This is an interesting question (to me). To me, there are two issues to consider: 1) Does reducing the rep range while maintaining other variables serve as a viable periodization model, and 2) How variable should the rep range be over time, assuming the goal(s) remain the same?
Is reducing the rep range a good periodization model?
I think that this style of linear periodization is fine and certainly can work, though I think people can often mis-interpret their results and subsequently not learn anything from their efforts. For example, consider a person does sets of 5 for 4 weeks, feels a stall coming on, then switches to sets of 3 for 4 weeks, feels another stall coming on, then switches to sets of 1 until maxing out. The only way they can know if they’re stronger is by comparing previous sets of 5,3, or 1 (see what I did there) against previous efforts (and their exertion levels). If someone is up > 5% or so in performance on an otherwise identical task, that’s a performance improvement.
Whether or not this model works well for an individual is another question. My experience is that it can work for some, but not others. That’s how most of these things go.
How variable should the rep range be if the goals stay the same?
In general, the rep range used in training influences the type of adaptations that are generated. Some of this has to do with how much weight can be used, as well as the proximity to failure range based on the rep scheme and loading. In any case, I think the rep ranges should stay pretty similar over time for strength, whereas more variability is available (but not necessarily better or worse) for hypertrophy. I also prefer a concurrent model most of the time, where multiple rep ranges are trained for the major movement patterns.
For strength, I do think that the majority of the training year should stay within a somewhat specific rep range. Maximal strength is probably best trained in the 1-6 rep range, whereas strength stamina is probably best trained in the 6-12 rep range, and strength endurance in 12+ rep range. There’s obvious overlap between all rep ranges, of course. Each rep range generates its own signature with respect to adaptations, which should suit the specific goal of the individual. Linear periodization within these ranges is reasonable, but changes across rep ranges for the priority work is probably not a great idea for most.
What should you do?
Either program would be fine. I’d favor running the low fatigue template for a change of pace IF maximal hypertrophy isn’t your goal. If it is, I’d favor going to one of the bodybuilding programs, specifically bodybuilding II. This has different rep ranges for OHP as well.
