@kennycro@@aol.com I like the fact to you don't mind disagreeing with the crowd and that you do it usually in a well informed style, citing research, etc... Most of these discussions even stay polite, which is amazing on the internet. The problem with the conventional wisdom is that it comes from a paradigm in which there is supposedly an "optimal" method of training. I don't say you wrote this, but people believe that there is a "magic bullet". That is, for example, if you want to have the biggest deadlift you can follow a certain program, among all the programs that exist, that will allow you to deadlift the biggest weight possible in say 3 months. That is, you can perform certain movements at certain times in a specific manner that will allow you to optimize one variable. Unfortunately, that paradigm is not very useful for most people and extremely likely inaccurate, if not false.
Background
I don't want to win "by authority", but want to show that I studied these things. I followed graduate courses in "systems methods in physiology", "chaos theory", "signal processing" and other similar subjects. I will not be citing specific papers, but I don't pull this post out of thin air.
Elite athletes
I will mostly leave these out of the discussion. They are a special case in that their life is more controlled and they have more feedback about their training and physiology. They are also trained by an experienced trainer who knows (hopefully) how to make adjustments when needed to the program. In that respect, they don't really just "follow a program", but basically adjust the program on the fly.
Optimal strategy
Biological systems are very complex. Even optimizing a simple system can be difficult. The fact that many training approaches work is proof that the optimum is probably not very sharp. In other words, in parameter space, the "optimal program" is probably a plateau of programs, instead of a very sharp peak at very specific variables.
Hidden variables
That is the main problem here. The optimal training program depends on a very large number of factors, most of which are unknown. Genetics, general stress level, ... and anything else we don't know could influence results. I just read about a study that showed that when people were told (falsely) that they had a gene for poor endurance, they performed worse, even if they have the "good" version. (
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...u-have-poor-endurance-genes-changes-your-body). It's just a single study and may fail to replicate, but I read in the past similar things about performance and belief. Saying that one can design the "optimal" training program is simply false. You cannot optimize a system without knowing all the variables without feedback.
Feedback
That's where I agree with you that "progressing intuitively" is the way to go. That is adding feedback. to the system. Ideally, you would have a more quantitative manner of assessing how to adjust, but I think that most recreational lifters don't want or can't go there.
Randomness
As other have mentioned, the program is not completely random, it has variability within specific parameters. As also mentioned by other, it is similar to the PlanStrong programs. I think the PlanStrong programs wave a bit more systematically, but that is only what I can deduct from what I have read as I did not attend the class. However, rolling the die seems very close to this randomized undulation, only you randomize on the spot instead of randomizing in advance. Given the flat nature of the optimum, you are most likely not going far from the optimum, if there is such a thing.
HLM
The program is probably close to a traditional "high low medium" approach. However, instead of having specific days for each "toughness", you vary randomly. Since you never repeat the same workout twice, it may look like LHMHMLMHLM... You are very unlikely to do two hard or easy workouts in the same week.
Quote
My computer somehow refuses to insert a quote, but:
"
Plan Your Work, Work Your Plan"
The key to maximizing your training come down to a well written and executed plan. No successful business, sport team or athlete just shows up and rolls then dice.
Because nobody does it doesn't mean it doesn't work. I will also not go into this much as we will go very far from training, but success and planning is mostly a myth in business. Yes, you must no do stupid things, but saying that planning is the key to success is mostly false. Adaptation is. In business and everything, the way to go is to add feedback, that is wave the load according to measurements, not blindly following the plan. That is not "plan your work, work the plan" in the way people understand it. Now, if you have feedback, both approaches are likely to give very similar results.
Just another example. A "classic" powerlifting program would have me do 5 sets of 5 every week and increase the load by 10 pounds every week, starting well within my ability. I cannot see how that is an optimum. I cannot see how all lifters who say can deadlift around 350 pounds would progress optimally doing this. Some could probably go faster, other should go slower. It's a good rule of thumb and works, but I would bet a fortune that it's not an optimum for everyone, for the reasons I wrote above. Even "Starting Strenght" has feedback. If you fail your lift, you reset.
Conclusion
The method proposed in the blog post is not complete non-sense. Will it produce an "optimal" strategy. Probably not. However, no method does. If you select your parameters right and add a bit of feedback, it will work. Undulating load works. You like it. Making the undulation random within reason will also work. It's an "N" of 1, but it worked for the author of the blog post who bent press 60 kg (not a very strong argument I admit)
Opinon.
The following is more of an opinion, but based on a lot of reading on psychology and neuroscience, control theory,etc... rings truer to me than the alternative.
We humans like to control everything, or at least think we control everything. That is a complete illusion to maintain our ego. We barely manage and do damage control when needed. There is so little we control in life that we don't want to think about it. We each have in our life someone, probably more than one person, who can make our life go sideways really badly if they take a certain action. The fact that is doesn't happen more often is almost a miracle.
Having a set program gives the illusion that we at least control our destiny in the gym. That's fine for those who like it. Having more randomness however will not necessarily give worse results. You will just lose the illusion of control. Who knows, it may even help. I'm not saying that for example the US weightlifting team should start throwing dice tomorrow for all their training. They could however experiment with it in lower stake training.