Paul W. Winwood

Retrospective injury epidemiology of strongman athletes

Abstract Winwood PW, Hume PA, Cronin JB, and Keogh JWL. Retrospective injury epidemiology of strongman athletes. J Strength Cond Res 28(1): 28–42, 2014—This study provides the first empirical evidence of strongman training and competition injury epidemiology. Strongman athletes (n = 213) (mean ± SD: 31.7 ± 8.8 years, 181.3 ± 7.4 cm, 113.0 ± 20.3 kg, 12.8 ± 8.1 years general resistance training, and 4.4 ± 3.4 years strongman implement training) completed a self-reported, 4-page, 1-year retrospective survey of physical injuries that caused a missed or modified training session or competition. Analysis by age (⩽30 and >30 years), body mass (⩽105 and >105 kg), and competitive standard (low and high level) was conducted. Eighty-two percent of strongman athletes reported injuries (1.6 ± 1.5 training injuries per lifter per year, 0.4 ± 0.7 competition injuries per lifter per year, and 5.5 ± 6.5 training injuries per 1,000-hour training). Lower back (24%), shoulder (21%), bicep (11%), knee (11%), and strains and tears of muscle (38%) and tendon (23%) were frequent. The majority of injuries (68%) were acute and were of moderate severity (47%). Strongman athletes used self-treatment (54%) or medical professional treatment (41%) for their injuries. There were significantly more competition injuries for the ⩽30- than the >30-year athletes (0.5 ± 0.8 vs. 0.3 ± 0.6, p = 0.03) and >105-kg athletes compared with the ⩽105-kg athletes (0.5 ± 0.8 vs. 0.3 ± 0.6, p = 0.014). Although 54% injuries resulted from traditional training, strongman athletes were 1.9 times more likely to sustain injury when performing strongman implement training when exposure to type of training was considered. To reduce risk of injury and improve training practices, strongman athletes should monitor technique and progressions for exercises that increase risk of lower back, shoulder, bicep, and knee musculoskeletal injuries. Clinicians should advise athletes who use of strongman resistance training programs can increase injury risk over traditional exercises.

The strength and conditioning practices of strongman competitors.

Winwood, PW, Keogh, JWL, and Harris, NK. The strength and conditioning practices of strongman competitors. J Strength Cond Res 25(11): 3118–3128, 2011—This study describes the results of a survey of the strength and conditioning practices of strongman competitors. A 65-item online survey was completed by 167 strongman competitors. The subject group included 83 local, 65 national, and 19 international strongman competitors. The survey comprised 3 main areas of enquiry: (a) exercise selection, (b) training protocols and organization, and (c) strongman event training. The back squat and conventional deadlift were reported as the most commonly used squat and deadlift (65.8 and 88.0%, respectively). Eighty percent of the subjects incorporated some form of periodization in their training. Seventy-four percent of subjects included hypertrophy training, 97% included maximal strength training, and 90% included power training in their training organization. The majority performed speed repetitions with submaximal loads in the squat and deadlift (59.9 and 61.1%, respectively). Fifty-four percent of subjects incorporated lower body plyometrics into their training, and 88% of the strongman competitors reported performing Olympic lifts as part of their strongman training. Seventy-eight percent of subjects reported that the clean was the most performed Olympic lift used in their training. Results revealed that 56 and 38% of the strongman competitors used elastic bands and chains in their training, respectively. The findings demonstrate that strongman competitors incorporate a variety of strength and conditioning practices that are focused on increasing muscular size, and the development of maximal strength and power into their conditioning preparation. The farmers walk, log press, and stones were the most commonly performed strongman exercises used in a general strongman training session by these athletes. These data provide information on the training practices required to compete in the sport of strongman.

How coaches use strongman implements in strength and conditioning practice

This article describes how strongman implements, which we defined as “any non-traditional implement integrated into strength and conditioning practice” are currently utilised by coaches to enhance athletic performance. Coaches (mean ±SD 34.0 ±8.2 y old, 9.8 ±6.7 y general strength and conditioning coaching experience) completed a self-reported 4-page survey. The subject group included coaches of amateur (n = 74), semi-professional (n = 38) and professional (n = 108) athletes. Eighty-eight percent (n = 193) of coaches reported using strongman implements in the training of their athletes. Coaches ranked sleds, ropes, kettlebells, tyres, sandbags and farmers walk bars as the top six implements used, and anaerobic/metabolic conditioning, explosive strength/power and muscle endurance as the three main physiological reasons for its use. The strongman implements were typically used in combination with traditional exercises in a gymnasium-based setting. Future research needs to evaluate the performance benefits of such training practices in controlled studies.

Interrelationships Between Strength, Anthropometrics, and Strongman Performance in Novice Strongman Athletes

Winwood, PW, Keogh, JWL, Harris, NK, and Weaver, LM. Interrelationships between strength, anthropometrics, and strongman performance in novice strongman athletes. J Strength Cond Res 26(2): 513–522, 2012—The sport of strongman is relatively new; hence, specific research investigating this sport is currently very limited. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationships between anthropometric dimensions and maximal isoinertial strength to strongman performance in novice strongman athletes. Twenty-three semiprofessional rugby union players with considerable resistance training and some strongman training experience (age 22.0 ± 2.4 years, weight 102.6 ± 10.8 kg, height 184.6 ± 6.5 cm) were assessed for anthropometry (height, body composition, and girth measurements), maximal isoinertial performance (bench press, squat, deadlift, and power clean), and strongman performance (tire flip, log clean, and press, truck pull, and farmers walk). The magnitudes of the relationships were determined using Pearson correlation coefficients, and interpreted qualitatively according to Hopkins (90% confidence limits ∼±0.37). The highest relationship observed was between system force (body mass + squat 1-repetition maximum) and overall strongman performance (r = 0.87). Clear moderate to very large relationships existed between performance in all strongman events and the squat (r = 0.61–0.85), indicating the importance of maximal squat strength for strongman competitors. Flexed arm girth and calf girth were the strongest anthropometric correlates of overall strongman performance (r = 0.79 and 0.70, respectively). The results of this study suggest that body structure and common gymnasium-based exercise strength are meaningfully related to strongman performance in novice strongman athletes. Future research should investigate these relationships using more experienced strongman athletes and determine the relationships between changes in anthropometry, isoinertial strength, and strongman performance to determine the role of anthropometry and isoinertial strength in the sport of strongman.

Strongman vs. traditional resistance training effects on muscular function and performance.

Abstract Winwood, PW, Cronin, JB, Posthumus, LR, Finlayson, SJ, Gill, ND, and Keogh, JWL. Strongman vs. traditional resistance training effects on muscular function and performance. J Strength Cond Res 29(2): 429–439, 2015—Currently, no evidence exists as to the effectiveness of strongman training programs for performance enhancement. This study compared the effects of 7 weeks of strongman resistance training vs. traditional resistance training on body composition, strength, power, and speed measures. Thirty experienced resistance-trained rugby players were randomly assigned to one of the 2 groups; strongman (n = 15; mean ± SD: age, 23.4 ± 5.6 years; body mass, 91.2 ± 14.8 kg; height, 180.1 ± 6.8 cm) or traditional (n = 15; mean ± SD: age, 22.5 ± 3.4 years; body mass, 93.7 ± 12.3 kg; height, 181.3 ± 5.9 cm). The strongman and traditional training programs required the participants to train twice a week and contained exercises that were matched for biomechanical similarity with equal loading. Participants were assessed for body composition, strength, power, speed, and change of direction (COD) performance. Within-group analyses indicated that all performance measures improved with training (0.2–7%) in both the strongman and traditional training groups. No significant between-group differences were observed in functional performance measures after 7 weeks of resistance training. Between-group differences indicated small positive effects in muscle mass and acceleration performance and large improvements in 1 repetition maximum (1RM) bent over row strength associated with strongman compared with traditional training. Small to moderate positive changes in 1RM squat and deadlift strength, horizontal jump, COD turning ability, and sled push performance were associated with traditional compared with strongman training. Practitioners now have the first evidence on the efficacy of a strongman training program, and it would seem that short-term strongman training programs are as effective as traditional resistance training programs in improving aspects of body composition, muscular function, and performance.

A Biomechanical Analysis of the Heavy Sprint-Style Sled Pull and Comparison with the Back Squat

This study compared the biomechanical characteristics of the heavy sprint-style sled pull and squat. Six experienced male strongman athletes performed sled pulls and squats at 70% of their 1RM squat. Significant kinematic and kinetic differences were observed between the sled pull start and squat at the start of the concentric phase and at maximum knee extension. The first stride of the heavy sled pull demonstrated significantly (p<0.05) lower stride lengths and average velocities and a higher mean ratio of force than the stride at 2 – 3 m. The force orientation and magnitude associated with the heavy sprint-style sled pull demonstrates that the heavy sled pull may be an effective conditioning stimulus to generate superior anterior-propulsive forces compared to vertically orientated exercises such as the squat with the same given load. Such adaptations may be beneficial in sports where higher levels of sprint momentum are needed to make and break tackles.

A New Direction to Athletic Performance: Understanding the Acute and Longitudinal Responses to Backward Running

Backward running (BR) is a form of locomotion that occurs in short bursts during many overground field and court sports. It has also traditionally been used in clinical settings as a method to rehabilitate lower body injuries. Comparisons between BR and forward running (FR) have led to the discovery that both may be generated by the same neural circuitry. Comparisons of the acute responses to FR reveal that BR is characterised by a smaller ratio of braking to propulsive forces, increased step frequency, decreased step length, increased muscle activity and reliance on isometric and concentric muscle actions. These biomechanical differences have been critical in informing recent scientific explorations which have discovered that BR can be used as a method for reducing injury and improving a variety of physical attributes deemed advantageous to sports performance. This includes improved lower body strength and power, decreased injury prevalence and improvements in change of direction performance following BR training. The current findings from research help improve our understanding of BR biomechanics and provide evidence which supports BR as a useful method to improve athlete performance. However, further acute and longitudinal research is needed to better understand the utility of BR in athletic performance programs.

A Biomechanical Analysis of the Strongman Log Lift and Comparison with Weightlifting's Clean and Jerk

This study compared the biomechanical characteristics of the log lift and clean and jerk. Six experienced male strongman athletes performed log lifts and clean and jerks at 70% of their 1RM clean and jerk. Significant (p<0.05) between-exercise kinematic differences were observed throughout all the lifting phases, except at lift completion. The log lift demonstrated significantly greater trunk (↑24%) and hip (↑9%) range of motion than the clean and jerk. Significantly greater peak bar velocities were achieved in the clean and jerk in the second pull (16%) and the jerk (↑14%). While similarities existed in ground reaction force data between the lifts, mean and peak powers were significantly greater (↑40% to ↑64%) in propulsive phases of the clean and jerk. The log lift may be an effective conditioning stimulus to teach rapid triple extension while generating similar vertical and anterior-propulsive forces as the clean and jerk with the same given load.

Prescribing Target Running Intensities for High-School Athletes: Can Forward and Backward Running Performance Be Autoregulated?

Target running intensities are prescribed to enhance sprint-running performance and progress injured athletes back into competition, yet is unknown whether running speed can be achieved using autoregulation. This study investigated the consistency of running intensities in adolescent athletes using autoregulation to self-select velocity. Thirty-four boys performed 20 m forward running (FR) and backward running (BR) trials at slow, moderate and fast intensities (40–55%, 60–75% and +90% maximum effort, respectively) on three occasions. Absolute and relative consistency was assessed using the coefficient of variation (CV) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Systematic changes in 10 and 20 m performance were identified between trials 1–2 for moderate and fast BR (p ≤ 0.01) and during moderate BR over 20 m across trials 2–3 (p ≤ 0.05). However, comparisons between trials 2–3 resulted in low typical percentage error (CV ≤ 4.3%) and very good to excellent relative consistency (ICC ≥ 0.87) for all running speeds and directions. Despite FR being significantly (p ≤ 0.01) faster than BR at slow (26%), moderate (28%) and fast intensities (26%), consistency was similar in both running directions and strongest at the fastest speeds. Following appropriate familiarization, youth athletes may use autoregulation to self-select prescribed FR and BR target running intensities.

Tapering Practices of Strongman Athletes: Test-Retest Reliability Study

Background Little is currently known about the tapering practices of strongman athletes. We have developed an Internet-based comprehensive self-report questionnaire examining the training and tapering practices of strongman athletes. Objective The objective of this study was to document the test-retest reliability of questions associated with the Internet-based comprehensive self-report questionnaire on the tapering practices of strongman athletes. The information will provide insight on the reliability and usefulness of the online questionnaire for use with strongman athletes. Methods Invitations to complete an Internet questionnaire were sent via Facebook Messenger to identified strongman athletes. The survey consisted of four main areas of inquiry, including demographics and background information, training practices, tapering, and tapering practices. Of the 454 athletes that completed the survey over the 8-week period, 130 athletes responded on Facebook Messenger indicating that they intended to complete, or had completed, the survey. These participants were asked if they could complete the online questionnaire a second time for a test-retest reliability analysis. Sixty-four athletes (mean age 33.3 years, standard deviation [SD] 7.7; mean height 178.2 cm, SD 11.0; mean body mass 103.7 kg, SD 24.8) accepted this invitation and completed the survey for the second time after a minimum 7-day period from the date of their first completion. Agreement between athlete responses was measured using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and kappa statistics. Confidence intervals (at 95%) were reported for all measures and significance was set at P<.05. Results Test-retest reliability for demographic and training practices items were significant (P<.001) and showed excellent (ICC range=.84 to .98) and fair to almost perfect agreement (κ range=.37-.85). Moderate to excellent agreements (ICC range=.56-.84; P<.01) were observed for all tapering practice measures except for the number of days athletes started their usual taper before a strongman competition (ICC=.30). When the number of days were categorized with additional analyses, moderate reliability was observed (κ=.43; P<.001). Fair to substantial agreement was observed for the majority of tapering practices measures (κrange=.38-.73; P<.001) except for how training frequency (κ=.26) and the percentage and type of resistance training performed, which changed in the taper (κ=.20). Good to excellent agreement (ICC=.62-.93; P<.05) was observed for items relating to strongman events and traditional exercises performed during the taper. Only the time at which the Farmer’s Walk was last performed before competition showed poor reliability (ICC=.27). Conclusions We have developed a low cost, self-reported, online retrospective questionnaire, which provided stable and reliable answers for most of the demographic, training, and tapering practice questions. The results of this study support the inferences drawn from the Tapering Practices of Strongman Athletes Study.