aniki

Disagree. Balance isn't necessarily 'saddle aft' biased. Although it's fair to say that someone with a weak core and who puts low power through the pedals would probably need a much greater setback to achieve correct balance as they won't have enough opposing forces to keep themselves upright.
I've been a Vet for longer than I can now remember but I wouldn't consider myself a low power user and I doubt many of Steve Hogg's clientele are low power users. I believe its principles lie not only in achieving body weight balance over the bottom bracket but also an equal balance of muscle recruitment.
For road racing I am balanced in what I would say is a neutral position (although my saddle is set quite far forward compared to most it's only 5mm back from the UCI limit) and as such I can scoot a little further back and use the reserves in my glutes for riding in the pack or if I need to hammer it I can scoot forward and rely on quad power. If the 'balance' was too far one way or the other I would be artificially fatiguing one the muscle groups.
To be fair, the position in my track bikes is about 15mm further forward and the front end is slightly lower but I'm only really using one position and only using quadriceps. Obviously there's no way I could balance on that bike.
The same applies for a TT position; but here we're getting into the realms of specific positions for specific disciplines. For most road riders which is who I assume we're dealing with here I fully advocate for the balance method.