You Cannot Ride Two Horses With One Ass

There is an old saying: “You cannot ride two horses with one ass.”

Like most good sayings, it is simple, slightly crude, and annoyingly accurate.

The basic idea is that you cannot divide your focus, energy, or resources equally between two opposing goals and expect to maximize both at the same time. At some point, one direction has to take priority.

However, there is another way to think about the problem. If the objective is to get two horses to the same location, you essentially have three options.

You can ride one horse and hope the other follows.

You can ride one horse while leading the other.

Or you can walk in front and lead both.

Each option can work, but each comes with a very different trade-off between speed, control, and predictability.

Riding one horse and hoping the other follows is the fastest option. You can move quickly because all of your effort is directed toward one horse. The problem is that the second horse may or may not follow. It might stay close or it might run in the opposite direction the moment it finds something more interesting to do, which, if we are being honest, sounds very on-brand for a horse.

Riding one horse while leading the other is slower, but more controlled. You are still prioritizing one horse, so progress can happen at a reasonable pace, but you are also ensuring the second horse continues moving in the right direction. The limitation is that the second horse is not under the same level of control as the one you are riding. It can still pull away, slow down, resist, or force you to adjust your path. However, there is nothing stopping you from changing which horse you are riding throughout the journey.

Walking in front and leading both horses is the slowest option, but also the most predictable. You are unlikely to arrive in record time, but the chances of arriving with both horses are much higher. The process is slower because no single horse is being pushed aggressively, but the process is more balanced and easier to manage.

The same concept applies directly to training.

You cannot go all in on two competing goals and expect both to progress maximally without consequence. Some qualities are highly compatible. Others compete for recovery resources, training time, and adaptive priority. The more opposing the goals become, the more intelligently the training process needs to be organized.

A simple example would be trying to add 100lbs to your squat while preparing for a marathon. Both are valid goals, but they require very different training inputs. A major increase in maximal strength demands high levels of force production, sufficient loading exposure, progressive overload, and recovery resources directed toward strength adaptation. Preparing for a marathon requires large amounts of endurance volume, repeated exposure to running-specific stress, aerobic development, and durability across long durations.

These goals are not impossible to train at the same time, but they are not neutral toward one another either. The training required to maximize one can easily interfere with the training required to maximize the other.

This is where periodization becomes important.

The question is not simply whether two qualities can be trained together. The better question is how much emphasis each quality can receive within the available timeframe, recovery capacity, and performance objective. Different periodization models answer that question in different ways.

Riding One Horse and Hoping the Other Follows

The first option is to ride one horse and hope the other follows. In training terms, this resembles a highly concentrated or block periodization model, where one primary quality receives the majority of training emphasis for a defined period of time.

This approach can be extremely effective when the goal is to rapidly improve one specific quality. If the objective is to increase maximal strength, the training block may prioritize heavy loading, specific strength work, assistance exercises that support the main lift, and fatigue management strategies that allow force production to improve. Other qualities may still appear in the program, but they are no longer the primary driver of the training process.

The benefit of this approach is speed of development. When training stress is concentrated around one primary quality, the adaptive signal becomes clearer. The athlete has more training time, energy, and recovery capacity available for the quality being emphasized. For short timeframes or highly specific performance outcomes, this can be very useful.

The limitation is that the secondary quality may not improve. In some cases, it may be maintained. In others, it may detrain. If the gap between the emphasized quality and the secondary quality is too large, the second horse may simply stop following.

Returning to the squat and marathon example, a block focused aggressively on maximal strength may improve the squat, but it is unlikely to meaningfully develop marathon performance if running volume and aerobic work are insufficient. Likewise, a marathon-focused block may improve endurance performance, but it is unlikely to produce a 100lb increase in squat strength.

This is the main trade-off of a block model. It allows for high emphasis, faster improvement, and a clearer adaptive target, but it also accepts that other qualities may receive only maintenance exposure or may be temporarily deprioritized.

This is not a flaw within the model, it is the point of the model. It allows for a greater amount of stress to be applied on a specific adaptation to enhance specific results.

The mistake occurs when coaches expect non-emphasized qualities to improve at the same rate as the primary quality. If you are riding one horse at full speed, you cannot assume the second horse will arrive beside you without being led.

Riding One Horse While Leading the Other

The second option is to ride one horse while leading the other. In training terms, this resembles a parallel emphasis periodization model. One quality receives greater emphasis for a period of time, while another quality is still actively maintained or developed at a lower priority.

This approach is slower than a highly concentrated block model, but it is often more practical for athletes or clients who need multiple qualities to remain within a usable range. Instead of ignoring one quality completely, the program maintains enough exposure to prevent meaningful regression while still directing most of the adaptive resources toward the current priority.

For example, an athlete may spend one phase emphasizing maximal strength while maintaining aerobic capacity through lower volumes of conditioning. In a later phase, the emphasis may shift toward aerobic power or sport-specific conditioning while maximal strength is maintained through lower-volume, higher-intensity strength exposures.

This creates a more flexible system. You can ride one horse for a while, then change which horse you are riding. Over time, fatigue and emphasis are distributed more evenly across the full journey.

The benefit of this model is that both qualities are being managed intentionally. One is prioritized, but the other is not completely neglected. This can be especially useful for team sport athletes, hybrid athletes, tactical populations, and general population clients who need more than one quality to improve over time.

The limitation is complexity. Planning becomes more demanding because the coach must manage the interaction between qualities. Volume, intensity, frequency, exercise selection, conditioning modality, and recovery all need to be organized so the secondary quality does not interfere too heavily with the primary goal.

Using the squat and marathon example, this might mean emphasizing strength for several weeks while maintaining running volume at a level sufficient to preserve aerobic qualities and tissue tolerance. Later, the emphasis may shift toward marathon preparation while strength is maintained through fewer but more targeted exposures. Neither quality is maximized as quickly as it would be in isolation, but both remain directed toward the final objective.

This model usually requires more patience than most people want to admit. It is not as fast as going all in on one quality, but it is much more predictable when multiple qualities matter.

Walking in Front and Leading Both Horses

The third option is to walk in front and lead both horses. In training terms, this resembles a parallel periodization model, where multiple qualities are trained with relatively equal emphasis throughout the process.

This is often the simplest model conceptually because no quality is dramatically prioritized or deprioritized. Strength, hypertrophy, conditioning, mobility, speed, or power may all appear consistently across the training week, depending on the athlete or client.

The benefit is predictability. Because all qualities receive consistent exposure, none are likely to be completely neglected. This can work very well when the timeframe is long, the goals are moderate, or the athlete needs broad development rather than extreme specialization.

For general population clients, this model can be extremely effective. Most people do not need to peak a squat, run a marathon, or express one quality at the highest possible level. They need to get stronger, improve body composition, build aerobic capacity, maintain joint health, and stay consistent for years. In that context, leading both horses slowly is often the right choice.

The limitation is the ceiling. Equal emphasis usually reduces the rate at which any one quality can be maximized. If the goal requires a high level of performance in one specific area, a purely parallel approach may not provide enough concentrated stimulus to push that quality to its upper limit.

This is why context matters. Walking and leading both horses may be ideal for long-term general development, but it may be insufficient for short-term performance peaking or advanced athletes with highly specific goals.

The Practical Coaching Decision

The real question is not which model is best. The question is which model best fits the goal, the timeframe, and the degree of compatibility between the qualities being trained.

If the goal is highly specific and the timeframe is short, a concentrated block may be necessary. Ride one horse and accept that the other may not keep up. This is useful when one quality clearly matters more than the others.

If the goal requires meaningful progress in more than one quality, but one quality still needs priority at any given time, a parallel emphasis model is often the best choice. Ride one horse, lead the other, and switch emphasis when appropriate.

If the goal is broad development over a long timeframe, a parallel model can work extremely well. Walk in front, lead both horses, and accept that progress will be slower but more predictable.

The problem is that many programs never make this decision clearly. They attempt to ride both horses at the same time. The athlete accumulates fatigue from multiple directions without creating a clear enough stimulus to maximize any one adaptation.

This is where mixed goals become dangerous. Training for strength and endurance at the same time is not inherently wrong. Training for hypertrophy and conditioning at the same time is not inherently wrong. Training speed, power, strength, and aerobic qualities within the same macrocycle is not inherently wrong.

The problem occurs when the program fails to establish priority.

A good training plan does not need to train only one quality forever. It does need to make clear which quality is being emphasized, which qualities are being maintained, and which qualities are temporarily being allowed to sit in the background.

That clarity determines whether the program is actually periodized or simply busy.

Every Program Chooses a Priority

You cannot ride two horses with one ass.

In training, this means you cannot maximize two competing qualities at the same time without compromise. The more opposing the goals are, the more important it becomes to organize training emphasis intelligently.

You can ride one horse and hope the other follows. This is fast, specific, and useful when one quality needs to dominate the training process, but it is unpredictable for the secondary quality.

You can ride one horse while leading the other. This is slower, more complex, and often more effective when multiple qualities need to be developed across a training cycle.

You can walk in front and lead both horses. This is the slowest option, but also the most predictable when the goal is broad development over a longer timeframe.

None of these options are inherently superior. They simply reflect different relationships between speed, control, and predictability.

The mistake is pretending there is no trade-off.

Every training program makes a decision about priority, whether the coach admits it or not. Intelligent periodization makes that decision clearly, organizes the training process around it, and accepts the consequences of the model being used.

The goal is not to chase every horse at once.

The goal is to arrive with the ones that matter.