In sum:
1.)Infrequent, heavy weight, low rep training is mostly for limit (max ) strength. It will NOT put significant muscle mass on most individuals. (There are people who current “needs state” coincides with such training in terms of hypertrophy. This is only true if this approach is part of proper progressive programing that involved other forms of training).
2.) Intensity, reps higher than 5, moderate weights, multiple sets and consistency: This will generally lead to at least some development for most people; more so than heavy weights, low reps or HIT generally will.
3.) However, for long term, significant cosmetic gains, proper progressive programing is key; some people have an instinctive feel for this, others can teach themselves this over time, still others will need to hire a knowledgeable coach.
4.) It is simply not true not true at all that people with a history of low metabolism and low work capacity are forever stuck doing some half-assed infrequent, once or twice per for week heavy weight, low rep scheme. Proper programing can improve their health and work capacity, as the example of “Joe” demonstrates.
5.) To emphasize to the point of overreaching redundancy: Proper programing is key!
Matt Stone 
I think each form of training has its pros and cons. The drawbacks of Abel’s approach is the complexity, the intensity, the frequency, and the duration. Even if I felt I could recover properly from it and still make progress, that doesn’t mean I would have the willpower to keep facing grueling workouts day in and day out. I can’t even stick with HIT because it’s too taxing.
I just don’t have it in me. So conversations about less than ideal forms of exercise that are efficient and still effective (the limit strength increases I’m currently seeing were unimaginable to me two months ago before I began doing static holds with maximal weight) are happening.
Thanks for your input.