2-Week "Montana Method" Template
Moderators: mgil, chromoly, Manveer
- Wilhelm
- Little Musk Ox
- Posts: 9718
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2017 3:58 pm
- Location: Living Room
- Age: 62
Re: 2-Week "Montana Method" Template
Changed up the modification.
Just taking 20lbs off the day one work sets and doing them day 2 of the same week.
Just taking 20lbs off the day one work sets and doing them day 2 of the same week.
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 161
- Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:29 pm
- Location: Russia, N56 E49
- Age: 33
Re: 2-Week "Montana Method" Template
Hanley wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 11:16 am ...
You could probably run it just fine.
I give ranges in both session volume and reps-per-set...so you can scale to personal needs/abilities. I'd probably stick to the low/medium range for session volume and high end of the range for reps per set for someone with your training background.
Hanley, this discussion is mega interesting.Hanley wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 1:50 pmOkay....12 reps with 70% is standard. I think you can use the high-end of the rep range.
...
Drop reps-per-set to get target session volume when you hit RPE 8 (for 82% e1RM or less) or RPE 9 (over 85%).
If you start hitting RPE 8/9 on the low-end of reps-per-set, stop the session.
Can you elaborate a bit on your thinking wrt these topics? I'm guessing something to do with type I/II muscle fibers proportions, fast/slow lifters, bell-curve, outliers, "fringe"-lifters etc but I can't form a cohesive picture of it all.
Also, do you think it might be prudent for a lifter to do a 70% (?) AMRAP at some point (with a fresh 1RM or e1RM at the ready) in order to guide said lifter to bias his rep/set/intensity scheme more correctly using the Montana method tools?
Thank you in advance!
- Hanley
- Strength Nerd
- Posts: 8753
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:35 pm
- Age: 46
Re: 2-Week "Montana Method" Template
Hmm. This was 3ish years ago and I don't remember what I was thinking. I *think* i was just trying to keep sets in RPE 5-7 range.Bliss wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:23 pm Hanley, this discussion is mega interesting.
Can you elaborate a bit on your thinking wrt these topics? I'm guessing something to do with type I/II muscle fibers proportions, fast/slow lifters, bell-curve, outliers, "fringe"-lifters etc but I can't form a cohesive picture of it all.
Admittedly, I don't really have a cohesive picture either. As a really hand-wavy, crude generalization, I do think very low fatigue sets with loads lighter than 6-7RM are probably better suited to explosive people than highly fatigue-resistant people (just my sense from several years worth of casual observation).
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 10:24 pm
Re: 2-Week "Montana Method" Template
So basically...fatigue resistant males (those who can do like 15 @ 80% and have a SVJ of 12') are similar to the average female lifter and they actually need programming intended for females, which tends to be of high intensity (85-90%+ range) and lower volume?Hanley wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 7:44 pmHmm. This was 3ish years ago and I don't remember what I was thinking. I *think* i was just trying to keep sets in RPE 5-7 range.Bliss wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:23 pm Hanley, this discussion is mega interesting.
Can you elaborate a bit on your thinking wrt these topics? I'm guessing something to do with type I/II muscle fibers proportions, fast/slow lifters, bell-curve, outliers, "fringe"-lifters etc but I can't form a cohesive picture of it all.
Admittedly, I don't really have a cohesive picture either. As a really hand-wavy, crude generalization, I do think very low fatigue sets with loads lighter than 6-7RM are probably better suited to explosive people than highly fatigue-resistant people (just my sense from several years worth of casual observation).
- Hanley
- Strength Nerd
- Posts: 8753
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:35 pm
- Age: 46
Re: 2-Week "Montana Method" Template
No. I don't really buy gender-based programming thing.alphagamma wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:38 pmSo basically...fatigue resistant males (those who can do like 15 @ 80% and have a SVJ of 12') are similar to the average female lifter and they actually need programming intended for females, which tends to be of high intensity (85-90%+ range) and lower volume?Hanley wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 7:44 pmHmm. This was 3ish years ago and I don't remember what I was thinking. I *think* i was just trying to keep sets in RPE 5-7 range.Bliss wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:23 pm Hanley, this discussion is mega interesting.
Can you elaborate a bit on your thinking wrt these topics? I'm guessing something to do with type I/II muscle fibers proportions, fast/slow lifters, bell-curve, outliers, "fringe"-lifters etc but I can't form a cohesive picture of it all.
Admittedly, I don't really have a cohesive picture either. As a really hand-wavy, crude generalization, I do think very low fatigue sets with loads lighter than 6-7RM are probably better suited to explosive people than highly fatigue-resistant people (just my sense from several years worth of casual observation).
I would just say that low RPE sets are probably most useful for explosive people (because they can generate tremendous peak-force with submaximal loads)
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 10:24 pm
Re: 2-Week "Montana Method" Template
I see.Hanley wrote: ↑Tue Mar 28, 2023 8:04 pmNo. I don't really buy gender-based programming thing.alphagamma wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:38 pmSo basically...fatigue resistant males (those who can do like 15 @ 80% and have a SVJ of 12') are similar to the average female lifter and they actually need programming intended for females, which tends to be of high intensity (85-90%+ range) and lower volume?Hanley wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 7:44 pmHmm. This was 3ish years ago and I don't remember what I was thinking. I *think* i was just trying to keep sets in RPE 5-7 range.Bliss wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:23 pm Hanley, this discussion is mega interesting.
Can you elaborate a bit on your thinking wrt these topics? I'm guessing something to do with type I/II muscle fibers proportions, fast/slow lifters, bell-curve, outliers, "fringe"-lifters etc but I can't form a cohesive picture of it all.
Admittedly, I don't really have a cohesive picture either. As a really hand-wavy, crude generalization, I do think very low fatigue sets with loads lighter than 6-7RM are probably better suited to explosive people than highly fatigue-resistant people (just my sense from several years worth of casual observation).
I would just say that low RPE sets are probably most useful for explosive people (because they can generate tremendous peak-force with submaximal loads)
Would you say they need lower rep range sets (triples and below) as well since the fatigue/stimulus ratio for 5RMs is not good?
- perman
- Registered User
- Posts: 1183
- Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:48 pm
- Location: Near Oslo, Norway
- Age: 39
Re: 2-Week "Montana Method" Template
I remember you evaluated a bench video of mine once and called me fatigue resistant. So I suppose your HVLF thing of tons of 5s @ 70% and 7s@ 65% is ill-suited for us folks? What would be the volume replacement? Higher rep sets at higher RPEs on the same percentages?Hanley wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 7:44 pm Admittedly, I don't really have a cohesive picture either. As a really hand-wavy, crude generalization, I do think very low fatigue sets with loads lighter than 6-7RM are probably better suited to explosive people than highly fatigue-resistant people (just my sense from several years worth of casual observation).
- Hanley
- Strength Nerd
- Posts: 8753
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:35 pm
- Age: 46
Re: 2-Week "Montana Method" Template
Yeah. Just do reps in a set until you notice bar speeds start to slow.
^ contrary to most shit I've read about "effective reps" over the past 3-4 years, I take the bar speed slowdown to indicate compromised recruitment/function of the largest, high-power producing, easily fatiguable motor units.
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2023 10:01 am
Re: 2-Week "Montana Method" Template
Hi, I am thinking of using 12 sessions one,
the question is what do I do after I finish the 12 sessions?
Should I re-measure my 1RM? or should I just add 2.5~5 more kilograms to the next 12 sessions?
the question is what do I do after I finish the 12 sessions?
Should I re-measure my 1RM? or should I just add 2.5~5 more kilograms to the next 12 sessions?
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 202
- Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:13 pm
Re: 2-Week "Montana Method" Template
Thoughts on bands? Finally have a rack with band pegs and threw in bench with bands once a week and holy fuck I’m so optimistic that this is what my HVLF bench programming was missing.
Biggest problem I have is that tendency to blast through where the sticking point would be on slow reps and then coast to lockout. My approach this far has been more partial Rom stuff, concentrating on speed and direct triceps work. The bands are working so much better it’s crazy.
First time I used 70% with what I now estimate to be about 7.5% extra at the bottom and about 20% extra at the top (which is way more than I intended). First 3 reps were fairly uniform then rep 4 just fucking rebounded halfway up and I failed. Couple more attempts and I managed to get a 4th rep. Fast forward 3 weeks and I’m getting 6 reps @8 with additional bar weight. All my other bench work has got so much snappier it’s stupid. Honestly not even sure about RPEs anymore since the concentric feels so different. Also doesn’t beat up my pecs and shoulders like heavier straight weight bench and really fits the whole low fatigue aspect.
Maybe I’m just getting a little excited because my bench feels like it’s taking off for the first time in about a year but man, bands are pretty sweet. Even if they’re just acting as a tactile reminder that not putting in 100% through the whole Rom is a bad idea.
Biggest problem I have is that tendency to blast through where the sticking point would be on slow reps and then coast to lockout. My approach this far has been more partial Rom stuff, concentrating on speed and direct triceps work. The bands are working so much better it’s crazy.
First time I used 70% with what I now estimate to be about 7.5% extra at the bottom and about 20% extra at the top (which is way more than I intended). First 3 reps were fairly uniform then rep 4 just fucking rebounded halfway up and I failed. Couple more attempts and I managed to get a 4th rep. Fast forward 3 weeks and I’m getting 6 reps @8 with additional bar weight. All my other bench work has got so much snappier it’s stupid. Honestly not even sure about RPEs anymore since the concentric feels so different. Also doesn’t beat up my pecs and shoulders like heavier straight weight bench and really fits the whole low fatigue aspect.
Maybe I’m just getting a little excited because my bench feels like it’s taking off for the first time in about a year but man, bands are pretty sweet. Even if they’re just acting as a tactile reminder that not putting in 100% through the whole Rom is a bad idea.
- Hanley
- Strength Nerd
- Posts: 8753
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:35 pm
- Age: 46
Re: 2-Week "Montana Method" Template
You can test 1RM. You can estimate 1RM based on performance of heavy reps/sets in the final weeks. Or you could just add +1-5kg for the next cycle. All are fine options. I, personally, use all of those approaches for load selection.
- Hanley
- Strength Nerd
- Posts: 8753
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:35 pm
- Age: 46
Re: 2-Week "Montana Method" Template
I really like them.
You should try reverse banded deads. It's a fucking brilliant movement.
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 202
- Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:13 pm
Re: 2-Week "Montana Method" Template
Any reason for reverse banded other than being much easier to setup and adjust tension? Tried both ways today for deadlifts and was surprised at how different they both felt. First impressions are that reverse bands would be real good for higher rep work. Almost feels like it’s guiding me down like a smith machine.
- Hanley
- Strength Nerd
- Posts: 8753
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:35 pm
- Age: 46
Re: 2-Week "Montana Method" Template
"Standard banded" deadlifts feel like a completely different movement to me (feels nothing like a competition deadlift). I think reverse band feels more natural (and I suspect they transfer to the comp movement better).
- cgeorg
- Registered User
- Posts: 2723
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:33 am
- Location: Pittsburgh, Pa. 39yo
- Age: 40
Re: 2-Week "Montana Method" Template
Is reverse bands pulling down or up?
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 1298
- Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2019 5:26 am
Re: 2-Week "Montana Method" Template
Pulling up. Reverse for accommodating resistance is giving assistance to the lift.
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 1298
- Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2019 5:26 am
Re: 2-Week "Montana Method" Template
Did these today for the first time and I liked them a lot. Thanks for giving me the idea to use them.
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2023 10:01 am
Re: 2-Week "Montana Method" Template
Hello, this seems really working.
I am doing 12 session general strength template.
Do I need de-loading week after 3 weeks? (between cycles) or can I just add some weights and proceed next cycles?
Thank you in advance.
I am doing 12 session general strength template.
Do I need de-loading week after 3 weeks? (between cycles) or can I just add some weights and proceed next cycles?
Thank you in advance.
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2023 9:36 am
Re: 2-Week "Montana Method" Template
I’m new here. Returning to training after a little while off. I don’t know that I want to run an LP. How would you modify the 2 week Montana method for a more novice lifter? Not a true novice. But a returning lifter?
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 2:35 pm
Re: 2-Week "Montana Method" Template
You could simply repeat week 1 and switch to the full 2 week cycle once your progress slows down.