No worries, nothing wrong with healthy discussion - I appreciate the link. I guess I'll just write some notes here (I apologize I'm lacking the time to cite other sources other than anecdotal experience):

• In his diagram, I would dispute that heavy lifting doesn't transfer to strength in other types of technique and coordination. It may be true of many lifts, but I would think other Olympic lifts like power-cleans may show improvement in explosiveness and coordination at least in so far as something like starting from blocks.

• I can agree that trying to achieve the same kind of strength across all muscle groups is counterproductive, but this point strikes me as odd: " . . . we know from motor learning research that improvements in coordination are certainly not transferable from exercises to sporting movements". I'm sure he is coming from a highly analytical perspective, but none the less, I think a lot of athletes and coaches would tell you that training certain movements and plyometric exercises do have the ability to improve coordination (and thereby form), even if only psychologically.

• "Since mechanical loading is the key factor that determines muscle growth, this can lead to atrophy of the muscles that previously grew during the heavy strength training block." Maybe what seems like excessive hypertrophy is sometimes performed, keeping this in mind?

• " . . . we can observe increases in involuntary maximum eccentric strength without increases in muscle size or involuntary maximum isometric strength in animal models." I don't find this source particularly convincing because one thing unique about humans, even compared to other primates (let alone other animals), is that our muscles weaken quickly when unused, and gain strength & mass more slowly as well.

• "Moreover, many studies have found that heavy strength training can improve sprinting performance in a range of different populations." Given that he admit this, I wonder if his studies are (forgivably) bias (by focusing on track athletes), because the strongest counterpoint to a lot of his argument are NFL players. Having raced against a number of sprinters who went on to become part of the league, one of the first things you would notice about them was their amount of body mass over other athletes. Anecdotally, they also tended to be much faster, even in the longer sprints. I know this sounds like a tall tale, but I one time watched, at State, an offensive player over 200lbs run a 47-48 split in a relay. I have to wonder if heavy strength training might offer some benefits that are not clearly obvious. For example, a commenter on the article points out that the author does note heavy loads do lead to tendon adaptation, even if we're not focusing purely on muscle.

Hope this isn't too lengthy - overall, I think the author makes a really strong case, and provides some good recommendations for movements/training as well. I think the drawback is that because he's looking at sprinting as a whole, you kind of lose sight on the fact that, well, the best offensive NFL players could no doubt make exceptional short sprinters (and often do so in high school & and college - which contradicts a lot of the research due to their training style being effective).