Sports Medicine - Open· 2026Q1
Percentile-Based Normative Standards for Strength Assessment Beyond Linear Bodyweight Multipliers in Competitive Powerlifters
- 0citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
This study establishes percentile-based normative standards for powerlifting strength, revealing that traditional linear bodyweight multipliers are not equally attainable across different body masses and showing a non-linear decline in relative strength as body mass increases.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Established percentile-based normative standards for powerlifting strength using a dataset of 101,898 drug-tested athletes.
- Demonstrated a systematic, non-linear decrease in relative strength multipliers as body mass increases, across all performance percentiles (p < 0.001).
- Observed a steeper mass-dependent decline in relative strength at elite tiers (99th percentile) compared to intermediate levels (50th percentile).
- Quantified mass-dependent shifts in the internal lift ratio, with heavier athletes showing a narrower gap between deadlift and squat contributions.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Abstract Background Bodyweight multipliers (BM = L/M, where L denotes the absolute load lifted in kilograms and M the athlete's recorded body mass) represent the dominant benchmarking heuristic in strength and conditioning. However, because relative strength declines non-linearly with body mass, a single fixed threshold is not equally attainable across the body-mass spectrum, and these static standards provide no lift-specific, percentile-based reference for practitioner use. Methods A large-scale dataset of drug-tested, classic competitive powerlifters was analyzed to establish empirical percentile-based normative standards. A "Best-Ever" filter was applied to isolate each athlete's peak performance, yielding a final sample of N = 101,898 athletes (aged 21–49). Quantile regression was employed to independently estimate normative percentiles (50th, 75th, 90th, and 99th) and evaluate mass-dependent changes in relative strength across all three lifts. A Loess smoothing procedure was applied to percentile values summarized across weight classes to visualize mass-dependent performance trends. All athletes were retrospectively mapped into current International Powerlifting Federation (IPF) weight categories to produce absolute-load normative atlases stratified by lift, sex, and weight class. The internal lift ratio, the percentage contribution of each lift to the competitive total, was additionally quantified across the mass spectrum. Results A systematic, non-linear decrease in relative BMs was observed across all performance percentiles ( p < 0.001). The smoothed male 99th percentile deadlift multiplier declined from 4.37 in the 59 kg class to 2.65 in the 120+ kg category. A progressive mass-dependent decline was identified, with the rate of relative strength decay becoming significantly steeper at elite tiers (99th percentile) compared to intermediate levels (50th percentile). Female athletes exhibited a steeper mass-dependent decline in bench press and squat performance compared to males. The internal lift ratio shifted systematically from deadlift-dominance in lightweight categories (~ 42%–45%) to a substantially narrower gap between deadlift and squat contribution in heavyweight classes (~ 39% vs ~37%). Conclusion Traditional linear BM benchmarks are not equally attainable across body-mass classes and lack the resolution to support lift-specific athlete assessment. The empirical percentile-based normative framework established in this study provides coaches and researchers with a transparent, data-driven tool that accurately reflects the distribution of competitive performance across body mass categories. A practical normative atlas expressed in absolute kilograms is provided as a directly applicable field tool.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Sports Medicine - Open, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
Orthopedics and Sports MedicineMedicine