The Science of Strongman Training - Episode II: Intensity

In Strongman, the word intensity is used so often that it can lose precision. For one athlete, intensity may mean 90% of 1RM. For another, it may mean a Farmer's Walk performed at the limit, a sandbag that can barely be loaded, or a medley in which movement speed collapses. All of these situations are real, but they do not represent exactly the same type of intensity. In a sport where load, technique, speed, grip, time and fatigue meet within the same event, intensity has to be treated as a multidimensional variable.

In resistance-training literature, intensity is often linked to relative external load, such as the percentage of 1RM. This is useful, but incomplete for Strongman. A deadlift at 90% of capacity and a Yoke Walk performed at a load that causes a major loss of speed may both feel heavy, but they challenge different systems. The same absolute load can also represent very different intensity for two athletes, or for the same athlete on two different days.

1. Intensity is not synonymous with weight: four dimensions of Strongman effort

The first dimension is external intensity. It describes the prescribed workload: 70%, 80% or 90% of 1RM, an absolute load, a distance, a time or a velocity target. It is easy to measure and highly useful for organizing training. But it does not tell us how difficult the workload was for the athlete. An 85% load can be moderate on one day and nearly maximal on another depending on sleep, fatigue, stress, nutrition, pain and accumulated training.

The second is internal intensity, the athlete's response to the workload. RPE and RIR are practical tools here. An RPE 8 set essentially means the athlete perceives roughly two repetitions remaining, while RPE 9 suggests about one. These scales are imperfect, but they allow the same external load to be interpreted in relation to the athlete's actual state. In Strongman, this distinction is crucial because daily performance can fluctuate substantially.

The fourth is metabolic and temporal intensity. A short heavy deadlift set and a 45-second medley may have the same average load but very different physiological costs. In Tire Flip or Farmer's Walk, effort duration, repetition density and rest intervals strongly alter cardiovascular and metabolic stress. Intensity in Strongman should therefore be read as the interaction between load, proximity to the limit, technical complexity and effort duration or density.

2. Percentage of 1RM: indispensable, but insufficient

Percentage of 1RM remains one of the most useful prescription methods for standardized lifts. If an athlete has a 300 kg deadlift 1RM, 80% is 240 kg. This relationship provides a clear starting point for load dosing and for progression from volume toward strength. The problem begins when the percentage is treated as an exact measure of biological difficulty.

1RM is context-dependent. It can vary with technique, equipment, range of motion, fatigue and exercise specificity. Strongman also contains many implements for which a conventional 1RM is impractical or poorly representative. There is not the same predictable relationship between a percentage of maximal capacity and performance with an awkward object as there is with a standardized exercise.

General resistance-training research shows that heavier loads are particularly effective for maximal strength, while hypertrophy can be achieved across a wider range of loads when volume and effort are appropriate. A meta-analysis including 45 studies found similar hypertrophic adaptations between higher and lower loads, but an advantage of higher loads for 1RM and isometric strength. For Strongman, the practical conclusion matters: you do not need to lift extremely heavy all the time to build muscle, but high-load exposure becomes important when maximal force expression is the objective.

Percentage should therefore be treated as a map, not the territory. It defines an external dose, while RPE, RIR, velocity and technical quality tell us what is actually happening on that day. In Strongman programming, combining these signals is much more powerful than relying on a single number.

3. RPE and RIR: measuring proximity to the limit

RPE, rating of perceived exertion, and RIR, repetitions in reserve, are two ways of describing proximity to failure. Conceptually, RIR is direct: how many more repetitions could you perform with acceptable technique? RPE converts that estimate into a scale. In strength practice, RPE 10 is associated with maximal effort, RPE 9 with approximately one repetition in reserve, RPE 8 with about two, and RPE 7 with about three.

Their value in Strongman is that they allow dosing without pretending the athlete is identical every day. If the program says 4 x 4 at 82%, but the first set is already RPE 9, the coach has evidence that the planned load is more costly than expected. The load can be reduced, a set can be stopped, rest can be extended, or the remainder of the session can become more technical. The physiological objective remains, while the dose adapts.

There is a limitation. RPE is subjective and requires experience. A novice may overestimate or underestimate RIR, and estimation becomes harder in highly technical exercises or events where failure is not predictable or easily controlled. RPE should therefore not be treated as absolute truth, but as one source of information combined with actual performance, velocity, technique and recent workload.

4. Velocity-Based Training: when speed becomes a measure of intensity

Velocity-Based Training, or VBT, adds an objective dimension. Instead of asking only how much the bar weighs, you track how quickly it moves. The relationship between load and concentric velocity can be used to estimate effort and adjust training according to performance on that day. A set prescribed at 80% may move at a very different speed from one day to another, and that difference may signal a change in neuromuscular readiness.

Comparative research does not show that VBT is magically superior to percentage-based training. Meta-analyses have generally found comparable strength outcomes, suggesting that both approaches can work. The advantage of VBT is control and feedback: it can identify velocity loss, set velocity-loss limits and reduce the tendency to turn every set into a survival test.

For Strongman, direct application is easiest in standardized movements such as squats, deadlifts, presses and barbell variations. On implements, velocity measurement becomes harder and less standardized. VBT should therefore be viewed as a complementary tool, not a requirement for modern programming. Velocity loss can also be interpreted as an internal fatigue dose: the greater the speed collapse within a set, the greater the potential cost of continuing that set.

5. How often should you train at maximal intensity?

This is one of the most important questions in Strongman and one of the worst handled when heavy training becomes an identity rather than a programming variable. Maximal strength must be trained, but that does not mean every week needs true limit attempts. Very frequent RPE 9.5-10 exposures carry a high cost, and in a multidimensional sport that cost can become disproportionate to the benefit.

Strongman requires a combination of stimulus and recovery. A survey of competitors found that 97% included maximal-strength training, but 90% also included power training, 74% hypertrophy training, and a substantial proportion used fast repetitions with submaximal loads. The picture is not a sport where everything must be done at the limit, but one where different intensities coexist because they serve different functions.

A maximal exposure can be valuable when the goal is capacity testing, confidence, phase calibration or event simulation. It should not be confused with optimal training. A 95% single can provide a high-strength stimulus with less fatigue than repeated 100% attempts, while fast submaximal work can preserve acceleration intent without the cost of failure.

6. Intensity in Strongman events: why the same weight can become a different sport

In Farmer's Walk, intensity is not simply the mass in each hand. Distance, initial acceleration, walking speed, handle width, trunk position, grip and technical consistency all matter. A very heavy 20-meter Farmer may be primarily a strength and grip test; a 40-50-meter Farmer with a moderate load may become a work-capacity and metabolic-tolerance test. The load has not changed, but functional intensity has.

In Yoke Walk, biomechanics show that speed and stride parameters change with load and pace. As load increases, the athlete must control object oscillation, trunk stability and movement of the center of mass at the same time. A load can therefore become intense not only because it is heavy, but because it reduces the available technical margin.

In Atlas Stones, load interacts with object shape, diameter, platform height and technical sequence. Biomechanical research has identified distinct phases of the lift, and execution characteristics change with load and fatigue. A very heavy stone and a lighter stone performed in a long set are not the same stimulus. In the first case, maximal force and technique under load dominate; in the second, fatigue can profoundly alter mechanics.

Each event should therefore have its own intensity markers: relative load, distance, time, repetitions, velocity, rest and degree of technical degradation. This turns intensity from an adjective into a programmable parameter.

7. Intensity and fatigue: the question is not how hard you can work, but how hard you can recover from

An advanced athlete can tolerate very high intensities, but that does not mean they can absorb them without cost. Intensity has a recovery price. It depends on set number, proximity to failure, frequency, exercise selection, muscle mass involved and the stress created by other events. A heavy deadlift on an isolated day may be perfectly tolerable; the same deadlift combined with heavy Yoke, Farmer, Stones and conditioning can turn the week into a block of fatigue that is difficult to absorb.

This is the difference between intensity and dose. Two sessions may have the same peak intensity while one has low total volume and the other very high volume. Programming does not care only about the heaviest set; it cares about total exposure to effort. In Strongman, one maximal set may be less problematic than five near-maximal sets plus two hard events.

Load monitoring should therefore combine external and internal information. Weights and distances describe what was done. RPE, velocity, well-being, sleep and performance in the next session provide information about what it cost. International consensus statements on sport load support this integrated view: training load cannot be completely separated from the athlete's response.

8. How to build intensity across a Strongman season

During an accumulation phase, average intensity may be more moderate. The goal is to build muscle mass, work capacity and general strength. Much of the work can remain around RPE 6-8, with selected heavier exposures for maintaining or developing strength. Events can be used for technique and controlled volume without making every session resemble competition.

During a transmutation phase, specific intensity rises. Deadlifts can move toward shorter sets and heavier loads, pressing becomes more event-specific, and events are introduced at distances, loads and times closer to competition. Volume can be redistributed so that sufficient stimulus remains without sacrificing recovery.

During realization, peak intensity may rise while volume falls. Competition or near-competition loads, partial simulations and pacing practice can appear. Not every event needs to be tested maximally in the same week. Intensity can be alternated: one event is tested hard, another technically, another at speed, preserving quality without unnecessary fatigue.

Near competition, intensity should not be abandoned, but selected. An effective taper mainly reduces volume while retaining enough relevant intensity to maintain familiarity with heavy loads and neuromuscular coordination. The final days are not for building a new quality; they are for allowing already-built qualities to be expressed.

9. Optimal intensity is not the highest possible intensity

This is probably the most important conclusion of the entire subject. In a sport where status is often built around impressive weights, there is a temptation to confuse difficulty with effectiveness. Training is not a permanent competition against your own limit. If a stimulus is so hard that it compromises technique, creates disproportionate fatigue and reduces the quality of subsequent sessions, its value may fall even if the load looks spectacular in the training log.

Optimal intensity is the intensity that produces the intended adaptation at a recovery cost compatible with the rest of the program. For maximal strength, this can mean heavy exposures. For hypertrophy, it can mean a broader range of loads. For power, velocity and acceleration intent become critical. For events, load must be combined with distance, time and technique. For competition, intensity must be specific enough to reproduce the demand while controlled enough to permit recovery.

A strong Strongman is not the athlete who lives permanently at RPE 10. It is the athlete who knows when RPE 7 is exactly the stimulus required, when RPE 8 is productive, when RPE 9 is justified and when RPE 10 should be reserved for the moment that truly matters.

Bibliography and sources

1. 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. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2017;31(12):3508-3523. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002200.
2. Lasevicius T et al. Effects of different intensities of resistance training on muscle strength and hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine. 2022.
3. Helms E et al. RPE and RIR based resistance training prescription literature and practical application in trained lifters.
4. Zourdos MC et al. Novel resistance training-specific rating of perceived exertion scale measuring repetitions in reserve. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2016;30(1):267-275. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001047.
5. Liao KF et al. Effects of velocity based training vs. traditional 1RM percentage-based training on improving strength, jump, linear sprint and change of direction speed performance: a systematic review with meta-analysis. PLOS ONE. 2021;16(11):e0259790. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259790.
6. Zhang M et al. Comparison of Velocity and Percentage-based Training on Maximal Strength: Meta-analysis. International Journal of Sports Medicine. 2022;43(12):981-995. DOI: 10.1055/a-1790-8546.
7. Zhang X et al. The Effect of Various Training Variables on Developing Muscle Strength in Velocity-based Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. International Journal of Sports Medicine. 2023;44(12):857-864. DOI: 10.1055/a-2095-8254.
8. Wang Y et al. The effects of velocity-based vs. percentage-based resistance training on sports performance in trained individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2026;18:57. DOI: 10.1186/s13102-025-01504-9.
9. Winwood PW, Keogh JWL, Harris NK. The strength and conditioning practices of strongman competitors. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2011;25(11):3118-3128. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318212daea.
10. Hindle BR, Lorimer AV, Winwood PW, 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.
11. Hindle BR et al. The Biomechanical Characteristics of the Strongman Yoke Walk. 2021. PMID: 33981993.
12. Hindle BR et al. The biomechanical characteristics of the strongman atlas stone lift. PeerJ. 2021;9:e12066. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.12066.
13. Soligard T et al. How much is too much? International Olympic Committee consensus statement on load in sport and risk of injury. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2016;50:1030-1041. DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096581.