i finally got around to reading that, great article!

as is usually the case you bring up a lot of valid points about programming, the pitfalls of the "one size fits all" approach, etc etc.

i have a really good book on Figure drawing (I'm an artist) and the author mentions several times in the book that it is always best to start out with the general and work to the smaller then the smaller to the smallest. It got me thinking that not only does it apply to training as you pointed out, and to art as he pointed out, but to all things in life really. Sometimes we all get so caught up in the minutia of it all that we lose sight of the bigger picture and end up losing our way. I think with training that is a huge problem with a lot of people. I may have mentioned it before, but Mike mentzer was the first one that got me thinking about fundamentals (the general) and i feel that was the primary attraction to his "Heavy Duty" theory for me. I now disagree with a good number of his fundamentals but the concept of the need for valid basic principals remains.

Mike always touted critical thinking and using ones own judgement, and ironcially, when I did finally, truly follow that credo regarding my training, his "theory" was the first to go, lol!

I think if it all boils down to one thing, it's about adaptation and there are a zillion different ways to keep that going. to say only one set to failure is the BEST way, 5 sets of 5 is the BEST way, or to say 20 sets for bis is the BEST way is nonsense. Sooner or later you'd either adapt OR overtrain from them and you'd need a change. this is why stuff from Waterbury and Mentzer and Darden and Tate and Starr and Rip can all be useful if you have the programming knowledge to apply it to your unique situation.
but as Madcow says, knowing what to do and when to do it is the "art" of training!

anyway, this is a great thread, much food for thought here . . .

and speaking of food, I'm hungry!!!

__________________