THE BRAIN LEARNS TO LIFT: THE SCIENCE OF MOTOR SKILL ACQUISITION IN STRONGMAN | Episode 9: Technical Execution Under Fatigue: Motor Control and Cognitive Resources

Technical Execution Under Fatigue: Motor Control and Cognitive Resources

An athlete begins an Atlas stone series with fluent movement and reaches the final stone breathing heavily, with tired forearms and increasingly slow transitions. Has technique deteriorated? Possibly, but the image alone does not identify the mechanism. The last stone may be heavier, have a different diameter, or follow effort that temporarily reduced force capacity. Fatigue is an umbrella term for changes in performance capability and psychophysiological state, not a single signal emitted by the brain. Motor control must operate under changing constraints: muscles less capable of generating force, altered tactile information, difficult breathing, and attention occupied by effort. The central question is not whether 'fatigue ruins technique,' but when and through which pathways it changes execution, which compensations remain functional, and when they become hazardous. We distinguish transient within-session performance decline from durable learning because an unsuccessful tired attempt does not automatically establish that a skill has been lost [1–3].

Neuromuscular fatigue is commonly operationalized as a reduction in the ability to produce force or power, with possible central and peripheral contributions. Peripheral factors may involve changes in excitability and contraction mechanisms; central factors may involve altered voluntary activation and motor command processes. These analytical categories cannot be diagnosed visually from one missed log. An athlete failing a push press may have inadequate force reserve that day, an unsuitable strategy, or an implement with unfamiliar inertia. 'Central nervous system exhaustion' should not be used as a complete explanation without relevant measures. Exercise physiology distinguishes changes in force capacity from perceived effort. A person can experience severe exertion without every component of performance being equally impaired. For coaching, assessment begins with load, observed speed, technical consistency, and the broader state, not improvised neurophysiological diagnoses [2,4].

Mental or cognitive fatigue differs from local muscular fatigue. Experimental studies often induce it through demanding cognitive tasks involving inhibition or sustained attention, then assess physical exercise performance. The condition can involve perceived mental exhaustion, greater effort, and poorer cognitive performance. This does not mean every day of intellectual work automatically causes a meaningful gym deficit; task intensity, duration, and individual characteristics matter. Inadequate sleep, emotional stress, and experimentally induced cognitive fatigue are not interchangeable constructs. When an athlete says they feel mentally drained, the report matters, but it does not determine precisely how many repetitions will be lost or how many seconds slower the yoke will be. Research can estimate average effects under defined conditions. Individual programming needs repeated observations from the actual athlete [3,5].

Metabolic fatigue, breathing discomfort, and cardiovascular demands can alter a task temporarily without affecting all skills in the same way. During a long sandbag carry, increased ventilation may make anterior support more difficult, prompting a change in stepping rhythm. A single maximal deadlift has a different time course and force demand from a multi-event circuit. Identical testing protocols would not suit both. Higher heart rate after a carry is not direct evidence of coordination loss, and a lower heart rate does not establish technical safety. Relevant indicators concern the actual goal: secure contact, transition duration, uninterrupted locomotion, and implement control. Fatigue matters insofar as it changes these relationships, not merely because the athlete is breathing hard [1,2].

Acute fatigue within a session differs from incomplete recovery between days. An athlete performing yoke after hard leg training may move differently than during a fresh morning session. This comparison does not establish that one pattern is permanently superior; initial states differ. Inadequate recovery across several demanding days may affect performance even before the first repetition. This must be distinguished from ordinary day-to-day variation and changes in loading. A log can record sleep, perceived effort, implement mass, and preceding sessions, but no single marker provides a complete diagnosis. Responsible coaches combine signals and examine trends rather than label every missed attempt 'overtraining.' The clinical concept of overtraining syndrome has much stricter requirements than one disappointing session [2,4].

Technique changes under fatigue are not always errors. When loads become harder to control, an athlete may shorten strides, alter pacing, or redistribute segment contributions to keep equipment stable. Some changes can be functional compensation; others may shift demands toward less tolerant tissues or increase the risk of losing control. The distinction cannot be determined merely from similarity to an 'ideal' movement filmed at the start. The relevant questions are whether the goal remains repeatably achievable, whether a reasonable safety margin persists, and whether warning signs of instability are recognized. Different trunk orientation under fatigue does not automatically predict injury, but repeated grip loss beneath a heavy stone justifies reducing difficulty or stopping. Functional variability must be applied precisely rather than used to excuse uncontrolled movement [1,6].

What evidence shows about muscular fatigue, cognitive fatigue, and learning

An important reason to distinguish fatigue mechanisms comes from a 2026 systematic review of neuromuscular, cardiovascular, and cognitive fatigue in motor learning. It included thirty-eight papers and forty-three experiments. During acquisition, twenty-eight experiments reported detrimental effects, four beneficial effects, seven neutral findings, and four mixed or inconclusive outcomes. This distribution does not imply that fatigue invariably destroys learning; effects depend on the fatigue type, task, and stage of skill acquisition. Local neuromuscular fatigue was more often associated with difficulty during acquisition, while cardiovascular exertion produced more nuanced results after acute fatigue had partly subsided. Retention findings varied, and studies including neurophysiological measures were rare, limiting explanations about specific circuits. For strongman, the review supports caution when teaching wholly unfamiliar technique after exhausting work, but it does not demonstrate that every technical session must begin in absolute rest. Task control and context remain decisive [1].

A 2026 meta-analysis of mental fatigue and resistance exercise pooled eleven randomized trials, fourteen comparisons, and more than 205 participants. The mean effect on exercise volume after cognitively demanding tasks was negative, with Hedges' g around −0.39. Subgroup analyses suggested larger impairments for multi-joint exercises and high workload, but certainty under GRADE was low and samples were small. This cannot be translated directly into a fixed kilogram loss in deadlift or a percentage drop in log strength. Many interventions used laboratory cognitive tasks unlike an ordinary day at work, and the primary outcome was exercise volume rather than coordination of a competition implement. The results nevertheless make it plausible that intense cognitive demands before a session may reduce some resistance-exercise outcomes. Coaches can monitor individual responses and adapt difficulty without assuming an identical effect on every occasion [3].

Another 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis examined sport-specific reaction time, technical performance, and decision making after mentally fatiguing tasks. Nineteen study records contributed twenty results to the primary analyses, with average decrements reported across these domains. Heterogeneity for technical outcomes was very high, highlighting substantial differences between tasks. Decision-making outcomes were more consistent statistically, yet the sports studied do not justify asserting that a strongman will inevitably make a wrong decision after cognitive work. Choosing whether to stop a slipping stone, adjust yoke pace, or manage a timed event involves different constraints from a rapid-stimulus test. The literature supports concern for decision quality, not precise prediction of an accident. Reducing unnecessary distraction may be reasonable, but it cannot substitute for clear safety procedures and event-specific assessment [5].

In strongman, limited capacity must be distinguished from deteriorated organization. When force-production capacity falls, lift speed may decrease while the movement sequence remains appropriate. If grip begins failing or phase order changes, additional control problems may appear. These processes can overlap. An overall completion time cannot distinguish a slower but stable athlete from one who oscillates, stops, and recovers through risky accelerations. Phase-level analysis and contact observation are more informative. Worse results may reflect heavier loading, new geometry, or fatigue, so comparisons must control these differences. A missed record after a demanding day is not by itself evidence that 'technique broke down.' Efficiency, safety, and adaptability are distinct dimensions even when they influence the same final result [1,2,6].

Motor variability under fatigue may increase or reorganize depending on the task. One athlete may walk with less consistent steps while keeping a carry securely against the torso; another may maintain constant rhythm while gradually losing grip. Without defining the functional variable, saying 'variability increased' does not establish whether technique became better or more dangerous. Some deviations may be useful compensation, while others reflect instability. Research should compare joint variation with implement outcomes in suitably controlled conditions. Two images from a heavy set cannot diagnose missing neural synergies. Coaches are better served by observable consequences: slipping contact, unexpected stops, trajectories that change event validity, and inability to repeat a controlled solution. Movement changes should be evaluated by their consequences rather than appearance [1,6].

Discussing cognitive resources does not mean attention can be read directly from facial expression or movement speed. An athlete looking down during a carry may be monitoring foot placement, responding to the equipment, or experiencing fatigue. Interpretation requires additional task and decision information. Mental-fatigue research uses cognitive performance tests, self-reports, and effort measures, each with limitations. Greater perceived effort after a demanding cognitive task does not demonstrate that a fixed number of neurons became unavailable for motor control. Metaphors about an 'empty brain battery' are intuitive but scientifically insufficient. A professional account proposes testable hypotheses about attention and perceived effort without inventing precise mechanisms. In the strongman gym, the practical question is whether relevant information is still detected and safe decisions remain possible at that intensity [3,5].

How fatigue may manifest in strongman events

Atlas Stone series often increase implement load from one object to the next, so technical changes may reflect mass, diameter, and accumulated effort together. A 2021 kinematic study of twenty athletes described changes in phase durations and joint movements while progressively heavier stones were used. It could not isolate fatigue as the specific cause. Delayed lap transitions should therefore not automatically be blamed on lack of concentration or 'nervous system exhaustion.' The new stone may require different contact. To assess fatigue, comparable trials can use the same manageable stone with documented pauses, tracking hand repositioning and continuity of control. Such an assessment is exploratory, not a standardized neurological fatigue test. Repeated slipping or inability to stabilize the implement justifies changing or ending the task rather than completing a predetermined volume at any cost [7].

In Log Clean and Press, fatigue may affect the clean and overhead movement separately. An athlete may still transfer the cylinder into the rack but lack adequate overhead velocity. Another may possess pressing strength yet spend excessive time manipulating the log. Total repetition time does not identify which phase is limiting. Comparable side-view recordings can help locate increasing clean duration, implement drift, or a lengthening rack pause. Video cannot directly determine neural activation or individual muscle force. During repeated efforts, loss of cylinder control can precede an outright missed lift. Athletes should understand that a valid repetition is not the sole criterion for continuing. If secure contact cannot be anticipated or balance is lost, reducing load is responsible. No research establishes a universal repetition threshold at which every athlete's log coordination degrades [2,4].

Giant Dumbbell can expose fatigue affecting one side while the whole body adjusts. Muscles stabilizing the loaded shoulder, trunk, and lower limbs participate in the demanding unilateral movement. When the object no longer stabilizes before the press, the athlete may compensate through greater trunk motion, but not every compensation is safe or efficient. Video alone cannot distinguish local fatigue from limited mobility, fear of failure, or the dumbbell's particular inertia. A useful comparison employs the same implement at manageable load while assessing the shoulder transition and overhead stabilization. Pain, tingling, loss of control, or inability to lower safely should stop the attempt. Building fatigue tolerance does not justify continuing maximal singles when balance is compromised [1,2].

In Yoke Walk, fatigue may contribute to changes in stride length, speed, stance duration, and oscillation control. A study involving nineteen athletes found kinematic and speed differences between intervals of a twenty-meter course within a single run. It highlights the importance of acceleration but does not establish that fatigue alone caused those differences. Under a very heavy frame, slower movement can be a stabilizing strategy, while uncontrolled steps may increase sway. Interval timing and stop counts help distinguish these circumstances. Deliberately provoking severe instability to test fatigue tolerance would be inappropriate. A controlled training space and qualified assistance matter but cannot eliminate the hazard of a falling frame. Educational progressions should use manageable loads and increase complexity only when control is maintained [8].

Farmer's Walk combines intense grip demands with locomotion. As the forearms fatigue, an athlete may change pacing or handle orientation and attempt to keep the implements near the torso. When grip finally fails, walking mechanics may appear organized until the objects fall. Total completion time is therefore inadequate for risk assessment. Useful observations include stops, first slipping, load deviation, and turn regularity. Faster early acceleration does not establish a better strategy if grip fails before the finish. Conversely, slightly lower cadence can be functional if it preserves contact. Evidence is insufficient to prescribe a universal grip-fatigue threshold that predicts failure for every athlete and handle. Practical decisions should follow actual contact security and stop when safe control is no longer possible [2,6].

Sandbag carries, Husafell-style stones, and tire flipping involve equipment properties that can amplify the consequences of fatigue for contact. A bag may deform and slip when compressive contact becomes insufficient. An irregular stone may require repositioning, and tire lever arms change during rotation. Slower performance late in an event circuit may result from diminished force, breathing discomfort, or deliberate caution rather than one coordination deficit. Phase analysis helps locate the problem. An athlete unable to control a grip change in tire flipping should stop rather than improvise under the object. Someone feeling a sandbag slip can choose to set it down before complete contact loss. Fatigue may make such judgments more difficult, so stopping criteria should be understood before effort begins [1,7].

Measuring fatigue, attention, and the limits of inference

One simple fatigue indicator is reduced performance on an otherwise comparable task, but it requires standardization. If an athlete completes two farmer's carries with identical handles, route, and comparable pauses, lower speed may reflect the cost of earlier work. Yet the first carry may include a turning error and the second a deliberately conservative strategy. Timing should therefore be paired with observations about contact, interruptions, perceived intensity, and visible mechanics. One number cannot separate muscular fatigue, mental fatigue, and tactical choice. Repeated maximal testing to assess readiness can itself produce fatigue and risk. A manageable, familiar submaximal benchmark may be more appropriate, while recognizing that its speed does not perfectly predict maximal performance. Testing is informative only when interpreted alongside trends from several days [2,4].

Perceived exertion can help when athletes use a scale consistently and coaches know what it measures. RPE describes experienced difficulty, not one isolated physiological mechanism. Two people may give identical ratings for very different efforts; one person's rating can rise due to fatigue, anxiety, discomfort, or unfamiliar equipment. In log training, higher RPE at the same mass may warrant attention without proving that coordination has deteriorated. Validity of the lift, speed, and contact control still matter. Likewise, a low rating does not guarantee safe movement. A highly motivated athlete may underestimate demand or accept unusual risks. Perceived exertion is one component of a broader assessment rather than an independent verdict on whether another attempt is appropriate [3,4].

Heart-rate variability and resting pulse are sometimes used to monitor recovery, but neither directly measures coordination under an Atlas stone. Sleep, hydration, stress, illness, medication, and measurement conditions can influence them. An unusual change may justify reassessing the general state without providing an exact loading-reduction percentage. Heavy carries can induce cardiovascular responses while motor control remains adequate. Recovery state, physiological response, and movement outcomes should be kept conceptually distinct. A training log can combine a few relevant indicators with consistent measurement procedures rather than pretend that every change reflects one physiological 'battery.' Chest pain, fainting, unusual shortness of breath, or marked dizziness warrant stopping exercise and medical assessment regardless of what an app displays [2,4].

Fatigue also interacts with environmental observation. In speed events, athletes monitor the route, equipment, and turning marks. When effort occupies attention, evaluating an unexpected object movement or integrating contradictory commands may become harder. Mental-fatigue research supports the possibility of poorer reaction and decision performance, but not an automatic diagnosis for every competitor. A practical precaution is to clarify course and rules before the attempt, avoiding complex new information during instability. When a stop command is necessary, it should be clear and distinct from ordinary coaching feedback. The goal is not to remove every stimulus but to reduce confusion unrelated to the actual task [5].

Reduced ability to correct an error is different from a larger initial error. Under a fatiguing yoke, an athlete may detect frame sway but lack adequate force or time to stabilize it. Alternatively, the first sign of oscillation may be detected too late. Video can show similar stops in both cases without revealing the underlying mechanism. Reviewing the onset of the disturbance and subsequent response may help, although athlete intention cannot be identified precisely without further evidence. A coach can ask what was perceived and compare the report with footage and mechanical conditions. Slow correction should not automatically be interpreted as unwillingness. Fatigue can limit both the capacity to correct and the ability to judge it, making reduced difficulty more appropriate than additional commands [1,2].

To test fatigue effects on technique, research must avoid confounding them with trial order. If the fatigued condition always occurs last, after unfamiliar tasks and different loads, results may incorporate familiarization, anxiety, and sequence effects. A more rigorous design compares rested and fatigued conditions with identical tasks, counterbalanced order, and repeated measurements. Fatigue itself should be verified rather than assumed because a protocol seemed demanding. Direct strongman trials are rare and must accommodate safety constraints. Light-load studies can reveal mechanisms but do not establish exactly what happens with the heaviest competition equipment. Practical conclusions must specify whether they concern training volume, movement speed, technical retention, or decision making. These outcomes are not interchangeable [1,3,5].

Technical programming, self-regulation, and competition specificity

Session order can reflect the dominant objective. When an athlete is first learning a complex log transition, practicing under conditions of good control may reveal errors without substantial fatigue confounding. When the goal is competition performance after several preceding events, some practice should reflect prior exertion, but not every attempt must become maximal. These aims are compatible: one emphasizes precise acquisition and the other robustness. Direct comparative evidence does not establish a universally optimal ratio of rested technical practice to fatigued practice for strongman. Selection depends on expertise, competition requirements, and the consequences of failure. When technique is still unstable under light loading, deliberately inducing fatigue can obscure the problem and increase risk. Once a skill is established, manageable fatigued conditions may be introduced cautiously to examine which components remain reliable [1,2].

Pre-session mental fatigue deserves attention alongside earlier physical work without becoming an absolute prohibition. A 2026 meta-analysis suggests demanding cognitive tasks can reduce subsequent resistance-exercise volume, but certainty is low and individual responses vary. An athlete completing intensive cognitive work may experience greater perceived effort or reduced readiness for complex technical tasks. Rather than assuming the session must be canceled or a record is impossible, they can compare warm-up performance with familiar benchmarks, simplify the task, or avoid attempts with narrow safety margins. This is prudent self-regulation, not a numerically validated prescription. Recording sleep, load, and results can help reveal whether a reliable individual pattern exists. One mentally demanding day does not define an athlete's overall capability [3].

Testing adaptability under fatigue must be distinguished from deliberately provoking serious errors. An athlete who securely controls farmer's handles at submaximal load may be assessed for contact and pacing after manageable prior activity. Differences from the rested condition can be recorded, but the carry should stop if slipping or instability develops. Under a yoke, stopping criteria might include inability to stabilize the frame, repeated unexpected halts, or loss of a safe path. These are practical management examples rather than prospective injury-study thresholds. Learning does not require reproducing competition hazards at maximal intensity. Specificity must be balanced against recovery and the consequences of failure. A lighter yet representative task can provide better information about control than a maximal attempt ending in a dropped object [1,7].

Rest between sets affects both force capacity and the interpretability of technique. When two log sets use very different recovery intervals, changes in velocity cannot be ascribed to altered motor commands without considering restoration of physical resources. Practical comparisons should document and standardize rest where feasible. In programming, rest can reflect the goal. Technical acquisition may require recovery sufficient to make each trial informative, whereas preparing for a competition circuit imposes different constraints. No evidence establishes that exactly two minutes is universally optimal for every event and athlete. Maximal lifts, long carries, and submaximal technical tasks have different demands. A prescription needs a goal-related rationale and revision when control deteriorates. Program sophistication is not measured by how little rest an athlete can tolerate [2,4].

A technical log can distinguish early from late warning signals. For stones, it might record the first unnecessary grip change, whether breathing difficulty precedes the transition, and the moment contact is lost. For yoke, it can show whether deviation starts during initial steps or at the end. This does not require dozens of metrics. Select a few clearly defined signals and use reproducible methods. When safe technique cannot be maintained at the prescribed load, the record should support changing the task that day rather than enforcing the planned volume regardless of consequences. Historical measurements help identify trends but do not justify ignoring the current state. A good program preserves the ability to lower intensity when objective control has fallen below what the task demands [1,7].

Before competition, pressure to simulate actual events can encourage excessive fatigue. Event circuits are only one part of preparation. Athletes also need opportunities to rehearse transitions, grips, and strategies without continuous exhaustion. A combined-event test can reveal where deterioration appears, but interpretation must consider event order and loading. One simulation cannot establish that the same event will always be limiting in competition. Changed order alters the fatigue profile. A prudent approach documents the result and then adjusts specific elements without turning every weekend into a maximal contest. Specificity is valuable when it adds information and adaptation, not when it simply accumulates recovery costs [1,2].

Retention, safety, and conclusions

Poor performance under fatigue does not automatically demonstrate loss of learning. An athlete who acquired an efficient log sequence may perform it more slowly during a demanding day and return to prior performance after recovery. This is compatible with a transient performance change rather than disappearance of the skill. If technique repeatedly practiced while exhausted cannot later be reproduced under rested conditions, however, there is a genuine question about acquisition and consolidation. Delayed retention tests, ideally alongside competition-relevant assessments, are required. The 2026 systematic review found heterogeneous, protocol-dependent retention results, so neither 'fatigued training always consolidates skills better' nor 'fatigue destroys every skill' is justified. The relationship between the state during practice and the state during testing must be explicit. A session containing failures is not necessarily devoid of learning, but accumulating difficulty is not itself a legitimate goal [1].

Sleep and recovery between sessions can influence performance without being mechanisms unique to one technique. An athlete with inadequate sleep may experience greater perceived effort, variable concentration, or reduced force capacity, but individual responses differ. No isolated number of hours establishes whether someone can handle a stone safely. A pattern of poor recovery and deteriorating performance can justify changes to loading and scheduling. 'Overnight neural consolidation' should not be used to explain every improvement after sleep without evidence; muscle recovery, prior practice, and familiarity may contribute together. Persistent exhaustion, illness, or cardiovascular concerns exceed ordinary technical advice and may require medical evaluation. Programming should create conditions in which performance and control develop without disregarding recovery [2,4].

Normal exertional discomfort must be distinguished from reasons to stop. Muscular tiredness during strenuous exercise can be expected, but chest pain, severe dizziness, unusual breathlessness, sudden weakness, or inability to control equipment must not be presented as mental challenges to overcome. In strongman, falling or oscillating implements can also endanger nearby people. New concerning symptoms or signs that safe movement can no longer be maintained require stopping and appropriate assessment. Laboratory evidence is not necessary to justify this basic precaution. Fatigue science can inform training structure but cannot replace safety judgment and medical attention when warranted. Resilience does not mean ignoring danger signals [2,3].

From an educational perspective, athletes should distinguish deliberate strategic changes from involuntary compensation. Intentionally slowing early yoke steps to manage sway may be rational. Slowing because force can no longer be produced is different. An unplanned trunk movement that cannot be corrected calls for restored control rather than stronger encouragement to accelerate. Asking after a trial 'what did you intend to change, and what actually changed?' can reveal a mismatch between intention and outcome. Self-report remains imperfect, and footage or interval timing may complement it. Athletes should not be accused of lacking concentration or willpower because they cannot describe the movement verbally. Data and experience should be considered together, with the limitations of each acknowledged [1,5].

Strongman fatigue research would benefit from designs measuring both fatigue and phase-level control. Athletes could complete familiar tasks at manageable loads under comparable recovery conditions, with speed, contact, and decisions measured. Cognitive-fatigue interventions should be distinguished from muscle-fatigue protocols, and retention should be tested after recovery. Experience levels deserve attention because novices and international competitors may use different strategies. Existing studies include limited neurophysiological data and highly diverse tasks, warranting caution in generalization. A simple marker such as stopping frequency under a standardized load may be more useful than a sophisticated neural index that cannot be validated in competition. Success criteria should also address maintaining an acceptable safety margin rather than maximizing speed alone [1,3,5].

Statistical results must be interpreted at the proper level. A mean negative effect of mental fatigue on resistance-exercise volume is not a quantified injury risk during Atlas stone lifting. A percentage of experiments reporting impaired acquisition does not imply exactly the same percentage of athletes will show worse technique. Some outcomes concern reaction tasks, others fine movements or conventional exercises. In strongman, strength and control overlap and may be difficult to separate. Responsible recommendations identify the plausible mechanism, evidence level, and variable to be checked. No universal calculator converts an hour of cognitive work into kilograms lost on the log. This respects rather than diminishes research. Progress comes from translating evidence into useful testable hypotheses without impossible promises of precision [1,3,5].

Technical execution under fatigue reflects an interaction among force capacity, sensory information, attention, and available strategies. Some movement changes may be functional adaptation; others reveal genuine control limitations. They should be judged through task consequences rather than the visual aesthetics of a recording. Recent literature shows fatigue can influence motor acquisition and performance, but effects are heterogeneous and direct research with extreme implements is sparse. For coaches, uncertainty supports phase-based observation, recovery monitoring, and separating skill-learning sessions from fatigue-tolerance testing. Practicing under fatigue may be relevant to competition, but only when control and rational progression remain intact. Robust technique is not technique that ignores fatigue: it performs effectively when possible and allows athletes to recognize when stopping is the safer decision. The final episode of this series will examine consolidation and retention of these abilities over time [1–5].

Scientific references

[1] Neuromuscular, cardiovascular, and cognitive fatigue in motor learning: A systematic review. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42480681/

[2] Enoka RM, Duchateau J. Muscle fatigue: what, why and how it influences muscle function. Journal of Physiology. 2008;586:11–23. DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2007.139477. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17702815/

[3] Solon-Júnior LJF, Fortes LS, Vasconcelos G, et al. Mental Fatigue and Resistance Exercise: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Including GRADE Qualification. European Journal of Sport Science. 2026;26:e70194. DOI: 10.1002/ejsc.70194. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42168782/

[4] Krakauer JW, Hadjiosif AM, Xu J, Wong AL, Haith AM. Motor Learning. Comprehensive Physiology. 2019;9:613–663. DOI: 10.1002/cphy.c170043. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30873583/

[5] Effects of mental fatigue on sport-related reaction-time, technical, and decision-making performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychology. 2026. DOI: 10.1186/s40359-026-04900-z. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40359-026-04900-z

[6] Latash ML, Scholz JP, Schöner G. Toward a new theory of motor synergies. Motor Control. 2007;11:276–308. DOI: 10.1123/mcj.11.3.276. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17715460/

[7] Hindle B et al. The biomechanical characteristics of the strongman atlas stone lift. PeerJ. 2021;9:e12066. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.12066. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34557349/

[8] Hindle BR et al. The Biomechanical Characteristics of the Strongman Yoke Walk. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living. 2021;3:670297. DOI: 10.3389/fspor.2021.670297. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33981993/

[9] Hindle BR, Lorimer A, Winwood P, Keogh JWL. The Biomechanics and Applications of Strongman Exercises: a Systematic Review. Sports Medicine Open. 2019;5:49. DOI: 10.1186/s40798-019-0222-z. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31820223/