YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Me equivoqué con la proteína

Me equivoqué con la proteína — Transcript

by angel7real | Fitness y rendimiento · 4,346 words · 646 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00In the fitness world, there are
0:02currently four controversies on which
0:03people cannot agree. Whether it is
0:05necessary to do a bulking phase, how
0:07much protein we actually need to
0:09maximize muscle mass gains, whether low
0:12or high training volume is better, and
0:14the last one, which I cannot even
0:16mention, and you will understand why at
0:18the end. We will start by talking about
0:20the bulking phase and to what extent it
0:22is necessary, what the two opposing
0:24positions are, and we will see the
0:26arguments for each one, and finally,
0:27the conclusion I have reached. One
0:30school of thought says that a bulking
0:32phase makes no sense, since really,
0:34when we have an energy surplus, by its
0:35very nature, it is just that: an energy
0:37surplus that will be stored as fat.
0:40There will be an increase in body fat
0:41percentage, and therefore, it does not
0:43really have an impact on muscle mass
0:44gain. That is to say, although the
0:47addition of sarcomeres or hypertrophy
0:49has certain energy needs, definitely—
0:51and I agree with them on this—they
0:53are not great needs and fall more or
0:55less within what would be considered
0:57your maintenance, your actual
0:58maintenance calories. Therefore, it is
1:02true that doing a classic bulking phase
1:04, like the ones that were once very
1:06common and are still seen a lot in
1:07bodybuilding with substances, is
1:09because those in that type of
1:11bodybuilding generally stop using
1:13substances at a certain point, and so,
1:15from the outside, when we were more
1:17ignorant about this world, we thought
1:19that in the bulking phase they just
1:21start eating and it is necessary to
1:22later transform that fat into muscle
1:24mass. What was really happening was not
1:27just that they were eating more and
1:29their body fat percentage was
1:30increasing, but that in many cases,
1:31what was actually happening was that
1:33they were taking a break from the
1:34substances during that time, and that
1:36is why they looked so bad. But
1:37definitely, as a natural, if you try to
1:40replicate a classic muscle gain bulking
1:42phase of putting on 12 kg in 12 months,
1:44you are going to get very fat. And in
1:47fact, we are going to look at a study
1:48that demonstrates this perfectly.
1:50However, when we do not have real
1:52precision in this gaining phase, when
1:54we don't have a determined surplus, we
1:56are also gambling to a certain extent
1:58with the efficiency of the gaining
1:59phase. What do I mean by that? If you
2:02have a very, very precise maintenance,
2:04a very, very precise caloric intake, it
2:06implies that, well yes, you will have
2:08days where suddenly you moved more, one
2:10day you ate less than you thought, one
2:12day you were more stressed than you
2:14thought, or work was more complicated.
2:17All these types of factors, we are not
2:19a mathematical machine. We don't know
2:22exactly if your maintenance today is
2:243,050 and tomorrow it's 3,150 calories.
2:27Therefore, when we try to be very, very
2:29precise in that maintenance stage of "
2:31yes, let's do maintenance," because
2:33I've been told that no type of surplus
2:35is necessary and that with just
2:36maintenance I can recompose, and today
2:38I weigh 80 kg and in 5 years I will
2:40weigh 85, and I haven't gotten covered
2:42in fat during that process. It has all
2:44been muscle mass gain. That looks very
2:46good on Instagram, but in the real
2:47world it doesn't work. It doesn't work
2:48like that. It's not such a precise
2:50issue. Because of what I'm saying,
2:53since we are not an exact caloric
2:54furnace, you are going to have days
2:56where you suddenly end up in a slight
2:57deficit or maintenance. And this can
3:00start to affect your performance. When
3:02we have an energy deficit, we first
3:04have a lower level of glycogen. It
3:06doesn't have to be something dramatic,
3:07but they are small nuances that later
3:09make your training performance not as
3:10good. And then also when we have a
3:12deficit, if it is more sustained, if as
3:14I mentioned, more active work, stress,
3:16whatever, you suddenly spend a week
3:18where you have had a somewhat more
3:20sustained deficit, this also negatively
3:22affects the stimulus and the duration
3:24of protein synthesis. Therefore, we
3:25have variables there that we want to
3:27keep more or less stable when we are in
3:29a gain phase. What conclusion do I
3:31reach and what would be my
3:32recommendation at this point then?
3:34There is a study here that more or less
3:36, although it wasn't really the goal of
3:37the study, concludes it perfectly. They
3:40did a study where a group of people did
3:42intermittent fasting and included an
3:44energy surplus. The goal was to reach a
3:46surplus of 400 to 500 calories, but
3:48well, that's not what's important. And
3:50then there was another group that ate
3:51normally, that is, four or five meals a
3:53day. And the goal of the study was also
3:55to see if a group with the same surplus
3:57and doing intermittent fasting gained
3:59less fat or more muscle mass or
4:01whatever compared to the other group
4:03that ate normally. But what happened?
4:06that the group doing intermittent
4:08fasting ended up eating less, ending up
4:11with a surplus of about 300 calories,
4:13while the other group, those not
4:15fasting, ended up with a surplus of
4:17about 400 to 500 calories. Why is this
4:20study so interesting? Because it was
4:22shown that the group with a 500-calorie
4:24surplus gained muscle mass but also
4:26gained quite a bit of fat. But the
4:29group with a 300-calorie surplus, or
4:32250 to 300 calories, gained the same
4:34amount of muscle as the 500-calorie
4:36group and, logically, gained less fat.
4:39What can we conclude from this study?
4:42That it's true we don't need a large
4:44surplus to gain muscle mass, and that a
4:46larger surplus definitely doesn't mean
4:48more muscle gain; it only leads to a
4:50higher body fat percentage. And keep in
4:54mind, in this study, even the group
4:56with a smaller surplus, like the
4:58intermittent fasting group with their
5:01average of 250 to 300 calories, still
5:04gained fat. In other words, everything
5:07seems to indicate that the surplus
5:09needed to gain muscle mass is around
5:11150 calories, not much more. Following
5:15the classic bodybuilder example
5:17mentioned earlier, someone aiming to
5:20gain 15 kg in a year—in reality, in a
5:22year-long building phase, you should
5:25aim for about 5 to 6 kg; that is, 1 kg
5:28of gain per month. Now, once again,
5:32this is the goal, this is what you
5:33should aim for, but logically you
5:35aren't a professional bodybuilder and
5:37you won't have everything measured
5:38constantly. You're going to do a
5:41bulking phase; plus, you'll be in it
5:42for the long haul. If you're suffering
5:44without ever going out to eat with your
5:45partner, friends, or anyone else,
5:47naturally, you won't have that kind of
5:48precision. That is why in this debate
5:51on whether a bulk is necessary—yes,
5:54but understanding that "bulk" means
5:56trying to maintain a slight surplus,
5:59and that slight surplus should be
6:01around 100, 150, or 200 calories. Any
6:05more will lead to more fat gain, and
6:07any less, or staying too much at
6:09maintenance because you're so afraid of
6:11the bulking phase or fat percentage,
6:13can compromise the performance and
6:15efficiency we look for in a building
6:18phase. And with that, a closely related
6:21point that has become very trendy in
6:23the last year or so is protein intake.
6:26How much protein do we really need?
6:28What happens? They’re going to drive
6:30you crazy on social media. Some say 3
6:32grams, others 2.5. I spent a long time
6:35myself saying 2 grams was the standard,
6:37that's what the evidence showed. And
6:39suddenly, for a year now, they’ve
6:40been telling us 0.8. 0.8 what? Per
6:43pound. No, no, no. 0.8 grams of protein
6:46per kilo of body weight, which is
6:47apparently the right amount now. That
6:50there are new studies, I mean, it's
6:51always the same: "there are new studies
6:53," eh, the old reliable. "There is a
6:55study," we know, we know today;
6:56nowadays we know, the old reliable for
6:59when you want to sound evidence-based.
7:01Okay, who’s right here? When we look
7:07at protein evidence, protein
7:10requirements aren't about the minimum
7:13to survive, or if you’re a
7:15centenarian, or anything like that. The
7:20protein requirements established since
7:23the 2003 Rand meta-analysis are 0.8.
7:28It’s 0.8 grams of protein based on
7:30nitrogen balance. What is that? So you
7:33can understand it: it's looking at a
7:35group of people over X weeks, adapting
7:37them to each protein intake level. And
7:40now you'll see why this is important:
7:42they check at what point nitrogen
7:45balance in the urine is neutral,
7:47negative, or shows an excess. Once they
7:50reach that, a safety range is
7:52established for all stages and goals,
7:54which goes up to 0.8. That is,
7:56everything seems to indicate that the
7:58necessary amount of protein is actually
8:000.6. So you can see how heated this
8:05debate is, right, Angel? Is this the
8:08best method we have for determining
8:10protein intake? Yes, it might not be
8:13perfect. We might see that,
8:15mechanistically, it could make sense
8:18for a natural bodybuilder in a deficit
8:20to raise it a bit more. Maybe, maybe.
8:23Now I'm going to explain what I
8:25recommend, what I do with my athletes,
8:27and what I do myself. But the reality
8:29is that this has been established since
8:322003, and if the amount hasn't changed,
8:34it's not because the elites want you to
8:37be skinny; it's already hard enough to
8:39gain muscle, nobody is against you.
8:42It’s simply because it is truly the
8:44best method we have today. There have
8:46been other methods that have been
8:47tested and have not reached this level
8:48of validity as demonstrated by nitrogen
8:50balance. Ángel, then how is it
8:51possible that there are 15 studies
8:52telling me that more protein is better,
8:54and what about protein meta-analyses?
8:56Well, maybe more protein, the more
8:57protein the better, it’s a
8:58free-for-all and it doesn’t matter.
9:00Anyone who has been in the natural
9:02bodybuilding world for a while knows
9:04that this is slow, tough, and damn
9:06difficult, but then you go to a protein
9:08meta-analysis and people take 3g and
9:10gain 4 kg of muscle mass in four and a
9:12half weeks in Wisconsin. You say, "Damn
9:15, man, I don’t know what they’re
9:16eating there in Wisconsin because
9:17it’s outrageous." In short, I'm
9:19getting sidetracked, when we see these
9:21types of protein studies, an adaptation
9:23period is never performed, and the body
9:25has an adaptation period for protein.
9:27That is to say, if you take a group of
9:29people and lower their protein, you see
9:31a deficit, you see a loss, a negative
9:33balance in protein synthesis. And vice
9:35versa: if you increase it, starting
9:37from where the group began, if you
9:38increase the protein, you apparently
9:40see a greater rise in protein synthesis
9:42, but they aren't measuring the real
9:44effect; they are measuring a transient
9:46effect and, in many cases, in many.
9:48Studies aren't even really measuring
9:50muscle mass gain, or they are comparing
9:522 to 3g, and then what they measure is
9:54simply the protein synthesis stimulus;
9:56or a study where they give a group
9:57protein but don't control the rest of
9:59the diet or don't control the training.
10:02It’s outrageous. Ultimately, the
10:05reality is that if we base it on the
10:08much-touted science that we like so
10:10much, 0.8 is the amount that evidence
10:12actually supports. What do I usually do
10:15? What do I usually recommend? More or
10:18less, I tend to recommend between 1.2 g
10:20to 1.5 g of protein. I am currently at
10:231.5 g of protein, that is, about 120g
10:26for the 84 kg that I currently weigh.
10:29And why? First, because in terms of
10:32adherence, I consider that, hey, there
10:34comes a point where you have a certain
10:35amount of calories in a bulk, in a cut,
10:37and so on, and you don’t want to eat
10:39a bread sandwich with bread and more
10:40bread, because that's what you're left
10:42with if you have 0.8 protein. And also
10:45that, because on a...it might be a bias
10:46, a personal bias really, I mean, it's
10:48not even something well-founded, but it
10:50could be that in a deficit, as we
10:52mentioned, protein synthesis might be
10:53slightly more compromised, and in the
10:55context of a natural bodybuilder, and
10:57so on; although it's also true that a
10:58natural bodybuilder might be more
11:00efficient, just in case. Just in case,
11:03I increase it to 1.5 because there's no
11:05harm, because it improves diet
11:06adherence, because you have a bit more
11:08recipe variety, and because I
11:10personally like it. Now, if a client
11:12comes to me at 1g, I'm going to tell
11:13them, you have to increase it to 1.5.
11:16No, if a client comes in who is more
11:18typical and is taking 2g of protein, I
11:21don't lower them to 0.8. Not that
11:24either. It has to be something adaptive
11:26. Maybe, if they're in a deficit, I
11:27don't even touch or adjust their diet,
11:29but if they're in a gaining phase, I
11:31say, look, maybe now is a good time to
11:32start adapting to a lower amount of
11:34protein so that you can later start
11:36your cut with more carbs. And maybe,
11:38hey, if you're at 2g of protein, let's
11:40work over 8, 10, or 12 weeks to bring
11:42you down to 1.5, and that way, when you
11:44cut, you'll have more room to include
11:46more carbs. This is simply the reality
11:49of the debate. Next point, and I think
11:52this is the never-ending story. Low
11:55volume versus high volume. What works
11:57best? This, once again, is a debate.
12:01This is an Instagram debate, this is a
12:03debate for the barrier, a debate for
12:05the bleachers and the bar stool;
12:07because everyone, everyone who trains
12:09and has spent three, four, five years
12:11taking this seriously, knows there is
12:13no debate, knows that neither too low
12:15nor too high is right, that the volume
12:17that more or less works is a moderate
12:19volume of between 6 to 12 weekly sets,
12:21frequency two. That is, 6 sets, or 8
12:24sets, or yes, 8 sets, and this type of
12:26more or less is between six, a minimum
12:29that I would say is that: doing three
12:31sets of biceps one day and three sets
12:34of biceps another day. That is more or
12:36less the minimum volume I would
12:37recommend. And what is the maximum? 12
12:39to 15 at most on a weekly level would
12:41be the maximum. But above all, why is
12:43this a debate that makes no sense and
12:45that really more advanced people get
12:46bored of this debate. Because me
12:48telling you to do a certain number of
12:49sets doesn't mean anything. It really
12:51doesn't tell you anything. Can you
12:52imagine if you asked me how many times
12:54I have to practice my tennis serve to
12:56reach number 100 in the ATP? In the ATP
12:59, well, that one. Can you imagine if
13:02you asked me how many times I have to
13:04serve, have to practice my tennis serve
13:05to reach number 100 in the ATP? I'd say
13:08, I don't know, man. I'd have to see
13:10how you serve, how many days you serve
13:12a week, what your forehand is like,
13:13your backhand, well, I'm a tennis
13:15expert, as you can tell. Uh, obviously
13:18it's a question where the number of
13:20sets doesn't tell me anything, because
13:22you could be doing a specific exercise
13:24that you think works your chest or
13:26biceps or whatever, but the exercise
13:28might not even be well-selected, or
13:29your technique might not be correct, or
13:31you might be doing an exercise that
13:33seems appropriate for the muscle group
13:35you want to work, but the intensity
13:37isn't right, the proximity to failure
13:39isn't right, and therefore, if I tell
13:41you to do 12 sets of something
13:42inefficient, you're only accumulating
13:46fatigue and none of those sets are
13:47actually effective. It is much more
13:50important how those sets are performed
13:52and, above all, to understand that not
13:54all muscle failures are the same.
13:56Really, this is decisive, and it's a
13:58concept that, despite how important it
14:00is, is rarely talked about. When you
14:01reach muscle failure, it's because
14:03you've reached the maximum perception
14:04of effort. This means your brain can no
14:07longer monitor any more variables
14:09within the movement you are executing.
14:11Your brain generates an image, an
14:13afferent signal, and monitors
14:14everything that happens. What do I mean
14:16by that? That it is monitoring
14:18intensity, electrical discharge, the
14:20neural effect required to activate
14:22muscles, but it is also monitoring
14:25coordinative demands, cardiorespiratory
14:27demands, pain, metabolites, the burning
14:30sensation in the muscle, and so on.
14:33Therefore, we can have a set of squats
14:36of 25 repetitions that reaches failure
14:39and is less effective for hypertrophy
14:41than a set of squats of eight
14:43repetitions that reaches failure. And
14:47you think that apparently both have
14:48reached failure, so it should be the
14:50same type of muscle failure. It means
14:52we have recruited all the
14:53high-threshold motor units and all the
14:54possible fibers. And it's not like that
14:57because the first set, the squat set (
14:5925 reps), has such a heavy load; it has
15:01greater loads, greater
15:03cardiorespiratory demands, even
15:04coordination demands to maintain
15:06technique for so many reps, and it has
15:08greater pain demands from the bar and
15:10everything happening in the exercise,
15:12so you'll be able to use less neural
15:14drive to activate the muscles. Imagine
15:19then that you're talking to me about
15:20the number of sets, how many sets you
15:22have to do weekly, and your sets aren't
15:23actually effective: you're resting too
15:25little and starting the next one still
15:27feeling the cardiorespiratory demands
15:28of the previous one; you're staying far
15:30from failure, you have a frequency of
15:31one per week, and therefore, you spend
15:33more time without a protein synthesis
15:35stimulus. Look at all the variables
15:38we're ignoring while we focus on the
15:39question that also starts with an S,
15:41like what I meant in the question of
15:43how many sets, right? Give me, give me
15:45an arbitrary number, start with the
15:48minimum and focus on quality sets,
15:50because this is like telling me how
15:52many penalties I have to take to
15:54improve my free kick. Well, all you
15:57want, but you won't improve a single
15:58one. You have to do quality sets,
16:00intense sets. Okay, fine, sorry for
16:02scolding, it's more important that I
16:05tell you what to correct. What do you
16:07have to correct? What do you have to
16:08evaluate in your set? You have to
16:10evaluate the repetition range between 5
16:12and 12. That's it. If you want to go up
16:15to 15 because you're learning, because
16:16it's a specific muscle group, fine,
16:17whatever you want. Between 6 and 12 so
16:19that you ensure, for sure, fewer
16:22cardiorespiratory demands, less
16:24muscular pain, and so on. Look for
16:27stable exercises. If it's a good
16:29machine, great. If it's a free weight,
16:31great. If it's a free-weight exercise,
16:33make it as stable as possible, don't go
16:35doing jumping jacks on a Bosu ball, as
16:37the "gym know-it-all" would say. And
16:40try, no, ensure, don't just try, make
16:42sure you rest at least 2 minutes before
16:44that set to, once again, reduce the
16:47cardiorespiratory demands of the
16:49exercise. If you do that, approach
16:51failure, record yourself from the
16:53outside, review it, write down what
16:54you've done, and try to improve week by
16:56week, you'll see for yourself how many
16:58sets you can tolerate. And hey, if
17:00you're a prodigy and reach 20, as
17:02science says, then go for 20 at full
17:04intensity. But it is much more
17:06important what those sets are like,
17:08your frequency, that you are in an
17:09appropriate repetition range, that you
17:11have a correct exercise selection, and
17:13that you get enough rest. And the last
17:16point, this one that is censored here,
17:18is the point, let's see how I put it:
17:20it's not about them monetizing the
17:22video, because I don't care about
17:23demonetization in this case, but
17:25because I don't want the video to
17:27potentially get censored because of it
17:29or reach fewer people. And it is the
17:32topic of PEDS, do you know what I mean?
17:35No, PEDS. And it ends in S. This type
17:38of substance is becoming very trendy on
17:41the internet because they seemingly
17:43promise, as always, this is the same
17:45old thing, they seemingly promise
17:48muscle mass gain or fat loss,
17:50definition, and since they don't sound
17:52as bad as other steroids, well,
17:55apparently there are people on the
17:58black market looking to see which is
18:00the right PED to define or gain muscle
18:02mass or who knows what else they want
18:05to do. First of all, I have informed
18:07myself zero about it. I have no idea,
18:10they don't interest me. If I have put
18:12it here in this video, it is because
18:14many people have asked me about it. And
18:16let me tell you something, they are
18:18obviously new substances, they are mm,
18:22well, they are that, new substances
18:24that are currently entering the market,
18:26you don't know where they come from,
18:27you don't know the quality of them, and
18:29above all, we don't know their
18:31long-term effect. Honestly, we don't
18:34know. And therefore I think that
18:37anything, generally in the human body,
18:40when you speed up and change anything,
18:43it always has a contrary effect. We
18:47always see it, obviously, when you
18:48include testosterone in a person, it
18:50speeds up certain things, allows,
18:51favors certain things, and at the same
18:53time it also always has a contrary
18:54effect. The body is a machine of
18:57balance, and anything that tries to
18:59skip this type of regulation and
19:01balance usually ends very badly. It is
19:05something I will never recommend to you
19:07, because also, when there is this
19:08debate always about natural
19:10bodybuilding, about bodybuilding with
19:11substances, about who is juiced, and I
19:13don't know what, what you don't
19:15understand is that the key to natural
19:16bodybuilding is not to go compete and
19:18not test positive on a polygraph and
19:20pass a drug test. It's an idea of, it's
19:22an approach to how to see this. I mean,
19:25honestly, a natural bodybuilder, except
19:26for the occasional fool—because
19:28there’s always someone foolish every
19:29single day—a natural bodybuilder
19:31doesn’t consider deceiving anyone.
19:33It’s their approach; their way of
19:34viewing bodybuilding is just this.
19:36It’s worked for them, they’ve been
19:37at it for years, they love training,
19:39nutrition, and biomechanics. It’s a
19:40slow process, but they enjoy it, and
19:42that’s their focus. But when we get
19:45into these kinds of shortcuts or tricks
19:47, it puts you in a mindset that isn't
19:49right and won't help you progress. But
19:51I’ll tell you something else. Let’s
19:54imagine that the technology for these
19:57kinds of substances advances
19:59significantly, and in two years, we
20:02have a substance or molecule of this
20:04style that lets you gain muscle mass or
20:07lose fat without any side effects.
20:11Let’s imagine that happens; at that
20:13moment, when that comes to be, your
20:15muscle mass and definition will no
20:17longer have any value compared to
20:20others. It will no longer have value;
20:22it won't be something you truly want
20:23because it will become the average and
20:25the new normal. In other words,
20:28ironically, what you have to understand
20:30is that everything you’re finding
20:32difficult right now—gaining muscle
20:34mass, losing fat, the patience, the
20:35uncertainty, people driving you crazy
20:38on social media (which I know is very
20:40hard)—all this friction you’re
20:41feeling is what makes so few people
20:43have a great physique. And that’s why
20:47it has merit, and that’s why you want
20:49it, and that’s why you have to suffer
20:51, fight, and overcome that friction.
20:55The moment a substance arrives that
20:57truly multiplies muscle gain or
20:59multiplies fat loss without side
21:01effects, the physique you achieve with
21:04that substance will lose its value. It
21:07will have value for you. If it’s for
21:08health reasons, well hey, that’s fine
21:10, you want to lose fat or gain muscle,
21:12but it will lose its status; it will
21:13become the norm, the average. So
21:16instead of chasing tricks, think:
21:18it’s because there are no tricks and
21:20because this is so hard, that I want to
21:22achieve it. It has merit and it’s
21:25valid, and because that friction exists
21:27, it’s something that truly has value
21:30and from which I can really learn, grow
21:32, and above all, it makes you better in
21:35other areas of your day-to-day life.
21:38The day that losing fat and getting abs
21:40and having a great physique is just a
21:43matter of taking a pill, well that day,
21:45unfortunately, we will lose all the
21:47lessons that this sport and this
21:49discipline give you, which is so slow,
21:52but at the same time teaches you so
21:54much for the rest of the areas of your
21:57life. And well, that's it for the video
21:59. I want to tell you that I have
22:01included three resources that you can
22:02access. Three resources that are very
22:04interesting precisely for this type of
22:06person who already trains, who already
22:08has a certain level, but who says: "
22:09Damn, Angel, for the time I've been at
22:11it, for the videos of yours that I
22:13watch, for having sat through this
22:14video of yours, it’s over 20 minutes,
22:16my physique is still not at the top, at
22:18the point I would like it to be." I
22:20have created these types of resources
22:22where you can first see if a cutting or
22:24bulking phase would be the best option
22:26for you, if your exercise selection
22:28could be improved, and also identify
22:30what might be failing in your case to
22:32make the jump to the next level. So I
22:34will leave those resources in the
22:36description and that is all for the
22:37video. As always, leave any questions
22:39in the comments and leave a like. See
22:41you in the next one. Best regards.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Me equivoqué con la proteína by angel7real | Fitness y rendimiento, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 4,346 words across 646 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.