How Strong is Strong Enough?

The most debated question in sports performance

This is perhaps the most frequently asked question in athlete preparation. It is also one of the most debated. The reason for this is multifaceted. On one hand, strength training is supplementary to sport-specific training, meaning there is a natural ceiling to how much time and effort can be dedicated to it. On the other hand, the benefits of maximal strength are well-documented, with positive transfer to various aspects of sports performance, including sprinting, jumping, injury resilience, the ability to manage and deliver force in collisions, fatigue tolerance, and even endurance. Unlike strength, other physical qualities don’t always provide the same level of crossover. For instance, an increase in endurance will likely do little to improve an athlete’s ability to sprint, jump, or produce high levels of force.

The question of “how strong is strong enough” is further complicated by evidence that suggests high levels of strength may unlock unique neuromuscular adaptations. For example, once an athlete achieves a back squat 1-RM of approximately 2.0× body mass, their ability to adapt to ballistic power training improves significantly – they’ll adapt faster and to a greater magnitude than those who are weaker. Given stronger athletes typically have more resistance training experience, these superior adaptations occur despite the principle of diminishing returns which states that early stage adaptations are relatively easy to achieve while future adaptations are much harder to invoke.

Additionally, high levels of strength appear to enable post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE, formerly known as PAP), where a preceding heavy resistance exercise leads to acute improvements in subsequent explosive performance. Some evidence also suggests that strength may influence priming responses that occur 6–36 hours post-training, potentially leading to improved competition-day readiness. However, these effects remain transient and inconsistent, requiring a more nuanced approach when attempting to leverage them for performance.

Given these benefits, the argument for continual strength development seems compelling. However, the reality is that performance in competitive sport is about much more than just strength. The ultimate goal is winning when it matters, and strength is merely one piece of a larger puzzle. Elite performance requires a balance of multiple physical and technical attributes, including skills, technical, tactical training, drills and small sided games, improvements in endurance, anaerobic factors, and optimal recovery strategies.

Beyond the physical, there are significant external factors that influence performance outcomes. Logistical and psychological elements—including travel schedules, media obligations, national team duties, institutional commitments, organisational resources, wellbeing, and personal life balance—must all be considered. These factors place real constraints on how much time and energy an athlete can dedicate to getting stronger, particularly when competing at the highest levels.

The Trade-Off: Strength vs. Everything Else

This is where the concept of “never strong enough” requires careful examination. If interpreted literally, it suggests that maximal strength should always be prioritised, regardless of other training demands. However, in a real-world setting, high-performance programs must operate within finite time and resource constraints. Those in charge of high-performance programs must evaluate whether the time, energy, and resources required to improve strength by a given margin provide greater returns than investing those same resources elsewhere.

For example, if an athlete already possesses sufficient maximal strength for their sport (e.g., exceeds benchmarks), would spending additional training time pursuing incremental strength gains be more beneficial than refining technical execution, speed, or specific energy system development? And these are just the physical elements. The answer will vary depending on the individual athlete, their sport, their competition schedule, and the demands placed upon them.

A useful way to frame this discussion is as a cost-benefit equation. Strength gains come at a cost—time, fatigue, and the potential compromise of other training priorities. At some point, the benefits of an additional 2% increase in maximal strength may no longer justify the trade-off when compared to improvements in other performance domains.

So, How Strong is Strong Enough?

In my opinion, an athlete is “strong enough” when the cost of further strength development outweighs the benefits. That threshold will look different for every sport and every athlete. Strength is undeniably a critical component of performance, but it does not exist in isolation. It must be developed in harmony with the other factors that contribute to success in competition.

Thus, the answer to “how strong is strong enough?” is not a one-size-fits-all equation. It is a dynamic and evolving calculation based on the demands of the sport, the level of competition, and the athlete’s individual strengths, weaknesses, and performance objectives.

Ultimately, strength must serve the broader goal: winning when it matters. If they come at the expense of other critical factors, then they may no longer be justifiable. High-performance sport is about making the right trade-offs at the right time.