Original Research

Effect of Competition Frequency on Strength

Performance of Powerlifting Athletes
Joshua Pearson,1 Jemima G. Spathis,1 Daniel J. van den Hoek,1 Patrick J. Owen,2 Jonathon Weakley,1,3 and
Christopher Latella4,5
1
School of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Banyo, Queensland, Australia; 2School of Exercise and
Nutrition Science, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia; 3Carnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) Center, Institute for Sport,
Physical Activity and Leisure, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, United Kingdom; 4Center for Exercise and Sports Science Research
(CESSR), School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia; and
5
Neurophysiology Research Laboratory, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia

Abstract
Pearson, J, Spathis, JG, van den Hoek, DJ, Owen, PJ, Weakley, J, and Latella, C. Effect of competition frequency on strength
performance of powerlifting athletes. J Strength Cond Res 34(5): 1213–1219, 2020—Powerlifting (PL) requires athletes to achieve
the highest possible “total” weight lifted across squat, bench press, and deadlift. Athletes compete multiple times per year;
however, it is not well understood how often PL athletes should compete to facilitate maximal strength performance. This study
investigated the effect of competition frequency on strength (relative and absolute) in PL athletes over a 12-month period. Results
across all male (n 5 563, mean 6 SD; age; 28 6 10 years, body mass; 89.3 6 19.3 kg) and female (n 5 437, age; 31 6 11 years,
body mass; 70.1 6 15.8 kg) PL athletes were collated. Total competition scores were used to calculate absolute and relative
strength for each competition. Linear mixed models with random effects, and effect sizes 6 95% confidence intervals compared
competition frequency and total score for (a) all, (b) male, and (c) female competition entries, respectively. The association between
total score at each competition was assessed with Pearson’s correlation coefficient for the same independent variables. Results
demonstrate greater absolute strength at competition 2 for all athletes (5.1%: p 5 0.043: d 5 0.16) and males (2.9%: p 5 0.049: d 5
0.15). For females, absolute strength was greater at competition 5 compared to 1 (12.0%: p 5 0.001: d 5 0.65) and 2 (9.6%: p 5
0.007: d 5 0.50). Weak positive correlations for relative strength and number of times competed for males were evident between
competitions 1 to 4 (r2 5 0.070–0.085, p 5 0.003–0.043). For females, 3 competitions weakly correlated with absolute strength (r2
5 0.106, p 5 0.016). PL athletes who compete multiple times per year are more likely to achieve higher totals; however, there is an
upper limit to the number of competitions (4 per year) that seem to allow a performance increase.
Key Words: muscle strength, athletic performance, periodization, programming, sports

Introduction research can potentially explore several areas. These may include
training periodization literature and training intervention studies (to
Muscular strength is a fundamental component of athletic perfor-
inform training practice and peaking for competition), or use compe-
mance (13,38). This is especially true in the sport of powerlifting (PL)
tition data records to make informed choices regarding the potential
(22). PL consists of 3 competition lifts: the back squat, bench press, and
factors that contribute to successful planning and performance.
deadlift, with success determined by the ability to lift the greatest ex-
It is acknowledged that extensive research has investigated
ternal load in respective age and weight categories (15). PL is a highly
training practices and periodization in strength sports (e.g.,
technical individual sport with multiple opportunities for athletes to
weightlifting and PL) (for examples, see (12,20,28)). In particular,
compete in a calendar year. Unlike team sports, in which schedules are
research has shown that regular and continued exposure to spe-
typically defined by a set number of weekly rounds over a season, PL
cific and repeated training stimuli (22–34 months) elicits clear
competition entry is often dictated by the athlete and coach. In Aus-
improvements in competition performance (8). In PL, Allegretti
tralia, for example, during 2019, there were 76 PL competitions
et al. (3) demonstrated that powerlifters who completed a 16-
available (from a single federation) for athletes to compete in. A key
week block of PL specific periodized training improved their
challenge for PL coaches and athletes is to know how to select the
three-lift total by an average of 48%. Alternatively, Colquhoun
appropriate number and time between competitions to ensure they can
et al. (10) demonstrated smaller improvements of 9.2% over
optimally express the neuromuscular adaptations achieved during
a shorter nine-week intervention period. Thus, despite potential
periodized training. Moreover, consideration must also be given to
methodological and individual athlete differences between such
qualification totals required and participation at designated com-
studies, theoretically, a longer period between competitions
petitions to compete at national and international events. Thus,
should enable PL athletes to develop more strength during each
knowing how to maximize performance at various stages during
periodized training block. However, this has not been well
a competitive year is advantageous. To support these decisions,
established in a practical setting, nor is it clear if this is translated
Address correspondence to Dr. Christopher Latella, c.latella@ecu.edu.au. and reflected during competition.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 34(5)/1213–1219 Research has also used PL competition data to identify factors
ª 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association affecting strength performance (4,6,9,22,23,31). Specifically, PL

1213

Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Competition Frequency and Strength (2020) 34:5

athletes who are younger adults and lighter have greater strength- competition data at the time of membership. Athlete de-
to-weight ratios (22) and conversely, heavier athletes display mographics (individual athletes: n 5 1,000) for all 2017 compe-
greater absolute strength (18,22). Furthermore, research confirms tition entries (n 5 1728) are shown in Table 1. Male subjects had
that relative and absolute strength differences exist between males a mean age of 28 6 10 years and body mass of 89.3 6 19.3 kg.
and females (20). As such, these data allow inferences to be made Female competitors had a mean age of 31 6 11 years and body
about training and periodization, which has the potential to assist mass of 70.1 6 15.8 kg. Subject characteristics were measured
coaches and athletes to best prepare for competition. Moreover, mean 6 SD. Approximately 57% of competition entries were
the findings reported by Lovera and Keogh (25) could suggest that male. Given the retrospective design and public nature of the
leading into competition, athlete preparations should focus on competition results, an ethics waiver was granted by the Edith
maximal strength gain along with concurrent and favorable body Cowan University Human Research Ethics Committee (No.
composition changes (9) because bodyweight may be a differen- 21408).
tiating factor in success during close competition. This is often
achieved through hypertrophy and strength training phases, of
which the former has demonstrated an important role in PL Procedures
performance (2,7), and potentially a cutting phase to enable
athletes to be leaner and at the upper end of their competitive To be included within the study, athletes must have competed at
weight class (19). least once during the 2017 calendar year at a “raw” PL Australia
To the best of our knowledge, the effect of PL competition sanctioned event. “Total” competition scores for each athlete
frequency (participated in per year) on strength performance is
yet to be investigated. As described, the time between com-
petitions is inextricably linked to competition scheduling and the Table 1
coach/athlete decision to compete. In addition, the number of Demographics of 1728 total competition entries among 1,000
athletes who compete multiple times per year is not known. individual athletes.*†
Moreover, subsequent periodization strategies are largely based Total Male Female
on evidence from controlled research studies investigating phys- Variable (n 5 1728) (n 5 978) (n 5 750)
iological and predicted strength adaptations over time Age, year 30 (10) 28 (10) 31 (11)
(24,27–29,33,36,40); however, they may not directly reflect Body mass, kg 81.0 (20.3) 89.3 (19.3) 70.1 (15.8)
a real-world competition setting. Therefore, the extrapolation of Body weight class, n (%)
retrospective competition data has the potential to provide useful 47 kg 23 (1.3) — 23 (3.1)
information for strength and conditioning professionals and PL 52 kg 48 (2.8) — 48 (6.4)
athletes alike. Specifically, understanding the effect of multiple 57 kg 94 (5.4) — 94 (12.5)
competitions in a calendar year on maximal strength performance 63 kg 152 (8.8) — 152 (20.3)
72 kg 199 (11.5) — 199 (26.5)
for both male and female PL athletes may allow for the more
84 kg 137 (7.9) — 137 (18.3)
appropriate planning and implementation of periodized training
84 kg1 97 (5.6) — 97 (12.9)
strategies to optimize maximal strength development and ex- 59 kg 26 (1.5) 26 (2.7) —
pression during competition. 66 kg 61 (3.5) 61 (6.2) —
The aim of this investigation is to evaluate the relationship be- 74 kg 139 (8.0) 139 (14.2) —
tween strength and competition frequency in male and female PL 83 kg 226 (13.1) 226 (23.1) —
athletes. Specifically, we aim to analyze absolute and relative strength 93 kg 250 (14.5) 250 (25.6) —
in PL athletes over a competitive calendar year. Based on the prior 105 kg 152 (8.8) 152 (15.5) —
evidence already discussed, we hypothesize that strength perfor- 120 kg 76 (4.4) 76 (7.8) —
mance, both relative and absolute, will improve when competing in 120 kg1 48 (2.8) 48 (4.9) —
Competitions, n (%)
multiple competitions per year but it is unclear whether this will be
One 1,000 (57.9) 560 (57.3) 440 (58.7)
similar for males and females, or whether participation rates decline.
Two 514 (29.8) 311 (31.8) 203 (27.1)
We also hypothesize an upper limit, whereby a continued increase in Three 156 (9.0) 81 (8.3) 75 (10.0)
competition participation and subsequent decrease in time between Four 45 (2.6) 22 (2.3) 23 (3.1)
events becomes detrimental to maximal strength. The findings are Five 11 (0.6) 4 (0.4) 7 (0.9)
intended to provide information for coaches, strength and condi- Six 2 (0.1) 0 (0.0) 2 (0.3)
tioning professionals, and competitive strength athletes. Total score, kg
Competition 1 442 (150) 547 (110) 308 (62)
Competition 2 465 (156) 563 (115) 316 (65)
Methods Competition 3 455 (148) 575 (91) 327 (68)
Competition 4 441 (169) 580 (128) 309 (64)
Experimental Approach to the Problem Competition 5 411 (107) 520 (80) 348 (59)
Competition 6 276 (140) — 276 (140)
PL competition records were collated from January 1st, 2017, to
Time between competition, days
December 31st, 2017. Data were extracted from the publicly avail-
All 61 (86) 65 (89) 55 (81)
able PL Australia database: www.powerliftingaustralia.com. Competition 1–2 165 (74) 171 (72) 155 (76)
Competition 2–3 107 (49) 105 (48) 109 (50)
Competition 3–4 62 (29) 61 (30) 64 (29)
Subjects Competition 4–5 43 (25) 38 (40) 46 (15)
Data were collated from male and female competitors registered Competition 5–6 31 (6) — 31 (6)
and competing in raw competitions with PL Australia during *n 5 number.
2017. All individuals/parents/guardians consented to the use of †Data are presented as mean (SD) or number (percentage).

1214

Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Competition Frequency and Strength (2020) 34:5
were extracted from official competition results, where “total”
score is the cumulative score of the best successful lift in kilograms
from all 3 disciplines: squat, bench press, and deadlift at each
competition. These data do not include results from single lift
events, athletes who were disqualified, or failed to record a suc-
cessful cumulative total score during competition.
Statistical Analyses
All analyses were conducted using Stata statistical software ver-
sion 16 (College Station, TX). Independent t-tests were used to
compare demographical data between sexes with Cohen’s d effect
sizes and the lower and upper 95% confidence interval (d [95%
CI]) also reported. Linear mixed models with random effects were
used to evaluate differences between competition frequency and
total score (absolute [kg] and relative to body weight [kg/bw]) for
(a) all, (b) male, and (c) female competition entries, respectively.
The strength and direction of association between total score at
each competition was also assessed with Pearson’s correlation
coefficient (r2) for (a) all, (b) male, and (c) female competition
entries, respectively. An alpha level of p # 0.05 for all statistical
tests and standard interpretation of Cohen’s d effect size (small
d $ 0.2 # 0.50, medium d $ 0.5 # 0.80, and large d $ 0.8) was
adopted.
Results
Athlete Demographics
When compared with females, mean male competition entries
were aged 3 years younger (t 5 5.54, p , 0.001, d 5 0.27
[0.17–0.37]) and had 24% greater body mass (t 5 22.15, p ,
0.001, d 5 1.10 [0.97–1.18]). Absolute strength across all com-
petition entries was greater (t 5 53.54, p , 0.001, d 5 2.60
[2.47–2.73]) for males (555 6 111 kg) compared with females
(312 6 64 kg). Relative strength across all competition entries
was greater (t 5 31.58, p , 0.001, d 5 1.53 [1.42–1.64]) for
males (6.33 6 1.20 kg·bw21) compared with females (4.59 6
1.06 kg·bw21).
Number of Competitions and Performance
All Competitors. When compared with competition 1, absolute
strength was 5.1% greater at competition 2 (t 5 2.02, p 5 0.043,
d 5 0.16 [0.05–0.26]). When compared with competition 2, ab-
solute strength was 2.2% lower at competition 3 (t 5 22.26, p 5
0.030, d 5 20.06 [20.24 to 0.11]). When compared with
Figure 1. Absolute strength at each competition for (A) all, (B) male, and (C) female competition entries, respectively. Letters
indicate significance (p , 0.05); a: compared with competition 1, b: compared with competition 2, c: compared with
competition 3, d: compared with competition 4, e: compared with competition 5.
1215
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
| www.nsca.com
competition 3, absolute strength was 3.1% lower at competition
4 (t 5 22.10, p 5 0.036, d 5 20.09 [20.43 to 0.24]). Absolute
strength at competition 6 was lower than competition 1 (46%; t 5
22.69, p 5 0.007, d 5 21.10 [22.49 to 20.29]), 2 (51%; t 5
23.32, p 5 0.001, d 5 21.21 [22.60 to 0.18]), 3 (49%; t 5
245.14, p , 0.001, d 5 21.21 [22.61 to 0.19]), 4 (46%; t 5
212.18, p , 0.001, d 5 20.98 [22.40 to 0.46]), and 5 (39%; t 5
216.80, p , 0.001, d 5 21.21 [22.78 to 0.40]) (Figure 1A).
When compared with competition 1, relative strength was 4.5%
greater at both competition 2 (t 5 5.34, p , 0.001, d 5 0.16 [0.05
to 0.26]) and 3 (t 5 3.19, p 5 0.001, d 5 0.09 [0.08 to 0.26]) and
4.6% greater at competition 5 (t 5 2.35, p 5 0.019, d 5 0.21
[20.39 to 0.80]). Relative strength at competition 6 was lower
than at competition 1 (21%; t 5 27.33, p , 0.001, d 5 21.10
[22.50 to 0.29]), 2 (26%; t 5 213.41, p , 0.001, d 5 21.21
[22.60 to 0.18]), 3 (26%; t 5 25.40, p , 0.001, d 5 21.21
[22.61 to 0.19]), 4 (27%; t 5 23.01, p 5 0.003, d 5 20.98
[22.40 to 0.46]), and 5 (26%; t 5 23.66, p , 0.001, d 5 21.21
[22.78 to 0.40]) (Figure 2A).
Males. When compared with competition one, absolute strength
was 2.9% greater at competition 2 (t 5 1.97, p 5 0.049, d 5 0.15
[0.01–0.28]). When compared with competition 3, absolute
strength was 10.0% lower at competition 5 (t 5 22.20, p 5
0.027, d 5 20.60 [21.61 to 0.41]). No other differences were
observed between competition frequencies (Figure 1B). When
compared with competition 1, relative strength was 2.7% greater
at competition 2 (t 5 3.66, p , 0.001, d 5 0.16 [0.05–0.26]) and
5.9% greater at competition 3 (t 5 2.34, p 5 0.019, d 5 0.09
[0.08–0.26]) (Figure 2B).
Females. When compared with competition 1, absolute strength
was 12% greater at competition 5 (t 5 3.26, p 5 0.001, d 5 0.65
[20.10 to 1.40]). When compared with competition 2, absolute
strength was 9.6% greater at competition 5 (t 5 2.70, p 5 0.007,
d 5 0.50 [20.26 to 1.25]). Absolute strength at competition 6
was lower than at competition 1 (11%; t 5 22.71, p 5 0.007, d 5
20.51 [21.90 to 0.88]), 2 (14%; t 5 23.33, p 5 0.001, d 5
20.60 [22.00 to 0.79]), 3 (17%; t 5 245.13, p , 0.001, d 5
20.73 [22.13 to 0.69]), 4 (11%; t 5 212.18, p , 0.001, d 5
20.47 [21.92 to 0.98]), and 5 (23%; t 5 216.83, p , 0.001, d 5
20.95 [22.56 to 0.73]) (Figure 1C). When compared with
competition 1, relative strength was greater at competition 2
(3.7%; t 5 3.46, p 5 0.001, d 5 0.16 [20.05 to 0.26]), 3 (5.4%;
t 5 2.94, p 5 0.003, d 5 0.09 [0.08–0.26]), and 5 (18%; t 5 3.15,
p 5 0.002, d 5 0.21 [20.39 to 0.80]). Relative strength at
competition 5 was also greater than at competition 2 (14%;
 Competition Frequency and Strength (2020) 34:5

Figure 2. Relative strength at each competition for (A) all, (B) male, and (C) female competition entries, respectively. Letters
indicate significance (p , 0.05); a: compared with competition 1, b: compared with competition 2, c: compared with
competition 3, d: compared with competition 4.

t 5 2.74, p 5 0.006, d 5 0.35 [20.24 to 0.95]), 3 (13%; t 5 2.16,
p 5 0.030, d 5 0.31 [20.30 to 0.92]), and 4 (15%; t 5 2.39, p 5
0.017, d 5 0.19 [20.47 to 0.85]). Relative strength at competi-
tion 6 was lower than at competition 1 (2.0%; t 5 27.29, p ,
0.001, d 5 21.10 [22.49 to 0.29]), 2 (5.7%; t 5 13.39, p ,
0.001, d 5 21.21 [22.60 to 0.18]), 3 (7.4%; t 5 25.31, p ,
0.001, d 5 21.21 [22.61 to 0.19]), 4 (5.3%; t 5 22.93, p 5
0.003, d 5 20.98 [22.40 to 0.46]), and 5 (20%; t 5 23.64, p ,
0.001, d 5 21.21 [22.78 to 0.40]) (Figure 2C).
2
Correlations. Correlations (r value) between absolute and relative
strength at each competition are shown in Tables 2 and 3, re-
spectively. Briefly, among all competition entries, relative strength
at both competition 2 (p 5 0.001) and 3 (p 5 0.042) weakly
positively correlated with competition 1. Among male competition
entries, relative strength at competition 2 (p 5 0.043), 3 (p 5
0.007), and 4 (p 5 0.003) weakly positively correlated with com-
petition 1. Relative strength at competition 4 also weakly positively
correlated with competition 2 (p 5 0.017). Among female com-
petition entries, only relative strength at competition 5 weakly
positively correlated with competition 1 (p 5 0.022).
Discussion
The aim of this study was to examine the difference and re-
lationship between multiple competition bouts within a calendar
year and competition total performance (relative and absolute) in
male and female PL athletes. Collectively, the results suggest that

Table 2
Correlations between absolute total score at each competition among all (n 5 1728), male (n 5 978), and female (n 5 750) competition
entries.*
Correlation for competition:
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Absolute strength—competition 1 —
All
Male
Female
2. Absolute strength—competition 2
All 0.073† —
Male 0.070‡
Female 0.058
3. Absolute strength—competition 3
All 0.032 20.027 —
Male 0.085‡ 0.042
Female 0.106‡ 0.075
4. Absolute strength—competition 4
All 20.001 20.042 20.039 —
Male 0.056† 0.035 0.020
Female 0.003 20.032 20.114
5. Absolute strength—competition 5
All 20.022 20.051 20.077 20.077 —
Male 20.020 20.042 20.128 20.178
Female 0.081 0.090 0.088 0.263
6. Absolute strength—competition 6
All 20.049 20.075 20.135 20.198 20.430 —
Male — — — — —
Female 20.034 20.060 20.116 20.132 20.408
*Data are Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r2).
†p , 0.01.
‡p , 0.05.

1216

Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Competition Frequency and Strength (2020) 34:5 | www.nsca.com

Table 3
Correlations between relative total score at each competition among all (n 5 1728), male (n 5 978), and female (n 5 750) competition
entries.*
Correlation for competition:
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Relative strength—competition 1 —
All
Male
Female
2. Relative strength—competition 2
All 0.082† —
Male 0.069‡
Female 0.074
3. Relative strength—competition 3
All 0.060‡ 0.001 —
Male 0.106† 0.076
Female 0.085 0.034
4. Relative strength—competition 4
All 0.047 0.017 0.023 —
Male 0.123† 0.131‡ 0.125
Female 0.030 20.007 20.042
5. Relative strength—competition 5
All 0.019 0.001 0.002 20.097 —
Male 0.005 20.010 20.053 20.169
Female 0.108‡ 0.120 0.166 20.287
6. Relative strength—competition 6
All 20.033 20.058 20.097 20.158 20.336 —
Male — — — — —
Female 20.006 20.023 20.049 20.055 20.337
*Data are Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r2).
†p , 0.01.
‡p , 0.05.

multiple competitions may be beneficial for absolute and relative
totals. Specifically, our research suggests that 2, and up to 5,
competitions in a calendar year support absolute strength gains in
males and females, respectively, with relative strength for the
most part following a similar trend. These findings are expected to
help inform strength and conditioning practice by assisting the
strategic planning of training blocks and competition in PL ath-
letes and other strength sports.
Overall, our analysis demonstrated that PL performance
improves significantly in athletes who undertake multiple com-
petitions during a calendar year. Although there are many factors
that may contribute to this finding, evidence from other sports also
suggests that more frequent competition has a positive influence on
performance (8). One possibility is that more frequent exposure to
competition improves competition specific performance (e.g.,
psychological factors, competition strategies, and technical skill
performance). In particular, athletes in individual sports are more
prone to competition anxiety compared with team sports (11), and
this has been negatively associated with performance in PL athletes
(16). In addition, more frequent competition often involves more
frequent training tapers, which are considered effective to enhance
maximal strength in subsequent weeks through a reduction in
physiological and psychological fatigue (30,32). Thus, using mul-
tiple training tapers at the end of structured periodized programs or
increased practice of judged lifts in a competition setting may be
contributing factors to the improvements reported. However, the
current analysis also highlights that there is an upper limit to the
number of competitions undertaken and subsequent increases in
the performance of powerlifters. Specifically, performing more
than 2 competitions in a calendar year did not translate to greater
absolute performance for males, although relative performance still
improved when up to 3 competitions were participated in. Con-
versely, females who competed 2 or 5 times per year displayed the
greatest absolute and relative performance during competition (see
results section). This supports our original hypothesis that there is
an upper limit to the number of competitions that should be par-
ticipated in each year before performance stagnation or decrement
is noted, but this negative effect is more pronounced in males.
Although sex differences cannot be easily explained in this in-
vestigation, multiple non–gender-based factors should be consid-
ered in the interpretation of the overall findings. For example,
consideration should be given to the decrease in time between
competitions with increased frequency. For example, the average
time between the fourth and fifth competitions was 38 and 46 days
for males and females, respectively. This is in comparison to 165
and 107 days between competition one-two and two-three for all
athletes, respectively. Although there remains conjecture over the
most appropriate periodization method for strength development
(24,27,36), various authors agree that appropriate training block
lengths are required to significantly improve muscular strength
(3,10,28,29,33,40). Hence, we suggest that training phase duration
in conjunction with the current findings warrants consideration
when programming for strength sports, including competition
planning and preparation.
Of further interest is the decline in participation rates for
multiple competitions. Only 44% of athletes participated in
a second competition during the calendar year. This declined
further for subsequent competitions. Although no subjective data
were available, this high rate of attrition could also be, at least
partly, explained by several factors. From a logistical perspective,
the number of competitions available in a geographical region
may limit the realistic maximal number of competitions available

1217

Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Competition Frequency and Strength (2020) 34:5
for participation. This may be especially true in remote areas due
to travel requirements and accessibility. Another hypothesis
suggests that athletes from alternate sports use PL training and
competitions as secondary training opportunities (39). More
specifically, a wide variety of strength- and power-based sports
incorporate PL style training within their programs (35), which is
not surprising, given the importance of muscular strength in
athletic performance (33). In support, Swinton et al. (39) noted
that American football players partake in PL-style training pro-
grams during the preseason to improve various field-test meas-
ures. In addition, it is also important to consider that engaging in
more frequent training and competition may lead to physical and
mental fatigue, and burnout or injury, resulting in decreased
strength and power (5,21). This concern is made evident with
several studies (1,5,17,34) and recently published injury rates by
Strömbäck et al. (37) demonstrating a high prevalence in PL.
Specifically, 87% of athletes were reported as having experienced
some form of injury in the 12 months before, with 70% consid-
ered injured at the time of the study. Thus, further research may
also be required to specifically understand the poor adherence
rate to PL competition, identification of possible barriers to
competition, and how these affect strength development.
Based on the findings of this investigation, we suggest that future
research should also seek to identify intrinsic and subjective factors
that most strongly relate to positive strength performance (14,26).
This would likely aid professionals and athletes in designing com-
prehensive and appropriate periodized training and competition
strategies with multiple peaks across the year. This has potential to
be applied in a variety of strength-related sports with consideration
given to both physiological and psychological factors. As high-
lighted, there are likely to be a myriad of factors that affect repeated
competition participation during a calendar year. Thus, we also
suggest that investigation into the relationship and effects of com-
petition frequency over longer durations is warranted. In particular,
it was not possible in this study to control for competitions that
occurred in close proximity to, but not within the data analysis
period, and so the effects of these competitions cannot be ruled out
entirely. In addition, we cannot completely rule out that some ath-
letes may have also competed in equipped or single-lift events (not
included), or at different levels of competition (i.e., local, national,
or international) during the analysis period and so it is difficult to
ascertain if this had any meaningful impact on the findings. Finally,
longer-term analyses may aid in accounting for athletes who may
have experienced injury, or whose training plans aim for long-terms
peaks outside of the immediate calendar year.
Practical Applications
Collectively, the evidence suggests that PL athletes improve
absolute and relative performance when partaking in multiple
competitions within a calendar year and that this amount may
differ for males and females. Thus, training phase durations of
appropriate length that carefully consider competition tem-
porality may be most appropriate. This information is inten-
ded to help inform training practice and strategic competition
planning to make informed choices about the number of
competitions undertaken. It is expected that coaches and
strength and conditioning professionals will be able to better
implement periodized training blocks and thus maximize
strength performance during a competitive year for PL ath-
letes and this may also extend to other strength-related sports.
1218
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
References
1. Aasa U, Svartholm I, Andersson F, Berglund L. Injuries among weight-
lifters and powerlifters: A systematic review. Br J Sports Med 51: 211–219,
2017.
2. Akagi R, Tohdoh Y, Hirayama K, Kobayashi Y. Relationship of pectoralis
major muscle size with bench press and bench throw performances.
J Strength Cond Res 28: 1778–1782, 2014.
3. Allegretti João G, Lopes Evangelista A, Gomes JH, et al. Effect of 16 weeks
of periodized resistance training on strength gains of powerlifting athletes.
J Exerc Physiol 17, 2014.
4. Ball R, Weidman D. Analysis of USA powerlifting federation data from
January 1, 2012–June 11, 2016. J Strength Cond Res 32: 1843–1851, 2018.
5. Bengtsson V, Berglund L, Aasa U. Narrative review of injuries in power-
lifting with special reference to their association to the squat, bench press
and deadlift. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med 4: e000382, 2018.
6. Bishop PA, Williams TD, Heldman AN, Vanderburgh PM. System for
evaluating powerlifting and other multievent performances. J Strength
Cond Res 32: 201–204, 2018.
7. Brechue WF, Abe T. The role of FFM accumulation and skeletal muscle archi-
tecture in powerlifting performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 86: 327–336, 2002.
8. Byrd R, Pierce K, Rielly L, Brady J. Strength conditioning. Sport Biomech
2: 133–140, 2003.
9. Coker NA, Varanoske AN, Baker KM, Hahs-Vaughn DL, Wells AJ.
Predictors of competitive success of national-level powerlifters: A multi-
level analysis. Int J Perf Analys Sport 18: 796–805, 2018.
10. Colquhoun RJ, Gai CM, Walters J, et al. Comparison of powerlifting
performance in trained men using traditional and flexible daily undulating
periodization. J Strength Cond Res 31: 283–291, 2017.
11. Dowd R, Innes JM. Sport and personality: Effects of type of sport and level
of competition. Percept Mot Skill 53: 79–89, 1981.
12. Ferland P-M, Comtois AS. Classic powerlifting performance: A systematic
review. J Strength Cond Res 33: S194–S201, 2019.
13. Granacher U, Lesinski M, Büsch D, et al. Effects of resistance training
in youth athletes on muscular fitness and athletic performance: A
conceptual model for long-term athlete development. Front Physiol 7:
164, 2016.
14. Han DH, Kim JH, Lee YS, et al. Influence of temperament and anxiety on
athletic performance. J Sport Sci Med 5: 381, 2006.
15. International Powerlifting Federation. Technical Rules Book. 2016.
Available at: http://www.powerlifting-ipf.com/fileadmin/ipf/data/rules/
technical-rules/english/IPF_Technical_Rules_Book_2016__1_.pdf. Accessed
October 20, 2018.
16. Judge LW, Urbina LJ, Hoover DL, et al. The impact of competitive trait
anxiety on collegiate powerlifting performance. J Strength Cond Res 30:
2399–2405, 2016.
17. Keogh JW, Hume PA, Pearson S. Retrospective injury epidemiology of one
hundred one competitive oceania power lifters: The effects of age, body mass,
competitive standard, and gender. J Strength Cond Res 20: 672, 2006.
18. Keogh JW, Hume PA, Pearson SN, Mellow P. Anthropometric dimensions of
male powerlifters of varying body mass. J Sport Sci 25: 1365–1376, 2007.
19. Keogh JW, Hume PA, Pearson SN, Mellow PJ. Can absolute and pro-
portional anthropometric characteristics distinguish stronger and weaker
powerlifters? J Strength Cond Res 23: 2256–2265, 2009.
20. Knapik JJ, Harman EA, Steelman RA, Graham BS. A systematic review of
the effects of physical training on load carriage performance. J Strength
Cond Res 26: 585–597, 2012.
21. Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA. Fundamentals of resistance training: Pro-
gression and exercise prescription. Med Sci Sport Exerc 36: 674–688,
2004.
22. Latella C, van den Hoek DJ, Teo WP. Factors affecting powerlifting
performance: An analysis of age-and weight-based determinants of rela-
tive strength. Int J Perf Analys Sport 18: 532–544, 2018.
23. Latella C, van den Hoek DJ, Teo WP. Differences in strength performance
between novice and elite athletes: Evidence from powerlifters. J Strength
Cond Res 33(Suppl 1):S103–S112, 2018.
24. Lorenz D, Morrison S. Current concepts in periodization of strength and
conditioning for the sports physical therapist. Int J Sport Phys Ther 10:
734, 2015.
25. Lovera M, Keogh JW. Anthropometric profile of powerlifters: Differences
as a function of bodyweight class and competitive success. J Sport Med
Phys Fit 55: 478–487, 2015.
26. Malcata RM, Hopkins WG. Variability of competitive performance of elite
athletes: A systematic review. Sports Med 44: 1763–1774, 2014.
27. Painter KB, Haff GG, Ramsey MW, et al. Strength gains: Block versus
daily undulating periodization weight training among track and field
athletes. Int J Sport Physiol Perf 7: 161–169, 2012.
 Competition Frequency and Strength (2020) 34:5
28. Peterson MD, Rhea MR, Alvar BA. Maximizing strength development in
athletes: A meta-analysis to determine the dose-response relationship.
J Strength Cond Res 18: 377–382, 2004.
29. Peterson MD, Rhea MR, Alvar BA. Applications of the dose-response for
muscular strength development: A review of meta-analytic efficacy and
reliability for designing training prescription. J Strength Cond Res 19:
950–958, 2005.
30. Pritchard H, Keogh JW, Barnes M, McGuigan M. Effects and mechanisms
of tapering in maximizing muscular strength. Strength Cond J 37: 72–83,
2015.
31. Pritchard HJ, Morton RH. Powerlifting: Success and failure at the 2012
Oceania and 2013 classic world championships. J Aus Strength Cond 23:
67–70, 2015.
32. Pritchard HJ, Tod DA, Barnes MJ, Keogh JW, McGuigan MR. Tapering
practices of New Zealand’s elite raw powerlifters. J Strength Cond Res 30:
1796–1804, 2016.
33. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Strength and hypertrophy
adaptations between low- vs. high-load resistance training: A systematic
review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 31: 3508–3523, 2017.
1219
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
| www.nsca.com
34. Siewe J, Rudat J, Röllinghoff M, et al. Injuries and overuse syndromes in
powerlifting. Int J Sport Med 32: 703–711, 2011.
35. Slater G, Phillips, SM. Nutrition guidelines for strength sports: sprinting,
weightlifting, throwing events, and bodybuilding. In: Food, Nutrition and
Sports Performance III. Abingdon-on-Thames, Routledge, 2013. pp.
75–86.
36. Stone M, O’Bryant H, Schilling B, et al. Periodization: Effects of manip-
ulating volume and intensity. Part 2. Strength Cond J 21: 54, 1999.
37. Strömbäck E, Aasa U, Gilenstam K, Berglund L. Prevalence and con-
sequences of injuries in powerlifting: A cross-sectional study. Ortho J
Sport Med 6: 2325967118771016, 2018.
38. Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, Stone MH. The importance of muscular
strength in athletic performance. Sports Med 46: 1419–1449, 2016.
39. Swinton PA, Lloyd R, Agouris I, Stewart A. Contemporary training
practices in elite British powerlifters: Survey results from an international
competition. J Sport Cond Res 23: 380–384, 2009.
40. Williams TD, Tolusso DV, Fedewa MV, Esco MR. Comparison of per-
iodized and non-periodized resistance training on maximal strength: A
meta-analysis. Sports Med 47: 2083–2100, 2017.