Building Your Security Program: Lessons from the Weight Room

As both a cybersecurity professional and weightlifter, I’ve noticed valuable parallels between strength training and security program development. Both disciplines reward structured approaches, consistent effort, and progressive advancement.

Following a Program: The Foundation of Progress

Beginners in weightlifting benefit from structured programs like Starting Strength or StrongLifts 5x5—methodologies with consistent progression built on fundamental movements. Random gym sessions produce random results.

Security programs benefit from the same structured approach. Frameworks like NIST Cybersecurity Framework and CIS Controls v8 provide progression models and fundamental “movements” that build organizational security maturity.

The CIS Implementation Groups Parallel

The CIS Controls progression model mirrors training advancement:

• CIS Implementation Group 1 (IG1) provides essential security “compound movements”—account management, access control, data protection, and incident response fundamentals
• IG2 builds on this foundation with additional controls for organizations managing sensitive data
• IG3 represents advanced programming for organizations with sophisticated security requirements

Just as lifters progress from beginner programs to intermediate methodologies, organizations advance through implementation groups as capabilities mature.

Form First, Weight Second

Every experienced lifter knows: proper technique matters more than heavy loads. Attempting maximum weights with poor form leads to injury and stagnation.

Security programs face the same dynamic. Organizations often implement advanced tools—SIEM platforms, threat intelligence feeds, automated response systems—without establishing basics like proper logging and monitoring.

The result: expensive tools producing data nobody analyzes, sophisticated capabilities nobody can operate effectively, and fundamental gaps remaining unaddressed.

Master the basics before adding complexity.

Building Your Security Stack Like a Training Program

Effective strength programs include:

• Primary movements: squats, deadlifts, presses—the fundamentals
• Supplementary exercises: variations supporting main lifts
• Accessory work: addressing specific weaknesses

Security programs should mirror this structure:

• Core controls: access management, encryption, network security—the fundamentals
• Supporting measures: endpoint protection, email security, backup systems
• Specialized tools: SIEM, threat intelligence, advanced detection platforms

Accessory work without primary lifts produces imbalanced development. Advanced security tools without foundational controls produce security theater.

Progressive Overload: Security Maturity

As lifters advance from linear progression to intermediate programs like 5/3/1, training complexity increases while fundamental principles remain consistent.

Security maturity follows similar patterns. Progression from CIS IG1 to IG3 represents moving from basic to advanced programming—increased complexity and capability building on established foundations.

Additional framework requirements like PCI DSS or HIPAA layer on top of baseline security programs, just as sport-specific training builds on general strength foundations.

Regular Assessment and Testing

Smart lifters track progress through regular testing—periodic max attempts, benchmark workouts, and measured improvements. Without testing, you’re guessing about progress.

Organizations should conduct consistent evaluations:

• Vulnerability assessments measuring attack surface
• Penetration testing validating control effectiveness
• Gap analysis against chosen frameworks

Penetration testing serves as security’s “personal record” attempt—demonstrating actual capability under realistic conditions.

Recovery and Resilience

Sustainable training programs avoid daily maximum effort. Recovery allows adaptation; constant intensity produces burnout and injury.

Security policies must be equally sustainable. Overly complex policies get ignored or circumvented, providing no protection. Controls must be achievable within operational constraints.

Resilience planning parallels recovery programming:

• Incident response plans prepare for inevitable failures
• Disaster recovery procedures enable comeback from setbacks
• Business continuity planning maintains operations during disruption

Regular reviews prevent control fatigue and degradation—maintaining gains rather than losing ground.

Security Awareness: The Mental Game

Mental preparation proves crucial to physical training performance. Visualization, focus, and psychological readiness contribute significantly to results.

User security awareness serves similar functions. Technical controls matter, but human behavior often determines outcomes. Regular training builds instinctive threat responses.

Tabletop exercises amplify this by providing controlled practice environments. Teams develop “muscle memory” for incident response procedures before facing real security incidents—just as athletes visualize competition before game day.

Continuous Improvement

Progress isn’t linear in either discipline. Setbacks occur; plateaus frustrate; external factors interfere. Consistency and structured approaches matter most over time.

Security programs, like training regimens, evolve as organizations strengthen and face new challenges. The framework remains consistent while specific implementations adapt to changing circumstances.

Ready to build your security program? Contact Breach Craft to discuss assessments, frameworks, and improvement strategies.