YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Por qué los mejores naturales no entrenan como te han contado

Por qué los mejores naturales no entrenan como te han contado — Transcript

by angel7real | Fitness y rendimiento · 3,118 words · 473 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00To get as jacked as possible in the gym
0:02and achieve an advanced physique, what
0:04is more reliable? Science or experience
0:07? In this video, we'll go over all the
0:09keys regarding exercises, exercise
0:11selection, repetitions, rest times, RIR
0:13, and number of sets so you can learn
0:16how to improve any routine and take
0:18your physique to the next level. And
0:20above all, you will understand the full
0:22context: what physiological mechanisms
0:24say, what hypertrophy evidence says,
0:25and what we see in the best natural
0:27bodybuilders in the world. Are the
0:29world's best natural bodybuilders those
0:31who follow the evidence? Or are the
0:33world's best natural bodybuilders those
0:36who have their own method, or is it
0:38simply a genetic factor? Right, let's
0:40first look at exercise selection,
0:41because there is something very clear
0:43here. If I ask, does exercise selection
0:45matter? If you want to develop the
0:48lateral deltoid, does it matter if you
0:49do a cable lateral raise or a dumbbell
0:51one? Does it matter if you do a barbell
0:54row or a cable row? Does it matter if
0:56you do a free squat or a pendulum squat
0:58to work your quads? Surely you'll tell
1:00me, "Yes, it does matter, Angel, it's
1:02obvious, I've noticed it.""My quads
1:04grew more with the pendulum squat, my,
1:06I don't know, lateral deltoid portion
1:08grew more with cable laterals, and with
1:10dumbbells, I only felt my traps." Well,
1:14hypertrophy evidence tells us—it
1:15tells us there are no differences—
1:17that if we compare a lateral raise with
1:19dumbbells or cables, the deltoid grows
1:21the same. It tells us that—gosh—it
1:25tells us that if we compare a squat and
1:27a leg press, the quads grow the same.
1:30And when we look at the mechanisms,
1:33this cannot be true. What do I mean by
1:35this? We must always understand that
1:38our body is an efficient machine; it
1:40recruits those fibers, it recruits
1:42those muscle regions that have better
1:44mechanical advantage, that are most
1:46capable for the task. This implies that
1:49the demands of a free squat and a
1:52pendulum squat cannot possibly be the
1:55same. At a regional level, there will
1:57be differences. It is impossible for it
1:59to work exactly the same musculature.
2:01And in some studies, it does seem that
2:03differences at a regional level can be
2:05appreciated, right? From a squat, it
2:07seems to work the distal portion or the
2:09proximal portion more. It seems that
2:12that difference is slightly visible,
2:13but in the large bodies of evidence,
2:15there is no such differentiation at the
2:17hypertrophy level. Just imagine, you've
2:20been training for 8 weeks in a study,
2:22you have a couple of groups, a control
2:24group, a group doing another type of
2:26variable, and the time comes to check
2:28how much the muscle has grown. And damn
2:30, for a moment it seems simple, measure
2:32before, measure after, and compare, but
2:34depending on the tool used in the study
2:36, it already makes a difference. And
2:39then we throw all this into a mix of
2:40meta-analyses of studies and think that
2:42every study is measuring the same thing
2:43, and that's not the case. Ultrasound
2:47uses sound waves to observe the muscle,
2:49but the problem starts when you try to
2:51repeat that exact same image. If you
2:53press the probe the wrong way, the
2:55tissue gets compressed. If you change
2:57the angle, the body position, or the
2:59measurement point, it alters the result
3:01. Even if you do everything right, the
3:04thickness of one area might not
3:05represent the growth of the entire
3:07muscle. In fact, there is a study that
3:11was done in 2020/2026. This study
3:14showed that thickness changes via
3:16ultrasound poorly reflected the growth
3:18measured when done using an MRI. That
3:21is to say, it is a warning of the
3:23limitations we have. It doesn't mean
3:25it's an invalidation, but the
3:26limitation exists. Is there an amount
3:29of muscle mass that an intermediate
3:31person will gain in an average 6, 8, or
3:3210-week study? What will it be? We are
3:36essentially at the same level. It’s
3:38not that changes aren't happening; it's
3:40that we likely aren't able to perceive
3:42them with the hypertrophy measurement
3:43methods we have, but there’s more.
3:46Another of the most used methods, for
3:47example, is the DXA, which really tries
3:49to measure lean tissue, right? And not
3:51just an isolated muscle. But of course,
3:53this result includes water, it includes
3:55other tissues, it includes glycogen. We
3:58aren't even able to see if there is any
3:59intracellular edema. The measurement
4:01methods don't allow us to clarify this.
4:04In fact, there is a study that did try
4:05to measure the type of extracellular
4:07water that was being produced. It was
4:10seen that the difference between a
4:12group that did fewer sets and the group
4:13that did more sets was all inflammation
4:15, it was all extracellular water. And
4:17we are seeing only what was being
4:19produced outside the cell. Imagine
4:21inside, imagine lean tissue. We can't
4:24see it with current measurement methods
4:26; in current studies, with this type of
4:28duration, we aren't able to appreciate
4:31the difference. So, to recap, if we
4:34look at the physiological mechanisms,
4:36they tell us there will undoubtedly be
4:38differences in exercise selection, but
4:40if we go to hypertrophy evidence, we
4:43don't find that many differences. And
4:46if we look at the experience, the best
4:48advanced natural bodybuilders in the
4:50world definitely prioritize the best
4:52machines. And there is more and more
4:55demand for top machines, uh, pendulum
4:57squats. For example, 5 years ago
4:59pendulum squats didn't exist in gyms,
5:00and now you have them in almost all of
5:02them. And if with the quad extension,
5:04the backrest can be adjusted to achieve
5:06different regional hypertrophy in the
5:08vasti as well. And if I have a row, a
5:11perfect high row, super stable,
5:12unilateral, we are also seeing that
5:14without a doubt the best natural
5:16bodybuilders in the world use the best
5:18equipment available. They don't just do
5:21a barbell row and that's it. Saying
5:22this grows the whole back, that is
5:24physiologically impossible. Right, what
5:27happens with the repetition range? Once
5:29again, what does the hypertrophy
5:30evidence tell us here? We have, for
5:32example, a Brassfield review that tells
5:35us that from 5 to 30 repetitions or
5:37from 6 to 30, all rep ranges produce
5:39the same hypertrophy. I ask you, do you
5:43believe this? If I give you a routine
5:46tomorrow with 18 sets of legs at 30
5:48reps, you are going to grow the same.
5:50As if they were sets of 8 to 10 reps. I
5:54believe that any of you who have some
5:56experience knows that's not true. You
5:58know that a set is much more fatiguing,
6:00it's much harder. You'll surely reach
6:03muscle failure due to other types of
6:05limiting factors such as
6:06cardiorespiratory, coordinative
6:08elements, pain, sensations of muscle
6:11soreness, burning, and not so much
6:13because you're at a real limit. In fact
6:16, what does physiology tell us here?
6:19What do the mechanisms tell us here,
6:21how we activate our musculature? To
6:24initiate muscle contraction, to allow
6:26actin-myosin cross-bridges to form and
6:28remain attached, which is what
6:30generates mechanical tension, we use
6:32calcium ions that are released inside
6:34the cell and allow these heads to open
6:36and bind. Every time we do a repetition
6:40, we release these types of calcium
6:42ions that allow the aforementioned
6:44actin and myosin interaction. And these
6:48calcium ions remain inside the cell,
6:50they have to be recaptured, and with
6:53every repetition we do, this recapture
6:55by the sarcoplasmic reticulum becomes
6:57less efficient and starts to generate
7:00waste. Add to this that, logically,
7:04each repetition requires a signal at
7:06the motor cortex level that produces
7:09certain excitation, it adapts to it,
7:11and we also use all kinds of
7:13neurotransmitters in these repetitions,
7:15sets, and so on. Therefore, on a
7:19mechanistic level, physiology tells us
7:22that it is impossible, literally
7:24impossible, for a 30-rep set to be just
7:27as efficient or effective for
7:29hypertrophy as a set of 8, 10, or 12,
7:32because by its very nature, it
7:34generates more fatigue. Once again,
7:39this tells us, the physiological
7:42mechanisms tell us, that repetition
7:45ranges matter and that, generally, 5-6
7:49up to 10-12 is the best range. What do
7:52we see in the evidence? Well, as
7:54we’ve seen with Uncle Schoenfeld, it
7:55doesn't matter; you can do whatever you
7:57want, you can do whatever you want. You
8:00go to the gym and, according to the
8:03evidence, you do 15 sets of barbell
8:05rows for 30 reps, and with that, your
8:08lats, traps, lower back, and biceps
8:10will grow. And count half a set for the
8:14rear delts, too. What does experience
8:16say? We have, for example, a case
8:19report on natural bodybuilders that our
8:22friend, colleague, and neighbor at
8:24Ecodidacta did, where you can see that
8:27the rep range most used by advanced
8:29natural bodybuilders in pre-competition
8:32is six or five (I think it was, it
8:34doesn't matter), it's up to 10. At most
8:39. Advanced natural bodybuilders, for
8:43whatever reason, don't go beyond 10
8:45reps maximum. Right, let's move on now
8:48to intensity. And here you'll say, "Yes
8:50, yes, Ángel, this is truly the key."
8:53Logically, Mike Mentzer was right, he
8:55was ahead of his time, and I didn't
8:57start improving in the gym until I knew
8:59what intensity was, until I knew what
9:01it was to struggle through a set, and
9:03until I knew what it was to truly stay
9:05close to muscular failure. "Well, what
9:08does the evidence say? That it doesn't
9:11really matter much either; that if you
9:14do a set at RIR 3, for hypertrophy,
9:16it's fine, and maybe you have to do an
9:18extra one, but as long as you match the
9:20sets, as long as you match the training
9:22volume, you're only suffering because
9:24you enjoy the grind. It is not
9:26necessary to suffer. You can do 25 sets
9:29at RIR 3 and that's it, and you're
9:31going to grow the same or more than
9:34someone doing 15 or 10 sets at RIR 0-1.
9:39Because RIR is not important. Once
9:41again, we have tremendous chaos in the
9:44hypertrophy evidence due to everything
9:46mentioned: the measurement method,
9:48edema, confounding factors, and the
9:50fact that (and this is the nature of
9:52hypertrophy), if we have a group of
9:54intermediate athletes with an average
9:56study duration of 6 to 8 weeks, what
9:58kind of hypertrophy is going to happen
10:00in 6-8 weeks? It's almost imperceptible
10:04. And not only that, on top of that,
10:06there is real evidence of tremendous
10:08heterogeneity. For example, we hardly
10:09have any evidence on the back. The back
10:12is barely trained in studies, it is
10:14barely measured in studies. We only
10:16have a ton of evidence on the
10:18quadriceps, maybe the arm, the triceps,
10:20but little else. We don't have much
10:22evidence on the chest, we don't have
10:24much evidence on the back, and we just
10:25don't know. Even in certain studies,
10:28you are working only one muscle group,
10:30and that's how they do what they do in
10:32the study, with routines that have to
10:34be taken with a grain of salt, but that
10:36in the real world are unsustainable.
10:39Well, once again, regarding mechanisms,
10:42what does physiology tell us? RIR
10:45matters. Yes. The mechanisms tell us
10:48that the closer we are to failure, the
10:50slower the repetitions will be, and
10:53therefore, more time will be spent with
10:55actin and myosin joined, and more
10:57mechanical tension will be produced.
11:00Now, these physiological mechanisms
11:02also tell us that when we are closer to
11:04failure, we produce more fatigue.
11:06Therefore, hey, sometimes an RIR 1 set
11:09might make more sense than an RIR 0. An
11:12RIR 0 might make more sense than
11:15failure in certain exercises too. And
11:19what do we see in experience? Is it
11:22that most bodybuilders, bodybuilder
11:23athletes, athletes—we aren't many, I
11:25can tell you that—but then you put
11:27them to play soccer and there's no
11:28cardio that can save them? But
11:32regarding experience, we see that most
11:33natural bodybuilders actually train
11:35very close to failure; you see them
11:37struggling through sets, you see them
11:38suffering, and you see them grinding
11:40out those last slow repetitions that,
11:41according to science, well, it wouldn't
11:43matter, it wouldn't matter, and you're
11:45just a bit of a masochist. So, well,
11:49experience tells us that the best
11:52natural bodybuilders in the world work
11:55at RIR 0-1. Right, and regarding
11:57frequency, a few years ago everyone
12:00would have agreed that for naturals,
12:03frequency is decisive. It is extremely
12:06important. And frequency one, those are
12:09things for enhanced guys. It is evident
12:12that for natural bodybuilders, the most
12:14important thing is frequency:
12:15upper-lower routines, push-pull-legs,
12:17fat-loss routines, full bodies, and so
12:19on. Well then, what does the evidence
12:22tell us? That it doesn't really matter.
12:25That it doesn't matter, that as long as
12:27you match the sets, it doesn't matter
12:29too much; it is the same to do nine
12:31sets on Monday as it is to do three on
12:33Monday, three on Wednesday, and three
12:34on Friday. There is the occasional
12:37study that finds some small difference
12:39when it is well designed, but the
12:41hypertrophy evidence once again, for
12:44everything mentioned, seems to find no
12:46difference regarding hypertrophy. What
12:49does physiology tell us? Physiology
12:51tells us, first of all, what we have
12:53mentioned: those first sets of the
12:55workout are not performed under fatigue
12:56, and therefore motor unit recruitment
12:58will not be affected, and theoretically
13:00, we are going to recruit
13:01higher-threshold motor units, which are
13:02potentially better for hypertrophy.
13:06This tells us that if we add more first
13:08sets throughout the week, it is going
13:10to be superior. Furthermore, there is
13:14another element that occurs at a
13:16physiological, mechanistic level, and
13:18that is that every time we initiate
13:20that hypertrophy process, that
13:21mechanical tension which is interpreted
13:23by the mechanoreceptors we have in our
13:25muscle cells or in our muscle—more or
13:27less (so no one tells me later that
13:29they aren't in the cells). That, once
13:33the hypertrophy process starts, the
13:35stimulus for myofibrillar protein
13:37synthesis lasts 24, 48, 72 hours, and
13:39then you pass into a process where even
13:41a certain regression, a certain muscle
13:43atrophy begins, which logically won't
13:45be large, but then again, the stimulus
13:47you provided isn't large either. This
13:52tells us: if we combine both mechanisms
13:53, well, hey, if throughout the week you
13:55provide another stimulus for protein
13:57synthesis and perform a few more
13:59quality sets, the physiology tells us
14:03that it is going to matter and that it
14:04is going to be superior, despite what
14:06the hypertrophy evidence says, right?
14:07What does the experience of the best
14:09natural bodybuilders in the world say?
14:11Frequency two. Almost everyone trains 5
14:14days, 4 to 5 days, and frequency two.
14:17That number two I just wrote is
14:18spectacular. That's a two, or a Z, or
14:20anything. This is what experience tells
14:23us. Let's move on now to the number of
14:26sets, which is perhaps the most
14:27controversial point. Although once you
14:30understand everything we have covered,
14:32you realize that talking about sets in
14:34this heterogeneity, in this chaos that
14:36is hypertrophy evidence, now you
14:38understand why it is so boring to talk
14:40about sets, because it makes no sense.
14:42But anyway, what does physiology tell
14:44us? What do the mechanisms tell us at
14:47the set level? They tell us that,
14:49clearly, sets will bring very
14:51diminishing returns and that, yes,
14:53those fibers, those muscle regions left
14:56to grow are those of a higher threshold
14:58; by their nature, these
15:00higher-threshold ones will fatigue
15:02sooner and only the first sets, only
15:04the highest quality stimuli in the
15:07session, will allow you to keep moving,
15:09to keep taking all this to the next
15:11level and that, therefore, once you are
15:14already in a state of fatigue, doing
15:17more sets does not have to be better
15:19and a point can be reached where this
15:22even brings a negative element. This is
15:24seen very clearly when we compare a
15:26speed athlete with an endurance athlete
15:28. A speed athlete who runs 100m in
15:30eight or I don't know how many, or in 9
15:32seconds. That speed athlete will never
15:35improve their speed if they do more 15-
15:37second, 20-second sprints, if they
15:38start running miles, if they start
15:40doing marathons, they will never
15:41improve their speed. Hypertrophy draws
15:44a bit from that. Hypertrophy in
15:46naturals is more similar to speed work.
15:50Now, that this has genetic components,
15:53that within all these variables if you
15:56can do an extra set, better. Sure,
16:00without a doubt. The evidence tells us
16:03that sets matter and that the more sets
16:05the better. But this will be highly
16:08conditioned by everything we have
16:09mentioned. What are your sets like?
16:10What kind of equipment do you have in
16:12your gym? What is your day-to-day life
16:13like, how do you rest? What is your
16:15level? Because once again, in general,
16:18quality is worth more than quantity.
16:21And even though hypertrophy evidence
16:24says up to 30, even in the latest
16:26meta-regressions, the reality is that
16:28the best natural bodybuilders in the
16:30world do between eight and 12 weekly
16:38sets. I repeat, weekly sets. This means
16:43that, for example, for biceps they
16:45might do two exercises on Monday, three
16:48sets of each, and two bicep exercises
16:50on Thursday, three sets each. So, that
16:52is the example of a real routine for a
16:55natural bodybuilder. It is not the 30
16:58sets that we sometimes see in
16:59hypertrophy evidence. As you can see,
17:02there are a lot of details and
17:03parameters to control, but above all, I
17:05hope this video gives you clarity, so
17:07you can say," Ah, okay, I had never
17:09seen the differences between physiology
17:10, evidence, and experience so clearly,
17:12"and that it helps you make decisions
17:14in your routine. If you want us to be
17:17the ones to make those decisions and
17:19tailor a routine 100%adapted to you and
17:21, no less importantly, with coaching;
17:23with a person who gives you that
17:24external objectivity, who also provides
17:26that accountability (because sometimes
17:28we do things and improve more when we
17:30are accountable to someone) and, in
17:32addition, a whole nutritional section
17:34that covers everything to take you to
17:36the next level, to take your physique
17:37to the next level. We currently have a
17:40few spots open for coaching, so I'll
17:42leave all the information in the
17:43description, and if you're not
17:44interested in coaching, well, hey,
17:46thank you so much for following me, for
17:48your support, and if you have any
17:49questions, leave me a comment as I’m
17:51usually very attentive. See you in the
17:53next video. Best regards.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Por qué los mejores naturales no entrenan como te han contado by angel7real | Fitness y rendimiento, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 3,118 words across 473 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.