I very much enjoyed reading this article. Reading about training methods that are boiled down to simple rules is attractive to me, because I don’t want to be thinking about a lot of confusing details when I’m trying to plot a regimine or lift a dumbell at the gym.
However, a few ideas presented in the article bothered me. I’m sure the author is well-educated with tons more experience than me; yet, a couple details in this writeup seemed weak, and I wanted to mention them:
1.) He advocates training more often to get results - that’s great! I read about this on T-Mag several months ago, and so, I work shoulders and chest twice a week and have had great results. But then he mentions this arm thing which has been debated above to death. If training more often produces results, why would eliminating direct arm work be a good thing? For whatever it’s worth, I still do direct arm work with along with all my compound motion exercises with fine progress. It’s true, he didn’t say that we wouldn’t benefit from doing arms, just that the best way to achieve results was to incorporate compound motions. But doing less arm work still contradicts his ‘more is better’ idea.
2.) His abandonment of the TUT principle kind of bugs me. No offense, but what is this based on? I know other routines he listed like the 5x5 which are known to produce results without fitting within the strict TUT brackets exist, but should we really ignore this principle? Ever since I read the REFERENCED studies here on T-mag months ago, I discovered the thing I was most negligent about in my workouts was tempo - I was one of those guys that would throw the weights around in a body-jerking, 8-rep, 10-15 second set, and ever since I incorporated the changes to my tempo in workouts (to slow it down, pause at the tops and bottoms of lifts), my results have DEFINITELY been enhanced. The TUT articles are referenced with scientific evidence supporting the ideas. Maybe I’m interpreting this article incorrectly, but it seemed to me that he was saying “don’t worry about your tempo - it’s not important.” without anything to back up this viewpoint. I did read about his credentials at the bottom, which depict his experience with military men and various other athletic clientele. So it’s very likely he has a lot of real-world experience to support this perspective. But I’m saying, for a guy that got into this with a very ignorant background about lifting (and still has a long way to go) the TUT idea has been an amazing change for me, and dumping the principle in a couple of sentences feels cavalier to me. I apologize for the criticism, I’m not trying to pick holes here.