[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.