I can see what the author was trying to do; offer some relatively novel way's of introducing variation for more gains into a routine. Which is fine.
Drop sets, negative training, deloads and visualisation is what the article is really about. It wasn't really about genetic potential, that was the selling point. But I agree, it was poorly worded to imply massive gains being possible.
Last edited by Fazc; 07-21-2012 at 02:53 AM.