"I showed him how to do an extended set. When he notices a force decrement at around rep 8, I have him lock out and re-oxygenate. We repeat this process for every successive force decrement to the point where he's doing lock-out singles. So, even though he starts to fail at rep 8, he cranks out 22 reps for that set. And in the next set he gets 17 with the same weight. (Our goal was actually 5 sets)."
Does that sound in any way familiar to you? It sure as shit does to me, but that's because I've read more strength training books than anyone else I've ever met. What Abel did was use a fantastically absurd and arcane scientific jargon to describe PEARY RADER'S BREATHING SQUATS. Fuck me sideways, though, he made it sound pretty, didn't he? The great irony is that no one has apparently noticed this, in spite of the fact that super-vegan Mike Mahler took time out of his busy kettlebell filled days to write an article about Peary Rader's program less than a year ago. His article, however, mentioned nothing of force decrements, because even as impressed with himself as Mike Mahler is (and tip of the cap to him, he looks pretty brutal for a guy who eats like a field mouse), he's not so impressed with himself as to try to explain a simple training style as if it were quantum mechanics.
So, what's this tell us? There is definitely nothing new under the sun, and chances are, the best training regimens ever created were birthed from the minds of people who would neither care about the impact of a force decrement on their repeition scheme, and would would "re-oxygenate " WHEN THEY WERE OUT OF BREATH. Imagine.
A model posed for this sculpture in the 3rd Century AD, and I guarantee you he didn't give a flying fuck about his force decrements.
Now, go read a book on sandow.uk and tell me I'm wrong. Dismissed.