[haswell]

> I can understand you may not like the 'troll' / provocative way of writing tho, it's not for everybody

Not the other commenter, but some feedback: while I’m not a fan of the writing style, and I’m ok with that, my issue is really presentation and information density.

It takes a rather dedicated reader to find useful information in between paragraph after paragraph of ranting. And since I’m not skilled at lifting, I’m more interested in hearing what you think is useful than wading through a dozen ways to belittle what people are already doing.

I think you could increase your reach by making the problem/solution clearer. I’m just starting to dabble with weights, and I’m actively seeking good resources. I’m not inclined to add your blog to my research plan based on this.

Hoping this comes across as constructive and in the spirit it was intended.

[davidguetta]

I'm not the author of the article. But if you want a provocative answer:

In general your attitude is wanting easy shiny articles instead of really going deep in why and what works well or no, going past the writing style, especially when it's told by someone who is showing many results for him and others well... you kind of illustrate the point of people who end up with shiny and useless workout, don't eventually stick to the gym because "they don't feel like it" at some point.

No one really serious about sports (either lifting or martial arts) is going to spend more time pleasing you or make you feel better if you're not able to see that results speak for themselves. You have to be self motivated, it's not my job to do it. I've seen article mentionned at least 10 times as "best fitness article". If you don't like the style when it's one of the best articles, it's your problem, not the author's one.

But if you really want an answer for you if you are starting => just do the "starting strength" program. It's the simplest one and most effective. When you can bench 100kg in 3 months, you can read more about leangains.

[haswell]

> I'm not the author of the article

Ahh, fair enough, I misinterpreted one of your earlier comments.

> In general your attitude is wanting easy shiny articles instead of really going deep in why and what works well or no

That's not what I want at all. I'm happy to go deep. I love long-form content. I'm starting to investigate weights after sinking hundreds of hours into Yoga fundamentals.

I'm just in the stage of deciding where I'll invest my time next, and what I'm calling out are what amount to pedagogical issues with the structure. Simply put, there are more effective ways of conveying the same level of depth by focusing on the structure of information. If you were the author, this would have been feedback. Since you're not, it sounds like I'm just trashing the article, which is not my intent.

[kaba0]

I am by no means a professional, but from the time I have went down the rabbit hole, Jim Wendler’s 5/3/1 method seems to be generally well-appreciated. (I remember having read the linked article as well).

But.. he is a terrible writer, his book is all around the place - so I absolutely agree with your general point. Some people simply suck at writing, even if the content might well worth sharing. Just hire a writer in this case! Fortunately there are shorter summaries of the method, so you don’t have to suffer through the book.