significantly related to bone indicators [41, 42]. These
Sport Sciences for Health (2022) 18:11–20
associations between bone mass variables and muscular
fitness can be based on the evidence on the osteogenic
effect in childhood and adolescence of some types of
physical exercises (e.g., strength training). Faigenbaum
and Myer [8] point out that the participation of children
and adolescents in physical training programs that include
strength exercises associated with adequate eating habits,
such as the recommended consumption of calcium and
vitamin D, for example, are fundamental behaviors for the
formation of bone mineral content during childhood and
adolescence. Therefore, evidence showed that strength
training contributes significantly to the bone mineral con-
tent of children and adolescents [43, 44]. The activities
performed during training stimulate bone overload, which
increases cellular activity in the bone remodeling process
[39].
Overweight prevention and cardiometabolic health
Another favorable point for strength training in this popu-
lation is the improvement of some risk factors for cardio-
vascular diseases, such as improved lipid profile, nutri-
tional status, blood pressure, insulin resistance and waist
circumference [8, 9, 31, 45]. Furthermore, muscle strength
is inversely related to premature death from any disease,
including cardiovascular disease [1].
It is also worth highlighting the improvement it pro-
duces in the lipid profile, as well as other cardiometa-
bolic risk factors, regardless of the weight loss produced
[46]. Therefore, strength training has been shown to
be an important tool to reduce cardiometabolic risk in
overweight and obese children [30, 46]. Consequently,
strength training has been consistently recommended for
overweight children and youth, as it contributes to better
nutritional status, decreased abdominal fat, and increased
energy expenditure, essential characteristics for the rever-
sal of obesity [9, 47, 48].
Some authors also emphasize that muscle strength is
related to fat-free mass in adolescents and, therefore, to
better body composition [49, 50]. This is a very important
fact in excess weight children and adolescents since mus-
cle tissue is highly energetic and sufficient levels of muscle
mass might contribute significantly to higher basal energy
expenditure and, consequently, to a better nutritional status
[1, 9, 13, 30]. Thus, resistance training programs have con-
tributed to a better metabolic profile in children and young
people. It is also possible to observe a decrease in body
fat and an increased sensitivity to insulin in adolescents
who perform continuous strength training. Consequently,
the cardiometabolic risk is lower in children with better
muscular condition [8, 9, 49, 50].
15
Cognition and mental health
Evidence showed that children and adolescents with higher
fitness levels present a greater global and individual cog-
nitive performance [2, 51–53]. A systematic review [54]
suggests that there are positive associations among physical
activity, muscular fitness, cognition, and academic achieve-
ment. However, the most current evidence demonstrates that
acute and chronic exercises may have a positive effect on
executive function for children and adolescents, especially
in terms of working memory.
In addition, Álvarez-Bueno et al. [55] suggest from a
meta-analysis that physical activity interventions are useful
strategies to foster the development of children´s cognition
(non-executive cognitive functions, core executive func-
tions, and higher-level executive functions). And a current
review [56] about exercise in Physical Education suggests
that improving the quality of Physical Education classes
is a worthwhile investment in education that may lead to
improvements in cognition and academic performance.
Resistance training has been shown to have positive
effects in relation to psychological factors in children and
young people [2, 6, 29, 36]. In addition, many studies have
found associations between muscular strength and mental
health outcomes in adolescents [52, 53, 57]. Mental and
psychological variables as self-evaluation, motivation and
self-esteem are sensible to exercise in all ages. Especially in
childhood, these variables are responsive to different types
of exercise, including strength training. Additionally, there
is a greater commitment and sense of fun in addition to
establishing, in most cases, a moment of social interaction
among young people [57]. In this way, the main evidence
about mental health suggests that regular physical activity
(especially physical exercise) are positively associated with
greater mental health indicators [58].
Physical activity lifestyle
Strength training also seems to contribute to a more active
lifestyle, since children and adolescents who follow this
training tend to maintain more adequate levels of physical
activity in adulthood [50]. In addition, strength training may
be more attractive, especially for those who have difficulty
performing aerobic exercises, such as obese children and
adolescents [9, 46, 50]. So, especially in upper limb strength
training, overweight individuals may perform better, as they
seem to have more body mass without fat than those with
normal weight [59].
In addition, it is worth mentioning that when it comes
to obese subjects, treatment is complex, since there are
numerous factors involved and the dropout rate is high.
Therefore, when we develop muscular fitness in overweight
children and adolescents, we will also contribute to their
13
16
performance, confidence and motivation for other activities.
This fact could be crucial for their adherence to practice and,
consequently, to engage in a more active lifestyle [9, 16].
Life activities
School-age children and adolescents generally carry their
school supplies in their backpacks and briefcases. Therefore,
the presence of a deficit in muscular strength can lead to an
inappropriate posture or movement to carry these materi-
als. Thus, strength training is recommended for children and
adolescents, not only to promote greater sports performance
but also for daily routine activities [30]. Ruivo et al. [60]
carried out an intervention with adolescents of both sexes,
with an average age of 15 years, where positive postural
changes were observed through strength training in Physical
Education classes (2 times a week); managing to improve the
posture of the students, concerning cervical angular values
such as those of the shoulder joint.
Likewise, Faigenbaum et al. [16] suggested that strength
training may be a strategy to reduce the prevalence or sever-
ity of low back pain in children and young people. Further-
more, it is important to note that García-Hermoso et al. [1],
pointed out in their study that the relationship between levels
of muscle strength and low back pain is not clear. These
authors suggested that studies that identify muscle strength
deficits and symptoms earlier are needed to clarify this pos-
sible relationship (Fig. 1).
Prescription of strength training at school
Evidence shows that from 6 years of age, under condi-
tions that the child has the ability to accept the teacher's
Fig. 1  Strength training benefits to children and adolescents
13
Sport Sciences for Health (2022) 18:11–20
instructions strength training can be prescribed [6–10].
Strength training has as key points to plan the amount of
resistance required, volume and intensity. The training vol-
ume is represented by the number of repetitions of each exer-
cise and the intensity by the % of the maximum load that can
be lifted only once (1RM) [30, 61]. Therefore, four funda-
mental points are emphasized for the success of training in
children and adolescents: execution technique, adequate pro-
gression, safe equipment and adequate supervision [7, 8, 20,
26, 30]. This type of program must be carefully evaluated so
that the training is appropriate for the physical capacities of
the individual, to promote beneficial physiological responses
during training [10, 20, 46].
From a quantitative perspective, the progression of
strength training is related to the resistance load and speed
of execution, which should gradually and systematically
increase. Evidence suggests that resistance can be increased
by increments of 5–10% by weight when the number of rep-
etitions predetermined by the teacher is achieved with well-
executed movements and with proper posture and execution
speed [8, 26, 62]. However, the teacher needs to define the
initial overload for training based on the intended objec-
tives. Furthermore, it is important to consider the context
and objectives of Physical Education at school when imple-
menting strength training.
Several studies showed that even in the lack of sophisti-
cated equipment, such as barbells, dumbbells and weights,
strength training can be performed on children and adoles-
cents. This is because strength training must follow some
recommendations by age group and maturation level for its
prescription. Thus, a strategy that may be interesting for the
teacher at school is to conduct sexual maturation or somatic
maturation (the most suitable for the school environment)
evaluations every six months. In addition, initial physical
fitness testing (mainly strength levels) is highly encouraged,
for which teachers have a range of batteries for physical fit-
ness tests [63–68] and 1RM tests for children [69].
The main evidence on strength training (not only at
school) indicates that the prepubertal phases (approximately
between 6 and 10 years of age) are especially sensitive to
learning new movements, due to the phases of brain matu-
ration and consolidation of the nerve pathways neuromotor.
Thus, the priority focused in this phase of life is strength
training with an emphasis on the quality of movements and a
focus on learning different fundamental movements, such as
squatting, flexing, sinking, abdominals, etc. In the pubescent
and post-pubertal phases, the indications point to exercises
with greater complexity and a continuous and sensible pro-
gression of overload. However, in the school scenario, the
overload used could be always the own body weight, and
the complexity could vary according to the proposed activ-
ity. Functional exercises, with an emphasis on fundamental
movements, are the main recommendation for children. In
Sport Sciences for Health (2022) 18:11–20
this way, the teacher at school can choose to use activities
such as boards and their variations, squat and their varia-
tions, fixed bar and its variations, flexion and its variations,
pulls and variations, climbing, abdominals, pushing, etc.
Regarding the materials, adaptations on bars, rubber bands,
benches, cones, ropes and balls (medicine ball) could be
used.
Regarding methodological protocols for the prescrip-
tion of strength training, it seems that there is no consensus
among the authors to determine the best strength training
protocol for children and adolescents. Nevertheless, some
authors recommend that the volume must be moderate, the
intensity from moderate to low and that the exercises must
be well structured. In this way, it is possible to increase
strength and reduce the risk and severity of the injuries [13].
Faigenbaum et al. [70] established an eight-week training
protocol with 43 students, of both sexes, aged between 8
and 12 years old and concluded that the maximum strength
gains were very similar in both groups (low repetitions x
high repetitions). However, they observed that the group that
performed a greater number of repetitions obtained greater
gains in flexibility and muscular endurance. The authors
suggest that for untrained children and adolescents, training
can be started with one set per exercise, with high/moderate
intensity.
Another point to highlight is related to the possible dif-
ferences in strength training between sexes. According to
the literature, in the prepubertal period, no differences are
found in relation to the responses to strength training when
comparing boys and girls [34, 71]. Benedet et al. [13] high-
light that children and adolescents should strength train two
or three times a week, at submaximal intensities, with a low
number of repetitions and perform full ranges. When the
goal is to increase muscle mass, they recommend from one
to three sets, eight to twelve repetitions with four or five
muscle groups, beginning with exercises without adding
weights. When the goal of training is to reduce body weight,
the number of repetitions increases, from 9 to 15. In addi-
tion, it is recommended that flexibility and cardiovascular
training complemented strength training (Fig. 2).
Strength training in school Physical Education
curricula
The development of motor skills is present among the peda-
gogical objectives of school Physical Education in many
countries. In this way, the school and especially the Physi-
cal Education classes are the most favorable space/moment
for the development of these capacities [17, 19, 34]. In this
sense, muscular strength, technical execution, speed and
coordination skills are capacities with great importance,
especially in games and sports presented in school Physical
Education [9, 17].
17
Fig. 2  Prescription of strength training at school
Similarly, it is worth mentioning that equipment,
machines and materials at the school environment are not
necessary to tackle strength training. What the literature has
shown is that exercises that require levels of strength beyond
the occasional are already sufficient to promote increments
in students' strength levels. In this way, exercises that use
your own body weight, callisthenics, are alternatives in situ-
ations when there are no equipment and materials available
[17, 19].
Another aspect that generates great controversy is
whether Physical Education classes at school are capable of
contributing to the physical and muscular fitness of school-
children, which has recently been ratified by some authors
[33, 34, 60, 72]. With regard to strength training, Faigen-
baum [34] states that it is possible to improve the levels
of muscular fitness of students who participate in Physical
Education classes. Furthermore, this author showed that a
training program, which uses the first 15 min, in two weekly
classes, was enough to increase the muscular strength of the
students. Regarding methodology, the authors used circuit
exercises, where each student performed each exercise twice,
including flexing the arms, jumping rope, jumping, and bal-
ance exercises, among others.
Regarding the frequency of Physical Education classes,
it is important to note that the frequency of stimuli is a key
point to achieve the objectives related to training, as well as
the intensity and duration [61]. Nevertheless, in terms of fre-
quency, some authors have emphasized that doing activities
twice a week is enough for increasing muscle strength levels
[9, 13]. Therefore, a curriculum that includes two periods
a week, on alternate days, would be the minimum recom-
mended when we try to develop motor skills and muscle
fitness specifically.
13
18
We suggest that the great appreciation of games in Phys-
ical Education classes meant that activities that prioritize
physical conditioning were reduced, and this ended up
compromising in some way the physical fitness, including
the musculoskeletal fitness of the students. In this sense, de
Beneli and Piagentini [17] highlighted that recreational and
sports activities are part of Physical Education classes. How-
ever, in general, these activities are not capable of devel-
oping students' musculoskeletal fitness. In addition, some
authors have highlighted the decrease in the number and
quality of Physical Education classes at school, since teach-
ers often find themselves with inadequate resources, scarce
materials and deteriorated structures [31, 34].
Globally, the literature has recommended that Physical
Education classes include exercises that promote improve-
ments in students' physical fitness [16, 33, 35]. These exer-
cises do not need and should not capture all the class time,
since it is also important that teachers work on other con-
tents related to bodily practices, such as games, sports and
dances. It is worth mentioning that the strength exercises
should contemplate the playful character. It is necessary for
students to find pleasure and motivation when performing
these exercises, that is, joy and fun should be valued in these
activities [17]. Similarly, it is recommended to use strength
exercises together with aerobic exercises resistance, balance
and coordination.
Conclusion
With the objective of identifying in the literature the pos-
sible risks, benefits and pedagogical possibilities of strength
training for children and adolescents, this work presents rel-
evant information for the area, contributing to the current
literature and reaching the established objective. Based on
the information presented, we can conclude that strength
training, like any other type of training or sport, presents
risks and benefits for children and adolescents. However, the
risks can be minimal when there is an appropriate evalua-
tion, orientation and execution of the exercises. In this way,
strength training is positive for children and adolescents
from 6 years of age. The benefits appear to be broad, rang-
ing from the contribution to the control of nutritional status,
the prevention of overweight and obesity, to the promotion
of a better quality of life, contributing to mental health, bone
metabolism, prevention of cardiovascular diseases and the
adoption of a more active lifestyle, both in childhood and
adulthood. Finally, the importance of including strength
training in Physical Education classes through pedagogical
activities is highlighted, where muscular strength is required
and muscular fitness is promoted, the latter being widely
highlighted in this work, as it is an important indicator of
13
Sport Sciences for Health (2022) 18:11–20
the physical fitness and health in general, of children and
adolescents.
Funding No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation
of this review.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no competing
interests.
Ethical approval This article does not contain any studies with human
or animal participants.
Informed consent For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
References
1. García-Hermoso A, Ramírez-Campillo R, Izquierdo M (2019) Is
muscular fitness associated with future health benefits in children
and adolescents? A systematic review and meta-analysis of longi-
tudinal studies. Sport Med 49:1079–1094. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/​
s40279-​019-​01098-6
2. Solis-Urra P, Sanchez-Martinez J, Olivares-Arancibia J et al
(2021) Physical fitness and its association with cognitive per-
formance in Chilean schoolchildren: The Cogni-Action Project.
Scand J Med Sci Sports. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​sms.​13945
3. Torres-Costoso A, López-Muñoz P, Martínez-Vizcaíno V et al
(2020) Association between muscular strength and bone health
from children to young adults: a systematic review and meta-
analysis. Sport Med 50:1163–1190. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s40279-​020-​01267-y
4. Bull FC, Al-Ansari SS, Biddle S et al (2020) World Health
Organization 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary
behaviour. Br J Sports Med 54:1451–1462. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1136/​bjspo​rts-​2020-​102955
5. Faigenbaum AD, MacDonald JP, Stracciolini A, Rebullido TR
(2020) Making a strong case for prioritizing muscular fitness in
youth physical activity guidelines. Curr Sports Med Rep 19:530–
536. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1249/​JSR.​00000​00000​000784
6. Faigenbaum AD (2000) Strength training for children and ado-
lescents. Clin Sports Med 19:593–619. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​
S0278-​5919(05)​70228-3
7. Stricker PR, Faigenbaum AD, McCambridge TM (2020) Resist-
ance training for children and adolescents. Pediatrics. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1542/​peds.​2020-​1011
8. Faigenbaum AD, Myer GD (2010) Pediatric resistance training:
Benefits, concerns, and program design considerations. Curr
Sports Med Rep 9:161–168. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1249/​JSR.​0b013​
e3181​de1214
9. Sociedad Argentina de Pediatría (2018) Entrenamiento de la
fuerza en niños y adolescentes: beneficios, riesgos y recomen-
daciones. Arch Argent Pediatr 116:S82–S91. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
5546/​aap.​2018.​s82
10. Ughini CC, Becker C, Pinto RS (2011) Treinamento de força
em crianças: segurança, benefícios e recomendações. Conexões
9:177–197
11. Abarca-Gómez L, Abdeen ZA, Hamid ZA et al (2017) Worldwide
trends in body-mass index, underweight, overweight, and obesity
from 1975 to 2016: a pooled analysis of 2416 population-based
Sport Sciences for Health (2022) 18:11–20
measurement studies in 128·9 million children, adolescents, and
adults. Lancet 390:2627–2642. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0140-​
6736(17)​32129-3
12. Thompson WR (2021) Worldwide survey of fitness trends for
2021. ACSMs Health Fit J 25:10–19. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1249/​
FIT.​00000​00000​000631
13. Benedet J, Freddi JC, Luciano AP et al (2013) Treinamento
resistido para crianças e adolescentes. ABCS Heal Sci 38:47–
51. https://​doi.​org/​10.​7322/​abcshs.​v38i1.7
14. Masanovic B, Gardasevic J, Marques A et al (2020) Trends in
physical fitness among school-aged children and adolescents: a
systematic review. Front Pediatr. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fped.​
2020.​627529
15. Dooley FL, Kaster T, Fitzgerald JS et al (2020) A systematic
analysis of temporal trends in the handgrip strength of 2,216,320
children and adolescents between 1967 and 2017. Sport Med
50:1129–1144. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40279-​020-​01265-0
16. Faigenbaum AD, Kraemer WJ, Blimkie CJR et al (2009) Youth
resistance training: updated position statement paper from
the national strength and conditioning association. J Strength
Cond Res 23:S60–S79. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1519/​JSC.​0b013​e3181​
9df407
17. Beneli L de MF de AA, Piagentini (2012) Ensaios e Ciência.
Ensaios e Ciência Ciências Biológicas, Agrárias e da Saúde
16:117–131
18. Gagliardi EDMM, Silva AO (2011) Benefícios do treinamento de
força para escolares.https://​doi.​org/​10.​5102/​ucs.​v9i2.​1372. Univ
Ciências da Saúde 9:. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5102/​ucs.​v9i2.​1372
19. Bukowsky M, Faigenbaum AD, Myer GD (2014) FUNdamental
Integrative Training (FIT) for Physical Education. J Phys Educ
Recreat Danc 85:23–30. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​07303​084.​2014.​
926842
20. Myers AM, Beam NW, Fakhoury JD (2017) Resistance training
for children and adolescents. Transl Pediatr 6:137–143
21. Wilmore JH, Costill DL, Kenny WL (2010) Fisiologia do esporte
e do exercício., 2nd ed. Manole, Barueri
22. Knuttgen HG, Kraemer WJ (1987) Terminology and measurement
in exercise performance. J Strength Cond Res 1:1–10. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1519/​00124​278-​19870​2000-​00001
23. Gallahue DL, Ozmun JC, Goodway JD (2013) compreendendo o
desenvolvimento motor. 7th ed. AMGH, Porto Alegre
24. Ré AHN (2011) Crescimento, maturação e desenvolvimento na
infância e adolescência: Implicações para o esporte. Motricidade
7:55–67. https://​doi.​org/​10.​6063/​motri​cidade.​7(3).​103
25. Alves C, Lima RVB (2008) Impacto da atividade física e esportes
sobre o crescimento e puberdade de crianças e adolescentes. Rev
Paul Pediatr 26:383–391. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1590/​s0103-​05822​
00800​04000​13
26. Fort-Vanmeerhaeghe A, Romero-Rodriguez D, Lloyd RS et al
(2016) Integrative neuromuscular training in youth athletes.
Part II: strategies to prevent injuries and improve performance.
Strength Cond J 38:9–27. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1519/​SSC.​00000​
00000​000234
27. Bernhardt DT, Gomez J, Johnson MD et al (2001) Strength
training by children and adolescents. Pediatrics 107:1470–1472.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1542/​peds.​107.6.​1470
28. Falk B, Tenenbaum G (1996) The effectiveness of resistance train-
ing in children. A meta-analysis. Sport Med 22:176–186. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​2165/​00007​256-​19962​2030-​00004
29. Costa HS, Lisboa MP, Ataides J s M de, et al (2017) Revista Bra-
sileira de Pesquisa em Ciências da Saúde. Positions statements on
strength training for children and adolescents: A Revista Brasileira
de Pesquisa em Ciências da Saúde. 4:39–49
30. Barbieri D (2016) Strength training for children and adolescents :
benefits and risks strength training for children and adolescents :
benefits and risks. 37:219–225
19
31. Silva Perfeito R, Magalhães de Souza WM, de Sá Alves DG
(2013) Treinamento de força muscular para crianças e adoles-
centes: Benefícios ou malefícios? Adolesc e Saude 10:54–62
32. Hamill BP (1994) Relative safety of weightlifting and weight
training. J Strength Cond Res 8:53–57
33. García-Hermoso A, Alonso-Martínez AM, Ramírez-Vélez R et al
(2020) Association of physical education with improvement of
health-related physical fitness outcomes and fundamental motor
skills among youths. JAMA Pediatr. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 001/j​ amap​
ediat​rics.​2020.​0223
34. Faigenbaum AD (2018) Youth resistance training: the good, the
bad, and the ugly-the year that was 2017. Pediatr Exerc Sci 30:19–
24. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1123/​pes.​2017-​0290
35. Lima FC, Costa SDP, Rodrigues BM et al (2014) Treinamento
resistido na Educação Física Escolar : uma proposta de ensino
Endurance training in physical education : a proposal for teaching.
Cinergis 15:207–217
36. Faigenbaum AD, Rebullido TR, Peña J, Chulvi-Medrano I (2019)
Resistance exercise for the prevention and treatment of pediatric
dynapenia. J Sci Sport Exerc 1:208–216. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s42978-​019-​00038-0
37. Lauersen JB, Andersen TE, Andersen LB (2018) Strength train-
ing as superior, dose-dependent and safe prevention of acute and
overuse sports injuries: a systematic review, qualitative analysis
and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med 52:1557–1563. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1136/​bjspo​rts-​2018-​099078
38. Faigenbaum AD, MacDonald JP, Haff GG (2019) Are young ath-
letes strong enough for sport? DREAM On. Curr Sports Med Rep
18:6–8. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1249/​JSR.​00000​00000​000554
39. Bailey DA, Mirwald RL, Faulkner RA (2004) Bone growth and
exercise studies: the complications of maturation. J Musculoskelet
Neuronal Interact 3:335–337
40. Gunter KB, Almstedt HC, Janz KF (2012) Physical activity in
childhood may be the key to optimizing lifespan skeletal health.
Exerc Sport Sci Rev 40:13–21. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 097/J​ ES.0​ b013​
e3182​36e5ee
41. Gómez-Bruton A, Marín-Puyalto J, Muñiz-Pardos B et al (2020)
Association between physical fitness and bone strength and
structure in 3- to 5-year-old children. Sport Heal A Multidiscip
Approach. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​19417​38120​913645
42. Smith JJ, Eather N, Morgan PJ et al (2014) The health benefits of
muscular fitness for children and adolescents: a systematic review
and meta-analysis. Sport Med 44:1209–1223. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s40279-​014-​0196-4
43. Fritz J, Rosengren BE, Dencker M et al (2016) A seven-year phys-
ical activity intervention for children increased gains in bone mass
and muscle strength. Acta Paediatr 105:1216–1224. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1111/​apa.​13440
44. Mello JB, Pedretti A, García-Hermoso A et al (2021) Exercise in
school Physical Education increase bone mineral content and den-
sity: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Sport Sci 21:9.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​17461​391.​2021.​19604​26
45. Giannaki CD, Aphamis G, Tsouloupas CN et al (2016) An eight
week school-based intervention with circuit training improves
physical fitness and reduces body fat in male adolescents. J Sports
Med Phys Fitness 56:894–900
46. Bea JW, Blew RM, Howe C et al (2017) Resistance training effects
on metabolic function among youth: a systematic review. Pediatr
Exerc Sci 29:297–315. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1123/​pes.​2016-​0143
47. Yu CCW, Sung RYT, So RCH et al (2005) Effects of strength
training on body composition and bone mineral content in chil-
dren who are obese. J Strength Cond Res 19:667–672. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1519/​14994.1
48. Yu CCW, Sung RYT, Hau KT et al (2008) The effect of diet and
strength training on obese children’s physical self-concept. J
Sports Med Phys Fitness 48:76–82
13
20
49. Mcguigan MR, Tatasciore M, Newton RU, Pettigrew S (2009)
Eight weeks of resistance training can significantly alter body
composition in children who are overweight or obese. J Strength
Cond Res 23:80–85. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1519/​JSC.​0b013​e3181​
876a56
50. Ruiz JR, Castro-Pinero J, Artero EG et al (2009) Predictive
validity of health-related fitness in youth: a systematic review.
Br J Sports Med 43:909–923. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1136/​bjsm.​2008.​
056499
51. Contreras-Osorio F, Campos-Jara C, Martínez-Salazar C et al
(2021) Effects of sport-based interventions on children’s execu-
tive function: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Sci
11:755. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​brain​sci11​060755
52. Lubans DR, Cliff DP (2011) Muscular fitness, body composi-
tion and physical self-perception in adolescents. J Sci Med Sport
14:216–221. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jsams.​2010.​10.​003
53. Padilla-Moledo C, Ruiz JR, Ortega FB et al (2012) Associations of
muscular fitness with psychological positive health, health com-
plaints, and health risk behaviors in spanish children and adoles-
cents. J Strength Cond Res 26:167–173. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1519/​
JSC.​0b013​e3182​1c2433
54. Donnelly JE, Hillman CH, Castelli D et al (2016) Physical activity,
fitness, cognitive function, and academic achievement in children.
Med Sci Sport Exerc 48:1197–1222. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 249/M
​ SS.​
00000​00000​000901
55. Álvarez-Bueno C, Pesce C, Cavero-Redondo I et al (2017) The
effect of physical activity interventions on children’s cognition
and metacognition: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am
Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 56:729–738. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​jaac.​2017.​06.​012
56. García-Hermoso A, Ramírez-Vélez R, Lubans DR, Izquierdo M
(2021) Effects of physical education interventions on cognition
and academic performance outcomes in children and adolescents:
a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1136/​bjspo​rts-​2021-​104112
57. Biddle SJH, Ciaccioni S, Thomas G, Vergeer I (2019) Physical
activity and mental health in children and adolescents: an updated
review of reviews and an analysis of causality. Psychol Sport
Exerc 42:146–155. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​psych​sport.​2018.​
08.​011
58. Rodriguez-Ayllon M, Cadenas-Sánchez C, Estévez-López F et al
(2019) Role of physical activity and sedentary behavior in the
mental health of preschoolers, children and adolescents: a system-
atic review and meta-analysis. Sport Med 49:1383–1410. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40279-​019-​01099-5
59. Ruiz JR, Ortega FB, Wärnberg J et al (2008) Inflammatory pro-
teins and muscle strength in adolescents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc
Med 162:462. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1001/​archp​edi.​162.5.​462
60. Ruivo RM, Pezarat-Correia P, Carita AI (2017) Effects of a
resistance and stretching training program on forward head and
13
Sport Sciences for Health (2022) 18:11–20
protracted shoulder posture in adolescents. J Manipulative Physiol
Ther 40:1–10. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jmpt.​2016.​10.​005
61. Lima, Cláudia Silveira; Pinto RS (2009) Cinesiologia e Muscu-
lação. Artmed, Porto Alegre
62. Young WK, Metzl JD (2010) Strength training for the young
athlete. Pediatr Ann 39:293–299. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3928/​00904​
481-​20100​422-​10
63. Tsigilis N, Douda H, Tokmakidis SP (2002) Test-retest reliabil-
ity of the Eurofit test battery administered to university students.
Percept Mot Skills 95:1295–1300. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2466/​pms.​
2002.​95.​3f.​1295
64. Ruiz JR, España Romero V, Castro Piñero J et al (2011) ALPHA-
fitness test battery: health-related field-based fitness tests assess-
ment in children and adolescents. Nutr Hosp 26:1210–1214.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​3305/​nh.​2011.​26.6.​5270
65. Ortega FB, Cadenas-Sánchez C, Sánchez-Delgado G et al (2015)
Systematic review and proposal of a field-based physical fitness-
test battery in preschool children: the PREFIT battery. Sports Med
45:533–555. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40279-​014-​0281-8
66. Welk GJ, De Saint-Maurice Maduro PF, Laurson KR, Brown DD
(2011) Field evaluation of the new FITNESSGRAM® criterion-
referenced standards. Am J Prev Med 41:S131–S142. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​amepre.​2011.​07.​011
67. American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and
D (1980) AAHPERD Lifetime Health Related Physical Fitness:
Test Manual. Reston
68. Gaya AR, Gaya ACA, Pedretti A, Mello JB (2021) Projeto Esporte
Brasil: Manual de medidas, testes e avaliações, 5th ed. Porto
Alegre
69. Faigenbaum AD, Milliken LA, Westcott WL (2003) Maximal
strength testing in healthy children. J strength Cond Res 17:162–
166. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 519/​1 533-​4 287(2003)​0 17%​3 c0162:​
mstihc%​3e2.0.​co;2
70. Faigenbaum AD, Milliken L, Moulton L, Westcott WL (2005)
Early muscular fitness adaptations in children in response to two
different resistance training regimens. Pediatr Exerc Sci 17:237–
248. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1123/​pes.​17.3.​237
71. Carnevale Pellino V, Giuriato M, Ceccarelli G et al (2020) Explo-
sive strength modeling in children: trends according to growth and
prediction equation. Appl Sci 10:6430. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​
app10​186430
72. Oliveira L, Braga F, Lemes V et al (2017) Effect of an intervention
in Physical Education classes on health related levels of physical
fitness in youth. Rev Bras Atividade Física Saúde 22:46–53
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.