ArticleSports medicine - open2026
Percentile-Based Normative Standards for Strength Assessment Beyond Linear Bodyweight Multipliers in Competitive Powerlifters.
Article in Sports medicine - open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBodyweight 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.
methodsA 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.
resultsA 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%).
conclusionTraditional 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.