Nubret's Routine for a Natural Athlete

[quote]craze9 wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:
The intensity and effort put into a set is what matters, NOT even the rep number, depth or how often you lock out.
[/quote]

This took me SO long to figure out. I remember being young and reading the elitefts logs and wondering why everyone was “training wrong” because they weren’t using the “strength rep range” for all their movements.
[/quote]

Haha I remember when I was young, one of the big guys I trained with would yell, “(loosely translated) Don’t count the reps! I will count for you! Just empty your fucking tank!” when we were doing squats or deadlifts for reps.[/quote]

That is pretty awesome.[/quote]

Yeah. Those were the days lol. I find it funny that the internet has caused some sort of culture change nowadays where young beginners have the idea that there’s some kind of exclusive “big boys club” at the gym consisting of genetically superior bros who didn’t have to work hard for their gains because they’re not doing the latest scientifically proven program, which, of course, automatically makes these guys arrogant douches who got big in spite of what they’re doing. Seriously, I now train in a really small gym with lots of big, older guys. Since it’s so small, I frequently overhear this nonsense in different variations from self proclaimed ectomorphs.

Well, one awesome thing with this routine is that you don’t have time to socialize. You’re moving from one set to the next. The arm routine, in particular, is crazy, it’s zero rest.

[quote]Yogi wrote:

There’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the whole TUT thing anyway, which is that TUT is cumulative, so if your reps are continuous or if you rest, as long as the TUT is the same it doesn’t matter.

[/quote]

What are you trying to say here?

[quote]knokkelezoute73 wrote:
Well, one awesome thing with this routine is that you don’t have time to socialize. You’re moving from one set to the next. The arm routine, in particular, is crazy, it’s zero rest.[/quote]

Yeah, I’ve noticed people who look the same month after month lack focus at the task at hand. So if this program helps to keep you in that groove, then it’s a nice bonus.

[quote]dt79 wrote:

[quote]craze9 wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:
The intensity and effort put into a set is what matters, NOT even the rep number, depth or how often you lock out.
[/quote]

This took me SO long to figure out. I remember being young and reading the elitefts logs and wondering why everyone was “training wrong” because they weren’t using the “strength rep range” for all their movements.
[/quote]

Haha I remember when I was young, one of the big guys I trained with would yell, “(loosely translated) Don’t count the reps! I will count for you! Just empty your fucking tank!” when we were doing squats or deadlifts for reps.[/quote]

That is pretty awesome.[/quote]

Yeah. Those were the days lol. I find it funny that the internet has caused some sort of culture change nowadays where young beginners have the idea that there’s some kind of exclusive “big boys club” at the gym consisting of genetically superior bros who didn’t have to work hard for their gains because they’re not doing the latest scientifically proven program, which, of course, automatically makes these guys arrogant douches who got big in spite of what they’re doing. Seriously, I now train in a really small gym with lots of big, older guys. Since it’s so small, I frequently overhear this nonsense in different variations from self proclaimed ectomorphs.[/quote]

Not just the “oh they have good genetics” claim, but the “they’re taking steroids” so that’s why they’re big is a bit more common where I train. Which is true in some cases. There are those who need gear in order to maintain that 150lb physique (you know who). And those who train hard, eat right, and look awesome both naturally or assisted. I train in a commercial gym so I see it from every different possibility.

But your right, there is something going on that the internet may be somewhat responsible. Youtube especially. It seems like there’s almost too much info out there that’s so easily available. Causes confusion and misinterpretation for those not experienced or educated in the matters.

The majority of beginners I know, always seem to start with some mundane bodybuilding split pulled out of some bro’s ass who looks half decent and will more than likely not stress training legs.

[quote]Steez wrote:
Not just the “oh they have good genetics” claim, but the “they’re taking steroids” so that’s why they’re big is a bit more common where I train. Which is true in some cases. There are those who need gear in order to maintain that 150lb physique (you know who). And those who train hard, eat right, and look awesome both naturally or assisted. I train in a commercial gym so I see it from every different possibility.

But your right, there is something going on that the internet may be somewhat responsible. Youtube especially. It seems like there’s almost too much info out there that’s so easily available. Causes confusion and misinterpretation for those not experienced or educated in the matters.

The majority of beginners I know, always seem to start with some mundane bodybuilding split pulled out of some bro’s ass who looks half decent and will more than likely not stress training legs.
[/quote]

Beginners go on beginner forums to talk with other beginners about how to not be beginners. It’s madness really. They tend to all adopt one or two “beginner routines” that are party approved and anything else is stupid/won’t work/overtraining/etc etc. And if someone SUCCEEDS with the non-party approved routines, it’s because they’re genetically blessed and on steroids, and if someone FAILS with the party approved routines, it’s because they screwed up the program or didn’t try hard enough.

All that tends to matter in these communities is agreement, not results.

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
All that tends to matter in these communities is agreement, not results.
[/quote]

If you observe some interactions among certain posters (not all), there’s an unspoken quid pro quo.

When one of their forum buddies gets into a heated debate, they’ll be more than happy to pile on and, high on coward’s courage, out scream any dissenting voice. Nevermind that dissenting voice actually may have a valid point or two. And when it’s their turn to try and act like some forum alpha, they know their buddies will be right there to back them up.

It’s less about discovery with these losers than it is about forming alliances and logging into the forums knowing that they can spew whatever they want with little or no accountability.

Of course, not every poster in this site fits the above description. But there’s plenty and I, for one, don’t lose any sleep calling bullshit on them.

[quote]dt79 wrote:

[quote]craze9 wrote:
That is pretty awesome.[/quote]

Yeah. Those were the days lol. I find it funny that the internet has caused some sort of culture change nowadays where young beginners have the idea that there’s some kind of exclusive “big boys club” at the gym consisting of genetically superior bros who didn’t have to work hard for their gains because they’re not doing the latest scientifically proven program, which, of course, automatically makes these guys arrogant douches who got big in spite of what they’re doing. Seriously, I now train in a really small gym with lots of big, older guys. Since it’s so small, I frequently overhear this nonsense in different variations from self proclaimed ectomorphs.[/quote]

This is definitely a phenomenon, and is definitely silly to a LARGE degree, but I will say… as someone who started lifting as the internet-program was coming into vogue, I understand what goes into it. Honestly I feel it myself sometimes – the “sour grapes” of thinking another guy got big via drugs or genetics rather than hard work or smart training.

I mean, if I go to the “hardcore” gym near me, there are a bunch of big guys clearly on steroids, but they are moving SERIOUS WEIGHT and TRAINING HARD. Some are competitive lifters, others not, but they all have my respect.

If I’m in a commercial gym however and I see a big dude hanging out on the leg extension machine, who squats and deadlifts less than me while weighing 50+ lbs more-- sometimes even bench less than me, amazingly enough – then sorry I don’t have respect. In those cases I have to conclude their muscle mass is primarily a product of either gear or genetics. There was a guy like this at my gym today – impressive physique, I was jealous, but based on his lifting I would have to bet on steroids, and then obviously the physique becomes less impressive, relatively-speaking.

There is another bodybuilder at my gym (who I like, and am friendly with), I assume he’s natural, and he’s carrying quite a lot of muscle mass, but is really quite weak on the big lifts. Like, he benches 260 or something while weighing 215. I’m honestly curious how this happens. He says he trained using primarily dumbbells at first so is relatively new to the bench press, but still. How’d he build all that muscle at such a relatively low strength level if not for a pretty significant genetic propensity toward muscle gain?

So I guess what I’m saying is that drugs and genetics CAN be big factors (obviously). And yes, everyone has to go to the gym and lift weights to build muscle, so everyone carrying a significant amount of muscle did WORK at it to some degree, but does that mean that every big guy deserves respect for his training knowledge or work ethic? Do the Jersey Shore guys? Or a traditional “meathead” who jumped on gear in high school? Food for thought :slight_smile:

[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:

[quote]Yogi wrote:

There’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the whole TUT thing anyway, which is that TUT is cumulative, so if your reps are continuous or if you rest, as long as the TUT is the same it doesn’t matter.

[/quote]

What are you trying to say here? [/quote]

in terms of TUT, it doesn’t matter if the reps are continuous or if you pause for breath between them, so long as the actual time spent lifting is the same

[quote]craze9 wrote:

This is definitely a phenomenon, and is definitely silly to a LARGE degree, but I will say… as someone who started lifting as the internet-program was coming into vogue, I understand what goes into it. Honestly I feel it myself sometimes – the “sour grapes” of thinking another guy got big via drugs or genetics rather than hard work or smart training.

I mean, if I go to the “hardcore” gym near me, there are a bunch of big guys clearly on steroids, but they are moving SERIOUS WEIGHT and TRAINING HARD. Some are competitive lifters, others not, but they all have my respect.

If I’m in a commercial gym however and I see a big dude hanging out on the leg extension machine, who squats and deadlifts less than me while weighing 50+ lbs more-- sometimes even bench less than me, amazingly enough – then sorry I don’t have respect. In those cases I have to conclude their muscle mass is primarily a product of either gear or genetics. There was a guy like this at my gym today – impressive physique, I was jealous, but based on his lifting I would have to bet on steroids, and then obviously the physique becomes less impressive, relatively-speaking.

There is another bodybuilder at my gym (who I like, and am friendly with), I assume he’s natural, and he’s carrying quite a lot of muscle mass, but is really quite weak on the big lifts. Like, he benches 260 or something while weighing 215. I’m honestly curious how this happens. He says he trained using primarily dumbbells at first so is relatively new to the bench press, but still. How’d he build all that muscle at such a relatively low strength level if not for a pretty significant genetic propensity toward muscle gain?

[/quote]

Obviously some guys can just move furniture and do some push ups and have physiques the average gym rat can only dream of.

But there are other factors that can explain what you’ve observed.

Maybe the first guy in your example was doing pre-exhaust. Did you observe his entire workout? Have you seen him train on more than one occasion? I’ve learned to refrain from judging anyone at the gym from just a snapshot (unless the guy is doing something blatantly stupid).

I belong to national chain and one of the perks is I can go to numerous locations. At one gym, I saw a SCARY big guy (it’s not often I stop in my tracks and mutter “holy fucking shit”). He was just repping out: tricep pushdowns, concentration curls, etc. using high reps and light weight (which does have their place). It was obvious to any non-neophyte he was having a volume/pump session. Sure enough, the next time I saw him, he was moving serious poundage.

Also, many bodybuilders (the more mature ones in my observation) really don’t give a rat’s ass about weight. Their MMC and ability to contract the targeted muscle is so much better than the average gym rat that they can get more outta less - with the added bonus of sparing their joints, tendons, ligaments.

Some people just have a faster twitch makeup. Conversely, some have a slower twitch make up and learned, by trial and error, that lighter weight with good form/mmc gives them a better response for hypertrophy.

And then there’s things like recruitment. Some people not only have more fast twitch fibers, they can also recruit those fibers more efficiently. I’m not going to write a paper on maximum recruitment work but suffice it to say, it is trainable to a degree. Some bodybuilders, interested primarily in how they look, don’t lift this way and they certainly don’t do any other exercises that can increase recruitment abilities.

Let’s not forget technique. Moving big weight requires perfect or near perfect practice. And there’s a certain ‘smoke and mirrors’ going on. I’ll explain that part. A powerlifting squat (wide stance/low bar) can be dramatically different than a bodybuilding squat. Same with the bench (wide grip/back arched to place the torso in a slight decline position and bring the chest closer to the bar). I’m not by any means saying a guy with a 600+ pound powerlifting squat is weak but the technique he used to get that lift used a different method compared to a bodybuilder trying to maximize hypertrophy. Same with a guy whose goal is to bench a 1-rep max vs a guy who wants to isolate his pecs.

You said yourself the bodybuilder you’re friendly with cut his teeth on dumbbell work. Maybe he just hasn’t learned to barbell bench for maximum weight. Maybe he doesn’t know how or purposely is NOT using things like leg drive/arched back/engaging lats/gripping the fuck outta the bar (or any other cues top benchers use). Maybe, as long as he’s staying healthy and getting the proper workload and stimulating the targeted muscles for his respective goal, having 4 plates and change on the bar isn’t a priority for him.

I know what you’re saying though. People with superior genetics absolutely have an advantage and they simply don’t have to work as hard. I’ve made my peace with it, which is why I treat this as not just a physical endeavor but also an intellectual one. Now that my Coach (who still knows more about injury prevention than anyone I’ve met) has amicably kicked me out of the nest, I’ve been creating and experimenting with my own programs and I love the challenge.

[quote]Yogi wrote:

[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:

[quote]Yogi wrote:

There’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the whole TUT thing anyway, which is that TUT is cumulative, so if your reps are continuous or if you rest, as long as the TUT is the same it doesn’t matter.

[/quote]

What are you trying to say here? [/quote]

in terms of TUT, it doesn’t matter if the reps are continuous or if you pause for breath between them, so long as the actual time spent lifting is the same[/quote]

hmmmm. That “pause for breath” clears it up. The original statement really made little sense.

[quote]craze9 wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:

[quote]craze9 wrote:
That is pretty awesome.[/quote]

Yeah. Those were the days lol. I find it funny that the internet has caused some sort of culture change nowadays where young beginners have the idea that there’s some kind of exclusive “big boys club” at the gym consisting of genetically superior bros who didn’t have to work hard for their gains because they’re not doing the latest scientifically proven program, which, of course, automatically makes these guys arrogant douches who got big in spite of what they’re doing. Seriously, I now train in a really small gym with lots of big, older guys. Since it’s so small, I frequently overhear this nonsense in different variations from self proclaimed ectomorphs.[/quote]

This is definitely a phenomenon, and is definitely silly to a LARGE degree, but I will say… as someone who started lifting as the internet-program was coming into vogue, I understand what goes into it. Honestly I feel it myself sometimes – the “sour grapes” of thinking another guy got big via drugs or genetics rather than hard work or smart training.

I mean, if I go to the “hardcore” gym near me, there are a bunch of big guys clearly on steroids, but they are moving SERIOUS WEIGHT and TRAINING HARD. Some are competitive lifters, others not, but they all have my respect.

If I’m in a commercial gym however and I see a big dude hanging out on the leg extension machine, who squats and deadlifts less than me while weighing 50+ lbs more-- sometimes even bench less than me, amazingly enough – then sorry I don’t have respect. In those cases I have to conclude their muscle mass is primarily a product of either gear or genetics. There was a guy like this at my gym today – impressive physique, I was jealous, but based on his lifting I would have to bet on steroids, and then obviously the physique becomes less impressive, relatively-speaking.

There is another bodybuilder at my gym (who I like, and am friendly with), I assume he’s natural, and he’s carrying quite a lot of muscle mass, but is really quite weak on the big lifts. Like, he benches 260 or something while weighing 215. I’m honestly curious how this happens. He says he trained using primarily dumbbells at first so is relatively new to the bench press, but still. How’d he build all that muscle at such a relatively low strength level if not for a pretty significant genetic propensity toward muscle gain?

So I guess what I’m saying is that drugs and genetics CAN be big factors (obviously). And yes, everyone has to go to the gym and lift weights to build muscle, so everyone carrying a significant amount of muscle did WORK at it to some degree, but does that mean that every big guy deserves respect for his training knowledge or work ethic? Do the Jersey Shore guys? Or a traditional “meathead” who jumped on gear in high school? Food for thought :slight_smile:
[/quote]

I understand. Here’s my point. There are numeous “long term” beginners(150lbs going on 2 years) I have observed doing funky stuff based on what they’ve read on the internet. They would be better served asking someone far more accomplished right beside them in real life rather than following the latest “science” and methods preached by supposed internet experts claiming every other way of training is unscientific and only applicable to those who have superior genetics or on drugs. The current internet culture only perpetuates this belief.

I mean, seriously, look at all the stuff that “experts” have been regurgitating for years that are currently being disproven. Testosterone and gh spikes after squats eliciting more growth, sarcoplasmic hypertrophy independantly occuring, rep range vs fiber type activation etc…

[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:

[quote]Yogi wrote:

[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:

[quote]Yogi wrote:

There’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the whole TUT thing anyway, which is that TUT is cumulative, so if your reps are continuous or if you rest, as long as the TUT is the same it doesn’t matter.

[/quote]

What are you trying to say here? [/quote]

in terms of TUT, it doesn’t matter if the reps are continuous or if you pause for breath between them, so long as the actual time spent lifting is the same[/quote]

hmmmm. That “pause for breath” clears it up. The original statement really made little sense. [/quote]
Only I wasn’t referring to TUT. At all. So now that Yogi has successfully won an argument that wasn’t being argued (congrats, Yogi), and we can put that poor, battered strawman out of his misery; maybe we can discuss the idea that I was really referring to. It was very popular during the Golden Era, and has stood the test of time (I got a chuckle out of it being referred to as this “new” concept everyone was swinging around): constant tension and it’s effects on strength and muscle mass.

[quote]  …muscle is kept at maximum tension throughout the duration of the exercise. You can’t allow the muscle to relax for even a fraction of a second during the rep: the moment the muscle is allowed to relax, the set loses its efficacy…

Although the light weights don’t cause much in the way of muscle trauma, studies have shown that this type of training is very effective for building both strength and size…

…Constant muscle tension closes off the blood vessels leading to the muscles, temporarily depriving the muscles of oxygen throughout the duration of the exercise. This stimulates an increase of lactate production, as well as hGH and IGF-1, two anabolic hormones. Studies also indicate that stimulating a muscle in a hypoxic (oxygen-deprived) state cranks up fast-twitch fiber activation, probably because the aerobic pathway, on which slow-twitch fibers depend, has been temporarily shut down…

…I can’t emphasize enough that the target muscle must never be allowed to relax during the set. If you allow the muscle to relax, even for a moment, oxygen will enter the muscle and you’ll be wasting your time. So just grit your teeth and keep that muscle flexed, with no pause between reps… [/quote]

http://www.T-Nation.com/article/bodybuilding/3_ways_to_grow_more_muscle&cr=

Thibs combines this method with two other methods in this article, but the idea of not locking out or otherwise taking tension off the muscle is the same as it has been.

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:

[quote]Yogi wrote:

[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:

[quote]Yogi wrote:

There’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the whole TUT thing anyway, which is that TUT is cumulative, so if your reps are continuous or if you rest, as long as the TUT is the same it doesn’t matter.

[/quote]

What are you trying to say here? [/quote]

in terms of TUT, it doesn’t matter if the reps are continuous or if you pause for breath between them, so long as the actual time spent lifting is the same[/quote]

hmmmm. That “pause for breath” clears it up. The original statement really made little sense. [/quote]
Only I wasn’t referring to TUT. At all. So now that Yogi has successfully won an argument that wasn’t being argued (congrats, Yogi), and we can put that poor, battered strawman out of his misery; maybe we can discuss the idea that I was really referring to. It was very popular during the Golden Era, and has stood the test of time (I got a chuckle out of it being referred to as this “new” concept everyone was swinging around): constant tension and it’s effects on strength and muscle mass. [/quote]

Oh, but Yogi wasn’t replying to you, nor was he disputing anything you wrote. He was directly replying to me. Your reading comprehension seems to be just as bad as the advice you give out.

Second, I wrote of a pendulum shift, which implies people adopting extremes in their thinking. Hopefully you don’t have trouble comprehending this because I really cannot be bothered to explain. Nowhere did I state “constant tension” was a new concept. So once again, if you decide to make things up like you normally do, quote the post along with it.

[quote] Ã??Ã? …muscle is kept at maximum tension throughout the duration of the exercise. You can’t allow the muscle to relax for even a fraction of a second during the rep: the moment the muscle is allowed to relax, the set loses its efficacy…

Although the light weights don’t cause much in the way of muscle trauma, studies have shown that this type of training is very effective for building both strength and size…

…Constant muscle tension closes off the blood vessels leading to the muscles, temporarily depriving the muscles of oxygen throughout the duration of the exercise. This stimulates an increase of lactate production, as well as hGH and IGF-1, two anabolic hormones. Studies also indicate that stimulating a muscle in a hypoxic (oxygen-deprived) state cranks up fast-twitch fiber activation, probably because the aerobic pathway, on which slow-twitch fibers depend, has been temporarily shut down…

…I can’t emphasize enough that the target muscle mustÃ??Ã? never be allowed to relaxÃ??Ã? during the set. If you allow the muscle to relax, even for a moment, oxygen will enter the muscle and you’ll be wasting your time. So just grit your teeth and keep that muscle flexed, with no pause between reps…

http://www.T-Nation.com/article/bodybuilding/3_ways_to_grow_more_muscle&cr=

Thibs combines this method with two other methods in this article, but the idea of not locking out or otherwise taking tension off the muscle is the same as it has been.
[/quote]

I wonder who claimed this does not work. Good God, I was doing this nearly 20 years ago. But seriously, I’m not feeling like going back into Jay’s Silly Little World. Go to Thib’s forum and ask him if he will write an ENTIRE PROGRAM NOW which has you doing ALL your exercises, including squats alone, using the method described. Really, go ask him yourself.

[quote]dt79 wrote:
this new “constant tension” catchphrase is getting out of hand.[/quote]
You didn’t say the constant tension catchphrase was new? That phrase has been used in bodybuilding for at least six decades.

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:
this new “constant tension” catchphrase is getting out of hand.[/quote]
You didn’t say the constant tension catchphrase was new? That phrase has been used in bodybuilding for at least six decades. [/quote]

I said it’s BECOME A CATCHPHRASE because it has previously existed as one out of many descriptory terms to describe keeping tension on the muscle. Did Serge Nubret call his program Constant Tension Training?

You weren’t talking about TUT, either. You were talking about this “new” constant tension catchphrase.

[quote]dt79 wrote:
Go to Thib’s forum and ask him if he will write an ENTIRE PROGRAM NOW which has you doing ALL your exercises, including squats alone, using the method described. Really, go ask him yourself.[/quote]
Why would I do that? I wouldn’t write a program like that. I don’t train that way.

You’re really bad at this strawman thing. My seven year old has better reading comprehension than you do, as well. I won’t bother to respond to you anymore, because as the saying goes: “never argue with an idiot. They’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” If I were Yogi, I’d take it as an insult that you felt compelled to jump in and argue on my behalf. If you think you’re smarter than he is, you must think he’s a complete imbecile.

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

You weren’t talking about TUT, either. You were talking about this “new” constant tension catchphrase.
[/quote]

Seriously, why are you arguing for the sake of arguing?

I’m getting bored with this. Here’s a video some might enjoy. Especially Craze09. I’m sorry, I just need some people to share my misery…

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:
Go to Thib’s forum and ask him if he will write an ENTIRE PROGRAM NOW which has you doing ALL your exercises, including squats alone, using the method described. Really, go ask him yourself.[/quote]
Why would I do that? I wouldn’t write a program like that. I don’t train that way.

You’re really bad at this strawman thing. My seven year old has better reading comprehension than you do, as well. I won’t bother to respond to you anymore, because as the saying goes: “never argue with an idiot. They’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” If I were Yogi, I’d take it as an insult that you felt compelled to jump in and argue on my behalf. If you think you’re smarter than he is, you must think he’s a complete imbecile. [/quote]

You claim a non-existant attempt at building a strawman while building one yourself? Lol. And come on, that’s like something a teenaged girl would write to make another breakup with her BFF.

Yogi is my friend. And he says he’s busy with his career as of late, which is an excellent thing that I’m happy about, hence I wouldn’t expect him to have the time to reply till several hours later. So I replied on his behalf. If you can infer any other intentions from this, then I’m sorry to say that you think like a bitch.