See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/334895930

Preparing for a National Weightlifting Championship: A Case Series

Article  in  The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · August 2019

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003312

CITATIONS READS
0 277

5 authors, including:

Kyle Travis Satoshi Mizuguchi

East Tennessee State University East Tennessee State University
21 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS    49 PUBLICATIONS   219 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Michael Henry Stone William A Sands

East Tennessee State University United States Ski and Snowboard Association
416 PUBLICATIONS   11,158 CITATIONS    414 PUBLICATIONS   3,469 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Accelerometry for Gymnastics Mats and Trampoline View project

Flexibility training in youth sports View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kyle Travis on 02 August 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Original Research

Preparing for a National Weightlifting

Championship: A Case Series
S. Kyle Travis,1 Satoshi Mizuguchi,1 Michael H. Stone,1 William A. Sands,2 and Caleb D. Bazyler1
1
Department of Sport, Exercise, Recreation, and Kinesiology, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee; and 2United
States Ski and Snowboard Association, Park City, Utah
Downloaded from https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3wxNooCNzZvh9yc1PzZhucLHZjJN4xx/StGOrcjZHWSUDkNCQLJ/sEQ== on 08/02/2019

Abstract
Travis, SK, Mizuguchi, S, Stone, MH, Sands, WA, and Bazyler, CD. Preparing for a national weightlifting championship: A case
series. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000–000, 2019—This study aimed to characterize psychological, physiological, and perfor-
mance changes of a high-level female (24.5 years; 53.8 6 0.3 kg; 155.4 cm) and male (25.8 years; 92.7 6 1.2 kg; 189 cm)
weightlifter over 28 weeks while preparing for a national championship. Body mass, hydration, psychological inventories, serum
biomarkers, vastus lateralis muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), and squat jump (SJ) performance were assessed weekly beginning
11 weeks from the competition date. Weightlifting performance goals were met for the female athlete (actual total 5 159 kg) but not
for the male athlete (actual total 5 292 kg). Reductions in vastus lateralis CSA possibly took place the week leading into competition
for both athletes. Both athletes reported positive recovery-stress states on the day of competition relative to baseline values.
Fluctuations between steroid hormone concentrations and inflammatory markers were unpredictable and inconsistent for both
athletes throughout the training program. Unloaded SJ height and rate of force development were the highest on competition day
for both athletes. Based on these findings, it is possible for high-level male and female weightlifters to achieve and maintain peak
preparedness 3–4 days before competition following a 1-week overreach and 3-week exponential taper, where training volume-
load is reduced by half and intensity maintained or slightly increased relative to pretaper values. Furthermore, the short recovery and
stress scale and SJ testing seem to be useful tools for sport scientists and coaches when monitoring high-level weightlifters
preparing for competition.
Key Words: taper, peaking, competition, snatch, clean and jerk, testosterone

Introduction system that can identify small but meaningful performance

changes during competition preparation is critical (22).
A properly structured training program aims at expressing peak
To address the need to identify meaningful performance
preparedness (i.e., peaking) and attaining the highest level of
changes longitudinally, many sport teams have implemented
performance at a major competition. Although planned over-
athlete monitoring programs. However, a myriad of complex
reaching before a taper is common practice for weightlifters
psychobiological adaptations (e.g., increased psychological stress
(2,10,13,38,42), an optimal tapering model for individual
resulting in a concurrent cortisol response) occur, making it dif-
strength-power athletes has not been established. As a result,
ficult to determine an athlete’s level of preparedness as a by-
sport scientists and coaches often use nuanced tapering
product of training-induced fitness-fatigue effects (7). To date,
approaches (34,47) with step and exponential tapers being the
there is not a criterion testing battery for determining an athlete’s
most common among weightlifters (42). The aim of the taper is to
preparedness. Thus, using a multidimensional athlete monitoring
reduce negative physiological and psychological training effects
system that can account for psychological (e.g., subjective re-
(i.e., accumulated fatigue) and further improve fitness charac-
covery, stress, etc.), physiological (e.g., testosterone fluctuations,
teristics (i.e., muscular strength and power) (33). Thus, tapering
muscular growth, etc.), and indirect performance changes (e.g.,
should allow negative training effects to dissipate at an appro-
jump ability, isometric force, etc.) is currently the most effective
priate rate to improve the likelihood of producing a positive
means to determine when peak preparedness occurs relative to
performance result.
a major competition (7).
Previous literature suggests that performance improvements
Multiple weightlifting studies have monitored training
following a taper are approximately 3% (34,39). However,
volume-load (VL) and biochemical markers to assess weight-
a performance change of 1–2% could mean the difference be-
lifter’s preparedness (2,9,12,13,45,50). For example, strong
tween a podium finish and no medal for weightlifters competing
inverse (r 5 20.83) relationships have been observed between
at the highest level. For example, across all Weightlifting World
changes in VL and the resting testosterone-to-cortisol (T:C)
Championship results ranging from 1998 to 2017, the average
ratio in male and female weightlifters (12), suggesting that the
performance difference between first vs. second, second vs. third,
T:C ratio may serve as an indicator of training stress. However,
third vs. fourth, and fourth vs. fifth was 2.5, 2.1, 1.9, and 1.6%,
some studies report no changes in resting T or C during com-
respectively. Therefore, implementing an athlete monitoring
petition preparation and prolonged weightlifting training
Address correspondence to Spencer K. Travis, travissk@etsu.edu. (2,8,12,13,15), questioning whether resting T and C are useful
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 00(00)/1–9 monitoring tools for weightlifters. Additionally, high sensitivity
ª 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association C-reactive protein (CRP) and creatine kinase (CK) have been

Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 National Weightlifting Championship (2019) 00:00
shown to correspond with training-induced muscle damage (17)
and may serve as effective monitoring tools for weightlifters.
In addition to physiological and biochemical markers, psy-
chological measurements of recovery and stress may provide
further insight into the athlete’s preparedness (25). For example,
a recent study showed that stressors promoting anxiety and
arousal before and during a national competition highly influ-
enced T and C responses associated with performance outcomes
for national-level throwers (41). Similarly, at a national-level
weightlifting competition, feelings of anxiety and arousal before
the event may have influenced physiological phenomenon (e.g.,
altered T or C concentrations) that could not be explained by
psychological inventories (32). However, it is well accepted that
arousal alone can influence neural drive, thereby modulating
physical performance, muscular strength, and rate of force de-
velopment (RFD) (31).
It has long been held that neuromuscular adaptations are the
primary contributors to performance changes following a taper
(14,34,42). Thus, monitoring tools are needed to assess neuro-
muscular changes in weightlifters. Increased vastus lateralis
single-fiber cross-sectional area (CSA) has been shown to corre-
spond with gains in maximal strength and RFD in international-
level weightlifters following strength training over a 2-year period
(14). Although muscle biopsies are an ideal method of assessing
muscular adaptations (11), whole-muscle CSA measured via ul-
trasonography has alternatively been used as a reliable, non-
invasive tool for assessing muscular adaptations in weightlifters
(2). Furthermore, vertical jump height (JH) is strongly related to
weightlifting total in male and female weightlifters (48). There-
fore, muscle CSA assessed via ultrasonography and vertical jumps
can serve as minimally invasive, time-efficient monitoring tools to
assess neuromuscular changes in weightlifters.
Despite the importance of determining when high-level weight-
lifters achieve peak preparedness relative to a competition, little is
currently known partly because of logistical issues with testing
athletes while traveling across multiple time zones. Thus, a case
series is appropriate because it will (a) allow the sport scientist to
observe the individual weightlifter(s) in several phases of the
macrocycle leading up to a major competition and (b) aid in
bridging the gap between science and coaching to improve com-
petition preparation for high-level weightlifters in the future. Thus,
the purpose of this study was to characterize the psychological,
physiological, and performance changes of 2 high-level weight-
lifters over 28 weeks while preparing for a national championship.
Methods
Experimental Approach to the Problem
This study used a case series approach to monitor high-level
weightlifters peaking for a national competition. The athletes
were part of an ongoing athlete monitoring program and were
familiar with all tests performed. Athletes were instructed to ar-
rive at the laboratory in a fully rested, hydrated state, refrain from
training and stimulants, and record all food consumption in a 24-
hour dietary log before testing. Before the initial testing session,
each athlete recorded a dietary food log with all food and liquid
consumed over the 24-hour period. The handwritten log was
converted into an electronic format and distributed to each ath-
lete. Each athlete was instructed to replicate the food log each
week before each testing session. The athletes completed 30
testing sessions at the same time of day (0600–0800), including 27
before leaving for the competition, 1 after arriving at the
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
competition site, 1 on competition day before competing, and 1
after the competition once the athletes returned. Testing on
competition day was conducted within 1 hour after the weigh-in
before the competition start time.
During the specific preparation phase (100 days or 28 to 12
weeks before competition), 5 full-battery testing sessions were
administered on the last day of a reduced training week at the end
of each of the 5 training blocks to establish baseline measure-
ments and within-athlete variability for all dependent variables.
The first baseline testing session included anthropometric meas-
urements and somatotyping followed by the full-battery testing
protocol. During the competition preparation phase (11 weeks
before competition), full-battery testing sessions were adminis-
tered on the first day, and partial battery testing sessions were
administered on the fourth day of every training week (Figure 1).
Subjects
Two U.S. national-level weightlifters volunteered to participate in
this study. Case 1 was a female weightlifter (mean 6 SD: 24.5 years;
53.8 6 0.3 kg; 155.4 cm; best: 77 kg snatch, 98 kg clean and jerk,
171 kg total) who had represented Team USA, finished in the top 10
at an international competition, and medaled at more than 10 na-
tional competition of various levels. Case 2 was a male weightlifter
(25.8 years; 92.7 6 1.2 kg; 189.5 cm; best: 135 kg snatch, 169 kg
clean and jerk, 304 kg total) who has medaled at 3 national com-
petition of various levels and consistently placed within the top 30.
Before participating in the study, both athletes received information
about the study purpose and provided written informed consent.
The study was approved by East Tennessee State University's In-
stitutional Review Board for testing of human subjects.
Training. The athletes trained for 28 weeks using a block peri-
odization (i.e., phase potentiation) model (44) consisting of se-
quenced phases: accumulation, transmutation, and realization.
The competition preparation phase of training began 74 and 76
days (i.e., approximately 11 weeks) out from the competition for
the female and male subjects, respectively, which included 6–7
training sessions per week with intensity maintained or increased
for traditional movements (e.g., back squat, pulls, stiff-legged
deadlift) and the competition lifts (i.e., snatch, clean and jerk).
Performance goals for the female athlete and male athlete were to
total 159 and 300 kg, respectively. Each athlete completed a 4-
week realization block consisting of a 1-week overreach and 3-
week taper leading into the competition. Training VL was de-
termined by the sum of all training movements calculated by the
formula: training VL 5 load [kg]·reps·sets.
Procedures
Anthropometrics and Somatotyping. During the first testing ses-
sion, standing and seated height was measured to the nearest
0.01 m using a stadiometer (Cardinal Scale Manufacturing, Co.,
Webb City, MO, USA), and body mass was measured using
a digital scale (Tanita B.F. 350; Tanita Corp. of America, Inc.,
Arlington Heights, IL, USA). The sum of 7 skinfolds was mea-
sured by a certified International Society for the Advancement of
Kinanthropometry anthropometrist. All skinfold measurements
were collected from the right side of the body in duplicate or
triplicate if the total error of measurements of the first and second
measurement was .5% of the mean value calculated. Accord-
ingly, body fat percentage was estimated from the
 National Weightlifting Championship (2019) 00:00
Figure 1. Study timeline relative to the training program across the 28 weeks of training. Dark grey column represents the
week of competition. SRSS 5 short recovery and stress scale; x* 5 the testing session that took place including the
anthropometric assessment; x 5 test administered once for a given week; xx 5 test administered twice for a given week; xxx
5 test administered thrice for a given week.
aforementioned measurements using an International Society for
the Advancement of Kinanthropometry online published
spreadsheet. Furthermore, bicep and medial calf skinfolds, bicep
girth (flexed 90° and tensed), standing calf girth, abdominal and
hip girth, biepicondylar femur and humerus breadth were
assessed to determine the athlete’s somatotype using the Heath-
Carter method (16). The Heath-Carter method was deemed most
appropriate for this study because this method has been consid-
ered the gold standard anthropometric and somatotyping pro-
cedure when dealing with athletic populations, particularly high-
level athletes (4,26,36).
Psychological Assessment. The short recovery and stress scale
(SRSS) consists of 8 items with adjectives grouped into 4 subscales
relating to recovery and 4 subscales relating to stress (28,35,37). The
recovery-related scales displayed 1 item for each subcategory: Physical
Performance Capability, Mental Performance Capability, Emotional
Balance, and Overall Recovery. The stress-related scales displayed 1
item for each subcategory: Muscular Stress, Lack of Activation,
Negative Emotional State, and Overall Stress. The athletes were
instructed to rate how much each expression applied to them before
training or competing with responses on a Likert-type scale ranging
from 0 (does not apply at all) to 6 (fully applies). Previous studies have
reported an internal consistency of a 5 0.70 and a 5 0.76 for the
recovery and stress-related items, respectively (35,37).
Blood Collection and Analysis. Hydration status was evaluated
before testing using a refractometer (ATOGO 4410 PAL-10S,
Tokyo, Japan) to ensure hydration status did not interfere with the
study results. Athletes were considered hydrated if urine-specific
gravity was ,1.020. If urine-specific gravity was $1.020, the
athlete was instructed to drink water and reassessed for hydration
status after 20 minutes. All blood collection occurred between 06:
00 and 08:00 following an overnight fast before the first training
session of the week at least 36 hours after a training session or
competition. Using an IMMULITE 1,000 automated immunoas-
say analyzer (Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) T, C, CRP,
and CK were measured for each athlete. The female’s T samples
were measured using a solid-phase sandwich enzyme-linked im-
munosorbent assay (ELISA) (DSX Automated ELISA System 6.26;
Dynex Technologies, Inc., Chantilly, VA, USA) because her T
concentrations were below the detection threshold of the IMMU-
LITE analyzer. The coefficient of variation for intraassay vari-
ability ranged from 0.49 to 12.3%.
Ultrasonography. A 7.5 MHz ultrasound probe covered with
a water-soluble transmission gel (LOGIQ P6; General Electric
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
| www.nsca.com
Healthcare, Wauwatosa, WI, USA) was used to measure vastus
lateralis muscle CSA. To measure muscle CSA, the athletes laid on
their left side with hips perpendicular to the examination table in
the axial plane with a knee angle set at 120° measured by a goni-
ometer. Sampling location for the vastus lateralis was 50% of the
femur length measured as the distance between the greater tro-
chanter and the lateral epicondyle of the femur. Probe placement
and orientation was verified by comparing adipose and connective
tissue markings from previous images to the current image. Vastus
lateralis muscle CSA was measured by placing the probe perpen-
dicular to the muscle and moving it in the transverse plane to collect
a cross-sectional image using the LOGIQView function of the ul-
trasound device. Muscle CSA was determined by the mean of 3
images that were measured by tracing the muscular interface
around each cross-sectional image. Intraclass correlation co-
efficient (ICC) was established for this measurement (ICC 5 0.99).
Performance Assessment. Following a standardized dynamic
warm-up, unloaded squat jumps (SJs) were performed on 2 dual-
axis force plates (PS-2142; PASCO Scientific, Roseville, CA,
USA) affixed side by side connected to an interface (Airlink 2 PS-
2010; PASCO Scientific) sampling at 1 KHz using a laptop
(MacBook Pro; macOS High Sierra v10.13.3; Apple, Cupertino,
CA, USA). The SJ protocol used for this investigation followed the
same procedures previously described (2,48). All jump trials were
recorded with a customized template to record real-time JH
(PASCO Capstone software version 1.9.1; PASCO Scientific). All
jump trials were then exported to a custom jump analysis pro-
gram (LabView 2010; National Instruments Co., Austin, TX,
USA). Squat jump-jump height (SJH) was estimated from flight
time as described previously (30). Average RFD was determined
from the beginning to the maximum force of the concentric phase.
Reliability for SJH (ICC 5 0.98) and average RFD (ICC 5 0.96)
was established during this investigation.
Statistical Analyses
To evaluate meaningful changes throughout the training program,
we implemented the general guidelines for analysis of single-subject
case study design as recommended by Kinugasa (27). The precision
(i.e., probability) of weekly changes relative to baseline values
leading up to the competition were calculated using a published
online spreadsheet (19). Qualitative terms corresponding to the
precision values associated with weekly changes relative to baseline
values were classified as almost certainly not (,1%), very unlikely
(,5%), unlikely (,25%), possibly (25–75%), likely (.75%), very
likely (.95%), and almost certain (.99%) (20). Effect sizes (ESs)
 National Weightlifting Championship (2019) 00:00
for each time point relative to baseline values were calculated by
dividing the mean difference between the baseline and subsequent
time point by the pooled standard deviation across the 5 baseline
testing values (22). Effect sizes were classified as trivial (,0.3),
small (0.3–0.9), moderate (0.9–1.6), large (1.6–2.5), very large
(2.5–4.0), or extremely large (.4.0) (22). The trivial region or
smallest worthwhile change (ES , 0.3) was used to determine
whether changes were meaningful relative to baseline values (21).
All analyses were calculated using Microsoft Excel 2016 (version
15.27; Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA).
Results
During the taper, average training VL for both athletes was ex-
ponentially reduced by 48% relative to the overreach, average
training intensity (i.e., average load lifted) for traditional move-
ments was maintained or increased by 5%, and training intensity
for the competition lifts increased by 22 and 4% for the female
and male athletes, respectively. It should be noted that the female
athlete occasionally encountered a shoulder and knee problem,
and the male encountered a recurrent lower back problem asso-
ciated with training load; thus, increasing training load beyond
the observed values was not possible (Figure 2A, B).
Anthropometry, Muscle Size, and Weightlifting Performance
Descriptive characteristics from baseline testing for each athlete
are reported in Figure 3. The female weightlifter met competition
goals (goal total 5 159 kg vs. actual total 5 159 kg) with a top 10
finish. During the tapering period, it was almost certain that ex-
tremely large body mass reductions took place 2 days before
(53.80–53.50 kg; precision 5 99.99%; ES 5 4.33) and on com-
petition day (53.80–52.60 kg; 99.99%; ES 5 4.72). Four days
before the competition, her muscle CSA possibly decreased
(28.94–28.34 cm2; 65.94%; ES 5 0.42). The male weightlifter
did not meet competition goals (goal total 5 300 kg vs. actual
total 5 292 kg) but still finished in the top 30. Three days before
competition, his body mass was almost certainly above baseline
(92.65–94.50 kg, 99.99%, ES 5 1.21) and returned to baseline
on competition day (92.65–93.13 kg; 69.16%; ES 5 0.41). His
muscle CSA assessed 6 days before competition possibly de-
creased (40.69–40.52 cm2; 55.82%; ES 5 0.37) relative to
baseline values. After the competition, the female athlete in-
creased body mass (53.80–54.20 kg; 89.39%; ES 5 1.56) and the
male athlete maintained body mass (92.65–93.00 kg; 49.89%; ES
Figure 2. Competition preparation phase starting 11 weeks out from the competition for the female (A) and male (B) athletes.
Average training volume-load for the specific preparation (SP) training phase was characterized as normal training. COMP 5
competition week; AR 5 active recovery; VL 5 volume-load per week; RITRAD 5 relative intensity for training traditional
movements (e.g., back squat, pulls, stiff-legged deadlift); RICOMP 5 relative intensity for training competition movements
(i.e., snatch and clean and jerk).
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
5 0.30); however, the female (28.94–28.31 cm2; 84.74%; ES 5
0.58) and male (40.89–39.81 cm2; 97.74%; ES 5 1.29) athletes
showed further reduction in muscle CSA (Figure 4).
Biochemical Changes
In the female case, T almost certainly increased after the overreach
(171–203 ng·dl21; 99.82%; ES 5 2.59) and was very likely mod-
erately elevated (171–182 ng·dl21; 81.11%; ES 5 0.91) during the
week of competition and possibly reduced (171–163 ng·dl21;
67.29%; ES 5 0.61) below baseline following the competition.
Cortisol almost certainly increased (18.86–23.70 mg·dl21; 99.46%;
ES 5 3.22) during week 1 of the taper and was possibly elevated
(18.86–20.00 mg·dl21; 67.20%; ES 5 0.76) during competition
week returning to baseline thereafter. Small reductions (9.06–8.67
arbitrary units (au); 63.94%; ES 5 0.67) in T:C ratio were possibly
observed after the competition but remained within baseline values
throughout the tapering period (Figure 5). The athlete’s CRP almost
certainly decreased during the week of (0.46–0.36 mg·L21; 74.16%;
ES 5 0.58) and after (0.46 to ,0.20 mg·L21; 99.57%; ES 5 0.58) the
competition. However, CK almost certainly increased (74.20–82.00
U·L21; 99.99%; ES 5 0.42) after the competition (Figure 6).
There was an extremely large reduction in the male athlete’s T
(366–202 ng·dl21; 100.00%; ES 5 6.75) following the overreach.
However, T almost certainly increased (366–396 ng·dl21;
99.20%; ES 5 1.23) following week 1 of the taper followed by
a likely small reduction the week of (366–351 ng·dl21; 81.30%;
ES 5 0.61) and after (366–345 ng·dl21; 93.82%; ES 5 0.86)
competition. There was an almost certain very large decrease in C
during week 1 of the taper (15.68–7.88 mg·dl21; 99.98%; ES 5
2.84) and an extremely large increase (15.68–16.40 mg·dl21;
100.00%; ES 5 35.31) during week 3 of the taper. However, C
returned to baseline levels during the week of competition and
likely decreased (15.68–13.50 mg·dl21; 80.70%; ES 5 0.79) after
competition. Testosterone-to-cortisol ratio almost certainly in-
creased (23.96–30.90 au; 99.99%; ES 5 1.49) during week 2 of
the taper, very likely decreased during the week of competition
(23.96–21.40 au; 97.40%; ES 5 0.55) and may have possibly
increased following the competition (23.96–25.60 au; 67.08%;
ES 5 0.35) (Figure 4). An extremely large increase in CRP was
observed during the week of competition (0.21–0.41 mg·L21;
99.41%; ES 5 7.57). For the week of competition
(142.20–360.00 U·L21; 100.00%; ES 5 3.58) and following
competition (142.20–373.00 U·L21; 100.00%; ES 5 3.78%),
a very large increase was observed in CK levels (Figure 6).
 National Weightlifting Championship (2019) 00:00 | www.nsca.com

Figure 3. Heath-Carter somatotyping results. Both athletes were characterized as endomorphic mesomorphs using the
Heath-Carter method. denotes female. denotes male. SF 5 skinfold.

Psychological Changes
Throughout the study, the SRSS revealed that the female athlete
felt more recovered (baseline: 5.12 6 pooled SD: 0.91 au with
lower levels of stress (1.65 6 1.26 au) relative to baseline values
(5.38 6 0.85 au and 1.42 6 1.28 au, respectively). However, the
male athlete showed signs of underrecovery (2.97 6 0.80 au) and
high-stress levels (2.50 6 0.85 au) relative to baseline (4.65 6
0.29 au; 1.40 6 0.45 au, respectively) throughout the study. On
the day of competition, the female and male athlete reported
higher mean recovery scores (6.00 and 4.80 au, respectively) with
lower mean stress levels (0.80 and 0.50 au, respectively) relative
to baseline measurements (Figure 7).
Jump Performance Changes
Both athletes showed increases in jump performance (i.e., SJH and
RFD) beginning 3–4 days before the competition, on competition
day, and 3–5 days after the competition relative to baseline values

Figure 4. Body mass (BM) and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) changes relative to baseline values during the
realization block at the end of the competition preparation training phase. *.95% (very likely change), **.99%
(almost certain change). Asterisks above marker indicate a positive significant change for BM and CSA; asterisks
below marker indicate negative significant change for BM and CSA. Baseline testing sessions (B) average value
during baseline measurements. Error bar represents the standard deviation across baseline values. Grey area is the
trivial region or SWC. Grey marker for BM over time point 0 represents the day of competition. Timeline values -4 and
-6 days for CSA indicate measurements in the laboratory before leaving for the competition, and days 5 and 3
indicate CSA measurements in the laboratory after returning. SWC 5 smallest worthwhile change.

Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 National Weightlifting Championship (2019) 00:00

Figure 5. Steroid hormone changes relative to baseline values during the realization block at the end of the
competition preparation training phase. T 5 testosterone; C 5 cortisol; T:C 5 testosterone-to-cortisol ratio; SWC
5 smallest worthwhile change. *.95% (very likely change), **.99% (almost certain change). Asterisks above
a marker indicate a positive significant change; asterisks below a marker indicate negative significant change.
Baseline testing sessions (B) average value during baseline measurements. Error bar represents the standard
deviation across baseline values. Grey area is the trivial region or SWC.

(Figure 8). The female and male athletes likely showed increases in 5 3.27) values after arriving to the competition site. On competi-
SJH (30.27–31.74 cm; 91.70%; ES 5 1.15; 47.01–48.79 cm; tion day, SJH for the female was almost certainly the highest
90.60%; ES 5 2.98, respectively) and RFD (2,953.60–3,865.23 (30.27–33.75 cm; 99.98%; ES 5 2.70) with a likely very large
N·s21; 91.60%; ES 5 2.42; 6,471.33–9,683.33 N·s21; 99.99%; ES increase in RFD (2,953.60–3,707.52 N·s21; 96.42%; ES 5 3.10).

Figure 6. Inflammatory marker changes relative to baseline values during the realization block at the end of the competition
preparation training phase. hsCRP 5 high sensitivity C-reactive protein; CK 5 creatine kinase; SWC 5 smallest worthwhile
change. *.95% (very likely change), **.99% (almost certain change). Asterisks above a marker indicate a positive significant
change; asterisks below a marker indicate negative significant change. Baseline testing sessions (B) average value during
baseline measurements. Error bar represents the standard deviation across baseline values. Grey area is the trivial region or SWC.

Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 National Weightlifting Championship (2019) 00:00 | www.nsca.com

Figure 7. Mean short recovery and stress scale mean scores relative to baseline values during the realization block at the end
of the competition preparation training phase. Days are represented by days out from the competition with day 0 marked with
a grey marker being the day of competition.

There was likely a very large increase in SJH for the male athlete
(47.01–47.91 cm; 81.88%; ES 5 2.13) on the competition day
corresponding with an almost certain increase in RFD
(6,471.33–8,670.96 N·s21; 99.26%; ES 5 2.08).
Discussion
To our knowledge, this was the first study to frequently monitor
high-level weightlifters traveling to a national championship
where testing was conducted soon before each athlete competed.
The purpose of this study was to characterize the psychological,
physiological, and performance changes of 2 high-level weight-
lifters over 28 weeks while preparing for a national champion-
ship. The primary results of this investigation include (a)
performance goals were met for the female athlete but not for the
male athlete along with (b) the highest SJH on competition day
with improvements beginning 3–4 days prior and (c) improved
mean SRSS scores leading to the competition despite (d) in-
consistent biomarker changes.
The observed reductions for body mass and VL between each
athlete may explain the downward trend observed in muscle size
during the taper. Although comparable with other weightlifting
tapering studies (2,23,42), similar observations between reduc-
tions in body mass (.3 kg) and muscle size close to competition
have corresponded with reduced weightlifting performance (2).
Despite CSA reductions (22.1%) 6 days before competition and
body mass reductions (22.3%) on competition day relative to
baseline values, the female athlete achieved her highest jumping
performance and mean SRSS scores 1 hour before competition. In
contrast, a previous case study with a high-level female weight-
lifter reported reduced body mass (.3 kg) over the week leading
up to competition, which corresponded with performance dec-
rements (2). Differences between the current and previous female
case may be attributed to weight class (e.g., 53 vs. 69 kg) or body
composition (e.g., 11.8 vs. 15.4%, respectively). In support of our
findings, jumping performance has been shown to be preserved in
a team of volleyball players after a taper despite decrements in
muscle thickness (1). Furthermore, it is possible that decrements

Figure 8. Squat jump-jump height and rate of force development changes relative to baseline values during the realization
block at the end of the competition preparation training phase. *.95% (very likely change), **.99% (almost certain change).
Asterisks above a marker indicate a positive significant change; asterisks below a marker indicates negative significant
change. Baseline testing sessions (B) average value during baseline measurements. Error bar represents the standard
deviation across baseline values. Grey area is the trivial region or SWC. Grey marker over time point 0 is the day of competition.
SWC 5 smallest worthwhile change.

Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 National Weightlifting Championship (2019) 00:00
in CSA could have been because of changes in noncontractile
tissue, such as collagen, water, or glycogen content (18).
In the male’s case, there were moderate to small increases in
body mass (11.5%), but moderate decreases in CSA (#1%) over
the final 6 days leading up to competition relative to baseline val-
ues. Similar to the female case, he also achieved his best jumping
performance and mean stress and recovery scores during the day of
competition. This agrees with the study by Mahoney (32) who
demonstrated that successful national-level weightlifters tend to
score less symptomatic (e.g., low stress, fully recovered) before
competition compared with less successful weightlifters despite
gender and age. Nonetheless, the athlete did not meet his compe-
tition performance goals, although this may partly be explained by
low back pain the athlete reported in training before the competi-
tion. However, it should be noted that beyond body mass and CSA
changes, a myriad of events could possibly influence the competi-
tion outcome, such as attempt selection, diet, sleep quality and
quantity, climatic stress, and fatigue from travel (2).
In regard to competition travel, sport scientists and coaches
often adjust training load accordingly during the taper to ac-
commodate potential negative residual travel fatigue (39). Mus-
cular fatigue or increased stress is often associated with traveling
where athletes experience decreased levels of strength, reaction
time, arousal, or recoverability (29). Interestingly, in this obser-
vation, jet lag did not seem to negatively affect either athlete’s
ability to perform. For example, after traveling westward across 3
time zones, jumping performance for both athletes remained el-
evated relative to baseline values. This may be a result of the
coaches’ intentional reduction in VL during the travel window as
recommended for athletes while tapering (14,39).
Although biomarker measurements for male and female weight-
lifters are inconsistent within the current literature (10,12,13), the
only observed trends for both athletes were an increase in T during
the week of the overreach (25 and 27 days, respectively, before
competition), increased T:C ratio during week 2 (12 and 14 days
before competition, respectively) of the taper, and increased CK after
the competition (5 and 3 days, respectively). Overall, changes in
steroid hormones were inconsistent throughout the study. This dis-
agrees with Haff et al. (12) who reported a very strong inverse re-
lationship (r 5 20.83) between percent change in T:C and VL over
11 weeks of competition preparation in elite female weightlifters.
Similar to steroid hormones, changes in muscle damage markers
were also inconsistent throughout the study. In fact, CRP and CK
concentrations stayed below the clinical cutoff until the competition
preparation phase. Increased training intensity for the female athlete
and maintained intensity for the male athlete may partly explain why
CRP and CK did not return to baseline levels during the competition
preparation phase despite reductions in VL. Furthermore, the in-
creased CK after the competition for both athletes may reflect muscle
damage sustained during competition. Although it was infeasible in
the current investigation, more frequent biochemical monitoring
(e.g., twice weekly) may have produced responses consistent with
previous literature (49). Thus, biochemical markers may not be
useful monitoring tools for weightlifters, but if implemented, the
results should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis because of in-
terindividual variability.
Aside from unpredictable biochemical changes, mean stress
and recovery scores were improved relative to baseline on the day
of competition for both athletes. Improved recovery scores were
noticed 1 day before competition for the female athlete, whereas
stress scores were only improved during the day of competition.
The male athlete only improved recovery scores on the competi-
tion day, whereas stress scores started improving 4 days before
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
competition day. These findings are comparable to studies using
the Profile of Mood States to assess subjective stress levels of high-
level weightlifters leading up to a national competition (3,32).
Biddle (3) and Mahoney (32) found that high stress levels before
competing correlated positively with weightlifting performance.
Similarly, elevated stress levels for the female athlete seemed to
correspond to improved performance levels (32). In addition to
improved mean stress and recovery scores, SJ performance was
peaked relative to baseline values for both athletes on the com-
petition day. However, some nuances in SJ performance existed
between athletes throughout the study.
During every overreach week throughout the competition prep-
aration phase, SJ performance for the male athlete was typically
suppressed, and as the VL reduced, performance gradually in-
creased. The male athlete showed performance decrements almost
immediately after higher VL weeks throughout the study that may be
explained by accumulated fatigue or recurrent injuries (40). How-
ever, the female athlete achieved her best SJ performances during or
after higher VL weeks throughout the study, indicating a quick re-
coverability and supercompensation. This agrees with previous
findings demonstrating that relatively stronger athletes have superior
fatigue resistance as an adaptation to repetitive high-load training
(5,6,24,43,46). The different responses between the 2 athletes may
be attributed to the female athlete competing at a higher level
(i.e., international vs. national), having a longer training history in
weightlifting, and achieving a higher degree of training status.
Importantly, SJ performance and SRSS results provide insight into
when high-level weightlifters achieve peak preparedness relative to
competition and how long it can be maintained. It has been suggested
that traveling across multiple time zones can alter an athlete’s per-
formance levels by temporarily affecting muscular strength and
subjective arousal (29). In each case, neither the travel period to the
competition nor the small decreases in muscle size following the taper
appeared to negatively affect either athlete’s jumping performance on
the competition day. Changes in steroid hormones and inflammatory
markers were inconsistent with the previous literature and do not
support their use as an effective monitoring tool for high-level
weightlifters. Thus, conducting performance testing during the taper
leading into a competition before travel may give the most accurate
representation of competition preparedness. Specifically, SJ perfor-
mance and SRSS scores may provide a more dependable represen-
tation of preparedness during a taper for high-level weightlifters.
Practical Applications
Although the psychobiological findings do not fully agree with
the current literature, the unique responses of each athlete to
the taper highlight the need for individualized programming,
especially in high-level weightlifters. Based on these findings, it
is possible for high-level male and female weightlifters to
achieve and maintain peak preparedness 3–4 days before
competition following a 1-week overreach and 3-week ex-
ponential taper where training VL is reduced by half and in-
tensity maintained or slightly increased relative to pretaper
values. Furthermore, SRSS and SJ testing appear to be useful
tools for sport scientists and coaches when monitoring high-
level weightlifters preparing for competition.
Acknowledgments
The authors report that there is no conflict of interest associated
with this publication. The authors thank the athletes and coaches
 National Weightlifting Championship (2019) 00:00
who participated in this study. This study was funded by the East
Tennessee State University Research and Development Commit-
tee. There was no further financial support that could have
influenced the study outcome.
References
1. Bazyler CD, Mizuguchi S, Sole CJ, et al. Jumping performance is pre-
served, but not muscle thickness in collegiate volleyball players after a ta-
per. J Strength Cond Res 32: 1020–1028, 2017.
2. Bazyler CD, Mizuguchi S, Zourdos MC, et al. Characteristics of a national
level female weightlifter peaking for competition: A case study. J Strength
Cond Res 32: 3029–3038, 2018.
3. Biddle SJH. Anxiety and weightlifting: A preliminary analysis of anxiety
patterns and coach perceptions. Strength Cond J 5: 40, 1983.
4. Carter JEL. The Heath-Carter Anthropometric Somatotype Instruction
Manual. San Diego, CA: San Diego State University, 2002. pp. 2-18.
5. Chiu LZF, Barnes JL. The fitness-fatigue model revisited: Implications for
planning short- and long-term training. Strength Cond J 25: 42, 2003.
6. Chiu LZF, Fry AC, Schilling BK, Johnson EJ, Weiss LW. Neuromuscular
fatigue and potentiation following two successive high intensity resistance
exercise sessions. Eur J Appl Physiol 92: 385–392, 2004.
7. Coutts AJ, Crowcroft S, Kempton T. Developing athlete monitoring sys-
tems: Theoretical basis and practical applications. In: Sport, Recovery,
and Performance: Interdisciplinary Insights. New York, NY: Routledge,
2018. pp. 19–32.
8. Crewther BT, Obmiński Z, Cook CJ. Serum cortisol as a moderator of the
relationship between serum testosterone and Olympic weightlifting per-
formance in real and simulated competitions. Biol Sport 35: 215–221,
2018.
9. Fry AC, Kraemer WJ, Stone MH, et al. Endocrine responses to over-
reaching before and after 1 year of weightlifting. Can J Appl Physiol 19:
400–410, 1994.
10. Fry AC, Kraemer WJ, Stone MH, et al. Relationships between serum
testosterone, cortisol, and weightlifting performance. J Strength Cond Res
14: 338–343, 2000.
11. Fry AC, Schilling BK, Staron RS, et al. Muscle fiber characteristics and
performance correlates of male Olympic-style weightlifters. J Strength
Cond Res 17: 746–754, 2003.
12. Haff GG, Jackson JR, Kawamori N, et al. Force-time curve characteristics
and hormonal alterations during an eleven-week training period in elite
women weightlifters. J Strength Cond Res 22: 433–446, 2008.
13. Häkkinen K, Pakarinen A, Alén M, Kauhanen H, Komi PV. Relationships
between training volume, physical performance capacity, and serum
hormone concentrations during prolonged training in elite weight lifters.
Int J Sports Med 8(Suppl 1): 61–65, 1987.
14. Häkkinen K, Pakarinen A, Alen M, Kauhanen H, Komi PV. Neuromus-
cular and hormonal adaptations in athletes to strength training in two
years. J Appl Physiol 65: 2406–2412, 1988.
15. Hartman M, Pendlay G, Kilgore JL. Evaluation of the hormonal control
model of competition training in national-level weightlifters. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 36: S352, 2004.
16. Heath BH, Carter JE. A modified somatotype method. Am J Phys
Anthropol 27: 57–74, 1967.
17. Hecksteden A, Skorski S, Schwindling S, et al. Blood-borne markers of
fatigue in competitive athletes—Results from simulated training camps.
PLoS One 11: e0148810, 2016.
18. Hirsch KR, Smith-Ryan AE, Trexler ET, Roelofs EJ. Body composition
and muscle characteristics of Division I track and field athletes. J Strength
Cond Res 30: 1231–1238, 2016.
19. Hopkins WG. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science.
Sports Med 30: 1–15, 2000.
20. Hopkins WG. A Scaled of Magnitudes for Effect Statistics [Internet]. A
New View of Statistics. Available at: http://www.sportsci.org/resource/
stats/effectmag.html. Accessed March 4, 2018.
21. Hopkins WG, Hawley JA, Burke LM. Design and analysis of research on
sport performance enhancement. Med Sci Sports Exerc 31: 472–485, 1999.
22. Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, Hanin J. Progressive sta-
tistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 41: 3–13, 2009.
23. Hornsby WG, Gentles JA, MacDonald CJ, et al. Maximum strength,
rate of force development, jump height, and peak power alterations
in weightlifters across five months of training. Sports 5: 78, 2017.
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
View publication stats
| www.nsca.com
24. Jo E, Judelson DA, Brown LE, Coburn JW, Dabbs NC. Influence of
recovery duration after a potentiating stimulus on muscular power in
recreationally trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res 24: 343–347,
2010.
25. Kellmann M, Bertollo M, Bosquet L, et al. Recovery and performance in
sport: Consensus statement. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 13: 240–245,
2018.
26. Keogh JW, Hume PA, Pearson SN, Mellow P. Anthropometric dimensions
of male powerlifters of varying body mass. J Sports Sci 25: 1365–1376,
2007.
27. Kinugasa T. The application of single-case research designs to study elite
athletes’ conditioning: An update. J Appl Sport Psychol 25: 157–166,
2013.
28. Kölling S, Hitzschke B, Holst T, et al. Validity of the acute recovery and
stress scale: Training monitoring of the German Junior National Field
Hockey Team. Int J Sports Sci Coach 10: 529–542, 2015.
29. Lee A, Galvez JC. Jet lag in athletes. Sports Health 4: 211–216, 2012.
30. Linthorne NP. Analysis of standing vertical jumps using a force platform.
Am J Phys 69: 1198–1204, 2001.
31. Maffiuletti NA, Aagaard P, Blazevich AJ, et al. Rate of force development:
Physiological and methodological considerations. Eur J Appl Physiol 116:
1091–1116, 2016.
32. Mahoney MJ. Psychological predictors of elite and non-elite performance
in Olympic weightlifting. Int J Sport Psychol 20:1–12, 1989.
33. Mujika I. Intense training: The key to optimal performance before and
during the taper. Scand J Med Sci Sports 20(Suppl 2): 24–31, 2010.
34. Mujika I, Padilla S. Scientific bases for precompetition tapering strategies.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 35: 1182–1187, 2003.
35. Nässi A, Ferrauti A, Meyer T, Pfeiffer M, Kellmann M. Development of
two short measures for recovery and stress in sport. Eur J Sport Sci 17:
894–903, 2017.
36. Orvanová E. Somatotypes of weight lifters. J Sports Sci 8: 119–137, 1990.
37. Pelka M, Schneider P, Kellmann M. Development of pre-
and post-match morning recovery-stress states during in-season
weeks in elite youth football. Sci And Med In Football 2: 127–132,
2018.
38. Pistilli EE, Kaminsky DE, Totten LM, Miller DR. Incorporating one week
of planned overreaching into the training program of weightlifters.
Strength Cond J 30: 39–44, 2008.
39. Pyne DB, Mujika I, Reilly T. Peaking for optimal performance: Research
limitations and future directions. J Sports Sci 27: 195–202, 2009.
40. Raeder C, Wiewelhove T, Schneider C, et al. Effects of active recovery on
muscle function following high-intensity training sessions in elite Olympic
weightlifters. Adv Skeletal Muscle Funct Assess 1: 3–12, 2017.
41. Siart B, Nimmerichter A, Vidotto C, Wallner B. Status, stress and per-
formance in track and field athletes during the european games in baku
(Azerbaijan). Scientific Rep 7: 6076, 2017.
42. Stone MH, Josey J, Hunter G, et al. Different taper lengths: Effects of
weightlifting performance. In: Overtraining and Overreaching in
Sport Conference. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, 1996. pp.
59.
43. Stone MH, Sands WA, Pierce KC, Ramsey MW, Haff GG. Power and
power potentiation among strength-power athletes: Preliminary study. Int
J Sports Physiol Perform 3: 55–67, 2008.
44. Stone MH, Stone M, Sands WA. Developing Resistance Training Pro-
grams. In: Principles and Practice of Resistance Training. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics, 2007. pp. 287–294.
45. Storey A, Wong S, Smith HK, Marshall P. Divergent muscle functional
and architectural responses to two successive high intensity resistance
exercise sessions in competitive weightlifters and resistance trained adults.
Eur J Appl Physiol 112: 3629–3639, 2012.
46. Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, Stone MH. The importance of muscular
strength in athletic performance. Sports Med 46: 1419–1449, 2016.
47. Thomas L, Busso T. A theoretical study of taper characteristics to optimize
performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 37: 1615–1621, 2005.
48. Travis S, Goodin J, Beckham G, et al. Identifying a test to monitor
weightlifting performance in competitive male and female weightlifters.
Sports 6: 46, 2018.
49. Viru AA, Viru M. Evaluating Training Workloads. In: Biochemical
Monitoring of Sport Training. Champaign, IL : Human Kinetics, 2001.
pp. 171–191.
50. Wu CL, Hung W, Wang SY, Chang CK. Hormonal responses in heavy
training and recovery periods in an elite male weightlifter. J Sports Sci Med
7: 560–561, 2008.