Original Research

Contemporary Training Practices of

Norwegian Powerlifters
Matthew P. Shaw,1 Vidar Andersen,1 Atle H. Sæterbakken,1 Gøran Paulsen,2 Lars E. Samnøy,3 and
Tom Erik J. Solstad1
1
Department of Sport, Food and Natural Sciences, Høgskulen på Vestlandet, Campus Sogndal, Sogndal, Norway; 2Department of
Physical Performance, Norwegian School of Sports Sciences, Oslo, Norway; and 3Norwegian Powerlifting Federation, Oslo, Norway

Abstract
Shaw, MP, Andersen, V, Sæterbakken, AH, Paulsen, G, Samnøy, LE, and Solstad, TEJ. Contemporary training practices of
Norwegian powerlifters. J Strength Cond Res 36(9): 2544–2551, 2022—The aim of this study was to explore the contemporary
training practices of Norwegian powerlifters. One hundred twenty-four Norwegian powerlifters completed an electronic ques-
tionnaire that surveyed their current training practices with a focus on 2 areas: (a) training content and (b) training design and
monitoring. One hundred seventeen respondents met the inclusion criteria, and the sample included World, European, and
Norwegian champions. Where data were dichotomized, chi-square tests were used. The most frequently reported (58.1%) cat-
egory of training was 5–6 times per week, with no statistically significant associations between levels of competitors (international vs.
noninternational) (X2(1) 5 0.414, p 5 0.52). The most frequently reported load used in training was 71–80% 1 repetition maximum.
The majority of Norwegian (76.9%) powerlifters train with variable resistance, with those competing internationally more likely to use
elastic bands (X2(1) 5 4.473, p 5 0.034). 32.5% of respondents reported that they included strength training exercises in their
training. Norwegian powerlifters’ training differs from practices previously identified in the literature, with a higher prevalence of
elastic resistance, particularly for those competing internationally, and a decreased use of strength training exercises at all levels.
Norwegian powerlifters train frequently (5 or more times per week) and with submaximal loads.
Key Words: powerlifting, strength training, training intensity, variable resistance

Introduction on powerlifters from countries with much larger populations (32)

or with similar population size but considerably less success in
Powerlifting is a strength sport that requires competitors to per-
international powerlifting competitions (16,27) than Norway.
form 3 lifts, the bench press, squat, and deadlift, to produce the
Furthermore, previous studies have been limited by small sample
highest total. Powerlifters can compete in unequipped (termed
sizes. For example, Swinton et al. (32) previously surveyed 28
“raw” or “classic”) and equipped competitions (12). Equipped
powerlifters during international competitions. The sample con-
competition allows the use of hypercompressive garments that
sisted of domestic and international champions as well as world
enhance performance during concentric phases of the lift (6).
record holders.
During the past decade, Norway has won 20 medals in the Open
Although Norwegian powerlifters have not been included in
Equipped World Championships (IPF 2019) and 24 medals in the
existing studies on training practices, the authors (8) have pre-
Open Equipped European Championships (EPF 2019), making
viously examined their physiology, demonstrating phenotypic
powerlifting one of Norway’s most successful sports. The sig-
differences from healthy controls. Elite Norwegian powerlifters
nificance of this is that Norway has a population of 5.3 million
have previously been recruited to assess the effects of grip varia-
(10) and competes with much larger nations, such as Ukraine,
tions on bench press performance (15,29) and, additionally, to
Russia, and the United States. Currently, there are approximately
longer intervention studies. For example, Bjørnsen (4) examined
750 registered competitors within the Norwegian Powerlifting
the effects of 6.5 weeks of blood flow–restricted resistance exer-
Federation (Norges Styrkeløftforbund).
cise, producing an increased cross-sectional area of the quadri-
Powerlifters have been reported to train approximately 3–4
ceps in Norwegian national level powerlifters. Finally, the
times per week for approximately 6 hours per week (16,27,31).
Norwegian Frequency Project (28) recruited 16 of Norway’s best
Swinton et al. (32) claimed that elite powerlifters’ training has
powerlifters to investigate low- vs. high-training frequency. The
resemblance to the training of a weightlifter, incorporating
study divided participating powerlifters into 2 groups, the first
Olympic lifts and submaximal loads lifted as fast as possible.
group training 3 times per week and the second group training 6
Furthermore, most powerlifters follow a periodized training
times per week, with the intervention lasting 15 weeks. The
program (12,16,27,32) and taper training volume by 50–60%
powerlifters’ training 6 times per week produced greater per-
before competition (16,27). The deadlift is typically tapered for
centage increases in powerlifting total because of greater increases
the longest period (12,16,27). However, the existing literature on
in the bench press and squat. Furthermore, only the 6 times per
the training practices of powerlifters is limited (1) and has focused
week group demonstrated quadriceps hypertrophy. However, the
Address correspondence to Matthew. P. Shaw, Matthew.shaw@hvl.no. results have only been disseminated in presentations and not
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 36(9)/2544–2551 published in any peer-reviewed source. Anecdotally, many Nor-
ª 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association wegian powerlifters do practice high-frequency training.

2544

Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Training Practices of Norwegian Powerlifters (2022) 36:9
There are considerable gaps in the scientific literature about the
training practices of successful powerlifters. As participation in
powerlifting continues to increase (3), Norway provides a unique
population to learn from, having considerable success from
a small sample of powerlifters. Powerlifting, specifically the In-
ternational Powerlifting Federation (IPF), has issues with high
rates of doping offences (21). However, Norway has some of the
highest rates of in- and out-of-competition drug testing of their
powerlifters (21), reinforcing the country’s position as a “fore-
runner in antidoping” (34). Therefore, examining the training
practices of Norwegian powerlifters provides novelty in that
training strategies are highly likely to have been developed in-
dependent of any systematic doping.
Training practices of successful strength-sport athletes can
provide valuable information for strength and conditioning
coaches working with athletes to develop maximal strength. The
aim of this investigation was to extend on the existing power-
lifting training literature to provide a broader descriptive over-
view of the powerlifting training practices of a successful
country. Furthermore, based on previous anecdotal data, it was
hypothesized that Norwegian powerlifters train more frequently
than what is currently reported in the relevant literature
(16,27,31).
Methods
Experimental Approach to the Problem
To examine the current training practices of Norwegian power-
lifters, an exploratory descriptive study was conducted to provide
detailed information on the current training practices of Nor-
wegian powerlifters. Competing powerlifters were recruited using
social media (e.g., Facebook) where URL links to the survey were
provided. In addition to this, the Norwegian Powerlifting Fed-
eration forwarded the survey through email to all registered
powerlifting clubs, competitors, and coaches in Norway. The
survey was open between May and June 2019.
Subjects
One hundred seventeen (n 5 66 men and n 5 51 women, age 5
32.3 6 11.1 years) respondents were included in the study. In-
clusion criteria were that powerlifters had to be older than 18
years and have competed in at least a regional level competition
within Norway. On opening the electronic survey, subjects were
directed to the subject information section and informed of their
right to withdraw from the study. Valid consent was assumed if
the questionnaire was fully completed (5). The study conformed
with the ethical guidelines from the Western Norway University
of Applied Sciences.
Procedures
Research Instrument. Subjects completed an electronic survey
that consisted of a series of 40–50 items, depending on the
answers selected by the respondent. The survey gathered in-
formation in the following areas:
c Demographic information—age, sex, competitive weight
category, personal bests for each lift (bench press, squat, and
deadlift), and personal best total.
c Competition experience—years of training, competition
specialization (e.g., bench press specialist), competition
history, and medals won.
2545
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
| www.nsca.com
c Training content—number of total training sessions per
week, frequency of bench press/deadlift/squat per week,
training loads used, types of resistance used, use of
additional equipment (e.g., squat suits), and the inclusion
of weightlifting.
c Training design and monitoring—self-coach vs. coach-led,
subjective monitoring, i.e., rating of perceived exertion
(RPE) and repetitions in reserve (RIR), periodization of
training, and tapering strategies.
For information regarding training content, design, and mon-
itoring, respondents were asked to provide this information spe-
cifically in reference to their own competition preparation period.
Statistical Analyses
Data derived from the surveys were analyzed using SPSS version 25.0
(Chicago, IL). Data analysis included descriptive statistics, reporting
frequency counts and percentages similar to previous related re-
search (32). Demographic data were dichotomized into 5 categories:
sex (men vs. women), age (nonmasters vs. masters), level of per-
formers (noninternational vs. international), World Championships
(medal winner vs. no medal), and European Championships (medal
winner vs. no medal). Training prescription was divided into 3 cat-
egories (coach vs. self-coached vs. combination). The chi-square test
of independence was used to determine differences between varia-
bles. Significance was determined by p # 0.05.
Results
Demographic and Background Information
Of the 124 respondents who completed the survey, 117 (94%)
met the inclusion criteria. Although 102 respondents (87.2%)
reported that they currently compete in powerlifting, 94 (76%)
reported that they had trained in powerlifting for more than 3
years, and 15 respondents (12.8%) reported that they compete
only in the bench press competition. Furthermore, 58 respondents
(49.6%) reported that they have competed in international
competitions (IPF World and EPF European Championships).
Tables 1–3 provide demographic and performance background
information.
Training Frequency
There were no statistically significant associations between level
of competitors (international vs. noninternational) (X2(1) 5
0.414, p 5 0.52), sex (X2(1) 5 0.22, p 5 0.883), or medal winners
at a World (X2(1) 5 2.834, p 5 0.092) or European champion-
ship (X2(1) 5 2.989, p 5 0.084) and training frequency per week.
The most frequently reported (58.1%) category of training was
5–6 times per week, with 90–120 minutes the most frequently
(54.7%) reported average length of the training session. Sixty-
nine percent of respondents who had competed internationally
reported to train 5–6 times per week. However, younger power-
lifters (Junior and Open) were significantly more likely (X2(1) 5
5.649, p 5 0.017) than Masters competitors to train more fre-
quently. Figure 1 shows the reported frequency of each lift (bench
press, squat, and deadlift) per week.
Training Design and Monitoring
Seventy-eight (66.7%) respondents had training prescribed by
a coach, 18 (15.4%) respondents designed their own training, and
 Training Practices of Norwegian Powerlifters (2022) 36:9

Table 1
Age category and reported values for powerlifting total and individual lifts.
Number (% response) Total (kg) Bench press (kg) Squat (kg) Deadlift (kg)
Male
Junior (19–23) 17 (14.5) 678 6 118 166 6 41 248 6 50 266 6 43
Open (24–39) 35 (29.9) 730 6 162 201 6 68 274 6 69 280 6 43
Masters 1 (40–49) 6 (5.1) 677 6 129 176 6 50 254 6 49 249 6 32
Masters 2 (50–59) 7 (6) 636 6 70 163 6 29 235 6 45 256 6 26
Masters 3 (60–69) 1 (0.9)* 95
Female
Junior (19–23) 10 (8.5) 412 6 75 107 6 25 154 6 31 161 6 30
Open (24–39) 25 (21.4) 459 6 115 108 6 40 178 6 50 179 6 35
Masters 1 (40–49) 11 (9.4) 427 6 112 106 6 42 169 6 50 168 6 32
Masters 2 (50–59) 4 (3.4) 353 6 57 73 6 12 135 6 31 149 6 16
Masters 3 (60–69) 1 (0.9) 300 58 110 136
*Powerlifters participating specifically in bench press competition. Data are presented as mean 6 SD.

21 (17.9%) respondents reported a combination of both self-
training and coach-prescribed training. For subjective monitoring
of training, 49.6 and 47% of respondents reported the use of RPE
and RIR, respectively. There was a statistically significant asso-
ciation between training prescription and the use of RIR (X2(2) 5
8.784, p 5 0.012); respondents who had a coach involved in
training prescription were more likely to use RIR to subjectively
monitor training. There was also a statistically significant asso-
ciation between level of competitors (international vs. non-
international) and the use of RIR (X2(1) 5 14.462, p 5 0.000)
because the majority (69.1%) of respondents reporting the use of
RIR had not competed internationally. 83.6% of younger pow-
erlifters (Junior and Open) used RIR to monitor training, which
was significant (X2(1) 5 4.685, p 5 0.03). One hundred four
respondents (88.9%) reported that they periodized their training;
however, 45.2% of these subjects did not know what type of
periodization they used. 96.6% of respondents reported that they
use a tapering strategy. Table 4 provides the reported taper length
before competition.
Training Loads
Subjects were asked to report loads, excluding warm-up, that
were used in training for each lift. Based on previous findings
by Swinton et al. (32), loads were presented in 7 categories
(40–50% 1 repetition maximum [1RM], 51–60% 1RM,
61–70% 1RM, 71–80% 1RM, 81–90% 1RM, 91–100%
1RM, and over 100% 1RM). Subjects were asked to use loads
over 100% 1RM to understand how eccentric loads may be
used in their training. The most frequently reported load used
in training was 71–80% 1RM for all 3 lifts, with the least
frequently reported load over 100% 1RM, as shown in
Figure 2.
Variable Resistance
Ninety respondents (76.9%) reported that they use variable re-
sistance in their training, in the form of either chains (63.2%) or
elastic bands (76.1%). There was a statistically significant asso-
ciation between participation in international competition and
the use of elastic bands (X2(1) 5 4.473, p 5 0.034), with those
competing internationally more likely to use elastic bands.
However, there were no statistically significant associations be-
tween winning a medal, at either a World (X2(1) 5 0.492, p 5
0.483) or European (X2(1) 5 2.202, p 5 0.138) championship,
and using elastic bands. There was no statistically significant as-
sociation between participation in international competition and
the use of chains (X2(1) 5 0.255, p 5 0.614). Sex was not

Table 2
Weight category and reported values for powerlifting total and individual lifts.
Number (% response) Total (kg) Bench press (kg) Squat (kg) Deadlift (kg)
Male
59 kg 1 (0.9)* 190
66 kg 1 (0.9)* 95
74 kg 2 (1.7) 774 6 239 196 6 93 289 6 97 304 6 69
83 kg 9 (7.7) 593 6 97 149 6 55 216 6 40 243 6 42
93 kg 20 (17.1) 675 6 116 170 6 44 247 6 53 261 6 28
105 kg 18 (15.4) 726 6 178 195 6 71 273 6 69 274 6 48
120 kg 12 (10.3) 791 6 91 215 6 54 291 6 43 300 6 27
120 kg1 3 (2.6) 720 6 153 203 6 59 306 6 82 279 6 54
Female
52 kg 2 (1.7) 299 6 12 71 6 9 106 6 5 124 6 2
57 kg 6 (5.1) 375 6 90 86 6 22 146 6 42 145 6 32
63 kg 14 (12.0) 418 6 88 101 6 30 159 6 37 168 6 28
72 kg 10 (8.5) 441 6 90 96 6 25 168 6 40 176 6 31
84 kg 15 (12.8) 467 6 104 115 6 40 183 6 46 185 6 28
84 kg1 4 (3.4) 497 6 194 131 6 77 198 6 82 180 6 45
*Powerlifters participating specifically in bench press competition. Data are presented as mean 6 SD.

2546

Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Training Practices of Norwegian Powerlifters (2022) 36:9
Table 3
Best performances in current age/weight category.
Gold Silver
World Championships 5 (4.3) 7 (6.0)
European Championships 17 (14.5) 12 (10.3)
National Championships 59 (50.4) 12 (10.3)
Regional Championships 92 (78.6) 12 (10.3)
*Powerlifters who have previously competed and achieved medals in a different category.
significantly associated with either elastic bands (X2(1) 5 1.961,
p 5 0.161) or chains (X2(1) 5 2.096, p 5 0.148). Younger
powerlifters (Junior and Open) were significantly more likely
(X2(1) 5 5.722, p 5 0.017) than Masters competitors to use
elastic bands. Figure 3 shows the difference in usage of chains and
bands across all 3 lifts, demonstrating the most frequent use in the
bench press.
Specific Equipment
44.4% of all respondents reported using specialist clothing in
their powerlifting training, with 48, 38, and 34% of respondents
reporting the use of specialist clothing in the bench press, squat,
and deadlift, respectively. 76.1% of respondents used a bench
press board in their training, with no statistically significant
associations with any demographic category. 76.5% of
respondents reported that they perform deadlifts from blocks
(i.e., a partial deadlift with the barbell starting in an elevated
position), with a statistically significant association between sex
and the use of deadlift blocks (X2(1) 5 3.839, p 5 0.05). 83.9%
of male respondents performed deadlifts from blocks, compared
with 67.4% of the female respondents. 37.3% of all respondents
performed box squats. However, there was a statistically signif-
icant association between box squats and age (X2(1) 5 7.606, p 5
0.006), with 82.8% of the powerlifters who did not perform box
squats being younger (i.e., Junior and Open).
Figure 1. Frequency of each lift per week.
2547
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
| www.nsca.com
Number (% response)
Bronze Positioned outside medals
10 (8.5) 24 (20.5)
8 (6.8) 13 (11.1)
17 (14.5) 18 (15.4)
2 (1.7) 1 (0.9)*
Strength Training Exercises
Respondents reported on the use of strength training exercises in
their training. 32.5% of all respondents reported that they in-
cluded strength training and derivatives in their training, with
18.8, 10.3, and 14.5% reporting the use of snatch, clean, and jerk,
respectively. There were no statistically significant associations
with any demographic category.
Discussion
The aim of the present study was to conduct a survey of the
current training practices of Norwegian powerlifters. The
reported performances of the respondents were consistent with
the existing literature on powerlifting performance (2), whereby
the lighter powerlifters in this survey reported lifting a greater
percentage of their bodyweight and male respondents reported
the greatest strength-to-bodyweight ratio. The standard of com-
petitors was comparable with respondents from a survey ad-
ministered by Swinton et al. (32).
The majority of respondents (61.5%) reportedly trained 5
or more times per week, demonstrating a higher training fre-
quency than previously reported in the powerlifting literature
(16,27,31). Furthermore, the most common training fre-
quency for the 3 individual lifts was 3–4 times per week, which
is again higher than previous literature (16,31) findings.
Norwegian powerlifting—and training methods prescribed by
coaches in Norway—is a topic of frequent discussion in the
 Training Practices of Norwegian Powerlifters (2022) 36:9
Table 4
Reported length of taper before competition.
Number (% response)
1–5 days 8 (7.1)
6–10 days 19 (16.8)
11–15 days 23 (20.4)
16–21 days 38 (33.6)
Unsure 25 (22.1)
online powerlifting and strength training community. The
Norwegian Frequency Project (28) is an unpublished study in
collaboration with the Norwegian Powerlifting Federation
that has been anecdotally reported in numerous online sour-
ces. The powerlifters’ training with a high frequency (6 times
per week) experienced greater increases in powerlifting total
owing to greater increases in the bench press and squat. Fur-
thermore, this group produced greater increases in muscle
mass. More recently, a study by Colquhoun et al. (7) used
a similar research design to the original Norwegian Frequency
Project, dividing subjects into a group who trained 3 times per
week and a group who trained 6 times per week. After 6 weeks
of volume-matched training, both groups produced signifi-
cant increases in 1RM for bench press, squat, and deadlift
compared with baseline, but there was no significant differ-
ence between the 2 groups. However, between-group effect
sizes (ES) favored the 6 times per week group, with small to
medium ES in the bench press (ES 5 0.31), deadlift (ES 5
0.16), and powerlifting total (ES 5 0.15) and a trivial ES in the
squat favoring the 3 times per week group (ES 5 0.01). Al-
though the evidence for a higher training frequency has yet to
reach consensus (17), the anecdotal support for higher train-
ing frequencies may be why most respondents in this study
reported that they train more than 5 times per week. This was
consistent across all levels of performers in the sample, with
no differences for those who have performed in international
competition and those who have not. One explanation for this
may be that several training programs for the Norwegian
national team have been made publicly available on the
Figure 2. Training loads used with each lift. 1RM 5 1 repetition maximum.
2548
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Norwegian Powerlifting Federation website (https://styrke-
loft.no/treningsprogram), allowing any powerlifters to follow
the same program.
It is suggested that the training frequency alone does not
explain increases in strength, and increased muscular strength
gains associated with an increased training frequency are the
result of an increased training volume (17). Therefore, training
volume, i.e., number of repetitions 3 external load in kilo-
grams (25), may provide better insights into the training pro-
cess and may explain why some powerlifters are more
successful than others. The authors acknowledge a limitation
from the present survey; it was not possible to determine the
training volume of respondents because the respondents did
not report on the number of repetitions and sets in their
training sessions. Respondents did not do so for multiple rea-
sons: although strength-sport athletes have demonstrated
retest reliability in reporting habitual training practices (36),
additional questions on repetitions and sets would have con-
siderably increased the length of time to complete the survey
and, therefore, increase the likelihood of incomplete survey
responses (11,13). However, it is speculated that the power-
lifters trained at a higher frequency to maintain a higher overall
training volume (17) and, therefore, use submaximal loads.
The most frequently reported training load across all 3 lifts was
71–80% 1RM followed by 81–90% 1RM, loads that are
consistent with other powerlifters’ training prescription (1).
Furthermore, because the most frequently reported training
duration was 90–120 minutes, it is speculated that the pow-
erlifters implement longer rest intervals that are consistent
with the literature for promoting greater gains in muscular
strength in trained individuals (18).
Fewer than half of the respondents reported using RPE
(49.6%) and RIR (47%) as subject-monitoring methods. The lack
of use of RPE may be explained by the historical association with
aerobic activity (24). However, recent literature has demon-
strated the effectiveness of using RIR, validated against barbell
velocity, as a subjective measure specifically for resistance train-
ing (19,20,24). Repetitions in reserve allow autoregulation of the
load based on the perceived effort of the previous set.
 Training Practices of Norwegian Powerlifters (2022) 36:9
Figure 3. Use of variable resistance in each lift.
Nonetheless, as 84.6% of the survey respondents reported to have
a powerlifting coach involved in the prescription of their training,
the powerlifters may perform exercises with the predetermined
load prescribed by their coaches and, therefore, not use a sub-
jective tool to modify loads in subsequent sets. Essentially, the
powerlifters perform the sets, repetitions, and loads the coaches
tell them to.
The use of chains as a variable resistance material was less
frequent than the use of bands across all 3 lifts, with no re-
spondent reporting the use of chains in the deadlift. This is in
contrast to the existing literature from Swinton et al. (32,33),
which suggests that chains are used as frequently in the deadlift as
they are in the squat. However, both Swinton et al. (33) and, more
recently, Nijem et al. (23) found decreases in kinetic and kine-
matic variables when the deadlift was performed with chains.
Nijem et al. (23) advise that individuals looking to increase
ground reaction force in the deadlift do not use chains as a vari-
able resistance training method. The lack of support in the liter-
ature for the use of chains in the deadlift may be the reason for no
respondents reporting to use chains within their deadlift training.
The deadlift was reportedly the least prevalent exercise used with
elastic bands. This is consistent with the literature that suggests
the squat and bench press exercises elicit greater improvements
from variable resistance because of their respective ascending
strength curves (35). Furthermore, Galpin et al. (14) recommend
that bands should not be implemented during the deadlift when
training to increase maximal force. From a practical perspective,
it is arguably easier to incorporate elastic bands in the squat and
bench press because the bands are attached to racks. However,
the deadlift is traditionally performed on a gym floor or platform
with limited band attachments. The study by Galpin et al. (14)
required band attachments to be built into the floor, demon-
strating the potential impracticalities. Such difficulties in attach-
ing bands may therefore make this a less desirable training
modality.
The current study found a higher overall response rate for the
use of elastic bands (76.1% compared with 39.3% for chains).
Respondents who had competed internationally were signifi-
cantly more likely to use elastic bands in training. A previously
2549
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
| www.nsca.com
unpublished investigation from the Norwegian Powerlifting
Federation (30) attached elastic bands to the top of a rack to
mimic the elastic properties of a powerlifting suit, allowing for
enhancement of the biomechanically least efficient parts of the lift.
This use of elastic bands is considered to be assistance training (9),
which has previously been used in the form of a bench press
slingshot. Previous literature (9,38) has demonstrated that using
a bench press slingshot allows lifters to perform their raw 1RM at
a higher velocity, offering the elastic assistance device a mecha-
nism for deloading during training. We therefore suggest that, as
Norway traditionally achieves medals in equipped powerlifting
competition, the higher performing respondents in this survey
may use elastic bands as assistance to provide competition-
specific demands in each lift. However, we must acknowledge
a limitation in the survey instrument, whereby respondents were
asked to report their general use of bands. It is therefore not
possible to determine whether respondents were using elastic
bands as resistance or assistance.
Male respondents performed deadlifts from a raised height
(i.e., block pulls) more frequently than females, and this sex-
related difference was significant (X2(1) 5 3.839, p 5 0.05). To
the authors’ knowledge, there is no literature examining the
biomechanics of the block/rack pull deadlift variant. However,
Lockie et al. (22) concluded that male anthropometrics have
greater influence on the amount of work performed to complete
a 1RM effort in the conventional deadlift. Therefore, a block/rack
pull deadlift variant may be used by male powerlifters as a strat-
egy to reduce mechanical work performed during training and
allow a greater training frequency.
The majority (96.6%) of respondents reported to taper their
training before their competition performance. This is consistent
with the existing literature showing that elite powerlifters en-
gage in tapering before competition (16,27). Furthermore, the
results of this survey demonstrated consistency with the litera-
ture in terms of the duration of taper (approximately 2 to 3
weeks). Although the respondents reported a typical taper
length longer than the strongman athletes surveyed by Win-
wood et al. (37), the current findings demonstrate that those
engaged in high volumes of heavy strength training taper their
 Training Practices of Norwegian Powerlifters (2022) 36:9
training in preparation for competition. Pritchard et al. (26)
found that tapering strength training volume has positive effects
on maximal strength, as a product of reduced neuromuscular
fatigue.
The rationale for the original survey by Swinton et al. (32) was
anecdotal evidence for the implementation of explosive, higher
velocity training practices by powerlifters. This study found both
different and similar findings to Swinton et al. (32) regarding the
implementation of strength training practices. Where Swinton
et al. (32) found that 14 and 11% of respondents included the
snatch and jerk, respectively, the current study also found com-
paratively low responses (19 and 15% for the snatch and jerk,
respectively). By contrast, 10% of the respondents in this study
reported including the clean in their training compared with 61%
found by Swinton et al. (32). Overall, 33% of all respondents in
the current study reported that they use an Olympic lift or de-
rivative in their training, compared with the 69% of responses
gathered by Swinton et al. (32).
Swinton et al. (32) surveyed 28 subjects during an international
competition, allowing them to verify the competitive standard of
the powerlifters using the mean Wilks coefficient score for the
competition. Although this investigation had a much larger
sample size (n 5 117), we acknowledge the limitation of allowing
respondents to self-report through an electronic survey. How-
ever, this allowed respondents to retain anonymity. Furthermore,
the reported competition standards reflect the performances of
Norway at recent IPF and EPF competitions.
Practical Applications
This investigation provides broad insights into the training
practices of highly successful powerlifters. The results of the
study suggest that successful powerlifters train frequently—
between 5 and 6 sessions per week—with submaximal loads
(71–90% 1RM). This refers to an overall training frequency;
the frequency of each individual lift is most often 3 or 4 times
per week. The survey responses in this study demonstrate that
Norwegian powerlifters’ training practices are designed to
meet the specific demands of powerlifting competition. Con-
trary to the previous literature, there is limited use of strength
training exercises, box squats, and chains, but an increased
use of elastic resistance, reflecting a more specialized and
contemporary training approach than what has previously
been reported. This study adds to the limited existing literature
on the training practices of powerlifters and is therefore of use
to powerlifting coaches and strength and conditioning prac-
titioners working with athletes to develop high levels of
muscular strength. However, these findings should be applied
with caution to other populations because of the high degree
of sports specificity.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the powerlifting clubs, and their athletes, in
Norway for distribution and completion of the survey. No
conflict of interest is declared by the authors. The Norwegian
Powerlifting Federation may benefit from the findings of this
research. This study was not supported by any specific grant. The
results of this investigation do not constitute endorsement of any
product by the authors or the National Strength and Condition-
ing Association.
2550
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
References
1. Androulakis-Korakakis P, Fisher J, Kolokotronis P, Gentil P, Steele J.
Reduced volume daily max training compared to higher volume perio-
dized training in powerlifters preparing for competition—A pilot study.
Sports 6: e86, 2018.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Bjørnsen T, Wernbom M, Kirketeig A, et al. Type 1 muscle fiber hyper-
trophy after blood flow-restricted training in powerlifters. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 51:288–298, 2019.
5. British Psychological Society. Ethics Guidelines for Internet-Mediated
Research. Leicester, England: British Psychological Society, 2013.
6. Church JB, Allen TN, Allen GW. A review of the efficacy of weight
training aids. Strength Cond J 38: 11–17, 2016.
7. Colquhoun RJ, Gai CM, Aguilar D, et al. Training volume, not frequency,
indicative of maximal strength adaptations to resistance training.
J Strength Cond Res 32: 1207–1213, 2018.
8. D’Souza RF, Bjørnsen T, Zeng N, et al. MicroRNAs in muscle: Charac-
terizing the powerlifter phenotype. Front Physiol 8: 383, 2017.
9. Dugdale JH, Hunter AM, Di Virgilio TG, MacGregor LJ, Hamilton DL.
Influence of the Slingshot bench press training aid on bench press kine-
matics and neuromuscular activity in competitive powerlifters. J Strength
Cond Res 33: 327–336, 2019.
10. Eurostat. Population. 2018. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/
web/population-demography-migration-projections/data/main-
tables. Accessed November 12, 2019.
11. Fan W, Yan Z. Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A
systematic review. Comput Hum Behav 26: 132–139, 2010.
12. Ferland P-M, Comtois AS. Classic powerlifting performance: A systematic
review. J Strength Cond Res 33(Suppl 1):S194–S201, 2019.
13. Galesic M, Bosnjak M. Effects of questionnaire length on participation
and indicators of response quality in a web survey. Publ Opin Q 73:
349–360, 2009.
14. Galpin AJ, Malyszek KK, Davis KA, et al. Acute effects of elastic bands on
kinetic characteristics during the deadlift at moderate and heavy loads.
J Strength Cond Res 29: 3271–3278, 2015.
15. Gomo O, Van Den Tillaar R. The effects of grip width on sticking region in
bench press. J Sports Sci 34: 232–238, 2016.
16. Grgic J, Mikulic P. Tapering practices of Croatian open-class powerlifting
champions. J Strength Cond Res 31: 2371–2378, 2017.
17. Grgic J, Schoenfeld BJ, Davies TB, et al. Effect of resistance training fre-
quency on gains in muscular strength: A systematic review and meta-
analysis. Sports Med 48: 1207–1220, 2018.
18. Grgic J, Schoenfeld BJ, Skrepnik M, Davies TB, Mikulic P. Effects of rest
interval duration in resistance training on measures of muscular strength:
A systematic review. Sports Med 48: 137–151, 2018.
19. Helms ER, Brown SR, Cross MR, et al. Self-rated accuracy of rating of
perceived exertion-based load prescription in powerlifters. J Strength
Cond Res 31: 2938–2943, 2017.
20. Helms ER, Storey A, Cross MR, et al. RPE and velocity relationships for
the back squat, bench press, and deadlift in powerlifters. J Strength Cond
Res 31: 292–297, 2017.
21. Lewis C. Another sports drug-testing failure: Australian government
policy and powerlifting. Int J Sport Pol Polit 7: 233–253, 2015.
22. Lockie RG, Moreno MR, Orjalo AJ, et al. Relationships between height,
arm length, and leg length on the mechanics of the conventional and
high-handle hexagonal bar deadlift. J Strength Cond Res 32:
3011–3019, 2018.
23. Nijem RM, Coburn JW, Brown LE, Lynn SK, Ciccone AB. Electromyo-
graphic and force plate analysis of the deadlift performed with and
without chains. J Strength Cond Res 30: 1177–1182, 2016.
24. Ormsbee MJ, Carzoli JP, Klemp A, et al. Efficacy of the repetitions in reserve-
based rating of perceived exertion for the bench press in experienced and
novice benchers. J Strength Cond Res 33: 337–345, 2019.
25. Peterson MD, Pistilli E, Haff GG, Hoffman EP, Gordon PM. Progression
of volume load and muscular adaptation during resistance exercise. Eur J
Appl Physiol 111: 1063–1071, 2011.
26. Pritchard HJ, Barnes MJ, Stewart RJ, Keogh JW, McGuigan MR.
Higher-Versus lower-intensity strength-training taper: Effects on
neuromuscular performance. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 14:
458–463, 2019.
 Training Practices of Norwegian Powerlifters (2022) 36:9
27. 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.
28. Raastad T, Kirketeig A, Wolf D, Paulsen G. Powerlifters improved
strength and muscular adaptations to a greater extent when equal total
training volume was divided into 6 compared to 3 training sessions per
week. Book of Abstracts, 17th Annual Conference of the ECSS, Brugge.
July 4–7, 2012.
29. Saeterbakken AH, Mo DA, Scott S, Andersen V. The effects of bench press
variations in competitive athletes on muscle activity and performance.
J Hum Kinet 57: 61–71, 2017.
30. Samnøy LE, Kirketeig A, Wolf D, Seynnes O, Paulsen G, Raastad T. Does
Training with Elastic Rubber Band Supported Exercises Facilitate Improve-
ments in Performance and Muscular Adaptations in High Level Powerlifters?
8th International Conference on Strength Training. Oslo, Norway, 2012.
31. Strömbäck E, Aasa U, Gilenstam K, Berglund L. Prevalence and con-
sequences of injuries in powerlifting: A cross-sectional study. Orthop J
Sports Med 6: 2325967118771016, 2018.
2551
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
| www.nsca.com
32. Swinton PA, Lloyd R, Agouris I, Stewart A. Contemporary training
practices in elite British powerlifters: Survey results from an international
competition. J Strength Cond Res 23: 380–384, 2009.
33. Swinton PA, Stewart AD, Keogh JW, Agouris I, Lloyd R. Kinematic and
kinetic analysis of maximal velocity deadlifts performed with and without
the inclusion of chain resistance. J Strength Cond Res 25: 3163–3174, 2011.
34. Vidar Hanstad D, Houlihan B. Strengthening global anti-doping policy
through bilateral collaboration: The example of Norway and China. Int J
Sport Pol Polit 7: 587–604, 2015.
35. Wallace BJ, Bergstrom HC, Butterfield TA. Muscular bases and mecha-
nisms of variable resistance training efficacy. Int J Sports Sci Coach 13:
1177–1188, 2018.
36. Winwood P, Pritchard HJ, Keogh JW. Tapering practices of strongman ath-
letes: Test-retest reliability study. JMIR Res Protoc 6: e211, 2017.
37. Winwood PW, Dudson MK, Wilson D, et al. Tapering practices of
strongman athletes. J Strength Cond Res 32: 1181–1196, 2018.
38. Ye X, Beck T, Stock M, et al. Acute effects of wearing an elastic, supportive
device on bench press performance in young, resistance-trained males.
Gazz Med Ital 173: 91–101, 2014.