Experiments in High-Volume, Low-Fatigue Bench Programming (more "Montana Method" nonsense)

All training and programming related queries and banter here

Moderators: mgil, chromoly, Manveer

Post Reply
michael
Young Padawan
Posts: 1507
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:34 pm

Re: Experiments in High-Volume, Low-Fatigue Bench Programming (more "Montana Method" nonsense)

#81

Post by michael » Sun Jan 27, 2019 8:41 am

I know you are using maximal velocity for your reps which gets you near 100% recruitment early in the set.

What if someone uses 'just enough' effort to make the reps? In this scenario the high threshold MUs aren't recruited until much later. And when they are recruited they contract slowly. This is the Beardsley scenario. This way the large MUs get maximum tension, but they are only online during the last few reps of the set.

With your method the MU's get medium tension, but you can overcome that with increased volume.

User avatar
Hanley
Strength Nerd
Posts: 8761
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:35 pm
Age: 46

Re: Experiments in High-Volume, Low-Fatigue Bench Programming (more "Montana Method" nonsense)

#82

Post by Hanley » Sun Jan 27, 2019 9:10 am

michael wrote: Sun Jan 27, 2019 8:41 am I know you are using maximal velocity for your reps which gets you near 100% recruitment early in the set.
It's not quite maximal. It's close. I usually hit peak velocity on the 3 or 4th rep at 12RM load and a bit later on 15RM load. There's obviously some sort of recruitment ramp-up happening.

michael wrote: Sun Jan 27, 2019 8:41 am What if someone uses 'just enough' effort to make the reps? In this scenario the high threshold MUs aren't recruited until much later. And when they are recruited they contract slowly. This is the Beardsley scenario.
I don't know. Does he prescribe/specify tempos?

But also: "near-max velocity" and "just enough velocity" are both a very small percentage of "max shortening velocity" (I can extend my elbow (unloaded and ballistically) at something like 8 meters per second peak velocity (probably faster...that's what I get just fucking around). A "near-max velocity" bench rep with 12RM load has a peak velocity of about .8 meters per second (that's point 8. Volitional "Just enough" peak velocity is something like .40-.50 meters per second.

Where's ANY support that this tiny difference in peak tension compromises hypertrophy at the fiber level (IOW...where's the fantasy info-graphic that details the tension-hypertrophy relationship using matched loads (don't compare a "jump" to an 85% squat...compare 70% squat moved quickly to 70% squat moved at "just enough" tempo).

I'll bet heavy money "training to failure" will be convincingly dismissed for optimizing hypertrophy in the next 5 years.

User avatar
Allentown
Likes Beer
Posts: 10041
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:41 am
Location: Grindville, West MI. Pop: 2 Gainzgoblins
Age: 40

Re: Experiments in High-Volume, Low-Fatigue Bench Programming (more "Montana Method" nonsense)

#83

Post by Allentown » Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:05 am

I am going to do a ton of sets with 65% this week as a break from Nuckols and to get a nice big lead on my 1M# goal. Also because it's going to be rather cold and I am going to want to keep moving. I expect to get hyooge.

User avatar
thejosef
Registered User
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:14 pm
Location: Louisiana
Age: 41

Re: Experiments in High-Volume, Low-Fatigue Bench Programming (more "Montana Method" nonsense)

#84

Post by thejosef » Mon Jan 28, 2019 7:01 am

I started this protocol on bench press this morning. I could use some hypertrophy in my life. I might even morph this into the Montana Method V2.0 spreadsheet if I'm bored today.

TheFlush
Registered User
Posts: 327
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:18 am
Age: 56

Re: Experiments in High-Volume, Low-Fatigue Bench Programming (more "Montana Method" nonsense)

#85

Post by TheFlush » Tue Jan 29, 2019 6:12 am

TheFlush wrote: Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:27 am
TheFlush wrote: Fri Jan 25, 2019 5:34 am After having success on the standard MM 2 week template, I decided to give this a shot for some reason. I figured I was used to 7x5@70% so that 7x7@65% should be an easy starting point and I could ramp up from there. Well the 5th set of 7 @65% was RPE 10. Why was this so much harder than 7x5@70%? I was well rested and took the same ~2 minutes rest between sets as have been doing for a while now. I am fighting some low back pain, but that shouldn't affect my bench this much. Other than the 1 cycle of the Nuckol's intermediate 3/wk program back in October I haven't done any work with greater than 5 reps. I am not sure if I want to run back to the MM template or just add more rest time between sets and try to add a set each session until I get up to at least 7 sets.
I did 70%x5x7 today and it was maybe RPE 7 on the last rep. Much easier than 65%x7x5 felt. It has always been doable with 2 minutes rest, but today I gave myself 2.5 min and will try that next time on 65% and try to get at least 6 sets. Back also felt a little better and I was able to get tighter without pain, so that could be part of the difference as well.
Yesterday I did 65%x7x6 and 65%x6x1, so almost 2 more sets than first attempt. I rounded the weight down instead of up which made it 5 pounds lighter than my first attempt and I went E3MOM which gave about 30 seconds more rest. I think I will try to get through both of the 65% and 70% sessions another time before trying the 85% session. Maybe adding a set depending on feels and then arbitrarily raising e1RM and doing the cycle again. Maybe I will even test 1RM one day.

User avatar
Allentown
Likes Beer
Posts: 10041
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:41 am
Location: Grindville, West MI. Pop: 2 Gainzgoblins
Age: 40

Re: Experiments in High-Volume, Low-Fatigue Bench Programming (more "Montana Method" nonsense)

#86

Post by Allentown » Tue Jan 29, 2019 7:00 am

65%x7x11 last night. Supersetted with some low rep chin sets, approx E2MOM, though I did round the weight down from 65% of my Nuckols' e1RM.

User avatar
Hanley
Strength Nerd
Posts: 8761
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:35 pm
Age: 46

Re: Experiments in High-Volume, Low-Fatigue Bench Programming (more "Montana Method" nonsense)

#87

Post by Hanley » Tue Jan 29, 2019 10:41 am

Also 65%x7x11 yesterday.

This is how I spent my interset rests. I'm not very good at subtraction when tired.

Image


Fatigue is weird. That's all I got.

User avatar
Allentown
Likes Beer
Posts: 10041
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:41 am
Location: Grindville, West MI. Pop: 2 Gainzgoblins
Age: 40

Re: Experiments in High-Volume, Low-Fatigue Bench Programming (more "Montana Method" nonsense)

#88

Post by Allentown » Tue Jan 29, 2019 11:23 am

Come to think of it, somewhere around set 9 was the hardest for me, too (that's what I'm getting from your whiteboard?)

Also, I didn't want to admit it but I forgot to put a 2.5 on one side for the first set, but I counted it anyways because.

User avatar
Hanley
Strength Nerd
Posts: 8761
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:35 pm
Age: 46

Re: Experiments in High-Volume, Low-Fatigue Bench Programming (more "Montana Method" nonsense)

#89

Post by Hanley » Tue Jan 29, 2019 11:29 am

Allentown wrote: Tue Jan 29, 2019 11:23 am Come to think of it, somewhere around set 9 was the hardest for me, too (that's what I'm getting from your whiteboard?)
Bizarre, right?

There's also an agent that - to some degree - can control fatigue. I don't remember amping myself up for the final two sets...but shit moved better.

There's also some weird stuff going on with increasing differences between mean and peak bar speeds over the course of a workout. I wish I were better at pattern recognition. I really need that AI

User avatar
Allentown
Likes Beer
Posts: 10041
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:41 am
Location: Grindville, West MI. Pop: 2 Gainzgoblins
Age: 40

Re: Experiments in High-Volume, Low-Fatigue Bench Programming (more "Montana Method" nonsense)

#90

Post by Allentown » Tue Jan 29, 2019 11:46 am

I also notice that with the same weight, the last rep will feel just as difficult if I do 5 reps as if I do 8 reps. I suspect it is mental, for me. My brain knows it's the last one, so I try and get away with doing as little as possible. Which might be why I am garbage at singles.
Meanwhile, I probably get an adrenaline kick from knowing I'm almost done.
Or, because I wasn't actually setting a stopwatch and just starting a set when I noticed it had been 2 min since I started the last set, my E2MOM might have just happened to give me more rest between sets 9 and 10?

User avatar
cgeorg
Registered User
Posts: 2754
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:33 am
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa
Age: 41

Re: Experiments in High-Volume, Low-Fatigue Bench Programming (more "Montana Method" nonsense)

#91

Post by cgeorg » Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:22 pm

When the differences get big it looks it tends to be a drop-off in mean, and it usually happens around rep 4. I wonder which part of the rep slows down.

MPat
Registered User
Posts: 200
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:34 pm

Re: Experiments in High-Volume, Low-Fatigue Bench Programming (more "Montana Method" nonsense)

#92

Post by MPat » Wed Jan 30, 2019 12:41 pm

cwd wrote: Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:12 am I'm trying the Hanley 7/5/2 65/70/85 scheme for Zercher squat, press, and deadlift (as an experiment, not his fault).

Looks like I can tolerate 4 sets of squats and 5 of deadlifts, just barely. I'm up to 7 sets for presses, but will probably go on up to 9 or more.

So far, I'm enjoying it.
@cwd I’m curious how you set this up in a week (or 2) of training? I’m really liking upper/lower split. Lots of LBBS has aggravated my hip lately and I might try a similar method with the SSB.

I was considering alternating a the SSB and DL day. So they both aren’t getting the same stress on the same day.
So like 7s on squat, 5s on DL, 5s on SQ and 2s on DL and so on.

User avatar
cwd
Registered User
Posts: 3400
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:34 am
Location: central Ohio
Age: 58

Re: Experiments in High-Volume, Low-Fatigue Bench Programming (more "Montana Method" nonsense)

#93

Post by cwd » Wed Jan 30, 2019 1:45 pm

MPat wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 12:41 pm
cwd wrote: Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:12 am I'm trying the Hanley 7/5/2 65/70/85 scheme for Zercher squat, press, and deadlift (as an experiment, not his fault).

Looks like I can tolerate 4 sets of squats and 5 of deadlifts, just barely. I'm up to 7 sets for presses, but will probably go on up to 9 or more.

So far, I'm enjoying it.
@cwd I’m curious how you set this up in a week (or 2) of training? I’m really liking upper/lower split. Lots of LBBS has aggravated my hip lately and I might try a similar method with the SSB.

I was considering alternating a the SSB and DL day. So they both aren’t getting the same stress on the same day.
So like 7s on squat, 5s on DL, 5s on SQ and 2s on DL and so on.
SSB is probably similar to front or Zercher squats, in terms of stress, right?

I do 4 sets of Zercher squats, 8 sets of press, and 4 sets of deadlift each day (M: 7s at 65%, W: 5s at 70%, F: 2s at 85%).
First set on M/W I take to RPE 7-8. 2 minute rests, not counting belting and unracking, so more like 2.5 minutes start-to-start.
Monday was:

Code: Select all

Zercher Squat: 65% x10, 7,7,7
press: 65% x12, 7,7,7, 7,7,7, 7
deadlift: 65% x11, 7,7,7
Every 2nd Friday I work up to a single at RPE 8-9 then do some backoff doubles at 85%. Total "sets" is still about 4/8 if I count the singles at 85% or more as "sets".
Wednesdays I use 1.5" deficit deadlifts at Monday's weight.
I started with less volume and added sets weekly until I found my limit. 5 sets of deadlift was too much.

I'm not at all sure that taking that first set on M/W to RPE 7-8 is better than just doing straight 7s/5s and doing more sets.
I plan to try it both ways.
Hanley had an intuition that the long first set might be better for the "slow twitch" folks like me who tend to be better at endurance than singles, but I don't think he's confident of this. Maybe my experiment will be a useful data point. More likely the results will be so ambiguous as to be useless, because I start a cut halfway through or come down sick etc.

Re: offsetting your 7/5/2 days for the different lifts, and for doing the program upper/lower split style, I don't see why it would make much difference.
Total sets per week for (squat + deadlift) should probably add up to about as much as for (press + bench). Try it!

MPat
Registered User
Posts: 200
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:34 pm

Re: Experiments in High-Volume, Low-Fatigue Bench Programming (more "Montana Method" nonsense)

#94

Post by MPat » Wed Jan 30, 2019 5:04 pm

cwd wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 1:45 pm
MPat wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 12:41 pm
cwd wrote: Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:12 am
SSB is probably similar to front or Zercher squats, in terms of stress, right?

I do 4 sets of Zercher squats, 8 sets of press, and 4 sets of deadlift each day (M: 7s at 65%, W: 5s at 70%, F: 2s at 85%).
First set on M/W I take to RPE 7-8. 2 minute rests, not counting belting and unracking, so more like 2.5 minutes start-to-start.
Monday was:

Code: Select all

Zercher Squat: 65% x10, 7,7,7
press: 65% x12, 7,7,7, 7,7,7, 7
deadlift: 65% x11, 7,7,7
Every 2nd Friday I work up to a single at RPE 8-9 then do some backoff doubles at 85%. Total "sets" is still about 4/8 if I count the singles at 85% or more as "sets".
Wednesdays I use 1.5" deficit deadlifts at Monday's weight.
I started with less volume and added sets weekly until I found my limit. 5 sets of deadlift was too much.

I'm not at all sure that taking that first set on M/W to RPE 7-8 is better than just doing straight 7s/5s and doing more sets.
I plan to try it both ways.
Hanley had an intuition that the long first set might be better for the "slow twitch" folks like me who tend to be better at endurance than singles, but I don't think he's confident of this. Maybe my experiment will be a useful data point. More likely the results will be so ambiguous as to be useless, because I start a cut halfway through or come down sick etc.

Re: offsetting your 7/5/2 days for the different lifts, and for doing the program upper/lower split style, I don't see why it would make much difference.
Total sets per week for (squat + deadlift) should probably add up to about as much as for (press + bench). Try it!
That’s kinda how I was thinking you had it set up. Since I’m gonna do a upper/lower 4 days a week, I think I’ll just add a few sets to each day. Like 6-7 sets for the SSB and 5-6 for DL/SGDL.

I wasn’t originally gonna do this for bench but now I feel like I should just go all in lol.

User avatar
iamsmu
Registered User
Posts: 4970
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 5:52 pm
Location: Handicap: +.3
Age: 49
Contact:

Re: Experiments in High-Volume, Low-Fatigue Bench Programming (more "Montana Method" nonsense)

#95

Post by iamsmu » Wed Jan 30, 2019 5:34 pm

Allentown wrote: Tue Jan 29, 2019 11:46 am Meanwhile, I probably get an adrenaline kick from knowing I'm almost done.
This. I've noticed this for a while. Even when there are just 3 sets, the last is often much better than the second. . . . I saw this over an over when doing stuff like Murph this summer. I haven't done more than 7 sets of pressing yet. But 7 is a breeze compared to 4. I'll keep adding and see. . . .

michael
Young Padawan
Posts: 1507
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:34 pm

The Norwegian Hanley Project

#96

Post by michael » Wed Jan 30, 2019 8:34 pm

Monday / Thursday
squat 5x7 @ 65%
bench 5x7 @ 65%
chins or dips

Tuesday / Friday
squat 5x5 @ 70%
bench 5x5 @ 70%
rows or curls

Wednesday / Saturday
squat 5x2 @ 85%
bench 5x2 @ 85%
deadlift 5x2 @ 85%

User avatar
Hanley
Strength Nerd
Posts: 8761
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:35 pm
Age: 46

Re: The Norwegian Hanley Project

#97

Post by Hanley » Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:32 pm

michael wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 8:34 pm Monday / Thursday
squat 5x7 @ 65%
bench 5x7 @ 65%
chins or dips

Tuesday / Friday
squat 5x5 @ 70%
bench 5x5 @ 70%
rows or curls

Wednesday / Saturday
squat 5x2 @ 85%
bench 5x2 @ 85%
deadlift 5x2 @ 85%
It's beautiful.

Lotta squatting.

But beautiful.

User avatar
cgeorg
Registered User
Posts: 2754
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:33 am
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa
Age: 41

Re: Experiments in High-Volume, Low-Fatigue Bench Programming (more "Montana Method" nonsense)

#98

Post by cgeorg » Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:53 am

iamsmu wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 5:34 pm
Allentown wrote: Tue Jan 29, 2019 11:46 am Meanwhile, I probably get an adrenaline kick from knowing I'm almost done.
This. I've noticed this for a while. Even when there are just 3 sets, the last is often much better than the second. . . . I saw this over an over when doing stuff like Murph this summer. I haven't done more than 7 sets of pressing yet. But 7 is a breeze compared to 4. I'll keep adding and see. . . .
Every once in a while, I'm on set 4 of something Hanley gave me, and I think "god I'm only on set 4", and then I remember back to how I felt after set 1 of the end of my LP, and the dread of the next 2 sets and the 6 minute time I had going on my phone for rest, and I feel so much better.

User avatar
Allentown
Likes Beer
Posts: 10041
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:41 am
Location: Grindville, West MI. Pop: 2 Gainzgoblins
Age: 40

Re: Experiments in High-Volume, Low-Fatigue Bench Programming (more "Montana Method" nonsense)

#99

Post by Allentown » Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:58 am

I'm sure it's a coincidence, but yesterday evening, after the second day of this, my wife commented something to the effect of "damn boy yo upper body kitten swole"

User avatar
cgeorg
Registered User
Posts: 2754
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:33 am
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa
Age: 41

Re: Experiments in High-Volume, Low-Fatigue Bench Programming (more "Montana Method" nonsense)

#100

Post by cgeorg » Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:37 am

Eventually Hanley is just going to have everyone doing 50 sets of 10 with the empty bar.

Post Reply