Exercise Variation for Powerlifting: Practice Makes Perfect?
~2200 words; 5-10 minute read
Key Takeaways:
Improving skill on a lift can increase strength independently of a larger muscle size or psychosocial factors.
Including variation in both the same and different motor patterns may have a small benefit over only practicing the competition squat, bench press, and deadlift.
Use variation purposefully to target specific weaknesses in your lifts, and include it even as you near competition.
Specificity is often hailed as the king of all training principles. Exercise selection is an area in which this principle is often discussed through the principle of Specificity of Adaptation to Imposed Demands (SAID). In the realm of powerlifting where the exercises tested in competition are the barbell back squat, bench press, and deadlift, the SAID principle would indicate that we should solely perform those three movements to their competition standards. Is there any use for variations of those lifts, or even non-barbell movements, if the goal is improving our skill on the competition lifts? We’re going to dive into the components of a motor task, the science behind variation in practice, and how this translates to powerlifting.
All forms of motor tasks emerge from an interplay between the individual, their environment, and the task they are trying to perform. This explains why technique can vary between different people or even the same person at different points in time. An example of this is a barbell back squat. The individual’s anatomy, experience performing a squat, the weight on the bar, the equipment being used, and the present social support are just a few examples of the number of factors that can influence movement.
While the movements that we are most concerned about here (the barbell squat, bench press, and deadlift) may not be as complex as those done in team sports such as basketball or soccer, they do present us with some unique considerations when examining the motor skills required for each of the lifts. These movements, at least in competition, are performed at a maximal effort. When a lift is performed at maximal or near-maximal effort, the barbell will slow down at some point during the lift which is often deemed the “sticking point.” Each of the barbell lifts is different in respect to both the timing and joint angles where the sticking point occurs. While each individual lifter is unique, during the squat the sticking point occurs roughly 66% of the way through the lift, bench press around 50%, and the deadlift around 40%.
There are a number of ways to alter the sticking point of any of these three lifts so that it only occurs at heavier absolute loads or at a more biomechanically efficient position. These strategies can include getting stronger, technique changes (changing the starting biomechanics), or skill improvement (improved ability to maintain desired biomechanics throughout the lift). Technique changes may include changing stance width in the squat, altering grip width in the bench press, or changing between a conventional and sumo deadlift stance. An example of improving your skill in a movement could be if you tend to extend your knees too early in a squat and end up with a “good morning” squat, improving your ability to maintain appropriate timing of hip and knee extension. This would result in better positioning throughout the squat, a more efficient bar path, and consequently a stronger squat.
Traditionally, there have been two main camps in powerlifting on how to best improve skill at the squat, bench press, and deadlift. One group would advocate for high specificity, such as only performing the competition style squat, bench and deadlift, referencing the SAID principle. The other would advocate for greater variation in training in hopes of skill carryover to the competition lifts. Let’s look at what the research says about skill improvement in motor tasks.
The literature examining this topic primarily compares constant, blocked, and varied practice for a number of motor tasks. Constant practice includes only practicing one motor task, blocked includes practicing multiple motor tasks with all of the reps of one task being performed before moving onto the next, and varied practice includes multiple motor tasks being performed in random order. An example of this includes Chua et al. who looked at constant vs varied practice for accuracy in overhand throwing. The constant practice group performed all their throws from the tested distance while the varied practice group randomly switched between 3 different distances. They found no significant differences in throwing accuracy between the groups during the practice time or at a follow up test after 2 days of no practice. However, when tested on their ability to throw from a novel distance, the variable practice group significantly outperformed the constant group.
The same researchers conducted a similar trial looking at golf putting, comparing varied vs blocked practice. The blocked group performed 20 reps at one distance before moving on to the next distance. The variable group randomly switched between distances while still performing the same number of reps at each distance as the blocked practice group. They again found no significant differences throughout the practice time or at a follow up 2 days later, but the varied practice group performed better in a test of novel putting distance also 2 days later. Similar findings have been reported in a number of different motor tasks such as badminton serving, wheelchair propulsion, and a number of multi-segment movement tasks.
These advantages of varied practice are of course modulated by a variety of factors such as the participant’s age, personality, the task, how much variation is included, and their baseline skill in the task. Interestingly, the use of variability in practice appears to have greater effects on skill improvement in adults than children. This could be due to the necessity for some baseline competency in the motor skill before additional variability is needed for improvement. When examining how we are able to apply this knowledge in the realm of powerlifting training, it’s important to note the difference between variability within the same motor pattern and variability across different motor patterns. Variability within the same motor pattern would include performing the same movement at different speeds or weights, while variability across different motor patterns would include changing the joint angles or timing of movement at joints during the lift. An example of a same motor pattern squat variation would include a Pause Squat, while an example of a different motor pattern variation would include a Bulgarian Split Squat.
As we translate the discussed research to powerlifting performance, we need to keep a few things in mind. The studies discussed examining constant vs varied practice only looked at upper body dominant movements, and there is a greater emphasis on fine motor tasks rather than the gross motor skills that are performed in powerlifting. This is noteworthy because fine motor skills might see greater contributions to performance from skill acquisition than the squat, bench press, and deadlift.
With most lifters training the competition lifts at least 2 times per week and the time between these exposures at most ~96 hours (4 days), it is important to look at the time between the participant’s last practice session and their retention test in the motor learning studies. The mentioned study on badminton serving performed their retention test 1 day after the last practice session and found an advantage for variable practice while the putting and throwing studies performed the retention test 2 days after and found no difference between groups. On the other hand, the study on multi-segment movements did retention tests both 10 minutes and 10 days after the last practice session and found advantages for variable practice at both test times. This would indicate, albeit still a distant extrapolation from these tasks to powerlifting, that including variability in training even within a few days of your competition may be beneficial for maximal skill performance. Additionally, while there was benefit for blocked training during the practice sessions in some trials, simply performing your warmups in competition style on your testing day should be enough to receive that benefit.
This is an example of the research on blocked vs random practice from the mentioned multi-segment movement study. They assessed how fast each participant could perform the desired tasks, so the less time (lower on the Y axis), the better. The blocked group demonstrates an immediate advantage during the practice trials over the random group, with the advantage decreasing over time. During the retention tests, half of the blocked practice group was tested in a random condition (blocked-random) and the other half in the blocked condition (blocked-blocked), with the same split occurring to the random practice group. At the 10 minute retention test, both of the random practice groups outperformed the blocked practice groups. Finally, at the 10 day retention test, the random-blocked group still performed the best, with an unexpected improvement of the blocked-blocked group from their 10 min test.
So far, there have only been a couple studies examining this concept of varied vs constant practice in barbell training. Fonseca et al. used four volume equated groups: a constant intensity + constant exercise (CICE), a constant intensity + varied exercise (CIVE), a varied intensity + constant exercise (VICE), and a varied intensity + varied exercise (VIVE). The constant intensity groups worked at an 8 rep max load while the varied intensity groups worked at 6, 8, and 10 rep max loads. In line with the mentioned variation strategy of performing different motor patterns, the varied exercise groups performed barbell squats, deadlifts, lunges, and leg press while the constant exercise groups performed solely barbell back squats. The authors found greater strength outcomes in the barbell back squat in the varied exercise groups compared to the constant exercise groups. The final strength standings were CIVE > VIVE > CICE > VICE. Of note is the fact that the CIVE and VIVE groups experienced greater quadriceps hypertrophy than the CICE and VICE groups, which may indicate that the strength advantages were not solely due to skill improvement.
A study by Appleby et al. compared bilateral vs unilateral training in the form of barbell back squats and barbell step ups. Based on the SAID principle, we’d expect strength gains to be greatest in the lift each group trained. In line with this, there was a small advantage in step up strength gains in the unilateral group. However, there was no difference between groups in 1RM back squat strength gains. While this study would have ideally had a group performing both squat and step ups, this still lends some support to utilizing different motor patterns for skill and strength improvement in the barbell lifts.
Finally, Baz-Valle et al. compared a preset resistance training program to one with randomly chosen exercises while equating volume between groups. The authors found no significant differences between groups for hypertrophy, and despite the preset program group performing higher intensity work approaching the test, there were no significant differences in strength gains between groups on the barbell bench press and back squat. Another notable finding is that the random exercise group had significantly more motivation to train.
Admittedly, there is a limited amount of evidence investigating this topic, and none of the highlighted studies are perfectly designed to compare varied vs constant practice for powerlifting. Additionally, much like the majority of exercise science literature, the participants typically aren’t well trained. However, by drawing on this literature as well as findings in different motor skill domains, I believe there are some useful conclusions we can come to. There are a number of ways to implement these findings in your normal training.
Include a greater amount of variation throughout your training by working in multiple motor patterns.
Including variation in training can help improve your skill at the lifts, lead to greater hypertrophy, and increase motivation to train. With no data on the end ranges of how long the skill improvements last, it may be wise to include variation even as you near your competition.
Pause the first rep of a set, then perform the rest of the set without a pause.
This adds some variation into your normal training at minimal fatigue cost. Also, you could randomly determine immediately before your set which rep(s) you will perform paused. This would count as true “random” or “varied” practice, which outperforms the more traditional “blocked” practice as mentioned earlier.
Include multiple variations of the same lift in the same training session.
If you don’t feel like performing multiple variations of the lift in one set, you can simply perform two different variations of the lift during the same session. While this would technically fall under “blocked” training and not varied, it should still produce an increase in your motor skill compared to normal training. An example of this would be performing your Competition Squat, a pressing movement, and then a squat variation such as tempo squats or lunges at the end of the session.
Perform variations that target the cause of the sticking points.
It's important to remember that an exercise variation should target the cause of the sticking point rather than where it becomes visually apparent. For instance, a technical problem occurring prior to the actual sticking point could be the underlying cause. An example of this is the use of a paused deadlift to address a sticking point just above the knees. You could perform the pause just off the ground to practice maintaining better positioning, hopefully resulting in a more biomechanically advantageous position as you approach the sticking point. Importantly, the specific variation that is of most utility for each lifter is likely individual and will require some trial and error.
Perform the variations at a high intensity (both % of 1RM and RPE).
If the variation is intended to target a specific sticking point in a lift, the intensity must be high enough to expose the sticking point. To get an idea of what intensity is required to do so, Wilson et al. found that bench press sticking points were not present with 81% of 1RM. Using the same intensity (both % of 1RM and RPE) for the variations as you do for your competition lifts is a good starting point.