Balance in Training

The Need for Variation and Opposing Strategies

     When I write about topics like the need for balance in your training or the importance of “reasonable” workouts or anything of a similar bent, they don’t get a whole lot of views.  Of course, if I write something like “The Greatest Mass Building Workout of All Time” or anything with a degree of hyperbole in the title, I get thousands of views.  Nonetheless, certain subjects need to be written about, this one included.  Besides, here is where you actually learn the information needed—assuming you apply it—to achieve your goals.

     Balance isn’t a “sexy” topic.  Most lifters probably understand it’s true.  You’ve no doubt been told since you were a little kid, assuming you had responsible parenting, to eat a “balanced diet” or to live a “balanced lifestyle.”  The problem, or at least one of the problems, is that there are different opinions on what exactly those balanced choices might entail.  While I’m not going to cover lifestyle choices here—though some of the information, like a lot of things in lifting, have a degree of overlap for application—we will discuss some ways to ensure you have a balanced training program with a degree of needed and useful variation.

Balance in “Intensity”

     I put quotes around “intensity” so that you will understand how I’m using it.  A lot of the time, especially when I’m discussing power training, I use the word the way it’s defined among powerlifters, Olympic weightlifters, and strength athletes—as a percentage of your 1-rep maximum.  (That is, in actuality, the real definition of “intensity.”)  In that case, the closer the weights utilized are to your 1-rep maximum, the higher the intensity.  Here, however, I’m going to use it the way you are probably accustomed to, the way that bodybuilders use the term, as how “hard” you are training.  So called “high-intensity training,” often acronymized as “HIT,” isn’t really high “intensity” at all, from a traditional strength and power standpoint.  However, since the word is often used in such a manner these days, that’s the balance in intensity that I will be discussing for now.

     I selected this as our first subject for one important reason: this is the most misunderstood training variable.  Primarily, this is because we think that in order to achieve our goals, and especially if we’re going to achieve them quickly, we must go all-out all the time.  Now, let me be perfectly clear on this matter, there are absolutely times in the training year when you must, and in fact should, go “all out.”  I have written before, and will continue to do so, about the need to challenge your body with, well, challenges and the importance of throwing “moderation” out the window at certain times of the year.  But you should not and cannot do that week in and week out.  Really good all-out training works for about 6 to 8 weeks—then the wheels fall off.  If you’re young, then you might be able to do such a program for about 12 weeks, but that’s the limit for the average person.  Yes, there are “easy gainers” that can get by with training in such a manner for longer, but even they would be better off with more balance in their intensity.  Besides, that kind of lifter could probably do easy workouts month after month and make good progress.  That person is probably not you.

     Ever since I first read his thoughts on the subject, I’ve liked Dan John’s idea of “bus bench” and “park bench” workouts.  In his book Before We Go: An On-Going Philosophy of Lifting, Living, and Learning, he wrote this:

     “Bus bench workouts: You’re expecting results—on time, just like you’re hoping the bus will be!

     “Park bench workouts are an opportunity to explore and enjoy where you are in your training.

     “It’s a simple concept.  Like weights, benches have multiple uses.  If you’re waiting to get to work sitting on a bus bench, you don’t just hope, you demand that the bus be on time.  If it’s even a little late, it could ruin your day at work.

     “Park benches are built the same way, but when you sit in a park, you don’t expect or worry if Toby the squirrel comes by or not.  You sit back and enjoy the process.

     “My co-writer of Fat Loss Happens on Monday, Josh Hillis, believes that almost universally, people need four months of bus-bench training each year, split into two-month periods—two two-month blocks of training a year.

     “The rest of the year should be park bench workouts where the training goals are simply to train.  You could cross out eight months a year and still follow a plan that could achieve just about any goal.

     “This is contrary to what most people think.  There’s this idea that constant exhausting training is the only path to the goal.  It’s not true—and it’s destroying many people’s journey to their goals.”

     Bus bench workouts are when you can use something like a 20-rep squat program or John McCallum’s High-Protein, High-Set Program.  They are fantastic ways to build a lot of muscle in a short period of time.  It’s that “short period of time” part that many lifters fail to understand.  Those programs work really well.  Until they don’t.  The rest of the year, you can follow an “easy strength” program or take the “everything moderate” approach to lifting.  Enjoy your training during your park-bench period.  Train just to train.  Experiment and have some fun.

     Let’s look at some other ways to build upon this and strike the proper balance to better help you achieve whatever goals you might have in your training.

Balance in Load

     Along with the idea that we have to train hard all the time, we also think that we have to train heavy at each and every workout.  The two often go together.  Probably the most popular way to train is to work a bodypart really hard coupled with really heavy, and then give it plenty of time to “rest and recover” before training it again.  A lot of lifters these days spend their entire training life lifting in such a manner.  But there’s a better way.

     You must learn to cycle your training loads.  The key to training, no matter the exact workout regimen, is to work up to some heavy weights, then back off and repeat.  Again and again.

     I write about a lot of different training programs.  Almost all of them, however, use some form of load cycling.  I am, and you know this if you’ve read even just a smattering of my material, of course, a big fan of Bill Starr’s heavy-light-medium system.  I even wrote an entire book on his methodology.  Starr’s system, which is still just as good as anything else you will find, involves rotating—this is probably quite obvious—between heavy, light, and medium workouts during a week of training, but it also involves cycling loads during the course of an entire training cycle.

     Starr’s system is just one of many, however.  No matter what methodology you utilize the majority of time, you should implement some form of load balance.  If you are one of those lifters who does like to use a high-volume, high-intensity, low-frequency approach, for example, you might want to consider balancing those workouts with lighter ones using a simple “heavy/light” rotation.  Let’s say that you have been training each one of your bodyparts just once per week using a one-bodypart-per-day workout, or something similar, you can still do those same workouts, but follow each one of them up with a lighter session a 2nd time during the week, or at least more frequently than what you were doing.  At the 2nd session, don’t train lighter but still go “all-out” by training to failure and using various “intensity techniques” such as supersets, drop sets, tri-sets, or whatnot.  Those have their place, and if you want to use them, do so on your “heavy” day.  Rather, at the 2nd session, use roughly the same movements with the same sets/reps, but just drop the load to 75% (or even 50% to start) of what you used at the first session—dropping an exercise or the number of sets you do on each movement would also be a good plan to begin with.

     Another approach that I’m a fan of, and this is most definitely a “balanced” perspective, even though you’re not cycling loads so much, is to use an “everything moderate” system I mentioned above during your park-bench period.  This is more reflective of the old-school bodybuilding approach of many “silver” or “golden” era bodybuilders—Bill Pearl comes to mind.  With this system, you train a muscle group twice, or even three, times weekly, but at every session, you use weights that you can handle with relative ease.  You might do as many as 10 sets per muscle group, sometimes even more, at each session, but you stick with the same weights at every workout until you naturally feel as if you should add weight.  Then, you do exactly that and repeat the process.  This approach may not sell a lot of books, or get a lot of views on a YouTube channel (or this blog), but it worked for guys like Pearl and it can still work for you.

Balance in Programming

     A lot of lifters spend their entire training life not just training all-out but only using split programs.  I think split programs have their place, despite my preferred method of full-body workouts.  Ideally, however, you should balance both full-body and split routines throughout the training year.  Now, if I absolutely had to select one method over the other, I would pick full-body workouts, but you don’t have to train with full-body programs and never use anything else, even though some of my strength-training heroes such as Starr and Bradley Steiner did recommend full-body training and nothing else.

     You could intersperse training cycles of full-body workouts with split training cycles.  You can also do different styles of both.  For example, you might spend 12 weeks on a Starr-style full-body program using the heavy-light-medium system, followed by 8 weeks of 2-way splits using the heavy-light approach.  After that, you could use an “everything moderate” system of full-body training for another 8 to 12 weeks, following that with a 3-way split, using something such as a “push/pull/legs” program.

     Another approach, and one you might want to at least experiment with on occasion, would be to use both full-body training and split workouts within the same training cycle, even within one week of training.  For instance, if you were to train 4 days per week, then on Monday, you might train your upper body, followed on Tuesday with your lower body.  Take off on Wednesday, then on Thursday and Saturday, use full-body workouts.  That’s just an example, albeit one that is effective and that I’ve had good results with in the past.

Balance in Sets and Reps

     This is where it’s important to strike a proper balance.  Some lifters do the same sets with the same reps (usually on the same exercises) all the time, and then wonder why they struggle to make much, or any, progress.  Other lifters change things entirely too much, doing a completely different set/rep scheme each time they hit the gym, usually in some kind of misguided attempt to “shock” the muscle into more growth.

     Depending on what you select for your programming will determine what set and repetition combo you utilize.  Generally, if you’re doing a full-body workout 3 days per week, between 15 and 25 total reps is a good idea, which means set/rep combinations such as 3x5, 5x3, 4x5, 5x5, and 3x8 are all good.  If you’re training a muscle group only twice per week, or even a little less, on a split program you can push the sets up a bit higher—generally 8 to 10 sets per muscle group works well.   When using higher sets, however, keep your rep range at each workout the same.  So, you might do 8 sets of 8 to 10 reps, or 10 sets of 3 to 5 reps.  You don’t want too much deviation within the same workout.  In other words, you don’t want your reps to be “all over the place.”  If you’re going to use sets of 15 reps combined with sets of 3 reps, do those at different workout sessions.  Your first chest session of the week, just to use an example, might be 10 sets of 3 reps; your 2nd one might be 10 sets of 8 reps.  That’s more like it.

     Russian researchers going back to the ‘70s discovered that their lifters didn't get good results when they used a wide range of reps at one workout.  They used, and believed in, varying rep ranges, just not within the same workout.  If their lifters trained a movement 3 days per week, it might get 6-8 reps at the 1st session, 3-5 at the 2nd, and 1-2 reps at the 3rd.  Which brings us around to the next subject.

Balance in Methodology

     For the most part, trainees in America only, and I do mean only, use the repetition method for their training.  If you’re after hypertrophy, and hypertrophy only, then this is “okay” though you should utilize some other methods, even if it’s only occasionally.  (This is something that I, and my dog, discussed in my last essay on Integral Bodybuilding.)

     The other methods, in no particular order, are the maximal effort method, the dynamic effort method, and the sub-maximal effort method.  On the flip side of the bodybuilder who is only after aesthetics, you have the lifter who is only after strength and power.  This lifter would serve himself well by never using the repetition method and only using these other 3 methods.

     The maximal effort method involves training with low reps—singles, doubles, or triples, at the highest—with weights close to 100% of your max for those reps.  This training builds strength quickly when utilized correctly.  It’s also good for bodybuilders or anyone whose pursuit is aesthetics and who wants muscles that are thick, dense, and “functional,” as much as that word is overused in some training circles these days.

     The dynamic effort method involves, once again, training with low reps—and, once again, singles, doubles, and triples—but doing so with weights that are between 50% and 70% of your 1-rep maximum, and moving the lift as fast as possible with good form.  Reps need to be low due to speed degradation.  Even though the weights are light, if you start using too many reps, your speed will decrease with each additional repetition.  You might not really notice the decrease in speed, but your body will.  When I was a competitive powerlifter, I did no more than singles for my deadlift, doubles for my squat, and triples on my bench press.  That’s a good scheme for anyone who is looking to utilize dynamic effort training in their program.

     The sub-maximal effort method is my personal favorite way to train.  If I was forced to train using one method and one method only, never being allowed to use another, then this would be it.  Sub-maximal effort training involves training with, you guessed it, weights that are a little below your maximum—80-90% of your one-rep maximum is a good range—but still using fairly low reps.  5 reps, maybe even 6, is about as high as you want your reps to climb using this method.  Instead of using reps that approach failure, you utilize multiple sets.  Most of my programs that involve high sets (8 to 20) of low reps (1 to 5) that you can find here on the blog use this method.  It’s the kind of training favored by many Russian and former Soviet-bloc lifters, both past and present.  If you want a program that will make you big and strong then this is it.  If the entirety of your average trainees threw out the repetition method and replaced it with the sub-maximal effort method, almost to a T everyone of them would get better results, even if they are simply chasing aesthetics.

     Back to those Russian researchers and our previous topic.  Not only did the good ol’ Soviet strength scientists discover that the reps should stay relatively uniform at each training session, they also discovered that the methodology shouldn’t deviate in a single workout.  It’s the reason that Westside Barbell doesn’t combine together dynamic effort and maximal effort training in one session.  Louie Simmons, Westside’s mastermind, knew the Eastern science well, and he applied it.

     To put it in layman’s terms, when you combine multiple methodologies at one session, it “confuses” the body, so to speak, and your muscles don’t know what it should be training for.  If aesthetics is your primary goal, and not strength, the lesson here is that you can still use the repetition method, if that is your preferred methodology because you know that it works for you, but you should also do some sessions using the other methods, primarily the sub-maximal effort method.  If you are also in pursuit of strength and power in addition to muscle mass, you need to utilize all of the methods at some point.

     This isn’t the essay for it—it would be too long and take us away from the primary theme—but you also don’t want to do all 4 of the methods during one training cycle.  Use a training cycle that involves combining dynamic effort and maximal effort training a la Westside, and in a separate training cycle, use the sub-maximal effort method.  The repetition method can be combined with any of them.  (If there’s interest, I will write another essay on the reasons for this.)

Final Thoughts

     I probably could have added some other topics that could use balance in training, such as the need for balance in different tools—barbell, dumbbells, kettlebells, cables, and whatnot—or the need for balance in diet.  I’ll save that for a future essay, as this one has stretched on long enough as is.

     For now, look at your own training and see if there are any “holes” in it.  What kind of training have you not been doing?  That’s most likely the component you need to work on at the moment.

     Balance in training is not only important, it’s necessary if you want to reach your highest potential.  Strike the proper balance in your lifting and you’ll reach your goals.  There really isn’t another way.

     I hope you enjoyed this essay.  If you want to read more essays of a similar nature, then please consider purchasing my book “Ultimate Mass and Power Essays.”  Also, if you want to find out more about Starr’s system, which I mentioned earlier, then you might want my latest book “The Strongest Shall Always Survive: Lifting Lessons from an Iron Legend.”  You can find more information on both of these books, along with others, at the My Books page.

     As always, if you have any questions about the topics I’ve discussed, or just want to comment on them, then leave them in the “comments” section below or shoot me an email if you prefer a more private correspondence.