Specificity in Strength Training for Acrobatics

by Flosha, 18.04.2025 - 20.04.2025

You become better at what you train and internalise it in the way you train it. You will as well internalise bad patterns if you keep practicing them. From this fact follows that it is absolutely essential to practice, as far as possible, from the very beginning in the most technically correct way. For this reason a good coach is necessary to teach and instill solid technique.

This is the simple rule of specificity: You become good at what you do. When you do it badly you will become good in doing it badly. The same applies to strength. The more specific your strength training is to your required or desired skills, the better you will become in performing them. Therefore we are aiming to make all (or as much as reasonably possible) of our training specific to what it should eventually enable us to do.

The strength requirements and skills of base and top partners are different due to their different roles in the sport. Therefore this article will be concluded in these two subchapters:

But before we deal with the specific preparation of the partners and their differences, we will have to clarify some general terms and principles. If we understand these we can then show how these principles can be applied in the specific preparation of the partners.

At first we have to understand that there are (or can be) important differences between training for (1) Mass, (2) Strength and (3) Skill Strength. All three of these categories of training are necessary, but in different ways for bases and tops.

Mass vs. Strength

At first we will consider the difference between Mass and Strength training, how mass relates to strength and vice versa.

Mass training is necessary to some degree (more for bases than for tops). While mass does not equal strength it can be understood as strength potential. You are not necessarily stronger if you have more muscle mass, but you have more potential of strength-output than with less mass.

To simplify this (obviously it depends on additional factors): If someone with less muscle mass is stronger than someone with more mass in absolute terms the one with less mass uses his strength potential better and the other one uses it less.
After a phase focused on strength the one with more mass may become stronger and the other one will not easily be able to overcome him in strength again, in lack of muscle mass, because he uses his full potential already. Before he can become stronger he has to build more muscle first.

Thus both mass building and strength development is necessary. Training them efficiently may differ in volume, intensity, rep range, reps in reserve, speed, rest time, exercise selection and so on. While a strength focused training will also be able to carry-over to more mass and mass building focused training will carry-over to more strength, they are two different approaches to training.

Approaching them on their own in seperate cycles has been proven to be more efficient. But efficiency is not the only factor that may be relevant to coaches and athletes.

In general we can distinguish training for mass and training for strength like this:

While this is a general scheme that works for most people, we also have to be aware that some people respond better to higher intensity and less volume even for building mass. While others respond better to less intensity and higher volume. This is something that has to be found out on an individual basis by experience.

Strength can be developed with lower intensity and higher volume too, just more slowly (but also very safely). If strength is increased in this way it basically means that one never fully utilises the muscle mass to his full potential and will not be as strong as he could be. But that doesn’t mean that it might not be a potent and safe approach to training for some use-cases.

These differences in building mass vs. developing strength can be approached by different methods of training, of which I want to point out two particular ways to approach progression and overload:

(1) One approach as mentioned before is by utilising seperate mass and strength “cycles”. One may train with high intensity, gaining as much strength as possible, then doing a cycle for building more mass, then doing another strength cycle to utilise this mass and so on. By doing so one may often get close to the edge of what his body can handle with positive adaptation instead of breaking down.

Therefore, both mass and strength cycles are not reasonable to be done during a competition period, which is problematic if there are important competitions all year long or if one is performing as a professional acrobat on stage. If so one has to be ready and in peak performance, all or most of the time. The necessary mass and the necessary strength has already to be there. There cannot be put particular focus on it anymore.

But anyway: If one has to build more mass and strength, if doing it in this way, as long as he finds the right sweet spot in doing so, e.g. by diverse regulation methods, he will make progress and hopefully remain injury-free.

It may be most valuable for people who do not necessarily train everyday for several hours and want (or have to) make their training very efficient. It is also valuable for those who like planning and thinkering around with their programme. Planning and sticking to these cycles can be difficult and tiring and too much for many people to do on their own, when they just want to focus on training. Periodisation and training in cycles is usually something planned and provided by Coaches, so that their athletes do not have to worry about it. Many non-professional strength athletes therefore use modern apps providing such a scheme for them instead of doing it on their own. But as far as I know there is not yet any open-source application available for free (which is a shame).

(2) The other method is very different in character and was to some degree utilised in the former soviet union, as far as I am informed. It is sometimes referred to as a method of Steady State Cycles. Here you begin by basically setting a standard of where you want to be, like: “I will be doing X reps of this exercise in every training.” You train everyday (in the sense of 5-6 times a week) and do it.

Obviously there are several exercises you will do in this way and the overall training programme will be designed in a way that the exercises balance out the one-sided load put onto your body; if you would only do one or two exercises of the programme you would injure yourself in a couple of weeks or months. Only by doing all of them you balance them out and can remain injury free, because they are choosen carefully to provide a balanced load, while slow progression and Conditioning will make sure that the joints and muscles remain healty enough to handle the workload overall.

The progression happens here by starting with a specific rep range, volume and intensity for a few weeks without changing anything but the quality, control, technique and efficiency of the exercises when performing them and slowly adding more reptitions without changing the intensity. After this period an exercise or a weight that could only be done/lifted for maybe 10 repetitions may now be possible to be done/lifted for 20 or 30. It has become easy and the tendons got time to adapt. Only now you increase the intensity (often quite a jump in intensity can be done after such a cycle) and you repeat through this same cycle of Overload in the beginning, Medium Load in the midst of it and Underload in the end of the Cycle, when the weight/exercise has become easy. Such a cycle may take a few weeks for one exercise or weight; in other cases it may take a year. But eventually there are long-term gains on a strong foundation.

Obviously you make sure from the very beginning that you choose exercises which you can sustainably do in this way, in this rep range, in this volume - everyday. That means, it cannot be of very high intensity. This way you develop a standard of everyday workload. Then you slowly increase the frequency, volume or intensity of that workload. Over time and if you stick to it consistently you will reach a level that you can do all kinds of exercises on a high level, are almost always ready to perform in your sport and can just sustain it because it is your every-day base-level.

It is obvious that in this kind of training as well there will be times to push a bit harder and there will be times to go a bit slower (before competition) to be ready and fully recovered to perform, e.g. being and remaining in the Underload phase during the competition period.

For bases and tops we have to make a clear distinction in regard to mass vs. strength as it relates to their role. Bases can theoretically maximise mass building, obvious depending on their other goals. There is always a trade-off in being too heavy depending on which kinds of disciplines a base is also trying to specialise in.

For example: As a handbalancer, heavy legs are very disadvantaging, therefore most high-level handbalancers have thin legs. Trying to be a base and a handbalancer thus may mean that one may try to find a middle ground of strong but not too heavy legs. Or he may choose to keep them very lean for handbalancing but as a trade-off specialise in balance in hand-to-hand, to reduce the necessary leg strength due to the lack of dynamics (or only doing lower level dynamics, which is the usual thing done by pairs in the Circus).

Being too heavy can also have negative impact in regard to elegance. There is a reason for dancers to be lean and relatively thin, as it accentuates the lines. Thus in some cases it also may just be a personal choice due to an aesthetical preference and personal well-being. If one doesn’t feel well in ones body past a specific weight there is no sense in forcing more weight unto it.

As a general rule we can say that bases should aim to become muscular enough to be able to handle their tops easily. And while staying lean in the process may be favourable in gymnastics for the aesthetics in the performance, it will not really have much of a negative impact on skill execution, especially since senior gymnasts are no longer required to perform any individual elements. The ideal is to be muscular and lean, but there is no need to be “light” for bases.

The situation is different for tops. For tops it is and always will be crucial to be both lean and light, as far as reasonably possible. Too much muscle won’t be of use for tops and will negatively impact skill execution. Thus, for tops much more than for bases, the ideal would be to maximise the strength-to-mass (also called strength-to-weight) ratio; being as strong as possible with little/less mass. Nonetheless they have of course to build some degree of mass in the process of learning and mastering their skills.

If girls develop wider hips in course of puberty and a more regular feminine physique, much more mass will be required and necessary to be build in order to maintain their skills. This is not so in the rare cases of those girls who basically preserve the physique of a girl into adulthood; such girls are therefore particularly chosen and are predestined to become and to remain tops.

Basic Strength vs. Skill Strength

When we are speaking of “Skill Strength” we are not speaking of Skill Training. Skill Training is simply practicing acrobatic skills. Skill Strength Training is doing skill-specific strength exercises to become stronger in the skills.

To explain the difference: One may have the goal to achieve the “Planche”. For doing so he will need to constantly practice specific positions that are reasonable to do at his level (e.g. practicing the Tuck Planche). This can be understood as skill training. But the skill itself, the Full Planche that he aims for is yet way too hard to practice and just from holding the Tuck Planche position he won’t make any progress towards to Planche. He recognises that he has to become stronger and that his muscle mass may not suffice. Thus he will start to build muscle necessary for the Planche, such as by practicing weighted push-ups or incline bench press in a mass cycle (or several ones if necessary). These exercises are not too specific to the planche, because they do not replicate the same shoulder angle and direction of force output, but they are easy to train and build a big part of the muscles involved in the Planche.

After (and to some degree simultaneously) to having build more mass he will work on expressing more strength through this mass (using more of his potential) through basic strength exercises, such as, in this case, again: Weighted Push-ups or Incline Bench Press, which is the second step. But now with a strength focused programming, strength rep range, intensity, volume, speed and rest.

After (and to some degree simultaneously) he will then focus on expressing this strength in skills through skill strength exercises, such as variations of Planche Push-ups, which would be the third step.

But one thing has to be understood: If he is strong enough for the planche, so strong that the planche is easy to him and he has enough mass to hold it consistently and for long and if this is the only or the hardest skill that he wants to do, then there will be no need whatsoever to do any more mass building. He doesn’t need more mass and in gymnastic skills it can be detrimental to the execution of his desired skill(s) if there is too much mass.

If the mass is build and if sufficient, it will be enough to preserve it through sufficient nutrition and through sufficient usage of strength.

It is totally possible to not approach the training in this way of these three cycles of Mass, Strength and Skill Strength. It is simply a way that has been proven to be effective and is currently recommended by some experts in the field. But all of these exercises in their different rep ranges, speed, rest times etc. could also be done simultaneously. E.g. you could also have a mixed mass + strength programming, where you work in more of a mass building fashion a few days a week and more in a strength building fashion on other days. And depending on if one of the two is currently of higher relevance for your situation you may put more focus on one or the other (e.g. have 80% of your training be mass focused and 20% strength or vice versa). And if one already has enough mass he has no need in wasting time on building more and can only do strength or skill strength training.

But it is also possible to replace all or most basic strength exercises with skill strength exercises in order to have the highest specificity in training. The problem with this approach is that many skills (such as, to stick to our example, the planche or planche push-ups) are very hard on the joints and are not as easy to use and sustain without injury when practiced all the time than regular exercises (such as weighted push-ups). In our example: Doing all the horizontal pushing strength by practicing Planche Push-ups will not be reasonable for many people because it will strain there wrists too much. The wrists or the shoulders or the elbows may give out before the muscles are really worked. Therefore, in case of the Planche, as well as in many other cases, it can make sense to not use the skill itself as the strength exercise of choice, even if that means less specificity.

For some people it may be practical and can be done if one is very advanced in his level of preparation and can handle it. Thus only using skill strength exercises for strength training is not for beginners, it is for advanced athletes with enough preparation. But if this preparation is given and if it can be done safely and sustainably - it is the eventual ideal and the preferred way in order to train with more specificity for excellent skill execution.

In Acrobatic Gymnastics we have the advantage that many movements/skills that the bases have to perform are very similar to basic weightlifting exercises; it is therefore rather easy to make all of the strength training skill strength in the preparation of bases.

Specificity in the Preparation of Bases

To apply this knowledge to the training of bases: The skills that the bases have to master primarily, are tempos and landings/catches in diverse positions for dynamic, and mounts, motions and holds in diverse positions for balance.

Preparation for Balance on Hands

Balance on the hands, where it is not about pure skill training with little intensity is primarily about overhead stability, eventually focused on one arm (the mobility will be developed automatically if training stability and strength correctly). When we want to train skill strength for such balance in the most specific way, so that the weight of our tops will feel easy, we have to try using the next best exercises to balancing a partner.

On two arms: (1) just holding/carrying a barbell overhead is not very specific because of the much lower centre of mass, but can be useful nonetheless. (2) Holding/carrying a barbell with the addition of weight plates dangling from elastic bands attached to the sides for extra instability. (3) Using self-build equipment simulating two arms with weight on top. This can be a metal construct with the possibility to load via plates, it also could be a wooden construct with a sort of a box (with roughly the size of a torso) filled with sand bags etc. If there is not any such equipment available or not reasonable to use (4) holding other bases on ones hands in different positions can build significant amounts of additional strength and can well suffice to become strong enough that the top will be very easy to hold, if a reasonable weight difference between the base and top is given.

On one arm: Holding a barbell regularly (horizontally) on one arm is already an exotic and “cirquesque” exercise for regular weightlifters that is apparently only done by oldtime strongman enthusiasts, but it is too unspecific for the training of acrobats due to the much lower centre of mass. It may be done if there are no other options available.

Good options are (1) balancing a barbell vertically with weight added to the top or (2) balancing heavy kettlebells in the bottom-up position, which additionally strengthens the wrists/grip necessary in one arms tremendeously or (3) using specifically build equipment that simulates the balance of a partner even better while allowing to increase the weight in small, incremental steps. The best self-build equipment for this purpose is a T-shaped bar with an angled handle at the bottom (like in blocks for tops) and the possibility to both load the two “legs” on the left and right (the horizontal bar of the “T”), as well as the centre on top and/or below the horizontal bar of the construct. This way the weight distribution of the partner in a handstand is simulated most accurately. As described for the two arm preparation: (4) If none of these options are available, the simplest solution is to hold other bases on one arm in different positions, which can well suffice to strengthen and prepare the base for one arm balance of the top, if a reasonable weight difference between the base and top is given.

Practical and Safety Concerns: Vertically held and top-weighted barbells require high ceilings, much higher than available in most commercial gyms, where it won’t be possible even when sitting down. Other than that it will of course be forbidden to do in commercial gyms due to (valid) safety concerns. In gymnastic halls one should be aware that it will absolutely destroy the spring floor (and almost any other floor) when falling down. Additionally when the weight should fall down, apart from a risk for anyone around a rather wide radius to be hit by the weight, there is additional risk involved due to it only being weighted on one side. Depending on how the barbell lands, the un-weighted side of the barbell could be suddenly snap up upon landing (like if stepping on a rake) and may cause serious injury. Additionally it is hard to get it into and out of position. A rather safe environment to use it in would be outside in grass with no one around.

The metal/wooden constructs require high ceilings as well and it is even more difficult (if not dangerous) to get them into position on ones own (and especially getting them down safely again) if substantially loaded. Therefore they are recommended to be used with a pulley system or attach them to a fixed height. When using a pulley system, a partner or coach can help to get it into position and to bring it down safely. But when the weight is attached somewhere it can dangle at a specific height that is low enough for the base to easily get it into position, but high enough for it to not hit you if you loose balance. This way it could be used independently when training alone. Nonetheless it requires an advanced setup and dedicated gym.

The solution with a heavier partner is the most versatile to use. It is easy to get into position, there is no additional equipment needed, only another base. Safety can be ensured well through very simple basic provisions. And if necessary it can be done in a seated position in every room independent of the height of the ceiling (although the same could be done in theory with the metal/wood construct if attached to the ceiling or a very high bar. The only caveat is that it is more difficult to load in incremental steps, if there are not many heavier tops or bases of different weight available. Ancle weights and weighted vests become very useful then.

As far as concerning the balance on the head, the utmost focus has to be paid to specific strengthening and conditioning of the neck in all kinds of angles and modes. (1) Isometric holds with stable (non-moving) resistance on the head for building enough compression tolerance, such as through headstands. (2) Neck extensions + anti-flexion holds, (3) Neck curls + anti-extension holds, (4) Side flexion + anti side-flexion holds as well as (5) Anti-rotational exercises are highly recommended and have to be approached carefully and slowly.

Concerning the preparation of bases in groups much more emphasis has to be laid on the strengthening of the legs and spine to handle the huge compressive forces of having two or three partners on top. (1) Heavy squats are mandatory. (2) Heavy holds in the back squat position and (3) walks/carries in the back squat position should be done. For kneestands one can train to become very efficient in heavily loaded wall-sits and so on.

Concerning the balance on feet…

Specificity in the Preparation of Tops

Tops, just like handbalancers, aim for a light build, especially light legs and strong, but lean upper bodies. They have to train their legs to some degree to develop enough explosive power for dynamics, but with little to no weight. Their training can and should be very specific. They have to become efficient at handstands, different motions and shapes, so they have to practice all these motions and shapes, do lots of handstand endurance, stability and technique training. In some ways the training of tops is easier and more straightforward, since almost no equipment and no weight is needed apart from canes and ancle weights and maybe some resistance bands. But it is more technically complex and requires more technical knowledge to teach them correctly and develop correct lines.

back to the top