The Science of Strongman Training - Episode X: Competition Programming

A Strongman competition does not begin on competition day. It begins when you study the rules and try to answer a deceptively simple question: what must I be able to do, in what order, at what intensity and with how much accumulated fatigue? Competition programming is the process of turning those demands into a sequence of training stimuli that builds capacity, develops specificity and allows the athlete to express performance on the day that matters.

In Strongman, this problem is more complex than in a sport with only a few standardized events. You may have a maximal deadlift, a Log Press for reps, a timed Yoke Walk, Farmer’s Walk, loading, Stones and a medley. Each requires a different combination of strength, speed, technique, grip, energy capacity and fatigue tolerance. Good programming therefore does not mean doing every event as often as possible. It means deciding what must be developed, what must be maintained and what must be reduced as competition approaches.

1. Programming starts with the competition, not the gym

The first step is competition analysis. Weights, distances, repetitions, time limits, heights, implement type, surface, event order and rest periods can radically change preparation demands. A maximal Log Press requires different preparation from a 60-second Log Press event, and a 20-meter Farmer’s Walk is not equivalent to a 40-meter carry.

That analysis should produce a demand map. For every event, identify the dominant quality, secondary limiters, recovery cost and current familiarity. This map becomes the foundation of the program. If an event appears only once and has major implications for the standings, it may deserve more attention than an event you already perform exceptionally well.

2. How much time do you need to prepare?

There is no universal duration. An experienced athlete who already knows the implements and has a large general strength base can transform preparation in a relatively short block. An athlete who must simultaneously build general strength, technical skill and conditioning needs more time. The more demanding and specific the competition, the more time is needed to build general adaptations before specificity dominates.

In practice, programming can be viewed as a sequence of phases. Early on, you build whatever capacity is missing: muscle mass, general strength, maximal strength, power or conditioning. Then you increase transfer to the events. As competition approaches, the emphasis moves toward the loads, velocities, distances and techniques that matter. Finally, volume falls and the objective becomes performance expression.

3. The general base does not disappear when specific preparation begins

One common mistake is switching to competition events too quickly. Specificity matters, but it cannot replace every general quality. An athlete may need stronger knee extensors, a more developed back, greater force production capacity or a better aerobic base. The events are the final test, not necessarily the only way to build the qualities that support them.

General exercises should therefore be reduced progressively rather than eliminated arbitrarily. As specificity rises, assistance work with a favorable benefit-to-cost ratio remains, while exercises that create substantial fatigue for little transfer disappear. Mature programming does not continually add exercises. It removes what is no longer necessary.

4. Volume: how much work should be accumulated?

Volume must be high enough to drive adaptation without becoming so large that recovery becomes the dominant problem. In Strongman, volume is not simply kilograms lifted. It includes repetitions, distances, time under load, number of picks, transitions and combinations of events. A medley can have a much greater cost than the total kilograms alone would suggest.

Early in preparation, volume can be higher because there is time to absorb it. As competition approaches, volume should fall. Strength-sport literature supports the idea that reducing volume before competition can reduce fatigue without immediately removing previously built adaptations. In Strongman, the reduction must be individualized because event recovery costs differ substantially.

5. Intensity: when should you lift heavy?

Intensity does not need to remain maximal all the time. Maximal strength develops through exposure to high loads, but competitions are not won by turning every training session into a test. In a well-built block, intensity rises as the athlete approaches competition demands, while the volume associated with high intensities becomes increasingly controlled.

In the final weeks, contact with heavy loads can be maintained through short, high-quality sets while unnecessary repetitions are reduced. This matters in Strongman because the feel of the implement and coordination under load cannot be completely replaced by general exercises.

6. Specificity: when does real Strongman begin?

Specificity should increase progressively. Early on, you can use variations that develop the required components. Later, the events become increasingly close to competition. Near the end, the implement, position, range of motion, velocity, distance and rhythm should resemble what the athlete will face.

Specificity does not mean fully reproducing the competition every week. Research on strength transfer shows that adaptations are task dependent. But the more costly an event is, the more important it becomes to obtain the specific stimulus with a controlled dose. Sometimes a few clean repetitions of an event provide more value than a complete simulation that leaves the athlete fatigued for most of the following week.

7. How do you program events in the same week?

This is one of the major differences between Strongman and conventional strength training. You cannot view each event in isolation. Heavy deadlift, Yoke and Stones can all stress the posterior chain, trunk and stabilization capacity. If they are placed without logic in the same week, they can interfere with one another.

A useful principle is to group compatible stimuli and separate those competing for the same recovery resources. You might have a lower-body and carry dominant day, an upper-body pressing day, followed by a lighter technical session. The exact structure depends on the athlete, but the rule remains: the program must describe the relationships between sessions, not only the content of each session.

8. Competition simulations: a tool, not a weekly exam

Simulation is one of the most useful ways to test whether a program is working. It reveals what happens when events are linked, rest periods are limited and strategy becomes important. But a full simulation is expensive and should not be treated as an ordinary training session.

Instead of reproducing the whole competition constantly, use partial simulations. Test the first two events, a problematic combination, one decisive event or only the transition between two implements. This produces useful information without repeatedly paying the physiological cost of a competition day.

9. Programming must account for event order

Order changes the competition. If you start with Deadlift, you must be ready to produce maximal force without residual fatigue. If you start with a fast medley, you must accelerate immediately. If grip-heavy events are separated by a pressing event, the recovery strategy becomes different.

For that reason, later phases of preparation should rehearse not only movements but the logic of the day. Sometimes a session that reproduces the sequence of two or three events has more value than another hard set in an exercise you already perform confidently.

10. Autoregulation: the plan is a map, not a cage

A competition program needs rules for good days and bad days. If movement speed is unusually poor, RPE is high, sleep has been disrupted or technique deteriorates, automatically completing the planned volume can turn an ordinary session into a recovery problem.

Autoregulation is not a lack of discipline. It is the use of athlete information to preserve the session objective while modifying the dose. You can reduce sets, stop an event after achieving the intended stimulus, lower the load or change a variation. Good programming has enough structure for progression and enough flexibility for reality.

11. The final 6-8 weeks: from construction to expression

An illustrative approach is to view the final six to eight weeks as a transition. Around six weeks out, there is still room for meaningful volume and development of weaknesses. Around four to three weeks out, specificity and competition-relevant intensity become more important. During the final two weeks, the goal is to maintain relevant qualities while reducing fatigue cost.

This is not a rigid recipe. An athlete who needs more technical practice may maintain more frequent specific exposures. An athlete who recovers slowly from Yoke or Deadlift may remove those stresses earlier. Programming is successful when the calendar responds to biology and competition demands rather than simply looking perfect on paper.

12. What do you do with weaknesses?

Not every weakness deserves more volume. If the problem is technical, more poorly executed repetitions may reinforce it. If the problem is strength in a specific position, a targeted variation may provide more value than repeating the complete event. If the problem is conditioning, a separate energy-system strategy may be necessary.

As competition approaches, however, the window for major transformation closes. In the final weeks you have to be realistic. You are no longer rebuilding the athlete. You are maximizing what already exists and reducing the chance that a known weakness becomes a failure point.

13. Nutrition, sleep and travel belong in the program

Programming does not end with the final set. Energy intake, hydration, sleep and life stress influence recovery capacity. During high-volume phases, inadequate energy intake or several poor nights of sleep can completely change the response to training.

During competition week, travel also enters the equation. Long drives or flights can affect sleep, warm-up and how the body feels. Mature programming includes these factors in advance. Strongman research shows that athletes use warm-up, nutritional and cognitive preparation strategies on competition day, and these are best practiced before competition rather than invented that morning.

14. Tapering: the final piece of the program

Tapering is the stage in which training load is reduced to remove fatigue while preserving adaptations. In a survey of 454 Strongman athletes, 87% reported using a taper, with an average duration of about 8.6 days and an average volume reduction of about 45.5%. These are descriptive data rather than a universal rule, but they provide useful context for common practice.

In general, volume is the variable that can be reduced most substantially, while relevant intensity can be maintained in small doses. Assistance work is often removed first. Highly costly events such as Deadlift, Yoke and Stones may need to be completed further from competition than light technical exposures.

15. What you should not try to fix before competition

The final weeks are not the place for major experiments. Do not introduce a completely new implement, suddenly change technique, double volume because one session went badly or try to recover a poor month with two weeks of extreme training.

Instead, seek stability. Keep what works, adjust what clearly needs adjustment and remove costs that no longer make sense. An athlete who reaches the start healthy, familiar with the events and capable of producing force is in a much better position than an athlete who hit a spectacular training PR five days before competition and is still trying to recover from it.

16. What does good competition programming look like?

Good programming is not the program with the most exercises or the most complicated periodization. It is the one in which every phase has a clear function. Early phases build capacity. Then strength and power are developed. Later, specificity increases. Near competition, transfer is tested through controlled exposures and simulations. Finally, fatigue is reduced while the qualities that must be expressed are preserved.

Strongman research shows that athletes already combine hypertrophy, maximal strength, power, speed work and event training. Broader strength and conditioning research also indicates increasing use of flexible programming, monitoring and feedback-based adjustments. The logical direction is the same: the program should serve the athlete and the competition rather than becoming an object the athlete must follow blindly.

17. Conclusion: program the competition backwards

The most useful way to build preparation for a Strongman competition is to start from the end. Study the events, order, loads, time limits, rest periods and environment. Identify what must be expressed on competition day. Then work backwards: what must be developed eight weeks out, what must be consolidated four weeks out, what must be tested two weeks out and what must be protected during the final week.

Competition programming is essentially management of a finite resource. Time, recovery capacity, energy, tissue tolerance and attention are limited. You cannot maximize every variable simultaneously. You must choose what matters most for that particular competition and construct a sequence in which adaptation, specificity and recovery meet at the right moment.

In Strongman, the athlete who performed the hardest training session does not necessarily win. The advantage belongs to the athlete who can transform months of preparation into expressed performance when the clock starts.

Bibliography and sources

1. 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.
2. Winwood PW, Pritchard HJ, Wilson D, Dudson M, Keogh JWL. Tapering Practices of Strongman Athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2018;32(5):1181-1196. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001780.
3. Winwood PW, Pritchard HJ, Wilson D, Dudson M, Keogh JWL. The Competition-Day Preparation Strategies of Strongman Athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2019;33(9):2308-2320. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003267.
4. Travis SK, Mujika I, Gentles JA, Stone MH, Bazyler CD. Tapering and Peaking Maximal Strength for Powerlifting Performance: A Review. Sports. 2020;8(9):125. DOI: 10.3390/sports8090125.
5. 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.
6. Saeterbakken AH, et al. Task Specificity of Dynamic Resistance Training and Its Transferability to Non-trained Isometric Muscle Strength: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis. Sports Medicine. 2025;55(7):1651-1676. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-025-02225-2.
7. Spitz RW, et al. Quantifying the Generality of Strength Adaptation: A Meta-Analysis. Sports Medicine. 2023;53(3):637-648.
8. Soligard T, Schwellnus M, Alonso JM, et al. How much is too much? IOC consensus statement on load in sport and risk of illness. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2016;50:1030-1041. DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096581.
9. Kellmann M, Bertollo M, Bosquet L, et al. Recovery and Performance in Sport: Consensus Statement. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. 2018;13(2):240-245. PMID: 29345524.
10. Winwood PW, Travis SK, Barnes MJ, Keogh JWL, Pritchard HJ. Tapering and Peaking in the Weight Lifting Sports: A Systematic Review of Athletes' Self-Reported Strategies. Sports Medicine. 2026.