Shawn Phillips Bench Program

[DCR]

I'm having trouble picturing the program as a whole swapping back and forth between those charts.

The days before linkable spreadsheets...

it's basically a 2-week cycle, and like you said, high-intensity lowish volume. I had to fill out the sheet to get a sense of what's going on. Here's the numbers for 410# 1RM:

Dude, I see you looking at that 435. Come on, do it.

[jake241983]

I might drop 10# on everything.

C'mon, try it, try it.

https://www.titan.fitness/strength/spec ... 20015.html

^ those are the things I have that I was talking about to use on the negatives. Couldn't think of what they were called.

But yeah, with how well Smolov Jr went and how poor squat and deadlift have been since I hurt my hip I've thought about just pursuing bench for awhile. I'm five weeks back training all three lifts with no pain, so I'll see how this goes.

[Hanley]

Dude, I see you looking at that 435. Come on, do it.

I'm also looking in puzzlement at 2 x 4 reps @ 88-89% 1RM. I dunno.

[bobmen10000]

I might drop 10# on everything.

C'mon, try it, try it.

https://www.titan.fitness/strength/spec ... 20015.html

^ those are the things I have that I was talking about to use on the negatives. Couldn't think of what they were called.

But yeah, with how well Smolov Jr went and how poor squat and deadlift have been since I hurt my hip I've thought about just pursuing bench for awhile. I'm five weeks back training all three lifts with no pain, so I'll see how this goes.

https://eccoarms.com/shop?olsPage=produ ... y-base-set

[jake241983]

https://eccoarms.com/shop?olsPage=produ ... y-base-set

Those are pricey, do you have a pair? I was going to try to DIY a pair and priced some stuff at Menards, then ended up just buying the Titan Fitness ones. They seemed to work okay the few times I used them. Just felt a little unstable walking out the squat, but to be expected.

[Hanley]

Session 1 went pretty well.

I'm not going to do the 2 sets of 4 @88% as written. I'm doing 88% x 3,3,2.

Today was
325x6; 345x5,5; 360x3,3,2

[bobmen10000]

https://eccoarms.com/shop?olsPage=produ ... y-base-set

Those are pricey, do you have a pair? I was going to try to DIY a pair and priced some stuff at Menards, then ended up just buying the Titan Fitness ones. They seemed to work okay the few times I used them. Just felt a little unstable walking out the squat, but to be expected.

Did not purchase the ecco arms but picked up a pair of his bench boosters to use for deficit pulls and to avoid having to crank my feet and pushing from my tippy toes on bench - floor slopes significantly in my basement so 2" platforms have really helped more closely simulate a flat bench on level ground.

Anyway, the guy makes quality stuff based on my experience and will do custom work for a reasonable price....and he does it in pretty colors...I have no idea the value of weight releasers in general however; somewhere in one of the exodus subforums their was discussions about the titan weight releasers versus other (if I recall) very limit offerings from other companies.

[Hanley]

I'm throwing in the towel.

I like the intensity ranges for a peak, but the session design is just bonkers (IDK, maybe cool for relatively inexperienced young kids, but it's killing this 43 y/o with 415 e1RM).

[mgil]

I'm throwing in the towel.

I like the intensity ranges for a peak, but the session design is just bonkers (IDK, maybe cool for relatively inexperienced young kids, but it's killing this 43 y/o with 415 e1RM).

Looking at the layout in the abstract, my guess was that the best responder is a 17-24yo male that’s been fucking around in the gym from roughly 6 months to 2 years and hasn’t ever pushed a real peak.

But, it’s still good to gauge these things in practice to ensure gains aren’t left on the table.

[Hanley]

I'm throwing in the towel.

I like the intensity ranges for a peak, but the session design is just bonkers (IDK, maybe cool for relatively inexperienced young kids, but it's killing this 43 y/o with 415 e1RM).

Looking at the layout in the abstract, my guess was that the best responder is a 17-24yo male that’s been fucking around in the gym from roughly 6 months to 2 years and hasn’t ever pushed a real peak.

But, it’s still good to gauge these things in practice to ensure gains aren’t left on the table.

Yeah, and I'm taking away one interesting session-design detail: I really liked starting a session with high-intensity work (85-95ish%) with an initial set to RPE 9ish using 77-80% e1RM. Just seemed to wake me up.

I think what I'm going to do is simply turn everything that's over 80% into singles, add 1) a slingshot session and 2) a lighter (72-75%) session to pad the high intensity shit. AND use a much, much less aggressive progression scheme. IOW: turning into a Hepburn-y Peak setup.

[AllM1ght]

I'm throwing in the towel.

I like the intensity ranges for a peak, but the session design is just bonkers (IDK, maybe cool for relatively inexperienced young kids, but it's killing this 43 y/o with 415 e1RM).

Looking at the layout in the abstract, my guess was that the best responder is a 17-24yo male that’s been fucking around in the gym from roughly 6 months to 2 years and hasn’t ever pushed a real peak.

But, it’s still good to gauge these things in practice to ensure gains aren’t left on the table.

Yeah, and I'm taking away one interesting session-design detail: I really liked starting a session with high-intensity work (85-95ish%) with an initial set to RPE 9ish using 77-80% e1RM. Just seemed to wake me up.

I think what I'm going to do is simply turn everything that's over 80% into singles, add 1) a slingshot session and 2) a lighter (72-75%) session to pad the high intensity shit. AND use a much, much less aggressive progression scheme. IOW: turning into a Hepburn-y Peak setup.

Starting to sound a bit like the ol RTS, 1@8, 3@9 -x% for lighter sets approach.

[Hanley]

Starting to sound a bit like the ol RTS, 1@8, 3@9 -x% for lighter sets approach.

Eh, sorta maybe.

But I'm thinking:

5-6@9,

10 singles @ 85%

5 singles @ 90%

[AllM1ght]

Starting to sound a bit like the ol RTS, 1@8, 3@9 -x% for lighter sets approach.

Eh, sorta maybe.

But I'm thinking:

5-6@9,

10 singles @ 85%

5 singles @ 90%

Hmm interesting.. Might have to try this soon

[ChasingCurls69]

Starting to sound a bit like the ol RTS, 1@8, 3@9 -x% for lighter sets approach.

Eh, sorta maybe.

But I'm thinking:

5-6@9,

10 singles @ 85%

5 singles @ 90%

All in the same workout? Or 10 singles @85% is one option and 5 singles @90% is another option?

[Hanley]

Starting to sound a bit like the ol RTS, 1@8, 3@9 -x% for lighter sets approach.

Eh, sorta maybe.

But I'm thinking:

5-6@9,

10 singles @ 85%

5 singles @ 90%

All in the same workout? Or 10 singles @85% is one option and 5 singles @90% is another option?

Yeah, that's just one workout, you could certainly scale the number of singles to work-capacity.

[DCR]

Looking at the layout in the abstract, my guess was that the best responder is a 17-24yo male that’s been fucking around in the gym from roughly 6 months to 2 years and hasn’t ever pushed a real peak.

Guilty as charged.

[DCR]

I’m reviving this thread for two reasons. First, @alek and I are running the program and I figured why not bring it back to folks’ attention, given that there are a lot of new members since August 2020 who may not have heard of it.

Second, when I first raised the program in the basement, resulting in this thread, I was unaware that there were two versions of the program, the original 1995 “add 40 pounds to your bench” and, unbeknownst to me, a subsequent revision with a number of changes and promising 50 lbs. Worse, I didn’t realize that the link provided (which now is dead) was to the second version. I never knew anyone who had done / could speak for that version, and wouldn’t have spoken for it myself.

With that all said, here is the original program that alek and I are running:

http://www.criticalbench.com/MM2K.htm

This link has both programs, for comparison:

https://www.oocities.org/~slopitch/mm2k/

@Hanley, the workout sheet that you’re holding on the first page here, with what apparently was a very aggressive progression, is from the revised program. I’m curious as to whether you might have different thoughts on the original program. (It’s a different progression, which surprised me. When I found out that there was a second program, I thought that it was revised mainly for his thoughts on the non-bench stuff, such as newly insisting on legs only once a week - I didn’t realize that he’d changed the core progression itself too.)

[Hanley]

with what apparently was a very aggressive progression, is from the revised program. I’m curious as to whether you might have different thoughts on the original program. (It’s a different progression, which surprised me. When I found out that there was a second program, I thought that it was revised mainly for his thoughts on the non-bench stuff, such as newly insisting on legs only once a week - I didn’t realize that he’d changed the core progression itself too.)

Lol. Yeah, a wee bit aggressive. Took 3 years -- not a month -- to add 25# to my bench.

I'll take a look at the revision.

[DCR]

with what apparently was a very aggressive progression, is from the revised program. I’m curious as to whether you might have different thoughts on the original program. (It’s a different progression, which surprised me. When I found out that there was a second program, I thought that it was revised mainly for his thoughts on the non-bench stuff, such as newly insisting on legs only once a week - I didn’t realize that he’d changed the core progression itself too.)

Lol. Yeah, a wee bit aggressive. Took 3 years -- not a month -- to add 25# to my bench.

I'll take a look at the revision.

The original, you mean. Thanks, looking forward to seeing what you think.

[Hanley]

with what apparently was a very aggressive progression, is from the revised program. I’m curious as to whether you might have different thoughts on the original program. (It’s a different progression, which surprised me. When I found out that there was a second program, I thought that it was revised mainly for his thoughts on the non-bench stuff, such as newly insisting on legs only once a week - I didn’t realize that he’d changed the core progression itself too.)

Lol. Yeah, a wee bit aggressive. Took 3 years -- not a month -- to add 25# to my bench.

I'll take a look at the revision.

The original, you mean.

Yes. The original.