I encourage you to read this as most of it is just spot on - particularly the idea towards the end about intensity being the best training tool for those on a limited schedule. The one key difference i have from these folks, however, (obvious to those of you like dave who have been part of this for a while) is the amount of time that needs to be invested. For example, they talk initially about the fundamental importance of having a program that fits the need of 'real world' athletes (not those that have 30 hours to train a week and who can get 10 hours of sleep a night) and then immediately follow this with examples of 'real world' time commitments:
Your training plan must reflect your reality: training one to two hours per workday, max, with consistent three to four hours per day available on the weekends, maybe.Holy SH*T! i simply can't imagine finding the time for 11 hours of dedicated training a week (and this is at the LOW end! the high end in the example is 18 hours!). It seems to me that this also goes a little against the later thoughts on intensity and efficiency - particularly for those of us who are not genetically gifted in this regard. When i really have my intensity dialed high at present i can't imagine adding much in way of additional high intensity work time for a given week. Sure i could spin for several hours in between high intensity sessions, but if this isn't progressively challenging my present 'fitness' in order to cause adaptation, is it, under there ideals, an efficient use of time?
But again, i like these guys and applaud what they're trying to do - i just think that perhaps they haven't bucked conventional wisdom quite as much as they think they have.