More Pulling Isn't Always Better: How I Program Upper Body

There’s a piece of advice I hear constantly when it comes to posture:

“You need to do more pulling than pushing.” Sometimes that becomes a 1:2 push to pull ratio.

The reasoning usually goes something like this: We sit too much, our shoulders are rounded. We need to strengthen our backs. Therefore, we need more pulling. It sounds logical, but I think we've taken a useful consideration and turned it into an overly simplistic rule.

When it comes to programming, rules without context aren't good programming.

I don't program upper body by ratios alone when I look at someone's training, I'm not asking “Have I done enough pulling?”

I'm asking “Is their upper body workout balanced?”

Those are two very different questions. Because you can have someone performing a huge amount of pulling and still have an upper body that isn't particularly balanced.

You can have plenty of rows, plenty of pulldowns, plenty of pull ups and still be missing other pieces.

That's because structural balance isn't simply about one side of a movement equation.

It's about the relationship between the different structures and functions of the upper body.

The problem with “more pulling = better posture”

This is where I think the conversation around posture needs more explanation.

Posture isn't a simple battle between the front and back of your body.

You aren't “rounded forward” because you don't have enough rows and you don't automatically become more upright because you've doubled your pulling volume.

The position and movement of the shoulders and upper body are influenced by multiple factors including the thoracic spine, ribcage, scapulae, shoulder musculature, mobility, strength, motor control and the positions we habitually spend time in.

So when someone tells me that everyone needs twice as much pulling because it will improve their posture, my response is: It depends.

Who is the person?

What are they currently doing?

What are their goals?

What does their movement look like?

What do they do for work?

What does their program already contain?

Those questions matter more to me than an arbitrary ratio.

Another issue is that we sometimes talk about “back training” as though it's one thing. It isn't. 

The upper body is far more complex than: Strong back = good posture.

That's why I don't want an upper body program to become a collection of lat dominant pulling movements simply because pulling has been labelled “good”.

What I mean by structural balance

When I say structural balance, I'm not talking about making every muscle perfectly symmetrical or giving every movement exactly the same amount of attention. I'm talking about looking at the body as a whole and perhaps most importantly: Does the training make sense when you look at the person rather than just the program on paper?

That's the difference.

Balance doesn't mean equal

This is an important distinction.

A structurally balanced program doesn't mean:

10 sets of pushing = 10 sets of pulling = 10 sets of everything else.

Training isn't a mathematical equation where every variable needs to be identical.

If someone's primary goal is shoulder development, their program may need more direct shoulder work.

If someone's goal is maintaining their upper body while prioritising their lower body, they may require considerably less volume overall.

If someone already has a highly developed back, giving them even more back volume simply because “pulling is good” may not be the most appropriate use of their training.

Balance is about what the individual needs not equal numbers on a spreadsheet.

Why I like 1:1 as a starting point

This is where my own programming philosophy comes in.

Rather than automatically starting with a 1:2 push-to-pull ratio, I generally prefer  1:1 pushing to pulling as a starting point. Then I consider what else the individual needs.

That might include additional accessory work.

The important thing is that the additional work isn't being added because I believe one movement category is superior. It's being added because it serves a purpose.

So my thought process is less: “We need twice as much pulling.” and more: “We need a well rounded upper body.”

This is where individualisation matters: “Do these exercises and your posture will be fixed.” I'd be very cautious with trainers/coaches who use this kind of language.

Posture isn't something you fix with a magic exercise.

It's something you can influence through a combination of strength, movement, habits, environment and individual factors.

The bigger issue is that we're often missing the point the debate shouldn't really be: Push or pull?

It should be: What does this person need?

That's the question I want coaches to ask before they prescribe another set of rows.

Because sometimes the answer is more pulling.

Sometimes it isn't.

Sometimes the answer is more pressing.

Sometimes it's better working environment.

Sometimes it's addressing a weakness.

Sometimes it's simply reducing unnecessary volume and allowing the person to recover.

Good programming isn't about doing more.

It's about doing what is necessary. My philosophy in one sentence

If I had to summarise how I approach upper body programming, it would be this:

I don't want the most pulling possible. I want the right amount of everything necessary to create a strong, balanced upper body.

That's why I use approximately 1:1 pushing and pulling as a starting point rather than automatically prescribing 1:2.

That's why I consider rear delt, external rotator work and trap 3 work. I don't believe a ratio should ever replace individualised programming. The goal isn't to win the push vs pull debate.

The goal is to build a body that is strong, balanced and capable.