Is life-cycle investing a losing strategy?

John Bogle recommends "roughly your age in bonds"; for instance, if you are 45, 45% of your portfolio should be in high-quality bonds. Bogle also suggests that, during the retirement distribution phase, you include as a bond-like component of your wealth and asset allocation the value of any future pension and Social Security payment you expect to receive.

I have recently been focused on some conversations about asset allocation. The question came up of what should be the correct allocation for a retired investor. From that initial discussion, our talk moved to the value of life-cycle funds. It has been a very successful innovation in money management but is it worth the price? There is a set terminal year and the allocation will change as time moves to this terminal date. The portfolio will become more conservative over time. Do you need to have someoen make those allocation adjustments based on your age? I don't think so.

Still, the simplest case and easiest to follow may be the Bogle example. Set the allocation of bonds to your age. Nice and simple, except the rate on bonds is so low that you will not be receiving any income as you get older. The result is poor performance and faster dipping into principal. For just a modest lifestyle,  the amount of principal needed is significant.

Shouldn't alternative investments or income producing strategies be a better alternative? I am not advocating a single approach but more bonds in a low interest rate environment can be very costly. The same old logic in the current environment does not make sense.