Exodus Strength

Changed up the modification.

Just taking 20lbs off the day one work sets and doing them day 2 of the same week.

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 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 1:50 pm

Hanley wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 11:23 am ...

Post video of you benching an amrap with 70-75% of your max and I'll let you know what ballpark reps-per-set you should be using

Okay....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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 7:44 pm

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.

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.

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).

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?

alphagamma wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:38 pm

Hanley wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 7:44 pm

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.

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.

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).

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?

No. I don't really buy gender-based programming thing.

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)

Hanley wrote: ↑Tue Mar 28, 2023 8:04 pm

alphagamma wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:38 pm

Hanley wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 7:44 pm

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.

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.

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).

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?

No. I don't really buy gender-based programming thing.

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)

I see.

Would you say they need lower rep range sets (triples and below) as well since the fatigue/stimulus ratio for 5RMs is not good?

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).

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?

perman wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 2:41 amHigher rep sets at higher RPEs on the same percentages?

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.

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?

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.

hookyu wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 10:03 am 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?

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.

OverheadDeadlifts wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 9:01 am Thoughts on bands?

I really like them.

You should try reverse banded deads. It's a fucking brilliant movement.

Hanley wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 3:47 pm You should try reverse banded deads. It's a fucking brilliant movement.

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.

OverheadDeadlifts wrote: ↑Sun Apr 09, 2023 1:26 amAny reason for reverse banded

"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).

Is reverse bands pulling down or up?

Pulling up. Reverse for accommodating resistance is giving assistance to the lift.

Hanley wrote: ↑Sun Apr 09, 2023 9:24 am

OverheadDeadlifts wrote: ↑Sun Apr 09, 2023 1:26 amAny reason for reverse banded

"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).

Did these today for the first time and I liked them a lot. Thanks for giving me the idea to use them.

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’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?

Rwallis86 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 8:44 am 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?

You could simply repeat week 1 and switch to the full 2 week cycle once your progress slows down.