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

[Hanley]

I suddenly feel foolish for signing up for the BBC program and paying a year in advance.

Don’t. They’ve got a very refined product and add value (nutrition) and offer expertise (medical) I do not.

[LexAnderson]

@Hanley LOOK AT ME



YOU'RE MY COACH NOW

[strega]

I suddenly feel foolish for signing up for the BBC program and paying a year in advance.

Don’t. They’ve got a very refined product and add value (nutrition) and offer expertise (medical) I do not.

Sorry maybe I used the wrong acronym, I'm referring to Baker Barbell Club, not the Barbell Medicine thing. Andy is great and the program is solid but a bit more personalized help for an old man would also be nice.

[GainsdalfTheWhey]

I would like a little bit of an overview about the method to see if it's something I'd like to try out.

[Hanley]

I would like a little bit of an overview about the method to see if it's something I'd like to try out.

Sure. The "Montana Method" is really a set of rules and tools applied in the context of a daily undulating cycle. Sessions are dedicated to 'Hypertrophy", "Power" and "Strength".

The Prime Rule is: moderate intraset fatigue so that all reps at a given intensity are at a speed within about 20% of the fastest rep in the set. So, lots of sets of few reps. My conjecture here is that in doing this, I am actually doing more mechanical work with my highest threshold, fast fatiagable motor units. This seems unintuitive at first (ie "won't I be recruiting more motor units as fatigue sets in and I fatigue?"). No. Not at loads above ~65%.

^ In practice, this looks like 8 sets of 4 at 70% vs 4 sets of 8 at 70% (I remember you posting the prelepin chart...so you may already have buy-in on this idea). In this example, both sessions have the same tonnage/mechancal work, but the Montana Method way yields MUCH higher session wattage. I believe this benefits both hypertrophy and strength (though I'm admittedly operating outside what's established in the literature here [the literature, does indeed, suck though]).

Another rule: limit session stress to 48 hour recoverable volume. Frankly -- in practice -- consistently hitting a precise limit volume is impossible (life and confounders) but that's okay, because the HPS template is forgiving of residual fatigue. One tool to help target session stress -- developed by @PatrickDB -- is a refinement of "INOL". It gives a proxy measure of the "stress-cost" of a session. It looks like this: "stress-cost" = (100/(100-intensity %)^2. Like I said, refined INOL. The equation holds up pretty well at intensities between ~65% and ~95%.

Folks with "Poor Recovery" should target a stress-cost of mid-300s, while folks with exceptional recovery can push above 600 and still be recovered within 48 hours.

The Montana Method uses very few variations. Fatigue is managed via the above tools and the Hypertrophy Power Strength structure itself.

That said, I am experimenting with an "Interleaving" model of motor learning: that is, using contrasting motor patterns for the sake of error-detection and correction. I am told interleaving has tremendous support in the the literature of motor skill learning. Right now, The Montana Method employs an interleaving approach on bench only.

That's the overview. Sounds complicated, but the template program is ridiculously simple.

edit: methods of load progression vary. For folks with a long cycle, percentages seem to work fine (the use of low RPEs means this program is very forgiving of daily fluctuations in e1rm...ie precision in load-selection isn't a huge deal). The usefulness of RPE is limited in The Montana Method because most work is done below @7 (where RPE validity is shitty). But, there are frequent top-singles using loads above 85% (or above RPE @7) which can be used to track e1rm. Also: I'm doing a lot of load-selection by eye (with....mostly very good results....I've totally whiffed on 3 occasions).

[broseph]

Are the relatively short rest periods an essential part of the programming's success, or just a way to keep workout length manageable given the number of sets?

When I've done (for example) 8s x 3r with short rests, it definitely feels different than 3s x 8r. Way more pump and burn with the shorter rests.

[Hanley]

Are the relatively short rest periods an essential part of the programming's success, or just a way to keep workout length manageable given the number of sets?

100% the latter. I believe there is zero physiological value added from short interest rest (in terms of peak strength and muscle growth).

This is absolutely not a time-efficient program (but we've managed to hack things a bit and get strong results even from folks with shit schedules).

[RobUK]

That said, I am experimenting with an "Interleaving" model of motor learning: that is, using contrasting motor patterns for the sake of error-detection and correction. I am told interleaving has tremendous support in the the literature of motor skill learning. Right now, The Montana Method employs an interleaving approach on bench only.

Is that basically using variations and in line with @PatrickDB's post on the BBM website?

[Hanley]

That said, I am experimenting with an "Interleaving" model of motor learning: that is, using contrasting motor patterns for the sake of error-detection and correction. I am told interleaving has tremendous support in the the literature of motor skill learning. Right now, The Montana Method employs an interleaving approach on bench only.

Is that basically using variations and in line with @PatrickDB's post on the BBM website?

Yup. He sold me on the idea. Most variation prescription seems to be hand-waving or employment of Mike T's sport-specific experience. The latter is fine, but not satisfying to me. The former annoys me. Interleaving makes sense.

[RobUK]

That said, I am experimenting with an "Interleaving" model of motor learning: that is, using contrasting motor patterns for the sake of error-detection and correction. I am told interleaving has tremendous support in the the literature of motor skill learning. Right now, The Montana Method employs an interleaving approach on bench only.

Is that basically using variations and in line with @PatrickDB's post on the BBM website?

Yup. He sold me on the idea. Most variation prescription seems to be hand-waving or employment of Mike T's sport-specific experience. The latter is fine, but not satisfying to me. The former annoys me. Interleaving makes sense.

It's interesting and highly relevant to me because I am spending so much time practicing the main lifts and am deliberately not using variants to facilitate more (much needed) practice. May well consider switching it up a bit, particularly as I would still get to use the main lift in each session based on what Patrick has written. @PatrickDB , I don't know if you would like to link or copy your post to this thread or in a new thread. I think it's really worth reading (and would help people who read this thread understand what Hanley is getting at).

[Hanley]

It's interesting and highly relevant to me because I am spending so much time practicing the main lifts

Yeah. Super interesting. I think the bench is a wonderful test for programming ideas. Honestly, the dead and squat sorta just respond if you throw stress at them. For reasons I don't understand, the presses are vastly more sensitive to programming.

Also, though, the motor program of squatting at 70% is quite different than the motor program squatting at 90%. So, I wonder if a DUP setup itself (using only the primary lifts) is an example of motor skill interleaving.

[RobUK]

Yeah. Super interesting. I think the bench is a wonderful test for programming ideas. Honestly, the dead and squat sorta just respond if you throw stress at them. For reasons I don't understand, the presses are vastly more sensitive to programming.

Also, though, the motor program of squatting at 70% is quite different than the motor program squatting at 90%. So, I wonder if a DUP setup itself (using only the primary lifts) is an example of motor skill interleaving.

The thing that immediately sprang to mind reading that was practicing at different intensity ranges during each session so they all get practiced together and 3 times a week (or whatever frequency) rather than separately and once a week.

[Hanley]

Yeah. Super interesting. I think the bench is a wonderful test for programming ideas. Honestly, the dead and squat sorta just respond if you throw stress at them. For reasons I don't understand, the presses are vastly more sensitive to programming.

Also, though, the motor program of squatting at 70% is quite different than the motor program squatting at 90%. So, I wonder if a DUP setup itself (using only the primary lifts) is an example of motor skill interleaving.

The thing that immediately sprang to mind reading that was practicing at different intensity ranges during each session so they all get practiced together and 3 times a week (or whatever frequency) rather than separately and once a week.

Well, that's sorta happening in my current Montana Method template for bench (again, bench is a great experiment lift). Hypertrophy Day actually starts with a top single around 85% (also handy for confirming e1rm estimates), then drop to 70% for tonnage. Power Day has work ranging from 60-90% (occasionally even higher). Then strength day has the very explicit interleaving approach.

I toyed with a top single at 85% on squats, but I think it was fucking up recovery for power day (several reports of residual fatigue from hypertrophy).

[unruhschuh]

It's interesting and highly relevant to me because I am spending so much time practicing the main lifts and am deliberately not using variants to facilitate more (much needed) practice. May well consider switching it up a bit, particularly as I would still get to use the main lift in each session based on what Patrick has written. @PatrickDB , I don't know if you would like to link or copy your post to this thread or in a new thread. I think it's really worth reading (and would help people who read this thread understand what Hanley is getting at).

For reference: https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/forum ... psychology

[Hanley]

It's interesting and highly relevant to me because I am spending so much time practicing the main lifts and am deliberately not using variants to facilitate more (much needed) practice. May well consider switching it up a bit, particularly as I would still get to use the main lift in each session based on what Patrick has written. @PatrickDB , I don't know if you would like to link or copy your post to this thread or in a new thread. I think it's really worth reading (and would help people who read this thread understand what Hanley is getting at).

For reference: https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/forum ... psychology

Compelling.

But also, the more I think about it, the more I think performing a motor pattern with varying degrees of resistance-intensity IS a sort of interleaving.

IOW many of us are already doing it to some degree in barbell training.

Consider a typical “Power Day”: it’s a pyramid of doubles and singles of varying intensity.

[Murelli]

It's interesting and highly relevant to me because I am spending so much time practicing the main lifts and am deliberately not using variants to facilitate more (much needed) practice. May well consider switching it up a bit, particularly as I would still get to use the main lift in each session based on what Patrick has written. @PatrickDB , I don't know if you would like to link or copy your post to this thread or in a new thread. I think it's really worth reading (and would help people who read this thread understand what Hanley is getting at).

For reference: https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/forum ... psychology

Compelling.

But also, the more I think about it, the more I think performing a motor pattern with varying degrees of resistance-intensity IS a sort of interleaving.

IOW many of us are already doing it to some degree in barbell training.

Consider a typical “Power Day”: it’s a pyramid of doubles and singles of varying intensity.

N=1, but my motor "program" for 1@8 is absurdly different from 5@70%. I feel that I am quite better at high intensity singles too (all lifts).

[Hanley]

It's interesting and highly relevant to me because I am spending so much time practicing the main lifts and am deliberately not using variants to facilitate more (much needed) practice. May well consider switching it up a bit, particularly as I would still get to use the main lift in each session based on what Patrick has written. @PatrickDB , I don't know if you would like to link or copy your post to this thread or in a new thread. I think it's really worth reading (and would help people who read this thread understand what Hanley is getting at).

For reference: https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/forum ... psychology

Compelling.

But also, the more I think about it, the more I think performing a motor pattern with varying degrees of resistance-intensity IS a sort of interleaving.

IOW many of us are already doing it to some degree in barbell training.

Consider a typical “Power Day”: it’s a pyramid of doubles and singles of varying intensity.

N=1, but my motor "program" for 1@8 is absurdly different from 5@70%. I feel that I am quite better at high intensity singles too (all lifts).

Yeah. I think we’re just so used to the idea of varying intensity in barbell work, that we kinda miss the obvious fact that light squats are as different from heavy squats as other examples of “interleavened motor skills” (practicing Schubert, then Beethoven, then Schubert, or whatever).

[Murelli]

Yeah. I think we’re just so used to the idea of varying intensity in barbell work, that we kinda miss the obvious fact that light squats are as different from heavy squats as other examples of “interleavened motor skills” (practicing Schubert, then Jerry Lee Lewis, then Schubert, or whatever).

I fixed it to show you my opinion on interleaving light squats with heavy squats.

[damufunman]

It's interesting and highly relevant to me because I am spending so much time practicing the main lifts and am deliberately not using variants to facilitate more (much needed) practice. May well consider switching it up a bit, particularly as I would still get to use the main lift in each session based on what Patrick has written. @PatrickDB , I don't know if you would like to link or copy your post to this thread or in a new thread. I think it's really worth reading (and would help people who read this thread understand what Hanley is getting at).

For reference: https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/forum ... psychology

Compelling.

But also, the more I think about it, the more I think performing a motor pattern with varying degrees of resistance-intensity IS a sort of interleaving.

IOW many of us are already doing it to some degree in barbell training.

Consider a typical “Power Day”: it’s a pyramid of doubles and singles of varying intensity.

N=1, but my motor "program" for 1@8 is absurdly different from 5@70%. I feel that I am quite better at high intensity singles too (all lifts).

Yeah. I think we’re just so used to the idea of varying intensity in barbell work, that we kinda miss the obvious fact that light squats are as different from heavy squats as other examples of “interleavened motor skills” (practicing Schubert, then Beethoven, then Schubert, or whatever).

Is part of the experiment with the Power day in lieu of a light day, or was that just something that sorta fit with the max MU recruitment so why not? How important is proficiency at lower intensity (really, the hypertrophy range, not the light day, barely even worth doing, fatigue dissipation junk work)?

[Hanley]

Is part of the experiment with the Power day in lieu of a light day, or was that just something that sorta fit with the max MU recruitment so why not? How important is proficiency at lower intensity (really, the hypertrophy range, not the light day, barely even worth doing, fatigue dissipation junk work)?

No, no. "Power Day" has been around for years. I used to not really believe in it (I used Zourdos' approach), so I morphed Day 2 into another hypertrophy Day. But that didn't work great.

Then I basically flat-out stole Greg Nuckols approach to Power Day (I don't think he calls it that..I don't think the calls it anything). And I had tremendous success with the Nuckolsian Power Day.