TAPERING PRACTICES OF STRONGMAN ATHLETES

PAUL W. WINWOOD,1,2 MIKE K. DUDSON,1,2 DANIEL WILSON,1,2 JUSTICE K.H. MCLAREN-

HARRISON,1,2 VLADISLAV REDJKINS,3,4 HAYDEN J. PRITCHARD,1,5 AND JUSTIN W.L. KEOGH6,1,7
1
Sport Performance Research in New Zealand (SPRINZ), AUT Millennium Institute, AUT University, Auckland, New
Zealand; 2Department of Sport and Recreation, Faculty of Community Health and Wellness, Toi Ohomai Institute of
Technology, Tauranga, New Zealand; 3Department of Hospitality, Tourism and Sport Industry, Plekhanov Russian University
of Economics, Moscow, Russia; 4World Strongman Federation, Belorussian Information Center, Riga, Latvia; 5Department of
Exercise and Sport Science, Faculty of Health & Science, University College of Learning, Palmerston North, New Zealand;
Downloaded from https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3iUOEA+UwZl4CbonHd7XDWi68UIeRd21f+2LVqgm6cvk= on 05/04/2018

6
Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia; and 7Cluster for Health Improvement,
Faculty of Science, Health, Education and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia

ABSTRACT
Winwood, PW, Dudson, MK, Wilson, D, Mclaren-Harrison,
JKH, Redjkins, V, Pritchard, HJ, and Keogh, JWL. Tapering
practices of strongman athletes. J Strength Cond Res 32(5):
1181–1196, 2018—This study provides the first empirical evi-
dence of how strongman athletes taper for strongman compet-
itions. Strongman athletes (n = 454) (mean 6 SD: 33.2 6 8.0
years, 178.1 6 10.6 cm, 108.6 6 27.9 kg, 12.6 6 8.9 years
general resistance training, 5.3 6 5.0 years strongman imple-
ment training) completed a self-reported 4-page internet survey
on tapering practices. Analysis by sex (male and female), age
ing were strategies used in the taper; and, poor tapering
occurred when athletes trained too heavy/hard or had too short
a taper. These data will assist strongman athletes and coaches
in the optimization of tapering variables leading to more peak
performances. Future research could investigate the priming
and preactivation strategies strongman athletes use on com-
petition day.
KEY WORDS peaking, training volume, training intensity,
periodization, recovery, performance
INTRODUCTION

(#30 and .30 years), body mass (#105 and .105 kg), and
competitive standard (local/regional amateur, national amateur
and professional) was conducted. Eighty-seven percent (n =
396) of strongman athletes reported that they used a taper.
Athletes stated that their typical taper length was 8.6 6 5.0
days, with the step taper the most commonly performed taper
(52%). Training volume decreased during the taper by 45.5 6
12.9%, and all training ceased 3.9 6 1.8 days out from com-
petition. Typically, athletes reported that training frequency and
training duration stayed the same or decreased and training
intensity decreased to around 50% in the last week. Athletes
generally stated that tapering was performed to achieve recov-
ery, rest, and peak performance; the deadlift, yoke walk, and
stone lifts/work took longer to recover from than other lifts;
assistance exercises were reduced or removed in the taper;
massage, foam rolling, nutritional changes, and static stretch-
Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL
citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML
and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s Web site (http://
journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr).
Address correspondence to Dr. Paul W. Winwood, paul.winwood@
toiohomai.ac.nz.
32(5)/1181–1196
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association
S
trongman is a sport that is similar to weightlifting
and powerlifting, in which training is primarily
focused on the improvement of maximal strength
and power to improve competition performance
(31,32,42). Some strongman events such as the axle deadlift
or log press are similar to those in weightlifting and power-
lifting competitions in which the athlete attempts to lift the
heaviest load possible for 1 repetition. Other events such as
the farmer’s walk and yoke walk are timed with the winner
being the fastest athlete to complete the required distance
under a specified load. Unlike the sports of weightlifting and
powerlifting, substantial between competition differences
can be observed in the types of events, loading parameters
(i.e., 1 repetition maximum [1RM] events vs. maximal repe-
titions with a given load and time frame) and required dis-
tances for carrying events. These differences in the
competitive demands of strongman compared with weight-
lifting and powerlifting suggest that there may be some dif-
ferences in the manner strongman athletes should taper for
competitions compared with these other sports.
The taper is the final period of an athlete’s training before
a major competition and is of paramount importance to
performance and therefore potentially the outcome of the
event (22,25,33,36). During the taper, the training load is
progressively reduced to allow for physiological and psycho-
logical recovery from accumulated stress, with the aim of

VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2018 | 1181

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strongman Tapering Practices
optimizing competition performance (24,26). However, the
taper is a complex procedure because training load can be
reduced through the manipulation of numerous variables,
such as training intensity, volume, duration, and frequency
(24,29,40). Complete cessation of training for a period can
lead to detraining, which is a partial or complete loss of
training-induced anatomical, physiological, and performance
adaptations (23), and conversely, inadequate rest can lead to
fatigue, performance decrements, and burn out (11). There-
fore, achieving the appropriate balance between training
stress and recovery during the taper is important in maxi-
mizing performance (19). Bosquet et al. (5) suggested that
a taper duration of 8–14 days seems to represent the border-
line between the positive influences of fatigue disappearance
and the negative influence of detraining on performance in
endurance athletes. However, determining the most suitable
duration of taper can be challenging as the optimum taper
duration may be influenced by the demands of the sport and
the athletes’ previous training intensity and volume (18).
Three different types of taper have been described in the
literature, including the step taper, the linear taper, and an
exponential taper with a fast or slow decay (24). The step
taper involves a complete and immediate decrease in train-
ing load, which is maintained for the duration of the taper,
whereas the linear taper involves a gradual decrease in train-
ing load in a progressive linear fashion. The exponential
taper is a progressive taper and can occur with a fast or slow
time constant decay, with the training load remaining higher
during the slow decay taper. The literature on the optimal
taper format for strength sports has been limited and recom-
mendations have relied on the general work of Banister et al.
(2) and Bosquet et al. (5) obtained from studies involving
endurance athletes. These 2 endurance studies reported
greater performance improvements after a progressive taper
than a step taper and that a fast decay (with lower training
volume) was more beneficial to cycling and running perfor-
mance than a slow decay of the training load (2,5). For detail
on the physiological changes associated with the taper, read-
ers are referred to the review article by Mujika et al. (26).
Recently, researchers (12,28) have investigated the taper-
ing practices of Croatian (n = 10) and New Zealand (n = 11)
open-class powerlifters (respectively), which are to the au-
thors’ knowledge, the first studies to offer some insight into
tapering for maximal strength sports. The studies found that
the average taper length was generally 2.5 weeks in which
athletes dropped their training volume by 51–59%. Training
intensity was highest between 1 and 2 weeks out from com-
petition, and the last training session was performed 3–4
days out from competition. Only the study of Grgic and
Mikulic (12) investigated taper types, and they found that
60% of the Croatian powerlifters performed the exponential
taper with a fast decay and 40% used the step taper.
Although these studies have their limitations with small par-
ticipant numbers, they are the first studies to document the
tapering practices of powerlifting athletes, which provide
the TM
1182 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
important data that other lifters can extrapolate to plan their
powerlifting taper.
Currently, no such data exist in the scientific literature for
the sport of strongman. Winwood et al. (42) found that 80%
of strongman athletes incorporated some form of periodiza-
tion into their training, which suggests that most strongman
competitors design their training to emphasize particular
adaptations with the goal of increasing physical perfor-
mance. Given that the taper is the final phase of an athlete’s
training before a major competition, it is important to ascer-
tain how strongman athletes taper for strongman competi-
tions. Because strongman athletes may be at greater risk for
injury during competition than training (15,41), a successful
taper that allows strongman athletes to recover from their
recent training stressors may also reduce their risk of in-
competition injury. The purposes of this study were to (a)
investigate the tapering practices and types of tapering used
by strongman athletes and (b) collect athletes typical weekly
training characteristics. The researchers believed that it was
important to present data on strongman athletes’ typical
training characteristics to give insight into strongman ath-
letes’ pretaper approaches to place the tapering data in
context.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
A comprehensive strongman tapering practices survey was
administered online and aimed at identifying how strong-
man athletes taper for strongman competitions. The
research hypothesis was that most strongman athletes
responding to the online survey would perform some form
of taper in their strength and conditioning programs. The
Tapering Practices of Strongman Athletes survey created for
this study was based on 9 interview questions used with
powerlifters (12,28). A test-retest reliability study performed
with 64 strongman athletes on this survey provided stable
and reliable answers for most of the demographic, training,
and tapering practice questions (43).
Subjects
Six hundred ninety participants accessed the online survey,
which included those who observed the survey, partially
completed the survey, and the 454 who completed the
survey. Participant inclusion criteria were male and female
strongman athletes who were between 18 and 65 years old
and had competed in at least 1 strongman competition. The
criterion for a completed survey was that the participants
completed the first 3 sections of the questionnaire on
personal details, training practices, and tapering.
Strongmen athletes were recruited through professional
networks and multimedia methods similar to previously
described procedures (41,42). The networking site “Face-
book” and strongman competition results posted on the
Internet were the primary method used to identify eligible
strongman athletes. Identified strongman athletes were sent

a letter through “Facebook Messenger.” The letter contained
an invitation to participate in the research and the link to the
online survey. Presidents of the “World Strongman Federation”
and “Strongman Corporation” e-mailed the survey link to their
club members. Strongman clubs in New Zealand, Australia,
Europe, the United States, and the United Kingdom were also
contacted and asked to e-mail the survey link to their club
members. The survey was available in English and Russian lan-
guage options. An information sheet outlining the objectives and
purpose of the study was situated on the first page of the online
survey. Participants were asked to indicate their consent by par-
ticipating in the survey, and so participants provided informed
and signed consent. Software used allowed participants to exit
the survey at any time and complete at a later date, allowing
participants to provide their data at the time most suitable to
them. To minimize the effect of recall bias, strongman athletes
who were not currently tapering or actively involved in compe-
tition were asked to refer to their training diaries when answering
the survey. Surveygizmo.com was used to launch the electronic
survey on the Internet. The methods and procedures used in this
study were approved by the Institutional Review Board Com-
mittee of Toiohomai Institute of Technology (R17/05).
Procedures
Research Instrument. Strongman athletes completed a self-
reported 4-page, 38-item, retrospective Tapering Practices of
Strongman Athletes survey (see Appendix 1, Supplemental
Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JSCR/A71) created
for this study based on 9 interview questions used with power-
lifters (12,28). The original strongman tapering practices survey
was pilot tested with research associates from various universi-
ties and 3 strongman athletes to ensure its ease of use with this
population. As a result of the pilot testing, the survey was mod-
ified by adding additional questions, as well as improving the
wording of a small number of questions before it was made
available for the main study.
The strongman tapering practices survey consisted of 4 main
areas of inquiry; (a) demographics and background information;
(b) training practices; (c) tapering; and (d) tapering practices.
Background information included questions on age, sex, height,
body mass, resistance training experience, strongman training
experience, competitive level, and coaching. The training
practices section included questions pertaining to the number
of training sessions per week, types of training, and duration.
Types of training were categorized as cardiovascular training
(aerobic and anaerobic), traditional training, and strongman
implement training. Strongman implement training was defined
as: “exercises using any nontraditional training implements” (e.
g., atlas stones, farmer’s bars, etc.). Traditional exercises were
standard exercises performed in the gym by regular weight
trainers and strength athletes (e.g., deadlift, squat, rows, etc.).
Participants were asked to detail their common/typical values
for each question. For the tapering section, athletes were asked
to indicate whether they used a taper and their reasons why
they used a taper or not. The tapering practices section included
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
questions on the length of taper and taper type, if they always
tapered, strategies used and how training altered during the
taper (i.e., volume, frequency, intensity and duration, type of
training performed, and when last performed before competi-
tion) and when training ceased in the taper. Tapering was
defined as “a reduction in training volume over a period of time
prior to a strongman event or strongman events.” Classifications
of tapering (i.e., step taper, linear taper, and exponential taper
with a slow or fast decay) were defined according to the taper
types described and applied previously (24). Closed questions
were used for sections 1 and 2, with open and closed questions
used for section 3.
Statistical Analyses
Mean and SDs were calculated for the participant character-
istics, training practices, and taper training characteristics.
Frequencies of responses were collated for questions related
to the tapering practices of strongman athletes. Categorical
and ordinal data were reported as both absolute numbers
and percentage of responses. Scores for ranked questions
were determined by weighted calculation in SurveyGizmo;
items that were ranked first scored higher than the following
ranks, so that the total score was the sum of all weighted
ranks. Weighted calculations were based on the number of
options represented.
Answers to open-ended questions on tapering practices
were content-analyzed by investigators who were experi-
enced with qualitative methods of sports science research
and content analysis. During data analysis, investigators
generated raw data and higher-order themes through
independent, inductive content analysis and compared
independently generated themes until consensus was
reached at each level of analysis. At the point of develop-
ment of higher-order themes, deductive analysis was used to
confirm that all raw data themes were represented. In some
cases, the participants provided greater depth of information
that represented more than one concept and hence re-
sponses contributed to more than one higher-order theme.
Demographics and training practices were calculated for
all participants, as well as the various subgroups of sex, age
(#30 and .30 years), body mass (lightweight ,105 kg and
heavyweight $105 kg), and competitive standard (local/
regional amateur, national amateur, professional). Masters’
classes such as those seen in powerlifting are not generally
seen in the sport of strongman; therefore, the age groups
were chosen post hoc to allow for a similar sample size for
group comparisons. A body mass of 105 kg was used to
separate the athletes as the 2 most common bodyweight
classes in strongman competition are #105 and 105 kg
(open competition category).
A 2-tailed unequal variance t-test was used to determine
whether any statistical differences (p # 0.01) existed in the
demographics and training data of the strongman athletes
as a function of sex, age, and body mass. A 1-way analysis
of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni post hoc tests was
VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2018 | 1183
 1184

Strongman Tapering Practices

TABLE 1. Demographics and training characteristics (mean 6 SD) for strongman athletes (n = 454).
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Sex Age Body mass class Competitive standard

the

All National
strongman Local/regional amateur
athletes Male Female #30 y .30 y #105 kg .105 kg amateur (n = Professional
(n = 454) (n = 353) (n = 101) (n = 208) (n = 242) (n = 224) (n = 226) (n = 157) 212) (n = 85)

Demographics
Age (y) 33.2 6 33.5 6 32.1 6 7.1 26.4 6 2.9 39.0 6 6.3* 31.9 6 7.5 34.2 6 8.2*0.003 31.3 6 7.5† 33.7 6 35.3 6 8.3
8.0 8.3 8.1
Height 178.1 6 181.5 6 165.9 6 7.0* 177.9 6 9.9 178.3 6 11.1 171.9 6 8.9 184.1 6 8.4* 177.3 6 10.3 177.8 6 180.4 6 10.9
(cm) 10.6 8.8 10.7
Body 108.6 6 117.1 6 79.1 6 17.1* 106.2 6 28.3 110.8 6 27.4 86.1 6 14.1 130.9 6 18.8* 103.7 6 25.6† 107.2 6 121.0 6 28.7
mass 27.9 24.4 27.9§
(kg)
Training
TM

Resistance 12.6 6 14.0 6 7.6 6 6.4* 7.5 6 4.3 16.9 6 9.4* 10.3 6 7.8 14.7 6 9.3* 10.4 6 8.5† 12.5 6 16.8 6 9.3
training 8.9 9.0 8.5
experience
(y)
Strongman 5.3 6 6.0 6 2.8 6 2.8* 3.1 6 3.1 7.1 6 5.6* 4.0 6 4.1 6.4 6 5.2* 3.3 6 3.6†z 5.2 6 8.8 6 6.2
experience 5.0 5.3 4.6§
(y)
Years 4.6 6 5.2 6 2.6 6 2.6* 2.6 6 2.0 6.4 6 5.2* 3.6 6 3.5 5.6 6 4.7* 2.5 6 2.4†z 4.7 6 8.3 6 5.6
competing 4.4 4.7 4.0§
(y)
Resistance 4.0 6 4.0 6 4.0 6 1.2 3.9 6 1.1 4.0 6 1.5 3.9 6 1.2 4.0 6 1.4 4.0 6 1.1 4.0 6 4.0 6 1.7
training 1.3 1.4 1.3
sessions
(wk)
Cardio 2.2 6 2.1 6 2.4 6 1.6 2.1 6 1.5 2.2 6 1.6 2.3 6 1.6 2.0 6 1.4 2.1 6 1.5 2.3 6 2.0 6 1.3
training 1.6 1.5 1.7
sessions
(wk)
Training 111 6 112 6 106 6 32 117 6 36 106 6 104 6 35 117 6 37* 104 6 5† 110 6 127 6 39
length 37 38 36*0.002 35§
(min)

*Significantly different from the other level of variable p # 0.001 unless specified.
†Local/regional amateur significantly (p # 0.001) different from professional.
zLocal/regional amateur significantly (p # 0.001) different from national amateur.
§National amateur significantly (p # 0.001) different from professional.

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

Figure 1. Summary of the typical weekly performance of strongman and traditional resistance training exercises.

used to determine whether any statistical differences ex- RESULTS

isted among competitive standard (i.e., local/regional
amateur, National amateur, and professional) and between
taper type lengths. For data that did not follow normal
distribution, the Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis non-
parametric tests were used (respectively). Differences
among the subgroups regarding coaching, tapering, taper
type, and categorized taper length (,7, 7–10, 11–14, and
.14 days), were analyzed with a Chi-square test.
Repeated-measures ANOVA with Bonferroni pairwise
comparisons were used to determine whether any statis-
tical differences existed among strongman events and
among traditional exercises in regard to loads used (as
a % 1RM) and days when the events/exercises were last
performed during the taper. Significance was accepted at
the p # 0.01 level. All statistical analyses were performed
using SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL,
USA) and higher-order themes were generated using Mi-
crosoft Excel (version 9.0; Microsoft, Seattle, WA, USA).
Demographics and Training Characteristics
Four hundred fifty-four strongman athletes from 42 coun-
tries completed the survey. Demographics and training
characteristics of the participants (n = 454) are presented
in Table 1. The strongman athletes were (mean 6 SD)
33.2 6 8.0 years, 178.1 6 10.6 cm, 108.6 6 27.9 kg, and
had 12.6 6 8.9 years of general resistance training experi-
ence. The average strongman implement training experience
and years competing in strongman among all lifters was 5.3
6 5.0 and 4.6 6 4.4 years, respectively. Participants reported
that on average, they trained for 111 6 37 minutes per ses-
sion and spent 4.0 6 1.3 hours per week resistance training
and 2.2 6 1.6 hours per week cardiovascular training. Sub-
group analyses revealed that men had significantly greater
resistance training experience (years) (14.0 6 9.0 vs. 7.6 6
6.4), strongman training experience (years) (6.0 6 5.3 vs.
2.8 6 2.8), and more years competing in the sport of strong-
man (5.2 6 4.7 vs. 2.6 6 2.6), than females. Such differences
were also observed in participants who were older, heavier,

Figure 2. Summary of the typical weekly cardiovascular training performed by the strongman athletes.

VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2018 | 1185

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 1186

Strongman Tapering Practices

TABLE 2. Strongman athletes coaching and taper characteristics.*
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the

Sex Age Body mass class Competitive standard

National
All strongman Male Female #30 y .30 y #105 kg .105 kg Local/regional amateur Professional
athletes (n = 454) (n = 353) (n = 101) (n = 208) (n = 242) (n = 224) (n = 226) amateur (n = 157) (n = 212) (n = 85)

Coaching
Self- 239 (53%) 217 (62%) 22 (22%) 96 (46%) 141 (59%) 90 (40%) 146 (65%) 75 (48%) 107 (51%) 57 (67%)
coached
Have 171 (38%) 101 (29%) 75 (74%) 91 (44%) 83 (34%) 111 (50%) 64 (28%) 69 (44%) 88 (42%) 19 (22%)
a coach
Other 39 (9%) 34 (10%) 4 (4%) 21 (10%) 17 (7%) 23 (10%) 15 (7%) 13 (8%) 16 (8%) 9 (11%)
68.62†, 2z, p , 0.001§║ 6.95†, 2z, p = 0.031§ 27.59†, 2z, p , 0.001§║ 12.31†, 4z, p = 0.015§
Taper
Yes 396 (87%) 300 (85%) 95 (94%) 184 (88%) 208 (86%) 200 (90%) 193 (85%) 139 (89%) 185 (87%) 71 (84%)
TM

No 58 (13%) 52 (15%) 6 (6%) 23 (11%) 34 (14%) 23 (10%) 33 (15%) 17 (11%) 27 (13%) 14 (16%)

Sex Age Body mass class Competitive standard

National
All strongman Male Female #30 y .30 y #105 kg (n .105 kg Local/regional amateur Professional
athletes (n = 250) (n = 194) (n = 56) (n = 104) (n = 145) = 128) (n = 121) amateur (n = 88) (n = 114) (n = 48)

Taper type¶
Step taper 131 (52%) 105 (54%) 26 (46%) 60 71 75 (59%) 56 (46%) 50 (57%) 61 (54%) 20 (42%)
(58%) (49%)
Linear taper 42 (17%) 30 (15%) 12 (21%) 15 (14%) 27 (19%) 21 (16%) 21 (17%) 18 (20%) 15 (13%) 9 (19%)
Exponential 38 (16%) 31 (16%) 7 (13%) 15 (14%) 22 (15%) 15 (12%) 23 (19%) 9 (10%) 20 (18%) 9 (19%)
taper
Other 39 (16%) 28 (14%) 11 (20%) 14 (14%) 25 (17%) 17 (13%) 21 (17%) 11 (13%) 18 (16%) 10 (21%)
Always taper¶
Yes 198 (80%) 148 (77%) 50 (89%) 87 (84%) 110 (77%) 107 (84%) 90 (76%) 79 (90%) 85 (75%) 34 (74%)
No 49 (20%) 43 (23%) 6 (11%) 16 (16%) 33 (23%) 21 (16%) 28 (24%) 9 (10%) 28 (25%) 12 (26%)
6.27†, 2z, p = 0.044§

*The results are expressed in 2 ways, with the first value being the total number of occurrences and the second number (in parentheses) the percentage of total occurrence.
†Chi-square value.
zDegrees of freedom.
§p value.
║Significantly different (p , 0.001) to other levels of variable.
¶Discrepancies appear for “taper type” and “always taper” participant numbers when data were not reported by strongman athletes.

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

TABLE 3. Why tapering is used before competition (n = 396).*

Higher-order themes Responses Selected raw data representing responses to this question

†Recovery 172 “To properly recover the muscles and prevent fatigue leading into the competition.”
“To let my body, especially my central nervous system recover.”
Peak performance 75 “To allow for recovery necessary for peak performance on competition day.”
“So I come in to the meet peaked, enabling higher strength levels than normal”
Rest 59 “To give my body time to rest.”
“To rest and heal so I am at my freshest for competition.”
zPsychological 47 “To create the ‘itch/desire’ for competition.”
readiness “Come into the contest mentally and physically ready.”
Injury prevention 27 “To reduce the risk of injury.”
“Prevent any injuries before a competition.”
Training change 26 “The last 2 sessions before I compete are usually light and focus on mobility and
active recovery.”
“As the intensity increases the volume needs to decreases to avoid crashing the
central nervous system”
“Closer to a competition, my training gets more strongman implement specific”
Energy 15 “Save strength and energy for the big show”
“It makes me more energetic.”
Deload 11 “I deload after several weeks of high intensity training in order to be fully recovered
before the competition.”
“A week before competition I do something like a small deload.”
Heal existing injuries 10 “To let my joints and any nagging small injuries heal up.”
Supercompensation 8 “To super-compensate and come into the meet peaked, enabling higher strength
effect levels than normal.”
Miscellaneous 14 “So I don’t burn out leading up in to the competition” “Prepare muscles for stress
during the competition”
“Mostly from habit, it’s what I did as a power lifter which transferred over great for the
last 2 competitions. I didn’t go in sore.”
“So I’m not tired from training.”

*In some cases, the participant provided information that represented more than one concept and their response contributed to
more than one higher-order theme.
†Recovery involves neural recovery, muscular recovery, and general recovery.
zPsychological readiness involves feeling rested and mental preparation.

and of a higher competitive standard. Participants who were
older, lighter, and those of lower competitive standard had
significantly lower average training lengths (minutes) com-
pared with their counterparts.
Participants were asked to indicate what their usual
resistance training looked like per week. A summary of their
responses is presented in Figure 1. Sixty-five percent of
strongman athletes reported that their resistance training
week comprised mainly traditional training with 1 or 2
strongman implement training sessions.
Participants indicated what their usual cardiovascular
training looked like per week. A summary of their
responses is presented in Figure 2. A wide range of types
of cardiovascular training was reported. Aerobic training
with one anaerobic training session and combined aero-
bic and anaerobic training was reported by 40% of par-
ticipants. Seventeen percent of strongman athletes
reported that they did not perform any cardiovascular
training.
Coaching and Taper Characteristics
The coaching and taper characteristics of strongman athletes
are presented in Table 2. Over half (53%) of the athletes were
self-coached and 38% had a coach. Athletes who selected
“other” (n = 39) specified that they received “some coach-
ing” and “mentoring from coaches” and “other athletes.”
Subgroup analyses revealed significant differences in coach-
ing between males and females (x2 = 68.62, degrees of free-
dom [df ] = 2, p , 0.001) and between body mass class (x2 =
27.59, df = 2, p , 0.001). Most female strongman athletes
had a coach (74 vs. 29%) and heavier athletes were more
self-coached (65 vs. 40%). Differences in coaching that ap-
proached significance were also observed between age
groups (p = 0.031) and competitive standard (p = 0.015).
Eighty-seven percent (n = 396) of athletes indicated that
they use a taper in preparation for strongman competitions
(Table 2). Of the 250 athletes who completed the tapering
practices section of the survey, 52% (n = 131) indicated that
the step taper was the most common type of taper they used.

VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2018 | 1187

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strongman Tapering Practices

TABLE 4. Why tapering is not used before competition (n = 34).*

Higher-order themes Responses Selected raw data representing responses to this question

Training cessation/ 13 “I just take a week off before the comp.”

reduction “I train heavy with a deload week when needed and then rest 5 d before a comp.”
Habitual practice 10 “My goal is to be ready at all times for a contest.”
“I never have probably because I wasn’t coached and have grown to find it works
for me now.”
Lack of knowledge 5 “I have no idea how to taper for a competition.”
Miscellaneous 10 “I don’t normally try to peak, not like I do in powerlifting.”
“I use competition as training day.”

*In some cases, the participant provided information that represented more than one concept and their response contributed to
more than one higher-order theme.

Some strongman athletes made comments on why they used
the step taper. The main themes generated were the only
type of taper used, feels best for rest and recovery, what was
advised, and easy to program.
Strongman athletes (n = 396) provided reasons or made
specific comments of why they tapered. A summary of these
responses is presented in Table 3. The 3 main reasons re-
ported were recovery, peak performance, and rest. Of the 58
strongman athletes who reported that they did not taper for
strongman competitions, 34 athletes provided reasons or
made specific comments of why they chose not to taper.
A summary of these responses is presented in Table 4. The
3 main themes emerging from the data were training cessa-
tion/reduction, habitual practice, and lack of knowledge.
Taper Length and Taper Characteristics
Strongman athletes’ (n = 250) taper length and taper training
characteristics are presented in Table 5. Participants indi-
cated that their normal taper length was 8.6 6 5.0 days
and that all training ceased 3.9 6 1.8 days before competi-
tion. Subgroup analyses revealed no significant differences
for taper length and taper training characteristics for sex,
age, body mass, and competitive standard. A graphical rep-
resentation of the athletes tapering timeline is presented in
Figure 3.
When the taper lengths were categorized, differences that
approached significance were observed between body mass
classes, with lighter athletes tending to have a higher pro-
portion of shorter taper lengths compared with heavier
athletes. Additional analysis revealed that the “step taper”
was significantly shorter than the “exponential taper” (with
a fast and slow decay) (7.9 6 3.4 vs. 11.3 6 7.4 days; p =
0.002) (respectively). No differences were observed for the
“linear taper” (9.2 6 6.3 days) and “other” (8.3 6 5.2 days)
taper. Strongman athletes reported that their final heavy
training session (.85% 1RM) was 9.1 6 3.3 days out from
competition and the final resistance training session (at any
weight) was 4.7 6 2.0 days.
the TM
The average loading intensity used in the final heavy
training session preceding a competitive event was 91%.
Completion of the final heavy session generally was located
at the end of the final peaking phase of training before
implementation of the athlete’s respective tapering method
leading to competition. The rationale for the final heavy
session was commonly associated with building confidence
through training lifts at intensities close to what will be
encountered in competition, followed by recovery and prim-
ing during the tapering phase. The average loading intensity
used in the final training session was 68%. Priming was the
main theme that emerged from the final training session
followed by movement and mobility work. Recovery and
psychological readiness were also related themes for the
athlete’s last training session.
Types of Training Performed During the Taper
Strongman athletes reported what type of training they do
during their taper. A summary of these responses is
presented in Figure 4. Muscular strength and muscular
power were the most common types of training performed
followed by aerobic conditioning. “Other” types of training
included practicing events and fine-tuning technique, spe-
cific event conditioning, speed work, and improving flexibil-
ity, mobility, and recovery.
Strongman Events and Traditional Exercises Performed
During the Taper
Strongman athletes reported what loads were typically used
and when the main strongman events and traditional
exercises were last performed during the taper (Table 6).
Of the strongman events, the log lift and farmer’s walk were
performed significantly (p , 0.001) closer to competition
than the yoke walk and stone lifts/work. Of the traditional
resistance training exercises, the overhead press and bench
press were performed significantly (p , 0.001) closer to
competition than the deadlift. A significant difference (p =
0.008) was also observed between the squat and overhead

1188 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 TABLE 5. Strongman athletes’ taper length and taper training characteristics (n = 250).*†

Sex Age Body mass class Competitive standard

Strongman National
athletes Male Female #30 y .30 y #105 kg (n .105 kg (n Local/regional amateur Professional
(n = 250) (n = 194) (n = 56) (n = 104) (n = 145) = 128) = 121) amateur (n = 88) (n = 114) (n = 48)

Average taper length (d) 8.6 6 5.0 8.3 6 4.8 9.5 6 5.5 8.2 6 4.2 9.0 6 5.7 8.6 6 4.9 8.7 6 5.2 8.6 6 5.0 9.0 6 5.4 7.8 6 4.1
Taper length ranges
,7 d 92 (37%) 70 22 41 50 47 45 30 (34%) 43 (39%) 19 (39%)
(36%) (40%) (40%) (35%) (37%) (38%)
7–10 d 90 (36%) 67 (35%) 23 (42%) 35 (34%) 55 (38%) 56 (44%) 34 (29%) 37 (42%) 38 (35%) 15 (31%)
11–14 d 49 (20%) 40 (21%) 9 (16%) 22 (21%) 27 (19%) 20 (16%) 29 (24%) 16 (18%) 21 (19%) 12 (24%)
.14 d 16 (6%) 15 (8%) 1 (2%) 5 (5%) 11 (8%) 4 (3%) 11 (9%) 5 (6%) 8 (7%) 3 (6%)
10.82z, 4§, p = 0.029k
Cease training before 3.9 6 1.8 4.0 6 1.8 3.8 6 1.7 3.7 6 1.6 4.1 6 1.9 4.0 6 1.8 3.9 6 1.8 3.8 6 1.8 3.9 6 1.7 4.3 6 2.0
comp (d)
Weeks out highest training 4.3 6 2.9 4.5 6 3.0 3.9 6 2.5 4.6 6 3.1 4.1 6 2.7 4.3 6 2.9 4.4 6 2.9 4.2 6 2.8 4.2 6 2.9 5.0 6 2.7
volume (wk)
2.5 6 0.9 2.5 6 0.9 2.5 6 0.9 2.4 6 0.9 2.6 6 0.9 2.5 6 0.9 2.5 6 0.9 2.5 6 0.8 2.5 6 1.0 2.6 6 0.9

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Weeks out highest training

the
intensity (wk)
Drop in training volume 45.5 6 45.1 6 12.3 46.7 6 45.8 6 12.9 45.1 6 13.1 45.6 6 45.4 6 44.8 6 13.2 45.6 6 46.5 6 12.0
during taper (%) 12.9 14.8 13.3 12.6 13.1
Final training session at any 4.7 6 2.0 4.8 6 2.0 4.7 6 2.0 4.8 6 2.0 4.7 6 2.0 4.8 6 2.0 4.6 6 2.0 4.8 6 2.0 4.8 6 2.0 4.4 6 2.0
weight (d)
Final training session at 9.1 6 3.3 9.2 6 3.3 8.6 6 3.0 9.1 6 3.3 9.1 6 3.3 9.1 6 3.2 9.1 6 3.2 9.3 6 3.3 9.0 6 3.3 8.7 6 3.1
loads .85% 1RM (d)
VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2018 |

*Results are expressed as mean 6 SD or with the first value being the total number of occurrences and the second number, (in parentheses) the percentage of total occurrence.
†Discrepancies appear for taper length range numbers when data were not reported by strongman athlete.
zChi-square value.
§Degrees of freedom.
kp value.

TM
| www.nsca.com
1189

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strongman Tapering Practices
Figure 3. Tapering events timeline.
presses with the squat being performed further out from
competition than overhead presses. No statistical differences
were observed between loads used (% 1RM) among strong-
man events and among traditional exercises.
Strongman athletes also reported what loads were typi-
cally used for other strongman events and traditional
exercises and when they were last performed during the
taper. Loads used and days out from taper (respectively)
were reported for the axle lift/press (75.7 6 16.6% 1RM; 5.5
6 1.8 days, n = 79), sled/truck pull (76.7 6 18.2% 1RM; 6.7
6 1.8 days, n = 51), tire flip (81.0 6 13.0% 1RM; 6.1 6 1.5
days, n = 42), traditional assistance exercises (65.9 6 13.6%
1RM; 4.9 6 1.8 days, n = 46), and Olympic lifts (65.5 6
13.2% 1RM; 5.1 6 1.5 days, n = 34).
Strongman athletes were asked whether any other
changes were made in terms of exercises being removed or
added to their training programs. Fifty percent of athletes
indicated that they reduced or removed assistance exercises
and concentrated mainly on the core lifts. Twelve percent of
Figure 4. Types of training performed by strongman athletes (n = 246) during the taper ranked from highest to lowest.
the
1190 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
athletes reported that they reduced or dropped the main
exercises and used assistance exercises to help promote
blood flow and aid recovery. Ten percent of athletes
incorporated more stretching and mobility exercises in their
taper.
Changes in Intensity, Frequency, and Duration During
the Taper
Strongman athletes (n = 246) reported how their training
intensity, frequency, and duration change during the taper. A
summary of their responses is presented in Figure 5. Most
strongman athletes reported that their training intensity de-
creases (55%), training frequency stays the same (57%) or
decreases (40%) and training duration decreases (59%) or
stays the same (37%).
Strongman athletes elaborated on how their training
intensity, frequency, and duration changed during their
taper. The athletes who decreased their training intensity
during the taper stated that volume was reduced and
TM
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

TABLE 6. Main strongman events and traditional exercises, loads used, and when last performed during the taper.*

Strongman events

Log lift/press Yoke walk Farmer’s walk Stone lifts/work

(n = 198) (n = 192) (n = 183) (n = 165)

When last performed (d) 5.7 6 2.0†z 8.2 6 3.5 6.1 6 1.8†z 7.6 6 2.8
Loads used (% 1RM) 77.0 6 15.9 79.0 6 16.2 77.1 6 16.5 80.4 6 13.7

Traditional exercises

Deadlift (n = 171) Squat (n = 161) Overhead presses (n = 120) Bench press (n = 91)

When last performed (d) 7.8 6 3.2 6.6 6 3.2§0.008 5.3 6 1.9║ 5.7 6 2.1║
Loads used (% 1RM) 77.0 6 15.5 72.6 6 15.4 71.5 6 16.3 74.1 6 15.8

*% 1RM = percentage of 1 repetition maximum.

†Significantly (p , 0.001) different from yoke walk.
zSignificantly (p , 0.001) different from stone lifts/work.
§Significantly different from overhead presses.
║Significantly (p , 0.001) different from deadlift.

intensity dropped to around 50% in the last week. A
reduction in volume was also indicated by the athletes
who increased their training intensity during the taper. Of
the athletes who did not change intensity during the taper,
the majority of this subgroup reported that they lifted lighter
weights.
Athletes who indicated that their training frequency
stayed the same, generally implemented higher competition
specificity and technical work on competition lifts, in
addition to volume and intensity changes. A decrease in
training frequency (by 40–60%, down to 2–3 sessions per
week) was indicated by some athletes as a result of more
recovery days and longer periods between training sessions.
Declines in training frequency were generally associated
with reduced training volume and loading intensities. Com-
plete training cessation was apparent for some athletes dur-
ing the 7–10 days preceding competition, which was
accompanied by a higher integration of active recovery
and stretching sessions.
Most athletes stated that training duration decreased (on
average by 50%, down to 30–60 minutes of sessions) during
their taper. The decrease was generally due to less volume of
work (i.e., sets and reps) and exercises (i.e., less accessory
work), longer rest periods associated with higher training
loads, or lesser rest periods associated with lighter training
loads. Training duration stayed the same for some athletes
because of lower volume accompanied with increased rest
between sets.

Figure 5. Summary of strongman athletes’ (n = 246) responses of how training intensity, frequency, and duration change during the taper.

VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2018 | 1191

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strongman Tapering Practices

responses is presented in Figure

6. Most strongman athletes used
massage, foam rolling, nutri-
tional changes, and static
stretching in their taper. Other
strategies included chiropractic
and osteopath care, physiother-
apy (included cupping and dry
needling), mobility and active
release work, hot and cold ther-
apy, flotation, breathing work,
sleep and meditation, and visual-
ization of events.
When Tapering Did Not Work
and Why?
Strongman athletes (n = 86) pro-
vided reasons or made specific
Figure 6. Other types of strategies used during the taper by strongman athletes (n = 225). comments of when tapering
did not work and why. A sum-
mary of their responses is pre-
Other Taper Strategies Used by Strongman Athletes sented in Table 7. The 3 main reasons reported were injury
Strongman athletes were asked to specify what other types of and illness, training too heavy, or too hard and taking too short
strategies they used during their taper. A summary of their a taper.

TABLE 7. When tapering has not worked and why (n = 86).*

Higher-order
themes Responses Selected raw data representing responses to this question

Injury/illness 16 “Injuries occurring during the final 4 wk have required unplanned deload weeks. Having
a cold or temporary illness can cause tapering to not work.”
Trained too heavy/ 15 “I got too excited and wanted to lift too heavy before a competition.”
hard
Too short a taper 12 “The only time is hasn’t worked is when my body was too beat up before a comp and I
didn’t choose to taper long enough.”
Nutrition/diet 11 “If something goes wrong it usually not recovering and keeping a very close eye on
nutrition.”
Lack of rest/ 8 “Didn’t allow enough recovery time.”
recovery
Life/work 8 “When I get really busy at work and can’t recover and get proper rest.”
circumstances
Overtraining/ 7 “Over fatigued. Non-sufficient nutrition, over trained.”
fatigue
Too long a taper 7 “I tapered off too far out and felt flat coming in to the show.”
Planning 6 “Haven’t followed the tapering program that I had set for myself.”
Too high training 4 “Not deceased volume enough or kept the volume up for too long.”
volume
Trained too light 3 “Once I took my last deadlift workout at too low a percentage. When it came to the big
day everything felt heavy over 75%.”
Miscellaneous 13 “Traveling to shows is hard. Weight cuts can get in the way, at some point you have to
switch your focus from peaking to making weight.”
“My inexperience is what I would say.”
“Usually competition date/event changes.”

*In some cases, the participant provided information that represented more than one concept and their response contributed to
more than one higher-order theme.

the TM

1192 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

DISCUSSION
The literature on the optimal taper format for strength sports
has been limited. This study is the first to document the
tapering practices used by strongman athletes. Strongman
athletes reduced their training volume during the taper by
45.5 6 12.9% with most athletes (55%) stating that their
training intensity decreased to around 50% in the last week.
Training frequency and training duration stayed the same or
decreased during the taper, and most athletes (50%) indi-
cated that they reduced or removed assistance exercises
and concentrated mainly on the core lifts. Muscular strength
and power were the main types of training performed during
the taper followed by aerobic conditioning. The use of mas-
sage, foam rolling, nutritional changes, and static stretching
strategies were also used in their taper. Strongman athletes
stated that their typical taper length was 8.6 6 5.0 days, and
the step taper was the most common type of taper (52%)
performed. The findings support the initial hypothesis that
most strongman athletes responding to the online survey
performed some form of taper in their strength and condi-
tioning programs.
Eighty-seven percent (n = 396) of athletes reported that
they used some form of taper in preparation for strongman
competitions. The primary reasons reported for performing
the taper were recovery, peak performance, rest, and psy-
chological readiness. Previous researchers have stated that
the aim of the taper is to facilitate regeneration and reduce
fatigue, while maintaining or increasing fitness and techni-
cal/psychological readiness to promote maximal perfor-
mance in competition (5,19,21,24,26). Interestingly, some
strongman athletes (n = 13) who reported not using a taper,
performed a peaking strategy in the form of a deload week or
training cessation.
Strongman athletes indicated that their normal taper
length was 8.6 6 5.0 days, which is lower than what has
been reported among powerlifters (18 6 8 and 16.8 6 6.3
days, respectively) (12,28) but within the guidelines (8–14
days) previously suggested for endurance athletes (5). Inter-
estingly, in the study involving 10 Croatian powerlifters,
Grgic and Mikulic (12) found that the HI group (Wilks coef-
ficient . 350) had a much longer taper (18 6 8 vs. 9 6 1
days) than the LO group (Wilks coefficient , 350) who
were coached and comprised mostly of women. It was sur-
mised that the duration of taper may differ by the strength
level or sex of the athlete. In contrast, no significant differ-
ences in taper duration and taper training characteristics
were observed in this study between any subgroups (sex,
age, body mass, and competitive standard).
The step taper was the most common type of taper (52%)
performed by strongman athletes. Strongman athletes stated
that the step taper felt best for rest and recovery and was
easy to program. Previous studies (8,13) have reported that
a 1-week step taper can improve strength measures in well-
trained athletes. Grgic and Mikulic (12) found that Croatian
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
powerlifters performed the step (40%) and exponential taper
with a fast decay (60%). These tapers provide greater reduc-
tions in training load, compared with a linear and slow decay
tapers, which give athletes more time for overcoming the
fatigue accumulated during the last few weeks of intensive
and extensive training before the taper (29). In this study,
exponential tapers (i.e., fast and slow decay) were grouped
(as previously reported in a reliability analysis (43)) and the
exponential taper was found to be significantly longer dura-
tion than the step taper (11.3 6 7.4 vs. 7.9 6 3.4 days; p =
0.002) (respectively). Taper types and durations may be
influenced by athletes’ previous training load (18,19,29,34)
and by the severity of fatigue the athletes carried into the
taper process (5).
Strongman athletes decreased their training volume by
45.5 6 12.9%, which is lower than those reported (58.9 6 8.4
and 50.5 6 11.7%) by New Zealand and Croatian power-
lifters (respectively), but within the recommended guidelines
(41–61%) stated in the literature (5). However, it has been
suggested that athletes should consider volume reductions
relative to the duration of the planned taper with larger
decreases in volume for shorter tapers and more gradual
reductions for tapers of longer duration (34,40). Interestingly,
strongman athletes had a shorter taper and lower reduction
in training volume than reported by powerlifters, with this
perhaps reflecting the greater number of competitive events
that comprise a strongman competition compared with
powerlifting. Most strongman athletes reduced training
intensity (by 50%) and training duration (by 50%, down to
30–60 minutes sessions), and maintained training frequency.
Researchers have suggested that reductions in training vol-
ume should be achieved by decreasing the duration of
training sessions, rather than decreasing the frequency and
intensity of training (5). It seems that for strongman athletes
to optimize a shorter taper period and lower reduction in
training volume, manipulation of other training variables are
used.
Strongman athletes’ highest training volume occurred
4.3 6 2.9 weeks out from competition, which is similar to
those reported (4.5 6 1.8 and 5.2 6 1.7 weeks, respec-
tively) for powerlifters (12,28). However, strongman ath-
letes’ reported highest training intensity (2.5 6 0.9 weeks)
was further out from competition (1.1 6 0.4 and 1.9 6 0.8
weeks, respectively) than powerlifters (12,28). Such differ-
ences may be influenced by the potentially greater phys-
iological demands (4,10,16,20) and injury risks associated
with strongman implement training (15,41). Winwood
et al. (41) found that strongman athletes were almost
twice as likely to sustain injury when performing strong-
man implement training compared with traditional train-
ing when exposure time was considered. It was also
reported that of the 174 strongman athletes, 31% had sus-
tained at least 1 competition injury (41) which may pro-
vide insight into why most athletes in this study reduced
their training intensity during the taper.
VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2018 | 1193
 Strongman Tapering Practices
Strongman athletes’ training cessation was 3.9 6 1.8 days
out from competition. These findings are similar to those
reported (3 6 1 and 3.7 6 1.5 days, respectively) by Croatian
(12) and New Zealand (28) powerlifters. Previous research-
ers have reported that 3–4 days of strength training cessation
may be optimal for maximal strength expression (38,39).
However, no differences in training abstinence of 2, 4, and
7 days on the expression of maximal strength (bench press
and squat) have been reported (1). Similar results were also
reported by Pritchard et al. (27) who found that both 3.5 and
5.5 days off training have similar effects on strength perfor-
mance measures (countermovement jump and isometric
bench press relative force). These studies demonstrate that
a training cessation of less than a week may be suitable for
allowing for the expression of maximal strength.
Strongman athletes reported that their final heavy training
session (performed with a loading intensity of 91%) was 9.1
6 3.3 days out from competition. Athletes reported that this
training session built confidence through training lifts at
competition intensities and was located at the end of the
final peaking phase before implementation of the athlete’s
taper. The peaking process has been described in the litera-
ture (35) as a 2-phase process, comprising of a pretapering
phase and the final taper period culminating with the in-
tended competition. The aim of the pretapering phase is to
stimulate a controlled “over-reaching state” and elicit a super-
compensatory adaptive response in the following taper (35).
Strongman athletes reported that their final resistance
training session (at any weight) was 4.7 6 2.0 days out from
competition. Athletes reported that this training session was
performed with an average loading intensity of 68% and was
associated with priming, movement, and mobility work. Re-
searchers (7,17) have demonstrated that priming activities
performed in the hours leading to competition further
improve performance on the day of a match. Currently, little
information exists on the priming and preactivation strate-
gies that strongman athletes use on competition day.
Muscular strength, muscular power, and aerobic condi-
tioning were the most common types of training performed
by strongman athletes during the taper. These training types
are consistent with strongman training practices previously
reported (42) and of the results of previous studies that re-
ported the need for very high levels of muscular power (16),
metabolic conditioning (4), high core and hip abduction
strength/stability, and overall strength in strongman athletes
(20).
Strongman athletes in this study indicated what loads
were typically used and when the main strongman events
and traditional exercises were last performed during the
taper. Although no statistical differences were observed
between loads used (% 1RM) among strongman events
and among traditional exercises, statistical differences were
observed among strongman events and traditional exercises
when last performed during the taper. The log lift (5.7 6 2.0
days) and farmer’s walk (6.1 6 1.8 days) were performed
the TM
1194 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
significantly closer to competition than the stone lifts/work
(7.6 6 2.8 days) and yoke walk (8.2 6 3.5 days). Researchers
have reported that stone lift and yoke walk events accounted
for the highest number of injuries in strongman athletes
compared with other strongman events (41). Such injuries
may be a result of the very high lower erector spinae activity
associated with the stone lift and high spinal compression
loads associated with the Yoke walk (20).
Of the traditional resistance training exercises, the over-
head presses (5.3 6 1.9 days) and bench press (5.7 6 2.1
days) were performed significantly closer to competition
than the deadlift (7.8 6 3.2 days). Previous researchers (28)
have reported that powerlifters’ final deadlift session was
further out from competition than their final bench press
and squat session so athletes could gain additional recovery
time. In this study, the squat was also performed significantly
further out from competition (6.6 6 3.2 days) than overhead
presses. Traditional exercises such as the deadlift and squat
produce exceedingly large hip extensor torques (6) and com-
pressive or shear lumbar forces (6,9), which may influence
postexercise fatigue. Recently, researchers (3) found no dif-
ferences in central fatigue between the squat and deadlift
exercises, which could indicate that similar recovery times
are needed for these exercises. It is quite likely that strong-
man athletes are aware of the physiological stresses associ-
ated with strongman and traditional exercises and program
the appropriate recovery periods near competition.
Strongman athletes indicated that massage, foam rolling,
nutritional changes, and static stretching were types of
strategies used in their taper. The use of foam rolling and
nutritional changes were also tapering strategies reported by
powerlifters (28). Studies have shown that myofascial release
through massage and foam rolling acts as a mood enhancer
and reduces fatigue, thereby acting as an ergogenic aid
(14,37) and the nutritional benefits for sports performance
are well documented (30). Other strategies (chiropractic and
osteopath care, physiotherapy, hot and cold therapy, flota-
tion, breathing work, sleep and meditation, and visualization
of events) were also used by strongman athletes during the
taper. The strategies reported by strongman athletes provide
insight into potential recovery and performance enhancing
modalities that may be beneficial for strongman competition
performance. Whether all of these precompetition strategies
are beneficial, performance may still need to be determined,
because the evidence base for some of the strategies may still
be limited.
Strongman athletes (n = 86) provided some insight into
when tapering did not work. The main reasons reported
were injury and illness, training too heavy or too hard, and
taking too short a taper. Overexertion during the taper was
a common theme reported among powerlifters (12,28). The
researchers (12,28) suggested that powerlifters use training
diaries to monitor their responses to training and tapering.
Such practice allows athletes to accurately reflect upon their
training and tapering practices, which may better inform

their training practices. Previous researchers (42) have re-
ported that most strongman athletes (83%) use a training
diary/log in their strength and conditioning practice. Strong-
man athletes in the current were asked to refer to their
training diaries/logs when completing the online tapering
practices survey to minimize the limitation of recall bias.
To further improve the robustness of this study design,
a test-retest reliability analysis was conducted on the strong-
man tapering practices survey (43) to support the inferences
drawn from this study.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
This article serves as the first comprehensive description of
tapering practices of strongman athletes. The information in
this study will serve to help strongman athletes, coaches, and
sports scientists in their goal of achieving the optimum
training mix during the taper, leading to more peak perform-
ances at the expected time of the season.
To taper successfully, strongman athletes should reduce
the total amount of volume of training relative to the
duration of the planned taper. For shorter tapers (,10 days),
volume reductions may be best performed using a step taper
with reductions in training duration and intensity. Tapering
should include a high degree of competition specificity
including technical work on competition lifts. Such training
will assist with reduction of fatigue while maintaining/
improving strength expression and performance. Strongman
athletes must be aware that strongman events carry a higher
risk of injury than traditional lifts, and exercises such as the
yoke walk and stone lift must be programmed accordingly so
as not to impair competition performance. A training cessa-
tion of 3–5 days should end the taper to provide sufficient
rest and recovery for athletes before competition. It must be
noted that the expected performance improvements after
tapering are a result of both the pretapering phase and the
final taper. These 2 training periods should be considered as
a continuum in an athlete’s periodized plan to achieve the
best possible performance at competition. The strongman
athletes weekly training characteristics presented in this
study will allow athletes and coaches to place the tapering
practices data in context to athletes’ normal weekly training
practices.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank all the strongman athletes who partici-
pated in this study and the Strongman Corporation and the
World Strongman Federation for their support of this
research.
REFERENCES
1. Anderson, T and Cattanach, D. Effects of three different rest periods
on expression of developed strength. J Strength Cond Res 7: 185,
1993.
2. Banister, EW, Carter, JB, and Zarkadas, PC. Training theory and
taper: Validation in triathlon athletes. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup
Physiol 79: 182–191, 1999.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
3. Barnes, MJ, Miller, A, Reeve, D, and Stewart, RJC. Acute
neuromuscular and endocrine responses to two different compound
exercises: Squat versus deadlift. J Strength Cond Res, 2017. [Epub
ahead of print]
4. Berning, JM, Adams, KJ, Climstein, M, and Stamford, BA. Metabolic
demands of “junkyard” training: Pushing and pulling a motor
vehicle. J Strength Cond Res 21: 853–856, 2007.
5. Bosquet, L, Montpetit, J, Arvisais, D, and Mujika, I. Effects of
tapering on performance: A meta-analysis. Med Sci Sports Exerc 39:
1358, 2007.
6. Cholewicki, J, McGill, SM, and Norman, RW. Lumbar spine loads
during the lifting of extremely heavy weights. Med Sci Sports Exerc
23: 1179–1186, 1991.
7. Cook, CJ, Kilduff, LP, Crewther, BT, Beaven, M, and West, DJ.
Morning based strength training improves afternoon physical
performance in rugby union players. J Sci Med Sport 17: 317–321,
2014.
8. Coutts, AJ, Reaburn, P, Piva, TJ, and Murphy, A. Changes in
selected biochemical, muscular strength, power, and endurance
measures during deliberate overreaching and tapering in rugby
league players. Int J Sports Med 28: 116–124, 2007.
9. Fortin, JD and Falco, FJE. The biomechanical principles for
preventing weightlifting injuries. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 11: 697–
716, 1997.
10. Ghigiarelli, J, Sell, K, Raddock, J, and Taveras, K. The effects of
strongman training on salivary testosterone levels in a sample group
of trained males. J Strength Cond Res 27: 738–747, 2013.
11. Goodger, K, Lavallee, D, Gorely, T, and Harwood, C. Burnout in
sport: Understanding the process—From early warning signs to
individualized intervention. In: Applied Sport Psychology: Personal
Growth to Peak Performance. JM Williams, ed. New York, NY:
McGraw Hill, 2010, pp. 492–511.
12. Grgic, J and Mikulic, P. Tapering practices of Croatian open-class
powerlifting champions. J Strength Cond Res 31: 2371–2378, 2017.
13. Häkkinen, K, Kallinen, M, Komi, PV, and Kauhanen, H.
Neuromuscular adaptations during short-term “normal” and
reduced training periods in strength athletes. Electromyogr Clin
Neurophysiol 31: 35–42, 1990.
14. Healey, KC, Hatfield, DL, Blanpied, P, Dorfman, LR, and Riebe, D.
The effects of myofascial release with foam rolling on performance.
J Strength Cond Res 28: 61–68, 2014.
15. Keogh, JW and Winwood, PW. The epidemiology of injuries across
the weight-training sports. Sports Med 47: 479–501, 2017.
16. Keogh, JWL, Payne, AL, Anderson, BB, and Atkins, PJ. A brief
description of the biomechanics and physiology of a strongman
event: The tire flip. J Strength Cond Res 24: 1223–1228, 2010.
17. Kilduff, LP, Owen, N, Bevan, H, Bennett, M, Kingsley, MIC, and
Cunningham, D. Influence of recovery time on post-activation
potentiation in professional rugby players. J Sports Sci 26: 795–802,
2008.
18. Kubukeli, ZN, Noakes, TD, and Dennis, SC. Training techniques to
improve endurance exercise performances. Sports Med 32: 489–509,
2002.
19. Le Meur, Y, Hausswirth, C, and Mujika, I. Tapering for competition:
A review. Sci Sports 27: 77–87, 2012.
20. McGill, SM, McDermott, A, and Fenwick, CMJ. Comparison of
different strongman events: Trunk muscle activation and lumbar spine
motion, load, and stiffness. J Strength Cond Res 23: 1148–1161, 2009.
21. Mujika, I. The influence of training characteristics and tapering on
the adaptation in highly trained individuals: A review. Int J Sports
Med 19: 439–446, 1998.
22. Mujika, I, Goya, A, Ruiz, E, Grijalba, A, Santisteban, J, and Padilla, S.
Physiological and performance responses to a 6-day taper in
middle-distance runners: Influence of training frequency. Int J Sports
Med 23: 367–373, 2002.
VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2018 | 1195
 Strongman Tapering Practices
23. Mujika, I and Padilla, S. Detraining: Loss of training-induced
physiological and performance adaptations. Part I: Short term
insufficient training stimulus. Sports Med 30: 79–87, 2000.
24. Mujika, I and Padilla, S. Scientific bases for precompetition tapering
strategies. Med Sci Sports Exerc 35: 1182–1187, 2003.
25. Mujika, I, Padilla, S, and Pyne, D. Swimming performance changes
during the final 3 weeks of training leading to the Sydney 2000
Olympic Games. Int J Sports Med 23: 582–587, 2002.
26. Mujika, I, Padilla, S, Pyne, D, and Busso, T. Physiological changes
associated with the pre-event taper in athletes. Sports Med 34: 891–
927, 2004.
27. Pritchard, HJ, Barnes, MJ, Stewart, RJC, Keogh, JWL, and
McGuigan, MR. Short term training cessation as a method of
tapering to improve maximal strength. J Strength Cond Res 32: 458–
465, 2018.
28. Pritchard, HJ, Tod, DA, Barnes, MJ, Keogh, JW, and McGuigan,
MR. Tapering practices of New Zealand’s elite raw powerlifters. J
Strength Cond Res 30: 1796–1804, 2016.
29. Pyne, DB, Mujika, I, and Reilly, T. Peaking for optimal performance:
Research limitations and future directions. J Sports Sci 27: 195–202, 2009.
30. Rodriguez, NR, DiMarco, NM, and Langley, S. Nutrition and
athletic performance. Med Sci Sport Exerc 41: 709–731, 2009.
31. Stone, MH, Pierce, KC, Sands, WA, and Stone, ME. Weightlifting:
Program design. Strength Cond J 28: 10–17, 2006.
32. Swinton, PA, Lloyd, R, Agouris, I, and Stewart, A. Contemporary
training practices in elite British powerlifters: Survey results from an
international competition. J Strength Cond Res 23: 380–384, 2009.
33. Taylor, SR, Rogers, GG, and Driver, HS. Effects of training volume
on sleep, psychological, and selected physiological profiles of elite
female swimmers. Med Sci Sport Exerc 29: 688–693, 1997.
the TM
1196 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
34. Thomas, L and Busso, T. A theoretical study of taper characteristics
to optimize performance. Med Sci Sport Exerc 37: 1615–1621, 2005.
35. Tønnessen, E, Sylta, Ø, Haugen, TA, Hem, E, Svendsen, IS, and
Seiler, S. The road to gold: Training and peaking characteristics in
the year prior to a gold medal endurance performance. PLoS One 9:
e101796, 2014.
36. Trappe, S, Costill, D, and Thomas, R. Effect of swim taper on whole
muscle and single fiber contractile properties. Med Sci Sport Exerc 32:
48–56, 2001.
37. Weerapong, P, Hume, PA, and Kolt, GS. The mechanisms of
massage and effects on performance, muscle recovery and injury
prevention. Sports Med 35: 235–256, 2005.
38. Weiss, LW, Coney, HD, and Clark, FC. Optimal post-training
abstinence for maximal strength expression. Res Sports Med 11: 145–
155, 2003.
39. Weiss, LW, Wood, LE, Fry, AC, Kreider, RB, Relyea, GE, Bullen,
DB, and Grindstaff, PD. Strength/power augmentation subsequent
to short-term training abstinence. J Strength Cond Res 18: 765–770,
2004.
40. Wilson, JM and Wilson, GJ. A practical approach to the taper.
Strength Cond J 30: 10–17, 2008.
41. Winwood, PW, Hume, PA, Cronin, JB, and Keogh, JWL.
Retrospective injury epidemiology of strongman athletes. J Strength
Cond Res 28: 28–42, 2014.
42. Winwood, PW, Keogh, JWL, and Harris, NK. The strength and
conditioning practices of strongman competitors. J Strength Cond
Res 25: 3118–3128, 2011.
43. Winwood, PW, Pritchard, HJ, and Keogh, JW. Tapering practices of
strongman athletes: Test-retest reliability study. JMIR Res Protoc 6:
e211, 2017.