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]
If you can get away with maximal effort much of the time, do it. Periodization etc is only done when gains can’t be made every time/as smoothly.
I believe most would benefit (when they reach the point of gains stopping) from simply de-loading 15%, holding that load for ~2 weeks, then pushing to the max weekly till gains stop again. The more advanced a person is, the more gradually they work up to their max’s.
From what I’ve seen, and experience myself, most natties last 4-6 weeks while making PR’s (just depends on genetics and/or intensity).
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]
If you can get away with maximal effort much of the time, do it. Periodization etc is only done when gains can’t be made every time/as smoothly.
I believe most would benefit (when they reach the point of gains stopping) from simply de-loading 15%, holding that load for ~2 weeks, then pushing to the max weekly till gains stop again. The more advanced a person is, the more gradually they work up to their max’s.
From what I’ve seen, and experience myself, most natties last 4-6 weeks while making PR’s (just depends on genetics and/or intensity).[/quote]
Yeah Im stuck around 405x1 for a while now so i should start using some of those principles
[quote]hanban wrote:
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]
that’s not just crazy… that would beat the best EVER highest total in America since powerliftingwatch started keeping track in the 242lb class by over 200lbs drug free or not.
[quote]hanban wrote:
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]
that’s not just crazy… that would beat the best EVER highest total in America since powerliftingwatch started keeping track in the 242lb class by over 200lbs drug free or not. [/quote]
Yeah hes the best there is lol
I would call bs on the squat if i didnt see the video
in the vid he does 700 before 800 and 700 looked like a complete joke
going with the numbers in 1993 i would say hes a man that makes slow but steady and consistent progress and never stops
[quote]hanban wrote:
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]
that’s not just crazy… that would beat the best EVER highest total in America since powerliftingwatch started keeping track in the 242lb class by over 200lbs drug free or not. [/quote]
You’re just jealous that you can’t do more volume than Coleman with bigger weights while weighing only 240 at 6’3, training Judo multiple times a week at the same time and all the while being LIFETIME NATURAL!!!111 and totally pretty.
Hell, he can probably breathe underwater too. WITH NO GEAR AT ALL!
What do you say now, clearly inferior human being?
[quote]hanban wrote:
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]
that’s not just crazy… that would beat the best EVER highest total in America since powerliftingwatch started keeping track in the 242lb class by over 200lbs drug free or not. [/quote]
You’re just jealous that you can’t do more volume than Coleman with bigger weights while weighing only 240 at 6’3, training Judo multiple times a week at the same time and all the while being LIFETIME NATURAL!!!111 and totally pretty.
Hell, he can probably breathe underwater too. WITH NO GEAR AT ALL!
What do you say now, clearly inferior human being?
[/quote]
you forgot 21 inch arms at near competition level bodyfat
[quote]gregron wrote:
I dont care one way or the other but I in no way believe that he is a natty.[/quote]
Im not saying one way or the other but I wouldnt think its too likely when his lifts destroy the majority of strongest lifters around, while still being damned asthetic
If he takes anything I dont know what it is but it would explain the weight fluctuations
If he is, he must always be on something to look like that and stay the same strength all year which apparently he does…
[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
Almost reminds me of the 495 x 6-15 incline press we had one of our posters claiming on this site.[/quote]
Except that person had no witnesses who had seen him do it, or videos of other jaw dropping feats of strength like Mr. Ohearn
There are many people that have trained with him that attest for everything he claims[/quote]
I found it funny more people believed that 495 x 6-15 than Mike’s numbers.
Both are inflated numbers, Mike is on steroids, everyone stop being so naive. That’s the truth of the matter.[/quote]
That, or another poster here who claimed the difference between hammer strength (which said poster favored) and free weights was only a few pounds and that he repped 405, then said poster is seen STRUGGLING with a band assisted 315. And neither of those dudes had anything to sell, they were just bold face lyin’. Again, O’Hearn isn’t inclining 405 for 10, at least not without the last 7 or so being heavily assisted by a spotter(s).
[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
Almost reminds me of the 495 x 6-15 incline press we had one of our posters claiming on this site.[/quote]
Except that person had no witnesses who had seen him do it, or videos of other jaw dropping feats of strength like Mr. Ohearn
There are many people that have trained with him that attest for everything he claims[/quote]
I found it funny more people believed that 495 x 6-15 than Mike’s numbers.
Both are inflated numbers, Mike is on steroids, everyone stop being so naive. That’s the truth of the matter.[/quote]
That, or another poster here who claimed the difference between hammer strength (which said poster favored) and free weights was only a few pounds and that he repped 405, then said poster is seen STRUGGLING with a band assisted 315. And neither of those dudes had anything to sell, they were just bold face lyin’. Again, O’Hearn isn’t inclining 405 for 10, at least not without the last 7 or so being heavily assisted by a spotter(s).[/quote]
If he can do 500 for 7 sets of 2 flat then 405 isnt that big of a deal for any chest mvoement. as i said on an instructional video he was a few days out from a photo shoot, totally carb depleted, at his smallest and was doing 315 like it was a joke, he even made a joke while doing 315, thats how effing alpha he is, he can do it he is not human
[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
Almost reminds me of the 495 x 6-15 incline press we had one of our posters claiming on this site.[/quote]
Except that person had no witnesses who had seen him do it, or videos of other jaw dropping feats of strength like Mr. Ohearn
There are many people that have trained with him that attest for everything he claims[/quote]
I found it funny more people believed that 495 x 6-15 than Mike’s numbers.
Both are inflated numbers, Mike is on steroids, everyone stop being so naive. That’s the truth of the matter.[/quote]
That, or another poster here who claimed the difference between hammer strength (which said poster favored) and free weights was only a few pounds and that he repped 405, then said poster is seen STRUGGLING with a band assisted 315. And neither of those dudes had anything to sell, they were just bold face lyin’. Again, O’Hearn isn’t inclining 405 for 10, at least not without the last 7 or so being heavily assisted by a spotter(s).[/quote]
lol @ the requisite shot at PX. I guess it’ll get this thread goin’ again…
mike ohrean is a bodybuilder, a bodybuilder is ALWAYS ON HORMONES,no time off,get it in your head already ,no natural ,no clean ,no balonie,only playing with doses depending if want to do fitness or bodybuild ,some can not do bodybuild even if want because their body is more fitness which = average responder to hormones or fellas who dont will to use insulina and gh due to financial reason so they stuck back in lower size,also some just want to do fitness since there is more money in it if sucesful,even in his smallest picture…mike ohearen is BIG!,you never mesure hormone user by the size of arm ,you mesure hormone user by the over all muscle quality and physiqe thickness, muscle quality is not garenteed …physiqe thickness is! muscle quality is more dependent on time in gym and specific compounds…it is a dependent of bodyfat and muscle development mainly ,lean muscle development which ofcourse comes from specific compounds
exact same substances we professionals were are are on,hormones and lots of them, that include growth,he just dont work to be a beast ,he maintain big size with the use of hormones for fitness modeling and acting and attractivness ingeneral rather than competetive bodybuilding
na,mike is a known heavy user of hormones,he usses as much as any fitness model/bodybuilder which means a lot,and most importntly very consistant and knows what works for him and whats really needed for the look desired,he is as far from natural as skip,those guys have been hormonized for years 10s of years you talking here a good 15 years on hormones at the least!
[quote]165StateChamp wrote:
mike ohrean is a bodybuilder, a bodybuilder is ALWAYS ON HORMONES,no time off,get it in your head already ,no natural ,no clean ,no balonie,only playing with doses depending if want to do fitness or bodybuild ,some can not do bodybuild even if want because their body is more fitness which = average responder to hormones or fellas who dont will to use insulina and gh due to financial reason so they stuck back in lower size,also some just want to do fitness since there is more money in it if sucesful,even in his smallest picture…mike ohearen is BIG!,you never mesure hormone user by the size of arm ,you mesure hormone user by the over all muscle quality and physiqe thickness, muscle quality is not garenteed …physiqe thickness is! muscle quality is more dependent on time in gym and specific compounds…it is a dependent of bodyfat and muscle development mainly ,lean muscle development which ofcourse comes from specific compounds
exact same substances we professionals were are are on,hormones and lots of them, that include growth,he just dont work to be a beast ,he maintain big size with the use of hormones for fitness modeling and acting and attractivness ingeneral rather than competetive bodybuilding
na,mike is a known heavy user of hormones,he usses as much as any fitness model/bodybuilder which means a lot,and most importntly very consistant and knows what works for him and whats really needed for the look desired,he is as far from natural as skip,those guys have been hormonized for years 10s of years you talking here a good 15 years on hormones at the least!