.png)
Bridging the Divide: Tested vs Untested Strongman: Part 1 - Tested vs Untested in UK & Ireland Nationals/Home Nations (2022–2025)
- JHEPCxTJH
- Sep 8
- 33 min read
Updated: Sep 13
Bridging the Divide: Tested vs Untested Strongman
Part 1 - Tested vs Untested in UK & Ireland Nationals/Home Nations (2022–2025)
Strongman is built on comparisons. Every competition is, at its core, a way of finding out who can move the most weight, the fastest, under the toughest conditions. But outside the arena, another comparison keeps coming up-one that coaches, athletes, and fans argue about constantly: how big is the gap between tested and untested strongman?
It isn’t just an academic question. If you’re an athlete working your way up the ladder, the answer shapes your career decisions. Do you stay in the tested pathway and try to dominate there? Do you step across into untested nationals, where the implements are heavier, the fields deeper, and the stakes higher? If you’re a coach, understanding that jump tells you how to prepare lifters realistically, rather than throwing them into competitions they can’t yet hang with.
For years, people have leaned on anecdotes to answer it. “So-and-so hit X at Brits, that’s miles above what we saw at Englands.” Or: “The women’s scene is different-loads of overlap between tested and untested.” And while those stories carry some truth, they don’t really tell us what matters: what does the data actually say across events, across shows, across the podiums?
That’s why this analysis matters now. Between 2023 and 2025, enough federations have stabilised their national and home-nations events that we can finally compare like with like. England’s, UK’s, Britain’s, Four Nations, Finals - they’re running repeatable kits: log, axle, deadlift ladders, yokes, stones, bag toss. The women’s divisions are no longer a handful of scattered results but fully-fledged competitions with clear scoreboards. For the first time, there’s a dataset big enough to stop guessing and start quantifying.
And the headline is simple: podium to podium, tested and untested nationals are separated by roughly 20%-for men and women alike. Same race pace. Heavier implements. Higher ceilings.
That might sound blunt, but within it is nuance: the gap feels smaller in the middle of the pack, especially for women, where endurance-style events compress performances. It feels bigger at the podium, where untested athletes separate themselves on the static lifts and max payloads that reward recovery, leverage, and brute force.
So why care? Because if you know the scale of that jump, you can train for it. You can set your benchmarks, know when you’re genuinely ready to cross divisions, and avoid the trap of thinking you’re behind when you’re actually on track-or worse, thinking you’re ready when you’re not. This isn’t about bragging rights between federations. It’s about athletes and coaches having a clear map of what separates “tested-national strong” from “untested-national/pro-qualifier strong,” and how to bridge that gap deliberately.
That’s what the numbers below are designed to show. Not just stories, but standards. Not just who’s strongest today, but what you need to become competitive tomorrow.
Setting the Bar: What the 2023 - 2025 Scoreboards Actually Show-and How to Use Them
The question. Coaches and athletes keep asking the same thing in different words: How much harder is untested? How much stronger are they, event by event, when the kit, time caps, and scoring get real? This analysis answers that with the best evidence currently available from UK & Ireland nationals/home-nations level competitions across 2023–2025-men and women, tested and untested.
What we analysed (and how)
Competitions included. We built a composite from the clearest, most complete scoreboards available between 2023 and 2025 across the tiers you actually target:
Tested (men): England’s, Four Nations, Brits/Finals, UK & Ireland (natural feds including UKNS, BNSF, WHEA/NS UK&I).
Untested (men): England’s, UK’s, Britain’s, OSG England's Qualifiers.
Tested (women): UKNS Women’s Finals 2024, England’s Strongest Woman 2025 (tested), Four Nations 2025, UK & Ireland’s Strongest Woman 2025, BNSF England’s 2024, BNSF Brits 2024.
Untested (women): Ultimate England’s Strongest Woman 2023, OSG England's Strongest Woman 2025, Ultimate UK’s Strongest Woman 2024, Irish Strength Cup 2025, Britain’s Strongest Woman 2024–2025.
Why these shows? They publish event kits, time caps, and podium placements with enough clarity to extract standards that reflect what wins and what keeps you competitive at national/home-nations level, rather than one-off gym maxes or local outliers.
Normalising different event types. Strongman does not hand you calibrated 1RMs and identical platforms. To compare apples to apples across federations, venues, and event types, we used consistent, conservative proxies:
Pressing & deadlift for reps → estimated 1RM via Epley: 1RM ≈ load × (1 + 0.0333 × reps) This lets a 75×4 log (women) and a 150×4 log (men) live on the same scale as single attempts.
Moving events → power proxy: (load × distance) / time (kg·m/s). This captures the effect of heavier yokes/farmers carried at sprint speeds.
Carries → work proxy: load × distance (kg·m), because courses vary and timekeeping is inconsistent.
Ladders/medleys → top implement completed within typical time windows, noting both the weight reached and whether completion occurred under cap.
Granularity. For each event family we recorded three anchors:
Typical range the show advertises/runs.
Top winning performance observed in the dataset window.
“Podium standard”-the midpoint that reflects what top 4–6 athletes routinely achieve.
This three-point view is more useful for planning than a single headline max, because it maps to attempt selection and expected competitive density.
Men and women treated separately. We did not “shrink” men’s numbers to set women’s expectations. Women’s composites come from women’s shows; men’s from men’s shows. Where sex-specific patterns emerged (e.g., dumbbell press gap and frame/hold endurance), we call them out.
What we didn’t do. We did not speculate on pharmacology, we did not back-fill unreadable PDFs, and we did not invent missing placements. Where mid-pack data was incomplete, we used event design and implement loads to characterise the average-field experience without assigning false precision to positions 6–12.
What (I hope) you get from this article (and series more broadly)
Event standards that match what’s on the floor.
Men-tested national tier: e.g., deadlift 280–300 appears, axle 250 for volume, yoke 340×24 m in ~16–18 s, stones around 120–160.
Men-untested national/pro-qualifier tier: heavier across the board-log 150–160, deadlift ladders to 360–380, yoke 400–420, stones 180–200.
Women-tested national tier: endurance-leaning mix-130–150 squats for high reps, 180–200 deadlift for reps, yoke 200–220 at race pace, stones 80–120.
Women-untested national/pro-qualifier tier: elevated ceilings-log near 90–100, deadlift ladders 240–250, yoke 240–280, stones 120–140.
A clear percent gap by domain at podium level.
Men: pressing ~+17%, pulling ~+21%, moving/carry ~+22%, loading ~+16–25% → composite ~+19%.
Women: pressing ~+17–19% (dumbbell the largest jump), pulling ~+23%, moving ~+20%, loading ~+20–25% → composite ~+20–21%.
Podium vs average-field interpretation that actually matches how comps feel.
The podium gap is large and stable (~20%) for both sexes.
For women, the average gap is narrower: tested events often emphasise reps/time/distance where loads overlap, compressing differences; untested raises ceilings with heavier max/static implements that expand differences at the very top.
“Podium profile” checklists for each quadrant. Concrete targets (log/axle/DB, deadlift reps and ladders, yoke/farmers times, stones/toss) that tell you whether you’re realistically competing for top 5 or still building base capacity.
Programming levers to close the gaps.
Women: dumbbell density, log volume with jerk recoveries, 220–240 deadlift rep tolerance, sprint yoke/farmers, stone-chain efficiency, long isometrics (frame/wrecking ball).
Men: axle under fatigue, suit skill on heavy deadlifts, heavy–rep alternation, bag-toss finish heights, yoke line discipline.
Federation and show bias maps. Where medleys and bag toss dominate (UKNS), where static pulls carry more weight (BNSF), where heavier top implements are standard (Ultimate/Giants/Britain’s), and how to plan a season that suits your profile while you build your weak domains.
A limitations statement that keeps the conclusions honest and useful. Apparatus variance and partial mid-pack visibility mean we anchor on podium-standard midpoints and event design patterns now, and expand to full-field distributions as cleaner datasets emerge.
Why publish this now (and what’s coming next)
Why now.
Consistency of events has improved: logs, axles, ladders, bag toss, and stones are appearing with repeatable loads and formats across multiple shows.
Women’s divisions have matured: multiple years of nationals/home-nations scoreboards with comparable kits and time caps.
Critical mass of data exists to build a first-pass composite that informs training thresholds and attempt selection rather than guessing.
What this unlocks immediately.
Realistic standards you can program against for 8–12 weeks, not folklore.
Domain deltas that tell you where to invest training economy (e.g., women-DB and deadlift reps; men-axle under fatigue and stone payloads).
Season design: choose qualifiers that fit your strengths while you deliberately raise your weakest domain to the target kit.
What the next instalments will add.
Full-field distributions (median/mode/variance) as more readable scoreboards land, so we can quantify the “average competitor” gap with confidence.
Event-type modelling: how much points movement comes from endurance vs. max/static events; how time caps and course lengths shift placements.
Sensitivity analyses: what changing yoke distance (20 m vs 24 m) or toss height does to power proxies and rank order.
Interactive benchmarks: enter your current lifts/runs and receive readiness scores for each federation’s likely kit.
Longitudinal updates: the same composite refreshed after each nationals cycle so coaches can track where weights and times are drifting.
TL;DR: Across UK & Ireland nationals/home nations (2023–2025), the podium jump from tested → untested is ~20% for men and women. Biggest deltas: deadlift ladders/rep ranges, stones, and women’s circus DB. Same race pace; heavier kit. Tested fields compress via endurance-biased events; untested raises ceilings with heavier statics. Use the podium profiles to set targets and the 8-week KPIs to close gaps. Part 2 will map the average competitor with distributions and event-type weighting.
This analysis compares competitive standards, not athlete choices. No claims are made about individual athletes.
Methods (Why You Can Trust the Numbers)
Before we get into who’s stronger and by how much, it’s worth explaining how we actually built this comparison. Strongman isn’t like powerlifting where you can just pull up an OpenPowerlifting database (you can try with a combination of Strength Results, Strongman Archive, Facebook, Instagram and Strength Register) and check everyone’s squat PR. Every competition runs different kit, different distances, different time caps, and different scoring systems. That makes the gap between tested and untested harder to measure - but not impossible, if you’re willing to put the work in.
What we did was strip the events back to their fundamentals. Instead of obsessing over who lifted what on one particular day, we looked at the repeatable patterns across multiple scoreboards. The dataset covers every major national or home nations competition we could get from 2023 through 2025. On the tested side, that means Englands, Four Nations, the BNSF Brits/Finals, and the UK & Ireland contests. On the untested side, we’ve got Englands, UK’s, Britain’s, OSG qualifiers, and the Irish Cup. These are the shows that set the real “standards” - the ones athletes peak for, and the ones that shape what counts as competitive at national level.
To make the two sides comparable, we used a set of conversions and proxies:
Reps → Estimated 1RM (Epley formula). If someone deadlifts 280×5, that isn’t just “five reps.” Using the Epley model (1RM ≈ weight × (1 + 0.0333 × reps)), we can translate that into an estimated max of ~327 kg. It’s not perfect, but it’s widely accepted in strength research and gives us a fair way to put rep ranges side by side.
Moving events → Power proxy. Yoke and farmers walks are fundamentally about how much load you can shift over a set distance, and how fast you can do it. So we used a simple power formula: (load × distance) ÷ time. That way, a 340 kg yoke moved 24 m in 16 s can be directly compared to a 400 kg yoke moved 20 m in 14 s. Different course lengths stop being a headache once you reduce them to the same power equation.
Carries → Work proxy. For max-distance events like Husafell or shield carries, the cleanest measure is total work: load × distance. A 120 kg Husafell carried for 80 m gives you 9,600 kg·m of work. Compare that to a 200 kg shield carried 60 m (12,000 kg·m), and you instantly see the gap in output.
Ladders and medleys → Top implement within the time cap. Medleys are messy, but they all come down to where athletes fail. Did you finish the whole ladder, or did you top out at the third implement? Did you shoulder the 120 bag in time, or did you stall at 100? We logged the “typical podium stop point” and the times it was done in, which gives us an honest midpoint standard.
Now - a word on scope. We’re not pretending to give you the exact average of every single competitor across every show. That’s not possible right now. I haven't done all the stats and sometimes Scoreboards don’t always publish full data, mid-pack results are sometimes screenshots or PDFs with inconsistencies, and event conditions vary too much to reduce everything to one neat table. Instead, we focused on the podium-standard midpoints: the numbers that kept you in the top 4–6 across these shows. Those are the benchmarks athletes actually need to hit if they want to be competitive, and they’re stable enough across federations to be useful.
Finally, transparency. This is a first-pass composite, not the last word. The full distributions - how the average competitor looks versus the podium ceiling - are a deeper project. That’s where we’ll get to questions like: is the tested side closer to the untested at the mid-pack? Do women compress more than men because of event design? Those answers will come later as part of the ongoing series and the VIP platform, where we can actually crunch the raw placements in detail. For now, what you’ll see here is clean, consistent, and accurate enough to trust when we say: tested vs. untested at national/home nations level is about a 20% gap - and here’s the proof.
For this first analysis we’ve deliberately honed in on the top six placings at each event - the athletes who define the podium standard and the competitive ceiling. That’s where the clearest data sits, and it’s also what most lifters care about when they ask “what do I need to hit to be in the mix?” Alongside this, we’ve nodded to the average competitor wherever patterns were strong enough to summarise - using mean, median, and mode estimates to sketch the middle of the field, and looking briefly at IQR and standard deviation to see how spread-out or clustered the results were. The full statistical treatment of the “average” lifter - the deeper distributions, the separation between top and bottom quartiles, and how variance differs between tested and untested - is coming in Part 2 of this series. For now, Part 1 is about setting clear podium benchmarks and mapping the real gap that decides who stands on stage at Englands, UK’s, and Britain’s.
Event Standards at a Glance (What Shows Are Actually Running)
When you strip away the hype reels and the Instagram highlights, what actually decides a national title or a Britain’s podium? It’s not a mystery - the scoreboards make it plain. Different federations lean into different event philosophies, but once you start stacking tested against untested, men against women, you can see the outlines of four very different landscapes. These are averages over a 2-3 year period and may not reflect specific events and competition weights.
Men - Tested Nationals If you thought “tested” meant light, think again. Deadlifts in the 280–300 range are showing up regularly, and reps matter - five or six pulls at that weight is what separates podiums. Axle at 250×8–10 is a volume grind, squats have touched 220×15, and farmers are creeping into the 140–150×30 m bracket. But this isn’t just a static slog: UKNS and WHEA keep medleys, bag tosses, and front holds in rotation, forcing lifters to balance brute strength with conditioning. The reality: tested nationals aren’t shy about heavy kit, but they keep endurance and efficiency baked into the mix.
Men - Untested Nationals/Pro Qualifiers Now crank every dial up. The race pace is almost identical - yokes still need to move in 14–15 seconds, bags still have to clear in 20–25 seconds - but the loads are another universe. Logs are locked in at 150–160 for reps, dumbbells at 90–100, and deadlift ladders climb to 360–380. Stones now end at 200 in under 30 seconds. This isn’t a different sport; it’s the same event structure run with implements 20–25% heavier. To survive here you need to move like a tested finalist but under weights that border on pro-level.
Women - Tested Nationals The shape of the sport is different here. Tested women’s comps lean into endurance-biased scoring: 150×14 squats win events, deadlifts are tested at 200×6–8 reps, and Húsafell carries are stretching 90 m plus. Bag tosses top out around 13–14 kg, stone series at 80–120, and log presses separate podiums by a single rep at 75–80. Speed and lungs are decisive - one clean run through a medley or 2–3 seconds off your yoke split can swing three or four placings. These shows crown the most efficient mover as much as the strongest presser.
Women - Untested Nationals/Pro Qualifiers Here the ceiling jumps. Logs are flirting with 100 kg maxes and multiple reps at 85–90; dumbbells are in the 55–60 range for doubles and triples. Deadlifts stretch to 240–250 ladders, with reps at 220+ common. Stones are now 120–140, often with a 140 platform finish, and bag tosses climb into the 16–18 kg bracket at 4 m plus. Moving events aren’t slower - they’re faster, sprint-speed yokes at 240–260 kg and farmers covering 20 m in under 13 seconds. In other words, the race hasn’t changed - only the weights on the start line.
The Gap by Domain (Podium Standard, Then the “Average” Picture)
If you boil the scoreboards down into numbers, the picture is surprisingly consistent: the untested side is heavier across every category - but the size of that jump depends on which events you’re looking at, and whether you’re studying the podium or the middle of the pack.
Men (Podium Standards)
These are averages over a 2-3 year period and may not reflect specific competition weights.
Pressing For men, the biggest shock for many is how wide the log gap has become. On the tested side, a 120×4 press translates to an estimated 136 kg 1RM. The untested podium? 150×4, which pushes the estimate to 170 kg - a +25% jump in real terms. Axle medleys tell a similar story but in a smaller range: 130 vs. 140 kg under fatigue, a +8–11% increase. Circus dumbbells bridge the middle ground, with tested podiums around 78×3 (~86 kg 1RM est), compared to untested ladders that run into the 90–100+ range. All told, the pressing composite lands at ~+17% heavier for untested men.
Pulling Deadlifts separate the fields cleanly. A tested national podium is built on 280×5 reps, which comes out to ~327 kg 1RM. The untested equivalent sits at 320×6–7 reps, translating closer to 389 kg - a +19% difference. Deadlift ladders stretch this even further: tested tops out around 300–320, untested ladders climb all the way to 360–380. That’s a 20–27% increase in the top bar alone. Composite: ~+21% advantage.
Moving/Carrying Here the numbers are less forgiving. Tested nationals run 340 kg yokes × 24 m in ~16–17 seconds. Untested fields shift to 400×20 m in 14–15 seconds. When you put that through the power proxy (load × distance ÷ time), it works out at ~+10–15% more power output for untested athletes. Farmers show a similar spread: tested 145×30 m in ~40 s (109 kg·m/s) vs. untested 155×25 m in 30 s (129 kg·m/s) - +19% faster/stronger. The Husafell/Shield carry is even starker: tested podiums average ~130×85 m = 11,050 kg·m, untested step up to 200×75 m = 15,000 kg·m. That’s a +36% work capacity difference. Composite: ~+22% advantage.
Loading/Power Sandbags creep up by about 12.5% (100–140 → 120–150). Bag toss goes from 24–26 to 27–29, a +8–16% bump. But stones are the real headline: tested comps stop at 160, while untested nationals now demand 200 as a final stone. That’s a clean +25% increase in payload. Composite: ~+16–25% depending on event bias.
Overall (Men’s Podium Composite) The numbers converge neatly: pressing +17%, pulling +21%, moving/carrying +22%, loading/power +16–25%. Average them out, and you land at ~+19% stronger across the board.
Women (Podium Standards)
These are averages over a 2-3 year period and may not reflect specific competition weights.
Pressing The women’s data shows a near-identical composite, but the gaps are distributed differently. Dumbbell is the clearest divider: tested podiums manage 42–48×1–2 reps, while untested showings push 55–60×2–3 reps, with bests like 60×6. That’s a +25–30% jump. Logs scale from 75×3–4 (85–90 est 1RM) on the tested side to 85×4–5 (100–105 est 1RM) untested, around +16%. Axle under fatigue is narrower again - 85–90 tested vs. 95–100 untested - a +10–12% gap. Composite pressing index: +17–19%.
Pulling This is where the separation is sharpest. Tested podiums hold at 180×6–8 (210–215 est 1RM); untested run 220–240×6–8, with outliers like 240×13 (250–260 est 1RM). That’s a clean +25% jump in pulling strength. Ladders extend it: tested tops at 200, untested clears 240–250. Composite: +23% pulling advantage.
Moving/Carrying Both sides move fast - but again, it’s the loads that change. Tested podiums run 200–220 yokes in ~18 s, untested jump to 240–280 in 12–15 s. Farmers show the same pattern: 90–100×30 m in 30–35 s tested vs. 90–100×20 m in 9–13 s untested. The pace is the same, but the payloads are ~+20% heavier. Composite: +20% advantage.
Loading/Power Stones are the marquee difference: tested nationals end with 80–120 ladders or 100×6–8 reps, while untested run 120–140 medleys and 140 platforms. That’s +20–25% heavier stone runs. Bag toss extends the same theme: 13–14 ladders tested vs. 16–18 untested. Payloads again up +15–20%. Composite: +20–25% heavier loading events.
Overall (Women’s Podium Composite) Across the board: pressing +17–19%, pulling +23%, moving +20%, loading +20–25%. Put together: ~+20–21% stronger on the untested side - almost identical to the men’s average.
What About the Average Competitor?
This is where the nuance lies. On the podium, the gap between tested and untested is ~20% for both men and women. But look further down the rankings, and the stories diverge.
For women, the average gap appears smaller. Why? Tested federations skew their events toward endurance and technical scoring: high-rep squats, long carries, bag toss ladders. These are domains where naturals can still hold their own, because the benefit of PEDs is less pronounced. A tested field will still get buried on a 90 kg dumbbell or 240 deadlift ladder, but in medleys, bag tosses, and squats, the margins shrink. The result: podium ceilings stretch apart, but the middle of the field compresses closer together.
For men, the gap persists further down. The untested side not only pushes heavier implements, but it also has deeper talent pools. That means even the “average” competitor in an untested Englands or Britain’s is running heavier kit than their tested equivalent. The separation shows up earlier, and the attrition rate is higher - fewer can hang on once weights cross the 300+ deadlift, 150+ log, 200 stone thresholds.
The proof we’re showing now comes from event design and implement jumps - the hard data that can be standardised across comps. The deeper statistical story - means, modes, medians, interquartile ranges, and standard deviations across full fields - will come in Part 2, where we can dig into the “average competitor” in more detail.
Podium Profiles (Benchmarks to Aim For)
One of the clearest lessons from this analysis is that the “jump” from tested nationals to untested nationals isn’t mysterious - it’s measurable. You can actually write down, event by event, what the benchmarks look like for someone who wants to contend for a podium. Think of these not as theoretical numbers but as targets you can program toward. If you’re consistently at or above these standards in training, you’re in the right ballpark. If you’re below, you’ll need a game plan to close the gap.
Tested “England’s-Level” Targets
Men
These are averages over a 2-3 year period and may not reflect specific competition weights.
Overhead: A tested men’s podium is built on a log press around 120×4 reps or a clean single at 135. That’s the difference between hanging around the middle of the pack and being in the points.
Pulling: Deadlifts are decisive. You need 280×4–5 reps on a barbell, or you risk sliding fast. The axle sits around 250×8–10 reps - an endurance test just as much as strength.
Moving: The yoke standard is 340×24 m in ≤16–17 seconds. One stumble or pick hesitation, and you’re out of podium contention.
Loading/Power: Stones are lighter than in the untested field, but you still need to be hitting 120×3–4 reps. Bag toss ladders should clear 24–26 kg, and efficiency here often swings places.
Conditioning/Grip: Expect a front hold in the 36–40 second range. Shorter than that and you’ll haemorrhage points in finals where margins are tight.
Women
These are averages over a 2-3 year period and may not reflect specific competition weights.
Overhead: You’ll need a log around 75×3–4 or 80×1–2 to stand on the podium. Anything less and the gap opens quickly.
Pulling: A podium deadlift looks like 180×6–7 or 200×4–5. The axle sits around 180×5+ reps. Strength endurance is non-negotiable.
Moving: Tested women are carrying 200–220 yokes across 20 m in ≤18 seconds. At this pace, it’s execution, not just strength, that matters.
Loading/Power: Expect to need 100×6–8 on stones or to run a full 80–120 ladder without major fumbles. Bag toss ladders should hit 12–13 kg clean.
Conditioning/Grip: Front holds in the 38–40 second bracket are a realistic podium benchmark, and you’ll need Húsafell carries in the 70–80 m zone.
👉 Why these matter: At tested nationals, you don’t win by being outrageously strong in one lane. You win by being consistent across these minimums. Missing just one benchmark puts you out of the top 6, because parity is high and events are scored tight.
Untested “England’s/UK’s Podium” Targets
These are averages over a 2-3 year period and may not reflect specific competition weights.
Men
Overhead: The log has to be 150×3–5 reps, minimum. That’s the bar set by Britain’s-level athletes. Axle and dumbbell medleys are no easier, but log is the cornerstone.
Pulling: Deadlift ladders now push all the way to 360 kg, and you need to get there fast. Straight-bar reps sit around 320×6–7+ with suits allowed. Suit proficiency and recovery under fatigue are key differentiators here.
Moving: Yoke is heavier and faster: 400×20 m in ≤16 seconds. It’s not just a pick, it’s a sprint.
Loading/Power: Stones are now routinely 180–200 in national finals, and you must be able to clear the set inside 30 seconds to stay in contention. Bag toss ladders? Expect to finish 24–29 kg at competition height.
Women
These are averages over a 2-3 year period and may not reflect specific competition weights.
Overhead: The untested women’s podium sits at a log of 85×4–5 reps, or at least one clean single at 90+. Axle standards sit at 95–100 kg, and dumbbell pressing has jumped to 55–60×2–3 reps.
Pulling: Deadlift ladders run to 240–250 as standard, and podium contenders must pull 220×6–8 reps on straight bar.
Moving: Yokes are 240–260×20 m in ≤15 seconds. Farmers are run as sprints at similar loads. At this level, it’s not about surviving the event - it’s about shaving every second.
Loading/Power: Stones now stretch into 120–140 ranges, and at Britain’s Strongest Woman you’ll see 140 platforms attempted. Bag toss ladders finish at 16–18 kg over 4.0–4.5 m.
Why these matter: Untested nationals don’t forgive weaknesses. A 150 log or 200 stone isn’t “good enough to scrape through” - it’s the minimum to be in the conversation. Execution still matters, but the baseline kit is heavier, the race pace is identical, and the room for error is smaller.
The Big Picture If you compare side by side, the numbers show the same pattern for both men and women:
Tested nationals reward balance, efficiency, and being able to hit consistent minimums.
Untested nationals raise those minimums by ~20% across the board, with stones, log, dumbbell, and deadlift ladders showing the biggest absolute jumps.
For lifters asking, “What does it actually take to podium?” - the answer is right here. These are the targets you should be programming for, and the benchmarks against which you can measure your readiness before stepping into either pathway.
What Coaches & Athletes Should Do (Closing the Gap)
Once you see the data, the obvious next question is: how do you actually train to close a ~20% gap? Whether you’re moving from tested to untested, or just trying to raise your ceiling inside your own federation, the prescriptions aren’t abstract. They’re practical, repeatable, and measurable.
Overhead Pressing - Where Placings Swing
For both men and women, overhead pressing is the most visible differentiator between tested and untested podiums. It isn’t just about raw strength; it’s about technical resilience and skill under fatigue.
Women: The circus dumbbell is the outlier event, where the statistical gap blows out to +25–30%. That’s not just because the untested athletes are stronger, but because they have denser skill. The fix? Treat dumbbell as a technical lift, not a novelty.
Run cluster sets (e.g. 1–1–1–1 on :30 rest) to simulate multiple clean reps without technical breakdown.
Prioritise log volume cycles with sets in the 70–80% range to build race-weight confidence.
Add jerk recoveries (unracks from blocks, partial dips) to develop lockout stability.
Men: The axle is the equaliser in medleys, and the log remains the benchmark.
Program axle under fatigue: short carries, stone picks, or sled drags immediately before axle reps.
Cycle log intensity: rotate weeks of heavy triples/singles with speed work (submaximal loads moved explosively).
Deadlift - The Anchor
The biggest single driver of podium separation, for both tested and untested. What changes isn’t just the load, but the format: ladders, reps, suits, and bar types.
Singles & Reps Together: Alternate weeks of heavy singles at 85–95% with rep-focused blocks (e.g. capped AMRAPs). This builds both peak force and work capacity.
Suit Technique: If you’re going untested, the deadlift suit isn’t optional. Treat it like a skill - practice every week, not just before comps.
Top Bar Practice: If ladders in your federation peak at 300 (tested) or 360–380 (untested), train to the top implement. Rehearse full ladders, but especially practice the final bar under fatigue.
Moving Events - Where Races Are Won and Lost
The stopwatch exposes technical inefficiencies. At both tested and untested levels, placings swing in seconds.
Program contrast sessions: do 2–3 sprints at 60–70% load to sharpen speed, then transition to comp weight for one “all-out” run.
Drill turnarounds and line discipline - especially in 20 m/24 m yokes or medleys where single steps can cost points.
Rotate surface changes: practice on grass, mats, and concrete to simulate different comp floors.
Add pick mechanics: heavy static picks (yoke or frame) above comp weight for short holds to build bracing confidence.
Loading & Power Events - The Deciders
The data makes clear that stones, bag toss, and sandbag steeplechases are where athletes either cement podiums or fall apart.
Stone Chains: Run 4–5 stone series in training (e.g. 100–180, 120–200 depending on division). Focus on lap mechanics and speed between implements.
Bag Toss Ladders: Fix rest windows between bags (e.g. :15 between each throw) to sharpen rhythm and recovery. Don’t just chase height - train sequencing.
Steeplechase Economy: Medleys that combine carries and loads require efficiency. Practice moving implements in sequence without wasted steps or pauses.
Isometrics & Grip - Women’s Outlier Domain
The women’s side showed the biggest single statistical gap in grip/isometric holds (+40–50%). That’s not a strength gap so much as a training bias.
Program frame or “wrecking ball” holds at 60–90 seconds, progressive over time.
Layer in timed breathing drills during holds to extend capacity without redlining.
Build forearm density: high-volume rows, plate pinches, rolling handles.
Add bear-hug carries for both grip and bracing endurance.
The 8-Week “Gap-Closer” Meso
A template isn’t the point here - but the KPIs are. If you want to know whether training is moving you toward podium readiness, these are the numbers you should track weekly:
Log reps @ race load (e.g. 120 men tested, 85 women untested).
Deadlift total reps @ 85% (barbell or axle).
Yoke power proxy: (load × distance) ÷ time - track in kg·m/s, aim to improve weekly.
Bag toss height: consistent clearances at comp bags, not just maxes.
Stone chain time: 5 implements, total seconds from first pick to last load.
Keep the cycle short, sharp, and specific. Eight weeks is enough to raise 1–2 weak domains while holding others steady - the exact margin that decides whether you finish top 6 or podium.
Of course, none of this replaces individual context. These numbers and comparisons aren’t blueprints for a single athlete - they’re patterns drawn from scoreboards and event standards. Every lifter brings their own leverages, injury history, recovery profile, and skill set. What this analysis captures are trends: the weights that keep appearing, the rep ranges that separate podiums, and the margins that repeatedly decide placings. It’s a map of the territory, not a personal program - the individual journey still has to be built from the ground up.
Season Design & Federation Bias (Pick Your Battles)
One of the most under-discussed aspects of strongman is that not all shows are created equal. Two athletes might both hold “national-level” podiums, but what got them there could look very different depending on the federation and the slate of events. If you’re serious about progression - whether that means chasing a Britain’s invite, an OSG qualifier, or climbing through the Natural pathway - you need to know what biases each federation builds into its competitions. That awareness lets you set your season intelligently, peaking at the right time and plugging the right holes in your training.
Tested Pathway: Federations and Tendencies
UKNS (United Kingdom Natural Strongman): A clear hybrid identity. You’ll see sandbag steeplechases, farmers into carries, and front holds almost every finals. Bag tosses are common, and execution under fatigue is rewarded. This favours well-conditioned, technically sharp athletes who can maintain pace across multiple moving events.
BNSF (British Natural Strongman Federation): Heavier static tilt. Expect 280 kg deadlifts, 340 kg yokes, 140 kg farmers, and 120 kg stone runs. If your overhead or deadlift is shaky, you’re exposed quickly.
WHEA: A more varied international flavour. Car squats, silver dollar pulls, and truck pulls show up alongside traditional yokes and medleys. A genuine test of “all-round strength” with no single domain dominating.
NS UK & Ireland: A balanced but brutal combination. You’ll get heavy static events (300 kg deadlifts, 160 kg stones) alongside athletic tests (dumbbell, farmers, medleys). If one federation embodies the phrase “no hiding place,” it’s this one.
Untested Pathway: The Big (National) Shows
Ultimate/UK’s Strongest: Crowd-friendly heavy classics. Big logs, deadlift medleys, drayman lifts, and duck walks. These shows reward static monsters who can also survive sprint-speed moving events.
Giants Live/Britain’s Strongest: Television spectacle. Expect 200 kg stones, 150+ dumbbells, deadlift medleys to 380+, and 400+ yokes - all run at sprint pace. At this level, the ceiling isn’t national any more; it’s international.
OSG Qualifiers: Hybrid bias similar to UKNS but with heavier implements. Sandbag steeplechases, technical toss ladders, and multiple pressing implements are standard. More balanced than Giants, but execution mistakes are punished harder because of deeper fields.
Strategy: Choosing Your Battles
The smart approach isn’t just to train hard year-round and hope. It’s to design your season so that the qualifiers you enter match your current strengths while you systematically erase your weaknesses in training.
If your log and deadlift are world-class but your carries lag, leaning into BNSF or Giants might buy you time while you build conditioning.
If you’re a conditioning engine with great bag tosses but need static strength, UKNS finals give you a fairer stage.
If you’re aiming long-term at OSG or Britain’s, you can’t dodge weaknesses forever - you’ll need to periodise blocks specifically to hit the untested podium standards.
This is where concepts from Peaking for Strongman and Eliminate Your Weaknesses come into play: one eye on the calendar, one eye on the events, and every training cycle chosen for a reason.
Reality Check: The Natural Pathway
All of this, of course, sits inside the real-world constraints. Natural athletes don’t always get to cherry-pick their path. The official “Natural Pathway” funnels through specific qualifiers whether the events suit you or not, and entry fees, travel, and kit costs are higher than most want to admit. That means you need to be pragmatic: sometimes the “perfect” season design isn’t possible. In those cases, the job is simple - show up, survive what doesn’t suit you, and make sure your strengths are so overwhelming that they buy you points back.
Depth & Risk: How Podiums Are Won (and Lost)
Podium-level strongman isn’t just about who is strongest - it’s about who makes the fewest mistakes. Once you look at the points spreads across both tested and untested national finals, a clear pattern emerges: margins are razor thin, and risk management is every bit as important as raw performance.
Tested Finals: Tight Margins, Ruthless Punishment
In the tested scene, the top 4–6 are often separated by only 8–12 points over an entire weekend. That means one missed bag in a medley or a stone slipping from the lap doesn’t just cost you a single place - it can wipe out your entire podium run. Because the implements are slightly lighter than on the untested side, the outcome isn’t always dictated by who has the biggest deadlift or overhead. Instead, the deciding factor is consistency: hitting every object in the medley, loading every stone in the series, and keeping moving events clean. In tested federations like UKNS, where medleys and bag tosses are standard, execution under fatigue is the dividing line between medals and mid-pack.
Untested Finals: Higher Ceiling, Different Risks
On the untested side, the fields are deeper and the implements heavier. Static outliers - the athletes who can clean and press 160 logs or rep out 380 kg deadlifts - can sometimes build such a lead in one or two events that the rest of the field is playing catch-up. But that doesn’t mean execution stops mattering. If anything, mistakes are punished harder, because the pool of athletes is bigger and the margins are thinner. Drop a sandbag in an OSG steeplechase or clip a farmer’s handle at Britain’s and you’re instantly trading three or four placings. You can’t afford a single event collapse, because there are too many capable athletes waiting to capitalise.
The Risk Equation on Meet Day
Strongman is chaotic by design, but the athletes who consistently podium are the ones who manage chaos rather than get swallowed by it. A few tactical principles show up again and again:
Attempt Selection on Ladders: Don’t gamble on the top bar if you can’t clear the second. Bank the sure rep, then push the edge.
Early Reps First: In AMRAPs or timed deadlifts, fast early reps build both points and rhythm. Save grinding attempts for the back end if you have to.
Pacing Splits in Steeplechases: Treat multi-stage medleys like a 400 m sprint - even pacing beats red-lining and dying halfway.
Clean Lines on Yoke/Farmers: Crooked picks and stumbles aren’t just time losses; they multiply fatigue for every step after. Precision matters as much as power.
The hard truth is that no one wins a national title without some risk. The difference between champions and also-rans is that champions know exactly when to take it - and when to play safe, bank points, and let others fall apart.
Limitations (and Why the Direction Is Still Clear)
No analysis like this is ever perfect. Strongman is a sport built on variation, spectacle, and federation quirks - which means clean, standardised data is a rarity. What we’ve done here is extract the clearest possible picture from a messy landscape. That’s worth keeping in mind when reading percentages or comparing podium standards across divisions.
Apparatus Variance and Suit Allowances
No two yokes or stone platforms are exactly the same. Deadlift bars flex differently. Farmers handles change spacing. One federation pulls trucks on tarmac; another on rubber matting. Add in the allowance of suits and straps in certain untested events and you have further inflation on top-end pulls. We’ve treated these as carefully as possible - comparing like with like when available, and where not, converting reps into Epley 1RM estimates or translating carries into simple power/work proxies. It’s not perfect, but it’s the cleanest way to compare.
Interpreting the Gaps
Even with these caveats, the direction of travel is unmistakable:
Podium gaps hover around 20% for both men and women. That figure repeats across pressing, pulling, moving, and loading events.
Average gaps are more nuanced. On the women’s side, the “middle of the pack” appears closer between tested and untested, partly because tested comps lean on endurance-style events (where PEDs confer less advantage) and partly because of overlapping implement weights. On the men’s side, the difference persists all the way down: the bottom finishers in untested nationals would, by any reasonable metric, be winning tested nationals outright.
What’s Next: A Living Appendix
This project is only just beginning. As more federations publish cleaner scoreboards (and I get chance to properly analyse more data) we’ll expand into full distributions: mean, median, mode, interquartile ranges, and standard deviations for each event type. Future work will also cover weight-class splits (e.g., U80/U90/U105 vs open), and eventually, international comparisons. The aim isn’t to “settle” the tested vs untested debate in one article - it’s to build a living dataset that gets sharper as the sport grows and reporting improves.
The bottom line: the numbers may not be pristine, but the patterns are loud and clear. Podium athletes moving from tested to untested nationals need roughly 20% more across the board. That’s not speculation - it’s the direction the data points to, and every new scoreboard reinforces the same trajectory.
Where This Goes Next
This first pass has been about building a clear top-line picture: podium standards, tested vs untested deltas, and the broad domains where the real jumps happen. But it’s only a fraction of what this dataset can tell us. The next stages of this series will dig deeper into the numbers and start answering the questions that athletes and coaches actually ask when they’re planning seasons, choosing qualifiers, or preparing to move pathways.
Full-field distributions Up to now, we’ve honed in on the top 4–6 at each event - the cleanest and most consistent slice of data. The next phase will expand this to full fields, using medians, modes, and interquartile ranges to map what “the average competitor” actually looks like in both tested and untested nationals. That’s where we’ll be able to show why the women’s mid-pack gap looks tighter, and why the men’s spreads stretch wider.
Event-type modelling Not all events are created equal. A 200 kg deadlift ladder isn’t the same kind of test as a 200 kg frame carry for max distance. One rewards maximal strength; the other rewards endurance and bracing. Future analysis will model how much each event “type” contributes to final points and placings - static vs endurance vs skill-biased vs moving speed. That means we’ll be able to say, for example, “tested comps give 40% of their scoring to endurance-biased events, untested 60% to max/static.”
Sensitivity testing Course lengths, time caps, and implement jumps all matter. What happens if a yoke run is 20 m instead of 24 m? Or if a deadlift ladder goes to 240 instead of 220? Future models will show how ±10–20% changes in course or cap design tilt the field, and which athletes gain or lose the most.
Crossover tracking One of the most useful datasets will be following athletes who actually cross from tested to untested circuits within a season. How do their points change? Do they hold steady on medleys but lose ground on static lifts? Do endurance strengths carry over, or does the heavier kit immediately widen the gap? This isn’t hypothetical - plenty of women in particular straddle both pathways, and their results can provide a live case study of the transition.
Coach tools Finally, we’ll make this practical. The aim isn’t just to crunch numbers for their own sake, but to create tools athletes and coaches can actually use. One of the first will be an interactive benchmark calculator: plug in your log, deadlift, yoke, and stone numbers, and instantly see how close you are to a tested or untested podium profile for each federation. That way, lifters can map readiness, coaches can design off-season cycles, and everyone can see the exact domains they need to close.
What we’ve learned so far is both simple and important: at the podium level, the jump from tested nationals to untested nationals/pro qualifiers is around 20% across the board. That figure holds for both men and women. The same race pace, but heavier kit, higher ceilings, and more brutal minimums to stay competitive.
Pressing → +17–19% (with dumbbell and log as the real separators).
Pulling → +21–23% (deadlift ladders and rep ranges push the difference wider).
Moving & Carries → +20–22% (same times, but 20–40% heavier loads).
Loading & Power → +16–25% (stones and bag toss define the jump).
Women’s outlier → grip/isometric events show +40–50% difference.
But the podium isn’t the whole story. Early indications show the average field gap is smaller, especially for women, because tested federations lean into endurance events where naturals can compete more evenly. For men, the gap stretches further down the standings, since heavier implements expose static strength deficits earlier.
Why it matters: this isn’t abstract theory. These numbers show you what’s coming if you’re considering moving up: the log you need, the deadlift you can’t avoid, the sprint pace you must hit under a 400 kg yoke. It also shows why execution and efficiency matter - because tested or untested, missed implements and sloppy medleys still decide podiums.
Where we go next:
Full-field distributions (mean, median, mode, IQR, SD).
Event-type weighting (max vs endurance bias).
Sensitivity to event design (time caps, distances, bar heights).
Case studies of athletes who have crossed between pathways.
Coach-ready tools (benchmarks calculator, gap-closing templates).
This first pass gives us clarity on what the standards actually are. The next will dig deeper into how the average competitor stacks up and why some athletes transition smoothly while others fall behind.
If you’re serious about making that jump, or you want your programming to actually reflect the demands of the circuit you compete in, now’s the time to start closing those gaps. This is what I do every day with my athletes: identify the standards, measure where you are, and build the exact plan that gets you from here to there.
👉 If you want that process for yourself - whether you’re aiming for tested podiums, untested qualifiers, or your first Britain’s final - my coaching is open (possibly it depends when you are reading this its prudent to message first). The data tells you what it takes. I’ll show you how to get there.
If Part 1 laid out the question - is there really a divide between tested and untested strongman? - then what follows here is the answer in scale. This is where the numbers crystallise into patterns: class by class, event by event, and ultimately trend by trend.
You’ll see where the gaps are small (pressing efficiency in U80s), where they widen into chasms (bag toss heights in U90–U105), and how certain consistencies cut through both sides (speed on moving events, execution under pressure).
Think of this section less as raw stats and more as a translation key. If you’re coaching an athlete moving from tested to untested, or if you’re a competitor eyeing the jump yourself, these numbers tell you exactly how much more needs to be on the bar, in the bag, or on the stone to hang at the podium standard.
What follows is the big picture breakdown, class-by-class comparisons, and the practical implications for how to train if you want to bridge that divide.
Big Picture
Static strength gap is persistent and scaleable. Untested carries ~15–20% more on the big statics (log/axle, deadlift, stones) in every class. The gap is smallest on U80 pressing (~10–15%) and largest on bag toss and stone top-ends (~20–30%).
Speed parity under heavier loads. Yoke/farmers/húsafell times look nearly identical across tested vs untested, but the untested side runs heavier kit (≈+10–20%) at the same pace.
Execution still decides podiums. Across both sides, single mistakes on toss/shoulder ladders and medley transitions cost 3–5 places. Untested fields don’t win with speed; they win by matching tested speed at higher loads.
Class-by-Class: Where the gaps show up
U80
Tested podium: Log 100–110×3–4; DL 220–240×6–8; yoke ~260–300×20 m ≤18 s; stones to 130–140; bag toss to 20–22. Untested podium: Log 115×4–5 (130–135 single); DL 255–260×7–9 (300×3–5 seen); yoke 310–360 with similar times; stones to 160 (LMS 170–180); bag toss to 28–30.
Narrative:
Pressing efficiency is still strong on the tested side, so the press gap is ~10–15%, not massive.
Pulls/stones/toss escalate harder: +20–30 kg on stones and +6–10 kg on toss is common (≈20–25%).
Moving standards (yoke/farmers) are speed-matched; untested just loads them heavier.
U90
Tested podium: Log 110–120×3–4; DL 250–270×6–8; yoke 300–340×20 m ~12–15 s; bag toss to 22–24. Untested podium: Log 120–125×4–5 (130–135 single); DL 290–320×6–8 (Kaos: 340 used); yoke 360–410 with same times; bag toss to 30–32.
Narrative:
The press jump is +5–10 kg (≈10–15%).
Deadlift ladders and frames move up ~30–40 kg (≈12–18%).
Bag toss jumps the most: 22–24 → 30–32 (≈25–30%).
Fields are deeper on the untested side; one rep at 320 DL or a 130 log clean often swings the podium.
U105 (incl. U100)
Tested podium: Log 115–120×2–3 (125–130 in medleys); bar DL 270–300×8–12; axle 240–250×6–8; yoke 320–340 ≤18 s; stones 120–140; toss to 26–28. Untested podium: Log 130×3–4 (140 single common); bar/car 300–340×8–12; axle ~280×6–8; yoke 360–380 ≤15 s; stones 140–160; toss 30–34.
Narrative:
Pressing ceiling clearly higher (+5–10 kg on log/axle; DB 71–78 appears and scores).
Deadlift is the signature difference: same reps, +20–40 kg on bars/frames.
Moving parity again-same times, heavier frames/yokes.
Bag toss escalates to 32–34; technical mastery is decisive.
Cross-Class Trendlines (2021 → 2025)
Deadlift creep (both sides): 300 kg bars for reps/ladders appear more often; untested stabilizes at 300–340 for the same rep domains seen in tested 270–300.
Press diversification: DB shows up more (especially untested U105); press medleys tighten time caps and reward quick cleans.
Heavier, not slower, moving events: Yokes/farmers keep sprint expectations; untested simply raises loads 10–20%.
Bag toss normalization and escalation: Now near-universal. Tested ladders cap ~22–28; untested pushes 30–34.
Shoulder/stone emphasis: Rubber/stone to shoulder ladders used widely; untested tops drift up ~20 kg across classes.
Percent-Gap Cheat Sheet (Podium Standards)
Rule of thumb that fits all your data: “~20% heavier at equal speed” for untested nationals, with the smallest gaps on pressing in U80 and the biggest gaps on bag toss/stones in U90–U105.
Practical Implications (programming & peaking)
Bridging from tested → untested:
Add +10–15% to press peaks (e.g., 110→125 log U90; 120→135 U105).
Add +20–30 kg to deadlift working ranges and ladder tops; practice heavier frames (340–360) for the same rep/time caps.
Keep moving event sprint work identical; just raise kit loading across the cycle.
Build toss & shoulder skill blocks-the biggest podium reshuffles happen here.
Event rehearsal over max chasing: Podiums across both sides were won on clean medleys, fast transitions, and no-drop moving under time caps-not on one huge single.
Class nuance:
U80: endurance bias remains; pressing gap smaller.
U90: the true hybrid class-every bucket matters; bag toss is a separator.
U105: static strength has the highest ceiling; yoke/farmers still sprint-paced.
$50
Product Title
Product Details goes here with the simple product description and more information can be seen by clicking the see more button. Product Details goes here with the simple product description and more information can be seen by clicking the see more button
$50
Product Title
Product Details goes here with the simple product description and more information can be seen by clicking the see more button. Product Details goes here with the simple product description and more information can be seen by clicking the see more button.
$50
Product Title
Product Details goes here with the simple product description and more information can be seen by clicking the see more button. Product Details goes here with the simple product description and more information can be seen by clicking the see more button.
Comments