I'd contend that the very notion of muscular imbalance as pathology is somewhat in the realm of bro science. It's not that the mechanical descriptions in the article are inaccurate - weak abdominals will negatively impact your squat, sure - but there is no causal association of said imbalances or strength deficiencies with injurious outcomes. Doing a movement with less mechanical advantage just means you have to work harder to do it; but if you're physically able to do the movement, you're not going to injure yourself just by virtue of doing the movement, even if the movement doesn't conform to the mechanical ideal. The actual correlative with injury risk is stress. The cause of confusion is that doing the same movement with the same resistance but less mechanical advantage will be more stressful and thus have a higher injury risk.
> The actual correlative with injury risk is stress
This seems like a strange take to me. Aren't you essentially arguing that a faulty seatbelt isn't really a problem because the real source of injury is the collision?
The obvious response would seem to be, "well yeah, that's why we want working seatbelts", and analogously, "we don't want muscular imbalances because of increased injury risk under stress". Although other reasons also exist.
