The point of the article (using the Louie Simmons can barely curl 135 example) is that Louie could curl much more than 135 if he chose to concentrate on that lift for any amount of time because his strength base in the core and shoulder girdle could surely support it.
On the other hand…someone who works biceps all the time and has worked up to a 135 curl at the same body weight as Louie who doesn’t have the same overall body strength as Louie will likely stagnate at 135 until they bring up the strength of relatively weak supportive muscles.
The premise of DA’s article is viable. Structual balance is necessary. Anterior and posterior, quads to hams, pushing and pulling, vertical pressing to chinning, gastroc to tibialis anterior, etc… However, please explain to this muttonhead the psuedo-math/science behind upperarm circumference predicting lower body strength. Perhaps there are muttonhead Olympic lifters, gymnists, track athletes, Mr. Potato Heads or canoeo/kayakers out there who can help me. The catchy title attracts the reader to the article, it doesn’t legitimize it. Anyone can package crap and sell it with good advertising/marketing. The artlcle is full of false anatomy and function. Exactly how does the brachilis stabilize the shoulder? A winged scapula is always serratus weakness? Since when did the axillary nerve innervate the trapezius and levator scapula. Or was this the first nerve in the encylopedia? If I want to read re-hashed Poliquin-type articles I’ll go to his website. Right now I’m going to train. I have to make sure my extensor carpi radialis longus is 81% of my flexor carpi radialis.