Serge Nubret R.I.P

[Eismann77]

Your question is too confused, make it more undestandable.

Serge

hello serge

i wanted to know a kind of "guideline" what would be possible to reach for natural working athletes....(in generall, not individual,thats different from athlete to athlete)

more understandable: UNTIL which limit steroids are definately NOT necessary-in YOUR opinion-to have well relation between muscle and fat?

this is the reason I noun different weight/fat relations at a static body-length...

or better: would you think, that the formula: bodylength in cm (183cm) - 100 +10% would be realistic ore more/less

example: 183cm-100+10% (10% of bodylength)=91,3

i.e: an athlete who is 183cm is able to reach 91,3kg bodybeight at 10% bodyfat
without use of steroids....

is that in GENERAL possible? or even more? ore even less?

is this realistic to aim at?

i hope it is now more understandable, than other post

greetings...

[-theANIMAL-]

Do you train heavy ?.. Maybe that is the raison, I never trained very heavy in my life.

Serge

Dieser Satz gefällt mir überhaupt nicht, euch etwas??

[serge nubret]

sorry my fault, but i need your help!

you say its possible to benchpress 100kg when you put on 50kg and concentrate thinking its 100kg?

how can i take it over to my workout when i can benchpress a maximum of 150kg for 6 reps?
how does it work with your training you described before?

please give me your advice!
thanks serge!

It is the mind power, it took me years to reach this level. You have to study yourself, and train thinking about your body first and you will see that slowly the weight will not take a so important place in your training. Your mind into the weight stop you to put it in your body.

Serge

[serge nubret]

If I understood well, you say the following:

You put on 50kg (in the given example) for an exercise, which would be bench press in this case. Your real maximum might be 180 kg, but you actually use 50 kg. But in your mind, you are using 100 kg.

This means that you do the wourkout physically, but also mentally (in your mind). And the weight that you are using in you mind is more important then the weight you are using on the barbell.

In that case, I have one more question :
You said that you have to go to muscle failure for each set. How is this possible with this method ? Doesn't the weight have to be a strict one, that you try to increase from workout to workout ?

Thanks and best regards,
Der Baron

For example when you do a most muscular pose, what are you doing ?.. you supposing that you have some weight that you squize, right, dod you have any weight realy ?.. Evrything is in your mind, and a lot of people could even have their head turning around only by keeping this most muscular pose too mong. So it is the same principle.

Serge

[serge nubret]

hello serge

i wanted to know a kind of "guideline" what would be possible to reach for natural working athletes....(in generall, not individual,thats different from athlete to athlete)

more understandable: UNTIL which limit steroids are definately NOT necessary-in YOUR opinion-to have well relation between muscle and fat?

this is the reason I noun different weight/fat relations at a static body-length...

or better: would you think, that the formula: bodylength in cm (183cm) - 100 +10% would be realistic ore more/less

example: 183cm-100+10% (10% of bodylength)=91,3

i.e: an athlete who is 183cm is able to reach 91,3kg bodybeight at 10% bodyfat
without use of steroids....

is that in GENERAL possible? or even more? ore even less?

is this realistic to aim at?

i hope it is now more understandable, than other post

greetings...

Your question is too much scientific for me. I am a body builder who beleive more on his instinct or if you like on his SUBCONSCIENCE than in SCIENCE. But now they try to scientify to much bbing and does not beleive any more to themself. What a pitty.

Serge

[padreson]

I think it is not bad that today's bodybuilding is relying more and more on science, because the goal of everyone is to gain the most possible mass in the shortest time. So Science has shown, that it is not nessecary to go to muscle failure more than once on a particular excercice. Lets say, you to 2 to 3 warmup sets, not going to failure, and then the real heavy set, where you push your self to the limits. And now a simple example:

Everytime you train a certain muscle, you dig a hole into your limited recoveryabilty. To build muscle, the body has to fill that hole again with tissue that has been destroyed while training furthermore put another layer over it for more strength. But if you make like, 8 sets to failure per excercise, and 2x a week, you dig and dig and dig and the body will not be able to fill that hole, which causes desperation, dismotivation etc. because of no results. Simple principle or not?

Even Arnold nowerdays says "we didn't know about overtraining, but we were overtraining all the time"

[dr.Hasenbein]

Dieser Satz gefällt mir überhaupt nicht, euch etwas??

Den Gelenken gefällts mit 65 Jahren dann aber schon..., darum bin ich für's erste daran interessiert,

(was jetzt nich heissen muss, dass schwer= für jeden schlecht, aber man kann eher auf Nummer sicher gehen)


Meine Ansicht


Grz Hasenbein

[serge nubret]

I think it is not bad that today's bodybuilding is relying more and more on science, because the goal of everyone is to gain the most possible mass in the shortest time. So Science has shown, that it is not nessecary to go to muscle failure more than once on a particular excercice. Lets say, you to 2 to 3 warmup sets, not going to failure, and then the real heavy set, where you push your self to the limits. And now a simple example:

Everytime you train a certain muscle, you dig a hole into your limited recoveryabilty. To build muscle, the body has to fill that hole again with tissue that has been destroyed while training furthermore put another layer over it for more strength. But if you make like, 8 sets to failure per excercise, and 2x a week, you dig and dig and dig and the body will not be able to fill that hole, which causes desperation, dismotivation etc. because of no results. Simple principle or not?

Even Arnold nowerdays says "we didn't know about overtraining, but we were overtraining all the time"

The chicken too are growing to rapidely with science and special product, so if you want to be one of them, good for you. Myself I buying my chicken in the country farm, when those chickens are growing naturally.

Serge

[padreson]

Science is not the science you mean. A gen-pumped-up chicken cannot be compared with someone who thinks logically about building muscle By science I do not mean steroids, fuck roids, nobody needs them, but as a natural bodybuilder it's just a waste of time to train because its funny, If you want to grow you have to break your teeth and go to the absolute limit.

[serge nubret]

Science is not the science you mean. A gen-pumped-up chicken cannot be compared with someone who thinks logically about building muscle By science I do not mean steroids, fuck roids, nobody needs them, but as a natural bodybuilder it's just a waste of time to train because its funny, If you want to grow you have to break your teeth and go to the absolute limit.

You can compere chicken and bbers, because they use the same kind of products, "steroid" try to rise chicken without "roids" and try too rise bbers who train only for 45mn without those "roids"

serge