DownloadGet our free ebook: <br/>30 Days of Guided Meditation

How Common Are Yoga Injuries? The Science Weighs In (A Special Guest Post)


Concern about yoga-related gashes seems to be at an all-time high at the moment, with commodities in the mainstream media pointing toward increasing numbers of hurts resulting from the practice, systems of yoga arising that claim to coach a “safer& more sustainable” style of rehearsal, and widespread discussions among yoga professors about the injurious nature of yoga and how best to keep students safe on the mat.

Much of this discussion is rooted in anecdotal evidence, nonetheless. As person with a great interest in helping to bring a solid grounding in science to the practice of yoga, I am thrilled to present a special guest post today that will add to the greater dialog about yoga gashes with a look at the actual scientific evidence on this important topic.

Jari Karpinnen, PT, MSc, and PhD student in Sport& Exercise Medicine, provide us with an up-to-date review of the scientific research on yoga hurts. This case is essential reading for any yoga practitioner interested in an evidence-based perspective on yoga hurts, as well as anyone interested in improving their scientific literacy skills in general.

I hope you appreciate this high-quality content offered by Jari. Be sure to read the conclusions and his “two cents about the hurt discussion” at the end of this post! And consider following Jari and his duty on Instagram at @jarikarppinen.

Thank you for say! –Jenni

Jari Karppinen, PT, MSc, PhD student in Sport & Exercise Medicine

Jari Karppinen, PT, MSc, PhD student in Sport& Exercise Medicine


Exercise, despite all its benefits, possesses also gambles- from abrupt cardiac demise to minor strains and dislocates. Naturally, asana-based yoga is no exception. The topic is widely discussed, and most yoga professionals have their own opinion on the matter; however, these minds are often based on anecdotal evidence.

When estimating health risks of yoga practice and deciding whether special trauma prevention programmes are needed, we first need information about 1) how common adverse events are and 2) why do they happen, including information about mechanisms and possible jeopardy and preventative causes[ 1 ]. This blog affix is intended to provide an up to date review of scientific evidence concern yoga-related adverse events to aid constructive discussion.

Basic concepts

Before diving into the results, some basic concepts need to be addressed. I want to highlight that study design has a huge impact on the type information a study can provide and how valid that information is[ 2 ]. Some of the benefits and limitations of each study design are discussed later. Too, the generalizability of the findings is not always straightforward as yoga is a dissimilar discipline practiced by different demographics. For lesson, if the study participants practice ashtanga, it is far-reaching to extrapolate the findings instantly to kundalini or yin yoga practitioners. Similarly, members with a medical malady might to be addressed yoga differently when compared with health participants.

Study design has a huge impact on the type information a study can provide and how valid that information is.

A good thing to likewise keep in mind is that sports injury category is notoriously problematic[ 3 ], and expected outcomes appraises vary between studies. Thus, in this blog post, traumata are just announced “adverse events”. In yoga studies, adverse events are generally any aches or griefs associated with yoga practice reported by the participant. In more rigorous blueprints, medical corroboration may be required. Studies often also classify the adverse events based on the need for medical treatment, whether the phenomenon caused loss-of-time from rule and how long it lasted. Naturally, the clas structure squandered seriously forces the study’s findings.

Evidence from occasion studies

When investigating exercise-related adverse events, contingency studies are the lowest shape of attest. Case studies are typically medically justified rare events, which are then reported in scientific journals. Case studies may supply mechanistic attest and aid in building research postulates that can be then probed with more rigorous study designs. However, they provide simply low attest as they lack repeatability and generalizability.

When probing exercise-related adverse events, contingency studies are the lowest shape of sign.

For example, two very interesting case studies exist where HIV infection was medicine with an allogeneic stem cell transplantation[ 4,5 ]. Still, it is obvious that this high-risk care cannot be routinely used to treat HIV. Another limitation of case studies is the increased risk of researcher bias- it is very possible that the researcher’s own the suggestions and minds affect how he or she translates and reports the bag.

In 2013, Cramer et al. added a detailed synthesis of case studies concerning yoga-related adverse events[ 6 ]. In total, they distinguished 77 cases of which 27 feigned the musculoskeletal system, 14 the nervous system and 9 the eyes. Over half of the subjects contacted full recovery following the incident. One case of death was reported, which resulted from air embolism after voluntary mouth-to-mouth breathing exercise. Typical constitutes or traditions associated with the adverse events were headstand( 10 occasions) and shoulder stand( 3 cases ), which mainly have contributed to glaucomatous symptoms. Too, cogent breathing uses( 3 cases) and constitutes involving extreme flexible( 3) were reported as causes of adverse events.

The case studies often conjure a lot of interest as we as humen are drawn into narrations and anecdotes. However, I want to highlight that these are rare occurrences and they do not provide generalizable evidence.

Evidence from observance studiesCross-sectional studies

When searching for evidence on how common yoga-related adverse events are, we need to look beyond case studies. The investigate mainly focused on cross-sectional studies, which is understandable as they are relatively easy to conduct compared to longitudinal setups. The cross-sectional design means that the researchers collect data only at one point in time and in the case of yoga studies, generally with cross-examines. Cross-sectional studies can give information about prevalence( e.g ., how a large proportion of the study members currently have or have known a yoga-related adverse event ). Some studies likewise reckon proportions and dangers; however, these should be treated with caution as longitudinal designs are better suited for this.

Cross-sectional studies have some limitations. First, possible risks of inaccurate data is relatively high as members are asked to remember past incidents. Second, studies and research generally suffer from selection bias, which means that the actual study sample is not representative of the accessible study population. For lesson, participants who have experienced an adverse event may be more motivated to take part in a study investigating specific topics. Third, cross-sectional studies are influenced by a myriad of confounding ingredients. Thus, any association found by the study shall not be required to be be treated as causal.

To no bombshell, prevalence seemed to be higher among participants with more frequent and intense practice garbs, such as among Finnish Ashtanga practitioners [8]

A good informant to dive into the topic is a systematic review by Cramer at al.( 2018) where the researchers gathered together all observational prove on yoga-related adverse events published before October 2016[ 7 ]. In total, they situated nine cross-sectional studies, which included 9,129 yoga practitioners from all over the world. The number of yoga practitioners in individual studies straddled from 86 to 2,567. The overall methodological excellence was desegregated and generally on the weaker slope. For speciman, merely two studies included an unbiased representative person sample.

Full synthesis of the studies was impossible as the included studies run in study populations and outcome evaluates. Thus, the results presented in the review and here are based only on some of studies and research. The period prevalence of adverse events wandered from 21.3 to 61.8% [8 -12 ]. To no catch, prevalence seemed to be higher among participants with most frequently asked and intense tradition habits, such as among Finnish Ashtanga practitioners [8 ]. Still, the estimated adverse event risk in the population was low( 1.45 events per 1,000 hrs of rehearsal) [8 ]. More serious events( e.g. requiring stop of a yoga class or arising in discontinued yoga abuse) were rare as their lifetime prevalence ranged from 0 to 2 %. The most common adverse events reported were dislocates and sprains. Constitutes associated with adverse events were head-, shoulder- and handstand, lotus pose and forward- or backward deflects[ 9 ].

Lauche et al. showed that regular yoga practice was not associated with joint concerns among 9,103 upper middle-aged Australian wives[ 13 ].

Since data collection of Cramer et al.( 2018) purposed, four cross-sectional studies, that deserve a mention, have been published. In their study published in 2017, Lauche et al. was indicated that regular yoga practice was not associated with joint controversies among 9,103 upper middle-aged Australian maidens[ 13 ]. An interesting comparison between exert penalizes was done possible by Bueno et al.( 2018) who probed past 12 -month prevalence of boasts harms among 3,498 Danish adults[ 14 ]. For the purposes of this report, adverse events were classified as occurrences that frustrated employ participation for at least seven days, and/ or which required contact with a health professional. In total, 303 players reported regular yoga practice and simply two of them had knowledge a yoga-associated adverse event. Thus, the gash prevalence of yoga are lower than 1% when compared to e.g. 38% among soccer actors, 19% among athletes and 9% among subjects participating in strength training.

As many other exercise punishments have higher injury proportions … both research groups concluded that yoga seems to be a low-risk exercise and at least as safe or even safer than other usage sorts.

During fall 2019, two brand-new enormous cross-sectional surveys were published. In a study by Cramer et al.( 2019) lifetime prevalence of yoga-related acute or chronic adverse events among 1,702 German yoga practitioners was 21.4% and 10.2%, respectively[ 15 ]. In total, 0.6 harms were estimated to happen for every 1,000 hrs of yoga practice. The lifetime prevalence of at least one yoga-related adverse event was 65% in research studies by Wiese et al.( 2019) whose 2,630 respondents is primarily from North America or Europe[ 16 ]. As many other exercise restraints have higher injury paces( e.g. 2.5 injuries per 1,000 hrs of general cardiovascular exercise ), both experiment radicals to be acknowledged that yoga seems to be a low-risk exercise and at least as safe or even safer than other exercising forms. The studies also concluded that the adverse events were mostly mild dislocates or strains.

In Cramer et al ., 16 serious events reported today( e.g. one case of cerebral bleeding, ruptures, spinal or nerve injuries) and in Wiese et al.( 2019 ), 4% of participants reported a more severe event( compelling a medical procedure or the injury persevered over a year ). In Cramer at al.( 2019 ), events were more common in participants with a pre-existing medical situation and among participants who did yoga on their own without prior or current oversight by a educator. Of different yoga forms, Power yoga was associated with the highest and Viniyoga with the lowest adverse event risk( 1.5 and 0.54 per 1,000 hrs of yoga practice, respectively ). Interestingly, the practice of yoga ideology and the use of props were associated with slightly higher acute adverse event risk. However, this association can be probably explained with confounding causes. In Wiese et al.( 2019 ), the strongest predictor of adverse events was years invested practicing yoga. Also, yoga teacher status was associated with a somewhat increased risk. Somewhat contrary to Cramer et al.( 2019 ), adverse events were more commonly reported to happen during a guided class than during self-practice. The constitutes most often associated with adverse events were hand-, shoulder- and headstands and the injured body spots principally reported were knees, low-pitched back, shoulders and hips.

Longitudinal studies

Prospective cohort studies is more informative studies in order to assess exercise-related adverse events. In the design, a group of participants( i.e. a cohort) is recruited and followed for a certain period. Thus, the design can provide information about injury incidence( pace of brand-new trauma cases during the follow-up) which is much more instructive than prevalence. Still, like cross-sectional studies, cohort studies were affected by baffling points and it is difficult to fully prove causality with them.

As the number of new pain cases was low, studies and research paucity the power to find any associations between pain cases and potential determining factor.

The study by Campo et al.( 2018) is, to my knowledge, the only prospective cohort study concerning yoga-related adverse events[ 17 ]. The cohort was banked via a U.S. yoga studio, with a wide offering of different yoga styles. Data were collected with a questionnaire in the start and after a one-year follow-up. The members were asked about the agony they experienced in the past 12 months and if yoga stimulated, intensified, unaffected or improved the sting. Members too stipulated illustrative information about the pain experience.

In total, 354 participants completed studies and research. On average, project participants were middle-aged women with a regular yoga practice. During the follow-up, 38 of the participants( 10.7%) experienced at least one new contingency of pain caused by yoga. As the researchers collected data only twice, it is feasible that child hurtings were forgotten during the follow-up. The reported pain cases were mild to moderate and based most often in the wrist or entrust field. Constitutes associated with pain strayed widely; the most frequent reported pose was Down Dog( 3 cases ). Fifteen pain cases resulted in lost participation time and 16 lasted longer than three months. As the number of new pain cases was low, the study paucity the power to find any associations between pain cases and potential determining factor. Thus, in the future, a much larger cohort and/ or a longer follow-up are needed to investigate the question, as harmful incident prevalence in yoga is low.

Evidence from experimental studies

Of experimental studies, randomized limited troubles( RCTs) in particular can give detailed information about exercise-related adverse events as they are carefully monitored, and the events can be easily medically supported. However, the primary aim of RCTs is to investigate intervention effects and thus adverse effects are often inadequately reported[ 18 ]. Likewise, restriction sample sizes and short follow-ups generally to be translated into a low-pitched number of adverse events, which restrictions the use of RCTs in harm study. Furthermore, carefully administered interventions are not necessarily how yoga is rehearsed in “real life”.

Cramer et al.( 2015) deported a meta-analysis of the safety of yoga in RCTs where they distinguished 301 RCTs published before February 2014 of which 94 RCTs reported adverse events[ 18 ]. Thus, a better quality of adverse happen reporting was considered good. The investigates classified adverse events as serious( expected medical intervention) or non-serious( all other events) and as intervention-related only if the authors reported so. Likewise, dropouts due to harms are located.

Pooled ensues showed that odds of adverse events or dropouts due to these events were similar between yoga and no therapy or normal upkeep, and between yoga and activity involvements.

The included studies were conducted across the world, in heterogeneous people and with diversifying involvements. Yoga was compared with no care or normal care in 53 studies, with usage in 26 studies and with psychological or school involvements in 22 studies. The median intervention duration was 10 weeks. In total, 2.2% of the subjects participating in yoga involvements reported an intervention-related adverse happen. Non-serious and serious adverse events( not inevitably intervention-related) were reported by 10.9 and 0.6% of the yoga involvement players. Pooled ensues showed that odds of adverse events or dropouts due to these events are very similar between yoga and no treatment or usual help, and between yoga and practise involvements. The curious of non-serious adverse events were higher when yoga was compared with mental or school interventions; however, there were no differences in serious adverse events or dropouts due to the events between groups.

Conclusions and my two cents on the harm discussion

The inference is not surprising as a usual yoga class can be classified as low-load and low-to-moderate intensity exercise[ 20-22]

Based on observational and experimental attest, yoga is a safe exercise discipline and practicing yoga is as safe as taking part in general exercise. This is frequently put forward by studies and it is very unlikely that this conclusion will change in the future. The judgment is not surprising as a usual yoga class can be classified as low-load and low-to-moderate intensity exercise[ 20-22 ]. When compared with high-load activities, adverse affair likelihood is much lower in yoga. When adverse events do happen, they are usually mild dislocates and stress that heal on their own. Serious complications do happen; nonetheless, they are rare. Members with the existence of the medical case should discuss the safety of their practice with a medical professional.

Evidence of untoward phenomenon mechanisms and risk factors is inconclusive. However , no constitute is also available saw hazardou. As the risk of adverse events in yoga is low, typically played yoga poses seem well abode. Furthermore, there appears to be no safe and unsafe yoga wordings. The adverse events are probably more common in physically necessitating vogues due to higher lading, but the wordings do not come through in the technical literature as injurious. The most important risk factor seems to be the time spent on practicing yoga, which is not surprising as the more you got something, the higher the risk of adverse events is even due to chance. In the future, if researchers want to study its full potential risk factors of yoga-related adverse events, I would encourage them to devote their time to conducting a large enough prospective cohort study with a long enough follow-up. Maybe in the future this is possible as funding opportunities may improve as yoga becomes more and more mainstream. Too, RCTs analyse yoga interventions should monitor and report adverse events more rigorously.

My subjective view is that in the yoga world-wide harm avoidance is essentially revolved around optimizing adjustment in poses. I would like to focus the attention to a different direction as injuries do not happen in a vacuum-clean and their avoidance is much more than how you perform a certain exercise.

What about trauma avoidance? Currently no studies exist and, as the harmful happening danger in yoga is low, experiment is not desperately needed. My subjective view is that in the yoga macrocosm injury prevention has mainly revolved around optimizing alignment in poses. I would like to focus the attention to a different direction as injuries do not happen in a vacuum-clean and their avoidance is much more than how you act a certain exercise. For precedent, if you specialize in yoga and dedicate your time getting better at more and more advanced physical pattern, prepare is due to be progressive and retrieval must be adequate. If a high training load is working in partnership with a restrictive nutrition and maybe with psychosocial stress, the risk of adverse events probably promotes. I dare to hypothesize that these pattern characteristics and life-style ingredients are much more important than specific adjustment guidelines. Perhaps practicing poses with differing modes is likely to be see the practice more sustainable?

I too want to raise awareness of the language yoga professors use. I are all aware that countless learn yoga as a healing practise and ahimsa( non-violence) is one of the key ethics of yoga. Thus, teachers may try to protect students from all possible adverse events by reiterating alerts after tells during a class. Nonetheless, statements aimed to protect can disable very! Endless clues on how to prevent adverse events can lead to a thought of humans as fragile and unadaptable machinelike structures. This may even sensitize some students to experience more pain at some phase in their life[ 23 ]. After all, this intellect specified is not justified with scientific suggestion.


Finch, C. 2008. A new framework for research leading to plays injury prevention. J Sci Med Sport. 9( 1-2 ): 3-9.

Brooks, J. H.& Fuller, C. W. 2006. The affect of methodological issues on the outcomes and judgments from epidemiological studies of boasts traumata: illustrative illustrations. Athletics Med. 36( 6 ): 459 -7 2.

Fuller, C& Drawer, S. 2004. The application of risk management in athletic. Plays Med. 34( 6 ): 349 -5 6.

Hutter, G ., Nowak, D ., Mossner, M ., Ganepola, S ., Mussig, A ., Allers, K ., Schneider, T ., Hofmann, J ., Kucherer, C ., Blau, O ., Blau, I. W ., Hofmann, W. K.& Thiel, E. 2009. Long-term control of HIV by CCR5 Delta3 2/ Delta3 2 stem-cell transplantation. N Engl J Med. 360( 7 ): 692 -8. doi: 10.1056/ NEJMoa0 802905.

Gupta, R. K ., Abdul-Jawad, S ., McCoy, L. E ., Mok, H. P ., Peppa, D ., Salgado, M ., Martinez-Picado, J ., Nijhuis, M ., Wensing, A. M. J ., Lee, H ., Grant, P ., Nastouli, E ., Lambert, J ., Pace, M ., Salasc, F ., Monit, C ., Innes, A. J ., Muir, L ., Waters, L ., Frater, J ., Lever, A. M. L ., Edwards, S. G ., Gabriel, I. H.& Olavarria, E. 2019. HIV-1 remission following CCR5D 32/ D32 haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. Nature. 568( 7751 ): 244 -2 48. doi: 10.1038/ s41586-019-1027-4.

Cramer, H ., Krucoff, C.& Dobos, G. 2013. Adverse occurrences associated with yoga: a systematic its consideration of wrote action reports and bag streaks. PLoS One. 8( 10 ): e75515. doi: 10.1371/ journal.pone. 0075515.

Cramer, H ., Ostermann, T.& Dobos, G. 2018. Gashes and other adverse events associated with yoga practice: A systematic review of epidemiological studies. J Sci Med Sport. 21( 2 ): 147 -1 54. doi: 10.1016/ j.jsams. 2017.08.026.

Mikkonen, J ., Pedersen, P.& McCarthy, P. W. 2008. A Survey of Musculoskeletal Injury among Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga Practitioners. Int J Yoga Therap. 18( 1 ): 59 -6 4.

Penman, S ., Cohen, M ., Stevens, P.& Jackson, S. 2012. Yoga in Australia: Makes of a national survey. Int J Yoga. 5( 2 ): 92 -1 01. doi: 10.4103/ 0973 -6 131.9821 7.

Uebelacker, L. A ., Weinstock, L. M ., Kraines, M. A. 2014. Self-reported benefits and dangers of yoga in men with bipolar illness. J Psychiatr Pract. 20( 5 ): 345 -5 2. doi: 10.1097/ 01. pra. 00004547 79.59859.

Mace, C.& Eggleston, B. 2016. Self-Reported Benefits and Adverse Outcomes of Hot Yoga Participation. Int J Yoga Therap. 26( 1 ): 49 -5 3.

Park, C. L ., Riley, K. E.& Braun, T. D. 2016. Practitioners’ perceptions of yoga’s positive and negative effects: Upshots of a National United Government cross-examine. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 20( 2 ): 270 -9. doi: 10.1016/ j.jbmt. 2015.11.005.

Lauche, R ., Schumann, D ., Sibbritt, D ., Adams, J.& Cramer, H. 2017. Associations between yoga practice and seam difficulties: a cross-sectional survey among 9151 Australian gals. Rheumatol Int. 37( 7 ): 1145 -1 148. doi: 10.1007/ s00296-017-3744-z.

Bueno, A. M ., Pilgaard, M ., Hulme, A ., Forsberg, P ., Ramskov, D ., Damsted, C.& Nielsen, R. O. 2018. Injury prevalence across boasts: a illustrative analysis on a representative sample of the Danish population. Inj Epidemiol. 5( 1 ): 6. doi: 10.1186/ s40621-018-0136-0.

Cramer, H ., Quinker, D ., Schumann, D ., Wardle, J ., Dobos, G.& Lauche, R. 2019. Adverse effects of yoga: their own nationals cross-sectional survey. BMC Complement Altern Med. 19( 1 ): 190. doi: 10.1186/ s12906-019-2612-7.

Wiese, C ., Keil, D ., Rasmussen, A. S.& Olesen, R. 2019. Injury in yoga asana practice: Assessment of the risks. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 23( 3 ): 479 -4 88. doi: 10.1016/ j.jbmt. 2018.09.151.

Campo, M ., Shiyko, M. P ., Kean, M. B ., Roberts, L.& Pappas, E. 2018. Musculoskeletal pain associated with recreational yoga participation: A prospective cohort study with 1-year follow-up. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 22( 2 ): 418 -4 23. doi: 10.1016/ j.jbmt. 2017.05.022.

Niemeijer, A ., Lund, H ., Stafne, S. N ., Ipsen, T ., Goldschmidt, C. L ., Jorgensen, C. T.& Juhl, C. B. 2019. Adverse incidents of workout therapy in randomised self-restrained contests: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2019 Sep 28. pii: bjsports-2 018 -1 00461. doi: 10.1136/ bjsports-2 018 -1 00461.

Cramer, H ., Ward, L ., Saper, R ., Fishbein, D ., Dobos, G.& Lauche R. 2015. The Safety of Yoga: A Methodical Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Am J Epidemiol 182( 4 ): 281 -9 3. doi: 10.1093/ aje/ kwv0 71.

Wilcox, S. J ., Hager, R ., Lockhart, B.& Seeley, M. K. 2012. Ground Reaction Pressures Generated by Twenty-eight Hatha Yoga Postures. Int J Exerc Sci. 5( 2 ): 114 -1 26.

Sherman, S. A ., Rogers, R. J ., Davis, K. K ., Minster, R. L ., Creasy, S. A ., Mullarkey, N. C ., O’Dell, M ., Donahue, P.& Jakicic, J. M. 2017. Energy Expenditure in Vinyasa Yoga Versus Walking. J Phys Act Health. 14 (8 ): 597 -6 05. doi: 10.1123/ jpah. 2016 -0 548.

Pryor, J. L ., Christensen, B ., Jackson, C. G. R.& Moore-Reed, S. 2019. Metabolic Demands of Yoga at Varying Tempos and Compared With Walking. J Phys Act Health. 16( 7 ): 575 -5 80. doi: 10.1123/ jpah. 2018 -0 283.

Stewart, M& Loftus, S. 2018. Protrudes and Stones: The Impact of Language in Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 48( 7 ): 519 -5 22. doi: 10.2519/ jospt. 2018.0610.

Read more: