There is a seductive idea in fitness that more is always better. More sets, more exercises, more days, more volume. This idea is wrong, and it is especially wrong for athletes training multiple qualities simultaneously.
Alex Viada frames the correct version clearly: do as little as possible to attain the necessary result. Lift less often than a powerlifter. Run less than a runner. The body has limited recovery, and it will quickly become overwhelmed if every quality is trained to the maximum volume a specialist in that quality could handle. This isn't a compromise. This is the method.
Every training session has two costs: the direct cost (fatigue, tissue damage, energy depletion) and the opportunity cost (recovery resources that could have gone toward adapting to a different stimulus). For the specialist, opportunity cost is mostly invisible. For the hybrid athlete, opportunity cost is the primary concern.
Every junk mile run when Zone 2 base is already adequate is recovery not available for strength development. Every extra accessory set that doesn't address a genuine weakness is recovery not available for the lactic EMOM that drives conditioning gains. Viada's framework: for every exercise or training element, ask whether performing it will improve final performance more than any other potential component. If yes, include it. When the answer becomes "maybe" — cut it.
Louie Simmons expresses a nearly identical idea from the strength side: special exercises should be selected based on what builds your specific weakness, not based on what your training partners like or what feels good. The wrong special exercise isn't just neutral — it's actively harmful because it consumes recovery resources that could have gone toward the right one.
This is why the exercise index at Westside is enormous but any individual lifter's actual weekly prescription is small and targeted. The variety exists in the conjugate rotation — not in the daily volume. Each session is tight, focused, and over in under an hour.
The 75-minute session target isn't a convenience. It's a ceiling. After roughly 45 minutes of intense work, testosterone levels begin to drop and cortisol levels rise. A two-hour session of moderate effort doesn't produce twice the adaptation of a focused 75-minute session — it often produces less, because the hormonal environment has shifted unfavorably in the second half.
What was cut in the program design? Things with the lowest carryover per unit of recovery cost: alactic EMOMs at the tail end of exhausted sessions, finisher sets that repeated the stimulus of the main session, conditioning rounds beyond the point where they deliver additional adaptation. What was added? Broad jumps moved to warm-up Block 4 where they're trained fresh. Push-up endurance added as Event 4 preparation. Zone 2 restored where it had been eliminated.
The hardest cut in hybrid training is always the thing you love. The powerlifter who loves heavy singles will want to push ME sets longer than prescribed. The conditioned athlete who loves suffering will want to add rounds. Viada's warning is worth taking seriously: the more you want to do something, the more you should question whether doing more of it is what your program actually needs.
Athletes are drawn to the qualities they already have. More singles won't continue to drive the same adaptation rate — but the conditioning work they're avoiding might produce disproportionate returns at the same investment. Cut what you love when it has already done its job. Add what you're avoiding, because that's where the room for growth actually is.
The program applies this principle precisely. See it in action with ETR.
Start Training →