To those criticizing B. Hank, I would say:
I feel it boils down to how much gear he is running.
If he's running 2g/week as some speculate, I'm not as impressed. I know - and I have recently shown - that I can be about as strong as B. Hank at his strongest, without gear and while weighing less: ~200-lb or lighter versus B. Hank who looked to be 220- or 225-lb when he was bench pressing 350x2.
That's a compliment to B. Hank - he looked 225 and shredded when he pressed 350x2, but he will probably come on here and say he was 209, lol.
I have said before, I feel I can outlift him while giving up 30-lb of body weight [my 195 to B. Hank's 225, for instance]. We can't prove natural/juiced status, but we CAN weigh in before lift videos. I am confident in myself that I can outlift B. Hank while being lighter.
That being said - B. Hank trains for hypertrophy, largely in the 8-12+ rep range. So it's no shock to me that he did not maximize his strength.
But one thing I realized while gaining my strength back is: it is a lot of work.
People don't give B. Hank credit for how strong he was. Here are his lifts:
● 350x2 [verified].
● 365x1 [unverified - but is believable given his 350x2 verified press].
● 225x31/32
^ I'm somewhat skeptical of this claim. I mean...Brian Shaw got 225 for 44 reps, and can probably bench over 550. Eddie Hall and Robert Oberst both got 42, and I know two 475-lb pressers who got 30 reps and 29 reps, respectively.
So...I don't know about that claim.
Having said that:
Is B. Hank running as much gear as some claim on here [2g/week]? If so...I'm not as impress with his lifts compared to if he is running maybe like a cycle of 500mg Sustanon for 12 weeks out of the year only. That makes a world of difference.
Having said that, B. Hank also got in very good shape - and very few have gotten into shape like this. But again, how impressive he looks does depend in part on how much gear he ran/runs on average.
Are the 2g/week claims about B. Hank true?
?
