The Montana Method, or That thing Hanley's doing with those people.
- brettj
- Registered User
- Posts: 252
- Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 11:22 am
- Location: Canada
- Age: 36
Re: The Montana Method, or That thing Hanley's doing with those people.
I came up with my version by copying a couple templates in the several threads on this topic, and then sort of making things up based on the discussions I've read.
My version:
Monday - Hypertrophy
Squat: 70% 5rx3s 3rx5s
Bench: 70% 5rx3s 4rx4s
Tuesday - Hypertrophy
Deadlift: 70% 4rx5s
Incline Bench: some shit
Wednesday - Power
Squat and Bench: 70%x2, 75%x2, 80%x2, 85%x1rx2s, 90%x1
Friday - Strength
Squat: 80% 3rx4s
Bench: 80% 3rx5s, 70% 4rx3s
Deadlift: 80%x1, 85%x1, 90%x1, 80%x1rx7s
I arbitrarily increase the training max the percentages come from based on the power day singles, as well as my own wishful thinking.
I'm also doing an HPS set up 3x a week for bicep curls with a rep scheme that look like my bench. I didn't include that because it's probably stupid and I'm just doing it because I find it funny.
My version:
Monday - Hypertrophy
Squat: 70% 5rx3s 3rx5s
Bench: 70% 5rx3s 4rx4s
Tuesday - Hypertrophy
Deadlift: 70% 4rx5s
Incline Bench: some shit
Wednesday - Power
Squat and Bench: 70%x2, 75%x2, 80%x2, 85%x1rx2s, 90%x1
Friday - Strength
Squat: 80% 3rx4s
Bench: 80% 3rx5s, 70% 4rx3s
Deadlift: 80%x1, 85%x1, 90%x1, 80%x1rx7s
I arbitrarily increase the training max the percentages come from based on the power day singles, as well as my own wishful thinking.
I'm also doing an HPS set up 3x a week for bicep curls with a rep scheme that look like my bench. I didn't include that because it's probably stupid and I'm just doing it because I find it funny.
- mikeylikey
- Rabble Rouser
- Posts: 1342
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:32 am
- Location: Coconut Island
- Age: 40
Re: The Montana Method, or That thing Hanley's doing with those people.
Say, I'm pretty good with spreadsheets...Hanley wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:18 pmIt's feeling pretty bullcrappy-y right about now.anelson wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:42 amHanley keeps promising to write up a template, but apparently he's too busy with school or some such useless bullcrap.mikeylikey wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:27 am How are the solo mountaineers doing their programming? Is there a template somewhere that I missed?
Anyway, yes, I plan on putting up a website in May with a few templates.
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 598
- Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:37 am
- Location: Sunnyvale, CA
- Age: 35
Re: The Montana Method, or That thing Hanley's doing with those people.
I hope you're incorporating the interleaving effect as well - biceps are stupid bastards and need all the help they can get.
- cgeorg
- Registered User
- Posts: 2743
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:33 am
- Location: Pittsburgh, Pa
- Age: 41
Re: The Montana Method, or That thing Hanley's doing with those people.
1 regular rep, 1 rep paused at 45 degrees, 1 rep paused at 135 degrees, 1 rep paused at 90 degrees, repeat *1. EMOM*7minsMattNeilsen wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:34 pmI hope you're incorporating the interleaving effect as well - biceps are stupid bastards and need all the help they can get.
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 567
- Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:49 am
- Age: 40
Re: The Montana Method, or That thing Hanley's doing with those people.
8 x (1 x Supinated, 1 x Neutral, 1 x Pronated).cgeorg wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:55 pm1 regular rep, 1 rep paused at 45 degrees, 1 rep paused at 135 degrees, 1 rep paused at 90 degrees, repeat *1. EMOM*7minsMattNeilsen wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:34 pmI hope you're incorporating the interleaving effect as well - biceps are stupid bastards and need all the help they can get.
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:00 am
- Age: 48
Re: The Montana Method, or That thing Hanley's doing with those people.
A key thing to remember for the paused reps: Incorporate a small 35 degree twist of the torso to get a) more compound lifting, b) a better view of the paused biceps in the mirror. The pause should last long enough for this twist, as well slight incline of the chin and a squinch.
- Dan
- Registered User
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2018 6:50 am
- Location: Pinellas Park, FL
- Age: 48
Re: The Montana Method, or That thing Hanley's doing with those people.
Great sheet, thanks.cgeorg wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:22 am For anyone interested, here is the template I created. It is not Hanley Approved, is actually fairly different than Hanley's prescriptions that I have seen, but it's pretty simple and should keep you near the right RPE ranges to manage fatigue well.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing
Feel free to copy to your own drive. Change the e1RMs to get the right weights for yourself. If you want to change any of the lifts, change their name in the top right and it should update throughout. You can change the minimum target reps for each lift for the week, the percentages for each HPS focus, and the intensities for each of the foci as well.
- Hanley
- Strength Nerd
- Posts: 8753
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:35 pm
- Age: 46
Re: The Montana Method, or That thing Hanley's doing with those people.
Well, it's just one session. Not a whole lot to glean from that.damufunman wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:13 amAnything you can glean from this data? Also of note, but bench e1RM didn't really move last block; my bench is as finnicky as my press. Hoping this block works better.
A 20% drop in bar speed kinda sorta seems like the right threshold for cutting a set. Also, looks like you didn't rest enough between the singles and the first triple.
One of the most useful tests you can do is record velocity of reps from ~55-90% in 5% jumps. You should get a linear-enough-ish plot to usefully project real-time e1rm.
So, you no longer do sessions using a calculated % of an old e1rm. And you don't NEED to do a top single to gauge real time e1rm. You'd instead use target bar-speeds, the 20% speed-drop as a "set-threshold" and a target volume.
So, a hypothetical (but very realistic) hypertrophy session for my bench might be:
30 reps starting with a load at 70% bar speed (which for me reliably re-tests at .5 m/s).
My "set" is defined by the ~20% drop in velocity from the first rep.
Then I just keep doing sets until I hit 30 reps, or until I hit a rep below some critical low-velocity threshold (maybe .25 m/s/ for me...which would map to about @8.5-9ish).
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 598
- Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:37 am
- Location: Sunnyvale, CA
- Age: 35
Re: The Montana Method, or That thing Hanley's doing with those people.
Out of curiosity, what would that look like in terms of reps per set for you? A couple 5s, several 4s, and maybe 3s at the end?
- Hanley
- Strength Nerd
- Posts: 8753
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:35 pm
- Age: 46
Re: The Montana Method, or That thing Hanley's doing with those people.
Yup. But, I should have typed 40 reps, not 30.MattNeilsen wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:06 pmOut of curiosity, what would that look like in terms of reps per set for you? A couple 5s, several 4s, and maybe 3s at the end?
- brettj
- Registered User
- Posts: 252
- Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 11:22 am
- Location: Canada
- Age: 36
Re: The Montana Method, or That thing Hanley's doing with those people.
MattNeilsen wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:34 pm I hope you're incorporating the interleaving effect as well - biceps are stupid bastards and need all the help they can get.
PM me for programming. I call it the Alberta Method.JonA wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 3:11 pm A key thing to remember for the paused reps: Incorporate a small 35 degree twist of the torso to get a) more compound lifting, b) a better view of the paused biceps in the mirror. The pause should last long enough for this twist, as well slight incline of the chin and a squinch.
edit: Also, if anyone has any bicep curl barspeed data for me to analyze let me know please.
- SeanHerbison
- Zercher Pro
- Posts: 2055
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:51 am
- Location: Tucson, AZ
- Age: 34
- damufunman
- Registered User
- Posts: 2974
- Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:14 pm
- Age: 36
Re: The Montana Method, or That thing Hanley's doing with those people.
yeah, I know the data is sparce, but thanks for the info. I did do %-speed profiles last week for comp. lifts, but only did 10% increments up to about 92% (x1@8) and 98% for bench. Might not have been enough points; the R^2 was 0.96-0.98, but there was still more variability than i'd like and my 98% was slower than the extrapolated 100% speed, which makes me question the quality of the data.Hanley wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 7:56 pmWell, it's just one session. Not a whole lot to glean from that.damufunman wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:13 amAnything you can glean from this data? Also of note, but bench e1RM didn't really move last block; my bench is as finnicky as my press. Hoping this block works better.
A 20% drop in bar speed kinda sorta seems like the right threshold for cutting a set. Also, looks like you didn't rest enough between the singles and the first triple.
One of the most useful tests you can do is record velocity of reps from ~55-90% in 5% jumps. You should get a linear-enough-ish plot to usefully project real-time e1rm.
So, you no longer do sessions using a calculated % of an old e1rm. And you don't NEED to do a top single to gauge real time e1rm. You'd instead use target bar-speeds, the 20% speed-drop as a "set-threshold" and a target volume.
So, a hypothetical (but very realistic) hypertrophy session for my bench might be:
30 reps starting with a load at 70% bar speed (which for me reliably re-tests at .5 m/s).
My "set" is defined by the ~20% drop in velocity from the first rep.
Then I just keep doing sets until I hit 30 reps, or until I hit a rep below some critical low-velocity threshold (maybe .25 m/s/ for me...which would map to about @8.5-9ish).
So maybe I'll give it a try and adjust the target based on feels somewhat to what seems reasonable since I've got about 10 weeks worth of experience with how it did feel.
Regarding the ~20% drop in velocity, is that first rep of each set, or first work rep? Do you hit 20% or try to stop before that point?
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 762
- Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:49 am
- Location: Michigan
- Age: 45
Re: The Montana Method, or That thing Hanley's doing with those people.
I had to chuckle at this. I mostly work with observational research data, so the R^2 above seems stupid high. Interesting stuff, keep it coming.damufunman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:46 amMight not have been enough points; the R^2 was 0.96-0.98, but there was still more variability than i'd like and my 98% was slower than the extrapolated 100% speed, which makes me question the quality of the data.
- damufunman
- Registered User
- Posts: 2974
- Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:14 pm
- Age: 36
Re: The Montana Method, or That thing Hanley's doing with those people.
Haha, yeah it is pretty good, but some of the details broke down at the top end, and I was apparently moving a 98% bench slower than what my 1RM should've been. It was also only one group per lift, I'd like to have more data, but I can't be doing this every week unfortunately.SpinyNorman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 19, 2018 8:14 amI had to chuckle at this. I mostly work with observational research data, so the R^2 above seems stupid high. Interesting stuff, keep it coming.damufunman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:46 amMight not have been enough points; the R^2 was 0.96-0.98, but there was still more variability than i'd like and my 98% was slower than the extrapolated 100% speed, which makes me question the quality of the data.
- brettj
- Registered User
- Posts: 252
- Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 11:22 am
- Location: Canada
- Age: 36
Re: The Montana Method, or That thing Hanley's doing with those people.
Haha, no I guess not...
- cgeorg
- Registered User
- Posts: 2743
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:33 am
- Location: Pittsburgh, Pa
- Age: 41
Re: The Montana Method, or That thing Hanley's doing with those people.
I'd highly doubt it stays linear over ~96%. Which shouldn't really matter because you should probably only be approaching those percentages when testing, which wouldn't really make them relevant for barspeed decay training.damufunman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:46 am my 98% was slower than the extrapolated 100% speed, which makes me question the quality of the data.
- mbasic
- Registered User
- Posts: 9353
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
- Age: 104
Re: The Montana Method, or That thing Hanley's doing with those people.
no, it wouldn't.
if I had a $3K bar speed measuring device,
I'd be getting every last dollar's worth outta it too.
- Hanley
- Strength Nerd
- Posts: 8753
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:35 pm
- Age: 46
Re: The Montana Method, or That thing Hanley's doing with those people.
Yeah, I saw the same change in slope above ~95%. I think my extrapolated bench e1rm was at 420-425# at my strongest. Uh uh.cgeorg wrote: ↑Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:29 amI'd highly doubt it stays linear over ~96%. Which shouldn't really matter because you should probably only be approaching those percentages when testing, which wouldn't really make them relevant for barspeed decay training.damufunman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:46 am my 98% was slower than the extrapolated 100% speed, which makes me question the quality of the data.
Part of the reason, though, is that I simply hadn't run a strong-ass peak. Peaking's awesome, but very resource "expensive" with little long-term benefit.
- damufunman
- Registered User
- Posts: 2974
- Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:14 pm
- Age: 36
Re: The Montana Method, or That thing Hanley's doing with those people.
Think this is more of a practice at 95+% thing? All the research (as far as I can tell from the little bit I've seen and extrapolating to all ) I've seen seems to say that it's linear from 50% to 100% (on average, may be important...).Hanley wrote: ↑Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:43 amYeah, I saw the same change in slope above ~95%. I think my extrapolated bench e1rm was at 420-425# at my strongest. Uh uh.cgeorg wrote: ↑Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:29 amI'd highly doubt it stays linear over ~96%. Which shouldn't really matter because you should probably only be approaching those percentages when testing, which wouldn't really make them relevant for barspeed decay training.damufunman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:46 am my 98% was slower than the extrapolated 100% speed, which makes me question the quality of the data.
Part of the reason, though, is that I simply hadn't run a strong-ass peak. Peaking's awesome, but very resource "expensive" with little long-term benefit.