High frequency, yes (but for me, being older, that means about only 3-4 days per week training). Focus on big moves, yes. Max acceleration, yes. Those are the common themes and pre-date CW and CT but both have explicated those concepts and made them more accessible).
But I can see using full body workouts centered on 2 “pressing” lifts with maybe one other auxiliary move done with less overall work. No matter how you cut it, there is a certain economy and practicality to full-body training, especially if you have a job. So here, I agree with CW.
As per CT, I prefer lots of Ramping Triples on a particular exercise (e.g., standing press) followed by a Max Reps set with about 20% less weight. This seems to get everything accomplished and can be done always (I dislike CW 8-10 sets using same weight and much prefer ramping). There is no need to work in higher or middle rep ranges ever (periodization theories are popular myths, but myths just the same). I believe CT is right on his pressing focus with some auxiliary work vice the popular “balanced” approach; I think CT is innovative on that point.
For me, Standing Presses, Front Squats (mostly), Deadlifts, and Bench Presses, form the core of my work with Benches done only 1x per week and lots of small ramping to keep max weight lighter and spare shoulders. Add just enough assistance (for me, Rowing/Chinning moves) and I’m done. I have completely stopped isolation moves like curls and my arms look fine, shoulders especially so, and with Front Squats (that permit a full ROM) my thighs are finally looking good.
Having tried both Waterbury’s and CT’s approach to lower reps, I can say that ramping is definitely better. It sounds strange, but sometimes I think that just the act of changing the weight after every set forces you to keep focus, as opposed to keeping the same weight as Waterbury would say.
However, I really liked CT’s idea of ramping and then dropping the weight for one set and performing a max rep set, and for some reason that idea totally disappeared in the HP mass program. There is just a ramp up and down in your range, and then switch to another exercise.
And CT and Waterbury both agree on the full body workout thing, though CT does not say it explicitly. Notice in the original article that when he focuses on three upper body pressing exercises, he “practices”, in his words, a lower body press, and vice versa. That is by definition a full body workout.
However, Roygion, I disagree that with you saying there is never a reason to use higher rep ranges. Switching rep ranges after a good amount of time can lead to new gains from the newer stimulus. That might be why so many people are getting good results from CT’s new programs, as there may have been more “traditional” training done before.
And I am failing to see why it is a good thing that pressing has a clear preference over pulling. I see this leading to postural problems and injury. Note that CT has not been doing HP mass for that long, and the i,Bodybuilder program was much more balanced. I am open to change, but I still see a program that focuses on the back of the body as one that it better for overall strength and injury prevention. Numerous coaches have expounded on the notion that the power is in the back of the body.
Thibs has said hes trained like this basically his whole career, also there isn’t a preference to pressing, he has also addressed this and that really there is more volume for the upper back than pressing and how to add extra back work if you still feel its lacking.