Uhhhh, which article did you read?
EDIT: To clarify, he specifically states that both low rep high intensity and high volume lower intensity approaches to resistance training have value. And while I don't recall him touching on diet, eat protein and vegetables is fairly well in line with what he's said in the past. Finally, you can lift correctly, eat correctly, and still not be anywhere near the "eeeeeeleeeeeeeeeet" fitness fantasy levels shown among the pros. The reality is that natty gains are totally worthwhile but pretty plebeian compared to what a solid cycle of gear can deliver.
I also thought his “five years gains” point was spot on.
Of course you can (and should) strive for improving beyond that, but the harsh reality is that, after five years, you will have probably milked the vast majority of your potential in any endeavor. There’s always room for improvement, but diminishing returns territory is quite close too.
After five years of running, you should be able to finish a marathon. After five years of lifting, ypu should be able to pull a bit more than twice your bodyweight. After five years of grappling, you should be able to be competent enough to submit most guys out there.
To go past that point will take a toll: serious training plan, serious nutrition, serious focus and serious commitment. Is it really worth it?
Personally, I’d rather expand my interests, trying to become a wider, recreational generalist.
Going from a twice bodyweight deadlift to a thrice one will be quite a hard and long process. And for what? It’s quite unlikely I will ever need to do that in the real life outside the gym.
But, maintaining a twice bodyweight deadlift while trying to finish a marathon and getting your purple belt during the interim seems way much funnier, possibly easier and definitely more useful.
Time spent would probably be the same, but I’d rather be a well rounded generalist than a notable spedialist.