Well, sure. But think of the program as the individual itself. The program (the one Pavel was designing I mean) has a certain volume, average intensity and frequency. If a lifter would not thrive on such volume, then it wouldn't make sense to do the exact same program, with less volume. Because the frequency and intensity were picked to work with that volume in the first place.
So if I decrease the volume in a program, then it follows I'd have to increase frequency or intensity somewhat to obtain a similar training effect.
That's all I meant.
I think this is ultimately what I'm getting at. Saying there's a "balance" is incredibly vague. I'm looking to quantify it slightly by saying which of the two variables (volume or intensity) should be manipulated mostly, for a particular lift.
Assuming we're interested in strength, then the idea is that some lifts will respond better to sets of 5, while others will respond better to doubles for instance.
Maybe it sounds obvious, it just wasn't to me. I have been very guilty of grabbing Squat/DL/Bench programs, and using them for Pressing/Dipping/Pistols. I now realize this isn't as foolproof as I thought.
the "balance" becomes obvious whether one is going in the right direction or not. If the combination of volume and intensity is not producing the results I want it becomes very obvious very quickly
For instance, I recently cut my volume on my heavy OAS day by 25% but increasing the intensity of the weight by 10%( 200 swings with the 48 to 100 with the 52 kg).
Theoretically I thought the drop in volume would be make up by the increase in weight but it didn't work out that way.
4 weeks after my best 200 OAS workout with the 48 I was getting WEAKER not stronger! So I immediately dropped the load back and three weeks later had the strongest 200 swing day yet.
Experiment, observe, adapt.
Obtaining 'balance' is a bit vague but so is training, especially at the higher end. That's why training is as much art as science.
Or more.