East and West: A Study in Strength

The mid-to-late 20th century was marked by innumerable tensions between East and West. Militarily, socially, politically, and economically, NATO and Warsaw Pact-aligned entities vied for control and influence. Opposing systems of thought and practice grew side-by-side, separated by a metaphorical - or literal - curtain or wall.

This dichotomy extended into the world of human performance and strength training. Soviet-aligned thinkers, from Leo Matveyev (Periodization) to Yuri Verkhoshansky (Plyometrics and Supertraining), seamlessly integrated physical training with state-sponsored scientific inquiry. The typical Easter Bloc doctrine, vast as it was, consistently relied upon institutional knowledge and systematic experiment. In other words, researchers, coaches, athletes, government officials, and other relevant parties took a very precise, concerted approach to athlete and program development. If I had to summarize the Soviet approach to strength with a single word, I might choose “complex.”

By the 1970s, Soviet strength training doctrine had largely solidified, as a result of significant efforts (and funding) being poured into theory and application. Most Soviet or Soviet-adjacent programs utilized undulating (waved) models of progression and periodization, with moderate training loads and high volumes. Variations of core lifts were frequently conducted, while additional accessory work was typically limited or relegated to GPP blocks. Training to failure was rare, and even discouraged. The general approach was to systematically develop technical prowess and neuromuscular efficiency; volume, variation, and frequency were the primary mechanisms of stress application, with intensity often occupying the back seat.

This approach proved successful, demonstrating tremendous success in the highest echelons of competition - Soviet athletes earned a total of 33 Olympic gold medals in weightlifting, alone.

Of course, the approach had its shortcomings. The general emphasis on volume over intensity meant that some athletes may have “left something on the table.” There are numerous methods to tap high-threshold motor units, some more arcane than others - the perennial method, to quote Ronnie Coleman, is to “lift heavy ass weights.”

Eventually, training methodologies in the East began to incorporate Western conventions - namely, frequently high loads and intensities, bucking the trend of high-volume with undulating (but still moderate) intensities. A prime example of this is Ivan Abadjiev’s Bulgarian Method, which exposed athletes to high intensities, at low volumes, very frequently. Abadjiev retained the rigidity and precision of programming so deeply connected to Eastern doctrine, while integrating the Western approach to intensity - for the express purpose of driving high-end neurological adaptation. He did this, repeatedly, to great effect. Of course, some pharmacology was involved (certainly not to be discounted,) but the general concept can be appreciated and scaled appropriately.

Similarly, Eastern conventions gradually found their way into the minds, and hands, of the West’s strength training elite. Take, for example, the Conjugate Method so famously popularized by Louie Simmons and Westside Barbell. It synthesizes the uniquely-Soviet principles of undulating periodization (on a daily or weekly basis) and exercise variation (to avoid accommodation, employed by the Dynamo Weightlifting Club,) with the Bulgarian Method’s intensity. The most obviously “Western” aspect of the Conjugate Method is that, despite its Eastern foundations, the method employs significant accessory work and operates in very short cycles. The Soviets loved long-term (mesocycle or more) periodization - Louie Simmons, perhaps, did not.

You may have noticed that I haven’t addressed Western strength training doctrine yet.

Simply, the Western “doctrine” requires significantly less explanation, because a unified doctrine didn’t exist.

The West did not have the monolithic, institutionalized structure that the Soviet-aligned East did. There was not a (largely mandatory) cohesion of thought and application present, so strength training approaches varied vastly across Western nations and organizations - for better or worse. They were objectively less sophisticated in structure, with linear progression and progressive overload being the most common fixtures of Western programs.

If the Eastern approach to strength was a scalpel, the Western approach was a hammer. Interestingly, what weightlifting was in the East, somewhat, powerlifting was in the West. Speed, technique, and precision, juxtaposed with brute strength, force, and raw effort. 

The Western approach is more appropriately regarded as a culture or attitude, rather than a singular doctrine. As such, I’d point toward certain figures, to better understand the Western posture. I’ve already discussed Louie Simmons and Westside, so it’d be wise to discuss some of his predecessors and contemporaries.

First off, Bill Starr. Author of The Strongest Shall Survive, Starr largely pioneered the ubiquitous “heavy sets of five” approach to strength training. With a background as a competitive weightlifter, powerlifter, and bodybuilder, Starr eventually stepped into the role of a writer and coach. He recognized the potency of progressive overload, eventually distilling it into a framework: multiple sets of five, heavy loads, progressively adding weight each session.

Interestingly, no inquiry into Western strength training is complete without the consideration of bodybuilding. While modern bodybuilding has largely drifted away from its roots, many Golden Era bodybuilders trained in ways that were not too dissimilar to those employed by Starr. A dramatic example is Mike Mentzer. Mentzer, a legend of the era, utilized a very-high-intensity, very-low-volume approach to strength training and bodybuilding. In essence: limited variation, with extremely heavy loads - largely the antithesis of the Eastern approach to strength training.

In my eyes, pointing to Starr and Mentzer captures the general ethos of Western strength training: heavy weights, sheer effort, and linear progression - where finesse lacks, grit excels.

In current times, there is less of a dichotomy between Eastern and Western approaches to strength. Much of this divide has been filled by different geopolitical climates, the advent of the internet, scientific developments, and the passage of time. Of course, many formerly-Soviet-aligned states still employ traditional approaches within formal athletic programs. Many Western programs and methods still rely heavily upon linear progression. The best programs for general strength typically synthesize both. A good example of this is Jim Wendler’s 5/3/1, and its variations - it employs high intensities frequently, while utilizing a waved progression.

In essence, no program, or doctrine, or method, is singularly the best.

In practical application, I typically take a “Western” approach with people new to strength training. I utilize linear progressions and multiple, heavy sets of five, or three, to very efficiently develop strength and size. As the individual progresses, the program necessarily becomes more “Eastern” in nature. Linear progress begins to undulate, movements begin to vary, and greater degrees of complexity become consequential.

The best coaches are cosmopolitans - they learn from everyone, everywhere, and employ the most appropriate tools for the job.