[quote]gregron wrote:
^^i saw an interview with him where he said his weight gets up to 290… 6’3 290 and not fat is absolutely huge.[/quote]
yep thats the one, 290 here. looks a little bloated but far from fat.
And to people that always throw the drug aspect at him and say hes not natural, Ohearns lifting stats plus being a non fat 290 at some times is ridiculous for ANYONE assisted he is the man.
Also his condition when he competed was phenominal
reminds me of the old thread with this gem in it. This guy was trying out for American Gladiators and the one in this thread was one… coincidence??
Haha, ol whip cream bench gets me every time. I actually caught a lot of shit on this site for calling this dude out, then it turned out he is in fact full of shit. The more I think about it, the more I still don’t think O’Hearn hits 405x10 on the incline. Not that it really matters, just don’t think he can do it.
The guy is obviously a beast but those numbers are obviously exaggerated…even for assisted guys
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Haha, ol whip cream bench gets me every time. I actually caught a lot of shit on this site for calling this dude out, then it turned out he is in fact full of shit. The more I think about it, the more I still don’t think O’Hearn hits 405x10 on the incline. Not that it really matters, just don’t think he can do it.[/quote]
i think it’s just a case that saying you lift these massive amounts will sell videos. if you watch the videos in the original post for this thread…especially deadlift you will see him handling up to 495lbs and then after that you see the weight on the floor but you never actually see the plates being lifted the camera zooms in tight for the “heavier” sets so you can’t see all of the plates on the bar…same for squat. not that it really matters. it’s just showmanship to sell a product.
I was really curious about this for progress. He does 3-5 reps which is great for in progression. But he works to a heavy set and then does that for 3-5 reps for 5 sets.
ie. 135x5, 185x5, 225x5, 315x5, 315x5, 315x5, 315x5, 315x5
Is that not kind of overkill and slower at progressing, than just doing one full out heavy last set of 3-5 and then trying to up that weight each week
I’ve heard from people that have trained with Mike and he has dunked 800lb+ squats and deadlifted over 800 no belt
[quote]maraudermeat wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Haha, ol whip cream bench gets me every time. I actually caught a lot of shit on this site for calling this dude out, then it turned out he is in fact full of shit. The more I think about it, the more I still don’t think O’Hearn hits 405x10 on the incline. Not that it really matters, just don’t think he can do it.[/quote]
i think it’s just a case that saying you lift these massive amounts will sell videos. if you watch the videos in the original post for this thread…especially deadlift you will see him handling up to 495lbs and then after that you see the weight on the floor but you never actually see the plates being lifted the camera zooms in tight for the “heavier” sets so you can’t see all of the plates on the bar…same for squat. not that it really matters. it’s just showmanship to sell a product. [/quote]
not in this case, his 800 raw squat was on video
on the american gladiator triouts i think he did 35 pullups in 30 seconds (a bit kipped but whatever)
at 275
If you check out the program i think for your squat/bench/dead you start with 70% of your 1rm which would make sense why hes only doing 495. Plus he probably had to do both those videos in one day for who knows how many takes so it makes sense he wasnt using his own work sets. The bench vid in the program was taken i think a few days before a shoot and he was still doing 315x5 on incline for sets in the vid like it was nothing.
Also that vid for all we know was shot after his daily workout, which he does every morning at 4:00am
[quote]Kalle wrote:
I’ve heard from people that have trained with Mike and he has dunked 800lb+ squats and deadlifted over 800 no belt[/quote]
There’s a vid of the squat, and some other stuff. Think he’s competed in pling as well. The guy’s a beast no doubt.
[quote]McMusclesNHam wrote:
I was really curious about this for progress. He does 3-5 reps which is great for in progression. But he works to a heavy set and then does that for 3-5 reps for 5 sets.
ie. 135x5, 185x5, 225x5, 315x5, 315x5, 315x5, 315x5, 315x5
Is that not kind of overkill and slower at progressing, than just doing one full out heavy last set of 3-5 and then trying to up that weight each week[/quote]
Nothing wrong with straight sets, bodybuilders have been doing that for years. While ramping up to one top set works well for some, in many it will not give as much growth, but rather more strength (unless they do a back down set or a few, or more exercises for the same bodypart). Most need to get a little bit of volume in there with a heavy load.
That’s not to say that this is ALL he ever does. Many specialise in certain areas, then work on others. This can vary from workout to workout, or phase to phase (whichever the individual prefers)
Weeks 1-4, 70%: 5 sets of 4 reps
Weeks 5-8, 80%: 5 sets of 3 reps
Weeks 9-12, 90%: 5 sets of 2 reps
Is all I could find on how he periodizes stuff.
The basic idea (start light, go heavy, repeat with higher starting point) is the same as used by Ed Coan, Kazmaier, 5/3/1, Ronnie Coleman, etc… They all use/used variations of that kind of thing with varying training cycle lengths, reps/sets, how often they upped the weight etc.
I personally think that the 5 sets of 4/3 during phases 1 and 2 are a waste of time. Whether you do that or 2-3 sets of 8 or whatever, or split them up over more than one big exercise (say I want to go heavy on both bench, close and incline or whatever, so I do 1-2 sets each, ala Coan etc, or split that in two again for 2 workouts per week ala Ronnie), same thing basically.
But if all I’m doing heavy is bench and then some assistance, why on earth would I want to do 5 easy ass sets with 3-5 minutes between. I have other things to do… Sure, not the only program that has you do that, but come on… I’d be bored to tears.
The main point is the starting light and going heavier over the weeks while dropping reps -part.
And man… Our supposedly natural Mr. O’Hearn does more heavy sets in one workout per bodypart than Ronnie Coleman did in two.
Puts up weights (except on the bench) to rival Jeremy Hoornstra and with more volume again…
In fact, he easily matches or even exceeds the work set volume of just about every IFBB pro bodybuilder out there with maybe a handful of exceptions.
455 for 4 sets of 8 on the incline after heavy bench…
A billion sets on arm stuff (how does he progress on the little things anyway without gear and using that sort of protocol?) with top-of-the-line weights… 4x10x225 barbell curls AFTER 4 heavy high rep sets of incline curls… Eh…
I could believe the big 3 numbers at 290 lbs… Much of the other stuff seems a little too crazy. I could believe those numbers for one set each. 4 sets each though? I guess his joints and tendons are made from flexible diamond fiber or whatever.
I think he actually did compete in powerlifting once upon a time, but I don’t remember what he put up… Anyone feel like googling that? 
I’ve found that combining these different waves into somthing like Thib’s 5/4/3/2/1 leading up to 85-90% of max single and then 3-4 more sets of 2 reps of 90% alternated with singles leading to 1rm every 3 weeks works better than 7 sets of 2 for strength gains.
last official pl stats of mike are from 1993 i think, it was a 670 squat 715 dead and a 465 be bench.
he got a lot stronger since…
as far as today’s lifts from what i can gather, a 800 pound dead 815 squat and 550 bench. wich is a CRAZY raw total.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Weeks 1-4, 70%: 5 sets of 4 reps
Weeks 5-8, 80%: 5 sets of 3 reps
Weeks 9-12, 90%: 5 sets of 2 reps
Is all I could find on how he periodizes stuff.
The basic idea (start light, go heavy, repeat with higher starting point) is the same as used by Ed Coan, Kazmaier, 5/3/1, Ronnie Coleman, etc… They all use/used variations of that kind of thing with varying training cycle lengths, reps/sets, how often they upped the weight etc.
I personally think that the 5 sets of 4/3 during phases 1 and 2 are a waste of time. Whether you do that or 2-3 sets of 8 or whatever, or split them up over more than one big exercise (say I want to go heavy on both bench, close and incline or whatever, so I do 1-2 sets each, ala Coan etc, or split that in two again for 2 workouts per week ala Ronnie), same thing basically.
But if all I’m doing heavy is bench and then some assistance, why on earth would I want to do 5 easy ass sets with 3-5 minutes between. I have other things to do… Sure, not the only program that has you do that, but come on… I’d be bored to tears.
The main point is the starting light and going heavier over the weeks while dropping reps -part.
And man… Our supposedly natural Mr. O’Hearn does more heavy sets in one workout per bodypart than Ronnie Coleman did in two.
Puts up weights (except on the bench) to rival Jeremy Hoornstra and with more volume again…
In fact, he easily matches or even exceeds the work set volume of just about every IFBB pro bodybuilder out there with maybe a handful of exceptions.
455 for 4 sets of 8 on the incline after heavy bench…
A billion sets on arm stuff (how does he progress on the little things anyway without gear and using that sort of protocol?) with top-of-the-line weights… 4x10x225 barbell curls AFTER 4 heavy high rep sets of incline curls… Eh…
I could believe the big 3 numbers at 290 lbs… Much of the other stuff seems a little too crazy. I could believe those numbers for one set each. 4 sets each though? I guess his joints and tendons are made from flexible diamond fiber or whatever.
I think he actually did compete in powerlifting once upon a time, but I don’t remember what he put up… Anyone feel like googling that?
[/quote]
haha in the 800lb squat video he is 240lbs LOL
I know he has won a few powerlifting shows and also west coast strongman competitions i think he came first both times
I was thinking the same about his joints, the guy never even gets injured, but then again a lot of that has to do with his mindset
Even though he is without a doubt massive, his physique is still very much like that of the 70s bodybuilders and not over the top in muscularity but deffinitely filled out and full except hes bigger then most of them
I also know he was working out with Ferigno for a while on arm days and they would do 90s on incline curls
Also about the week to week change in % etc i was wondering if a
70% 5x4
75% 5x4
80% 5x3
85% 5x3
90% 5x2
then new starting point would be better? or at the least ok
[quote]Blackaggar wrote:
Also about the week to week change in % etc i was wondering if a
70% 5x4
75% 5x4
80% 5x3
85% 5x3
90% 5x2
then new starting point would be better? or at the least ok[/quote]
I would probably need to deload (at least the main movement) after the 90% week, I do like percentage stuff does seem to stop me killing myself (at least some of the time).
[quote]Blackaggar wrote:
Also about the week to week change in % etc i was wondering if a
70% 5x4
75% 5x4
80% 5x3
85% 5x3
90% 5x2
then new starting point would be better? or at the least ok[/quote]
I believe it’s taking off 15-20% of the load is the important part in recovering/boosting drive or what have you. It’s not so much the in-between parts that matter, so long as some form of off-loading is done and for an adequate amount of time.
Besides, making 5% jumps vs 10% ones is probably splitting hairs (especially when you’re using loads below your PR’s).
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
[quote]McMusclesNHam wrote:
I was really curious about this for progress. He does 3-5 reps which is great for in progression. But he works to a heavy set and then does that for 3-5 reps for 5 sets.
ie. 135x5, 185x5, 225x5, 315x5, 315x5, 315x5, 315x5, 315x5
Is that not kind of overkill and slower at progressing, than just doing one full out heavy last set of 3-5 and then trying to up that weight each week[/quote]
Nothing wrong with straight sets, bodybuilders have been doing that for years. While ramping up to one top set works well for some, in many it will not give as much growth, but rather more strength (unless they do a back down set or a few, or more exercises for the same bodypart). Most need to get a little bit of volume in there with a heavy load.
That’s not to say that this is ALL he ever does. Many specialise in certain areas, then work on others. This can vary from workout to workout, or phase to phase (whichever the individual prefers)[/quote]
IN 3 years of working out I guess ive never done straight sets always ramped. Any benefit to switching
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
[quote]Blackaggar wrote:
Also about the week to week change in % etc i was wondering if a
70% 5x4
75% 5x4
80% 5x3
85% 5x3
90% 5x2
then new starting point would be better? or at the least ok[/quote]
I believe it’s taking off 15-20% of the load is the important part in recovering/boosting drive or what have you. It’s not so much the in-between parts that matter, so long as some form of off-loading is done and for an adequate amount of time.
Besides, making 5% jumps vs 10% ones is probably splitting hairs (especially when you’re using loads below your PR’s).[/quote]
yeah that makes sense to me, im fairly new to % lifitng havent really done it yet but would like to start. Im just trying to think of a faster way to get to your near max then back off
i think id be fine myself doing 70% one week, 80 the next 90 after that then back to a new starting point, but i usualy train over 90% every week lol
[quote]McMusclesNHam wrote:
IN 3 years of working out I guess ive never done straight sets always ramped. Any benefit to switching[/quote]
I prefer ramping too (usually in 3’s on main lifts). If you’re into power-building (or whatever you want to call it) straight sets are a good way of giving the nervous system a break/off-loading.
So say you did 6-8 weeks of building up your intensity (till gains stop), you’d maybe take off 15%, and do straight sets at the beginning of your next cycle (say 2-3 weeks…just the “breaking in” period to the intense phase), and use a tiny bit more volume for this period.
So yeah, you can use both methods.