“Balanced Training” Is a Sales Pitch

“Balanced” is a great word. Balanced diet. Balanced budget. Work-life balance. Who’s against balance?

That’s exactly why it works on a trainer’s website. It sounds like the reasonable middle between “all treats” and “all punishment”. But in dog training, the word has a specific meaning, and it’s worth knowing what’s in the mix before you pay for it.

We’re not calling out anyone here. Plenty of good-hearted people were taught this way. This is about the label, and what the evidence says about the method behind it.

What “Balanced” Means in Practice

BC SPCA’s AnimalKind program puts it plainly: “Balanced training uses both rewards and aversive methods to train dogs. That means that balanced training uses corrective tools and methods that cause pain and fear in dogs.” (AnimalKind.)

The AVSAB 2021 statement uses the same definition. It describes dogs “trained with a combination of rewards and aversive-based methods (often referred to as ‘balanced’ in the dog training industry)”.

So “balanced” usually means treats for the good stuff, plus corrections for the bad stuff. The corrections are the part to ask about. In the research and position statements, they include:

• leash “pops” or jerks,
• prong (pinch) collars,
• choke chains and slip collars used to correct,
• remote electronic collars (“stim”),
• physical corrections and harsh verbal ones.

Those are the same tools BC SPCA’s accreditation standards ban outright for accredited trainers, including “leash corrections (‘pop’)”, prong collars, choke chains and electronic shock collars.

Balanced training: 50% treats, 50% zaps, 100% marketing.

Why the Label Works So Well

The word does three jobs at once.

1. It sounds moderate. Nobody wants to be “unbalanced”.
2. It hides the tools. “Balanced” doesn’t say prong, choke or shock. You find out at the first session.
3. It reframes reward-only training as extreme. If one side is “balanced”, the other must be lopsided, right? That’s a framing, not a finding.

Here’s the thing. The question isn’t whether training should have structure. AVSAB says reward-based training “does not mean dogs are allowed to do anything they want” and that animals learn best with “appropriate structure, routine, and guidelines”. The question is whether pain and fear need to be part of that structure. The evidence says no.

What the Evidence Says About Mixing

If mixing rewards and aversives gave you the best of both, the studies would show it. Here’s what they show instead.

Obedience. The AVSAB statement summarises an owner survey by Hiby and colleagues (2004). Obedience was highest in dogs trained only with rewards and lowest in dogs trained only with aversives. The mixed, “balanced” group landed in the middle: “lower obedience levels than reward-based but better than exclusively aversive-based training.”

Stress during training. The 2020 Portuguese study had a group made for this question. Of 92 dogs, 22 came from “mixed” schools that used aversive methods less than 40% of the time. Compared with reward-school dogs, the mixed group showed more body turns, crouching, yawning and lip licking, and were more often in tense states. To be fair, the mixed group didn’t differ from the reward group on cortisol or on the “pessimism” test. The high-aversive group was worse on both. In the authors’ words, aversive methods compromise welfare “especially if used in high proportions”. Less aversive was better than more. None was better still.

Aggression and fear (owner reports). A 2008 owner survey by Blackwell and colleagues is quoted in the CCPDT’s LIMA policy. Positive reinforcement alone was linked with the lowest scores for fear and aggression. “Owners using a combination of positive reinforcement and positive punishment had dogs with the highest mean aggression score.” Surveys show links, not causes. The AVSAB notes that, and adds that the link still shows aversive methods aren’t eliminating problem behaviour.

Head to head. In the 2020 recall study, one group was trained by e-collar trainers working without the shock, and another by trainers who focused on positive reinforcement. The reward-focused group got better responses to “Sit” and “Come” after a single instruction, with fewer commands overall.

And the big-picture review: Ziv (2017) looked at 17 studies. It found no evidence that positive punishment works better than positive reinforcement, and some evidence the opposite is true.

“But We Follow LIMA”

You’ll often see “balanced” trainers say they follow LIMA: Least Intrusive, Minimally Aversive. It’s a real professional standard, and it’s worth reading what it actually says.

The CCPDT’s LIMA policy (adopted 2019) says:

• “Positive reinforcement should be the first line of teaching, training, and behavior change program considered.”
• “LIMA does not justify the use of punishment in lieu of other effective interventions and strategies.”
• “These LIMA guidelines do not justify the use of aversive methods and tools including, but not limited to, the use of electronic, choke or prong collars in lieu of other effective positive reinforcement interventions and strategies.”
• Trainers “should understand and follow the Humane Hierarchy”.

That hierarchy comes from behaviour analyst Dr. Susan Friedman. In her 2010 APDT Journal article, “What’s Wrong with This Picture? Effectiveness Is Not Enough”, she lays out six levels, from most to least recommended:

1. Health, nutrition and physical environment (distant antecedents)
2. Immediate antecedents: change the setting and the cues
3. Positive reinforcement
4. Differential reinforcement of an alternative behaviour
5. Extinction, negative reinforcement and negative punishment (in no particular order)
6. Positive punishment

Friedman writes that “the overwhelming majority of behavior problems can be prevented or resolved” with Levels 1 to 4. Level 6, positive punishment, “is rarely necessary (or suggested by standards of best practice) when one has the requisite knowledge of behavior change and teaching skills.” Her title is the point: “Effectiveness is one criterion, but effectiveness alone is not enough.”

So the hierarchy is a ladder you climb down only after the rungs above have been tried properly. A training plan that hands you a prong or a remote in week one isn’t following the hierarchy. It’s starting at the bottom.

It’s also worth knowing that some vet bodies go further than LIMA. The AVSAB recommends “only reward-based training methods” for all dog training and says there is “no role for aversive training in behavior modification plans”. The CVMA says aversive methods are “strongly discouraged”.

Balanced, LIMA and Reward-Based, Side by Side

What to Do Instead

You were sold a tool, and a nice word to go with it. Now you know better. Here’s the upgrade.

• Interview the trainer. Ask: “What happens when my dog gets it wrong?” and “Will you ever use a prong, choke, slip or e-collar?” Our checklist is in How to Spot a Trainer Who Uses Pain.
• Pulling? Stop Leash Pulling Without a Prong.
• Recall? A Recall That Works Without a Remote.
• Reactivity? Corrections can make it worse. Read Reactive Dog? Punishment Makes It Worse.
• Swap the gear. Ditch the Prong has front-clip harness options sold in Canada.

If a behaviour problem is new or comes with other changes, get your vet to rule out pain first. That’s Level 1 of the hierarchy, too.

Your dumb questions

Isn’t “balanced” just the sensible middle ground?

It sounds that way. In practice it means rewards plus aversive tools like prongs, e-collars or leash pops. Studies found mixed methods did worse than reward-only on obedience and stress measures.

My trainer says they follow LIMA. Doesn’t that make them humane?

LIMA puts positive punishment last on the list and says it doesn’t justify using prong, choke or electronic collars in place of positive reinforcement. Ask what they reach for first.

So reward-based means my dog gets to do whatever he wants?

No. AVSAB says reward-based training still uses structure, routine and guidelines. You just teach them without fear, intimidation or pain.

The receipts

1. Differences between balanced training and reward-based training · BC SPCA AnimalKind
2. Position Statement on Humane Dog Training · American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB), 2021
3. Does training method matter? Evidence for the negative impact of aversive-based methods on companion dog welfare · PLOS One, 2020
4. Efficacy of Dog Training With and Without Remote Electronic Collars vs. a Focus on Positive Reinforcement · Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 2020
5. What's Wrong with This Picture? Effectiveness Is Not Enough · APDT Journal (via Behavior Works), 2010
6. Least Intrusive, Minimally Aversive (LIMA) Effective Behavior Intervention Policy · Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers (CCPDT), 2019
7. The effects of using aversive training methods in dogs—A review · Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 2017
8. Dog Training Standards (Version 1.8) · BC SPCA AnimalKind
9. Humane Training of Dogs · Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA), 2021

Checked Sep 27, 2026. Spot something wrong? Tell us. We fix things fast. How we keep receipts.