The Montana Method, or That thing Hanley's doing with those people.

[brettj]

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.

[mikeylikey]

How are the solo mountaineers doing their programming? Is there a template somewhere that I missed?

Hanley keeps promising to write up a template, but apparently he's too busy with school or some such useless bullcrap.

It's feeling pretty bullcrappy-y right about now.

Anyway, yes, I plan on putting up a website in May with a few templates.

Say, I'm pretty good with spreadsheets...

[MattNeilsen]

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.

I hope you're incorporating the interleaving effect as well - biceps are stupid bastards and need all the help they can get.

[cgeorg]

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.

I hope you're incorporating the interleaving effect as well - biceps are stupid bastards and need all the help they can get.

1 regular rep, 1 rep paused at 45 degrees, 1 rep paused at 135 degrees, 1 rep paused at 90 degrees, repeat *1. EMOM*7mins

[anelson]

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.

I hope you're incorporating the interleaving effect as well - biceps are stupid bastards and need all the help they can get.

1 regular rep, 1 rep paused at 45 degrees, 1 rep paused at 135 degrees, 1 rep paused at 90 degrees, repeat *1. EMOM*7mins

8 x (1 x Supinated, 1 x Neutral, 1 x Pronated).

[JonA]

1 regular rep, 1 rep paused at 45 degrees, 1 rep paused at 135 degrees, 1 rep paused at 90 degrees, repeat *1. EMOM*7mins

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]

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.

Great sheet, thanks.

[Hanley]

Anything 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.

Well, it's just one session. Not a whole lot to glean from that.

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).

[MattNeilsen]

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.

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]

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.

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?

Yup. But, I should have typed 40 reps, not 30.

[brettj]

I hope you're incorporating the interleaving effect as well - biceps are stupid bastards and need all the help they can get.

1 regular rep, 1 rep paused at 45 degrees, 1 rep paused at 135 degrees, 1 rep paused at 90 degrees, repeat *1. EMOM*7mins

8 x (1 x Supinated, 1 x Neutral, 1 x Pronated).

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.

PM me for programming. I call it the Alberta Method.

edit: Also, if anyone has any bicep curl barspeed data for me to analyze let me know please.

[SeanHerbison]

edit: Also, if anyone has any bicep curl barspeed data for me to analyze let me know please.

Would it surprise you if I actually did?

[damufunman]

Anything 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.

Well, it's just one session. Not a whole lot to glean from that.

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).

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.

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?

[SpinyNorman]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

[brettj]

edit: Also, if anyone has any bicep curl barspeed data for me to analyze let me know please.

Would it surprise you if I actually did?

Haha, no I guess not...

[cgeorg]

my 98% was slower than the extrapolated 100% speed, which makes me question the quality of the data.

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.

[mbasic]

edit: Also, if anyone has any bicep curl barspeed data for me to analyze let me know please.

Would it surprise you if I actually did?

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]

my 98% was slower than the extrapolated 100% speed, which makes me question the quality of the data.

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.

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.

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]

my 98% was slower than the extrapolated 100% speed, which makes me question the quality of the data.

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.

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.

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.

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...).