Squatting 225 for 15 reps give the same muscle gains as squatting 315 for 5

>yfw retards like this post on Veeky Forums

thanks professor

More DYEL logic lol.

Keep 'em coming loser.

Report frogposters.

I just did 1 plate squat for 20 reps and my legs are look bigger than what they do when I squat 275 for 5.

:o

It's the pump

pssst, heres a quick secret, the integral of F(x) by x when F(x) is constant is just F*(change in x)

>ad hominem
>refuting argument

I know, but thanks for the reminder. We're on a fitness board so my assumption is that not everyone here knows calculus.

This is bullshit
If you want to define it in terms of work, you have to have real figures to represent 'shoulders' and 'ground'. You've assigned dummy values of 1.5 and 0, where the fuck do these come from?
Then you don't even use the rep range at all in your force or work calculation, liek what the hell are you doing? You have to multiply your end result, in J, by the number of reps to have any type of comparison with the cases.
The rest of your formula is a mess too. You can't put repeating equals signs like that if they aren't equal to anything. You are implying that 315 lbs = 214 J by putting them on the same line like that when any idiot can see that the two do not convert like that.

Coming up with the a conclusion that 7 reps of 225 = 5 reps of 315 should tell you that you are fucking retarded by inspection, and nothing else

This is bullshit too
Anyone who has lifted any real weight can tell you that you can perform 225 for 15 easily before you can perform 315 for 5
They are comparable, sure. But nobody in their right mind is going to do that 15 rep set for gains if they can do the 5 at 315 instead.

Here's my conclusion, DYEL? You don't even know how to physics or math either

He literally did that. All he did was take the weight, converted to kg, and then multiply it by (1.5 - 0) to come up with a figure in J
Still doesn't make any goddakmn sense

Refute the study demonstrating the correlation between total volume and hypertrophy, as well as a lack of dependence between reps per set before you run your shit-filled mouth then.

Nice straw man you fucking retard. Doesn't make your math any less wrong

>refute the study
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24714538
This one? Becuase it has nothing to do with the claims you are making
>this study showed that both bodybuilding- and powerlifting-type training promote similar increases in muscular size, but powerlifting-type training is superior for enhancing maximal strength
This doesn't prove anything that you are talking about and doesn't really prove anything except that lower rep strenght training is the better way to go

Inb4 some other total nonsense

>Waah it doesn't say what I want it to therefore ur a doodyhead

V
O
L
U
M
E

E
Q
U
A
T
E
D

>ad hominem
>refuting argument

Doesn't look like they did a great job at creating equal volume. The study isn't even a a particularly good one. Are we also to assume that each subject was at the same strength level in each exercise? How many way are they even measuring muscle growth, just in one area?

Obviously there is more at play than just 1 variable. For pure hypertrophy, volume is obviously a major variable, nobody is going to dispute that. But you should go learn what RPE means.
Doing 225 for 15 is flat out easier than doing 315 for 5 and doesn't allow for as much progression

muscles don't grow based off of a linear relationship of work.
For instance:
lets say john squats 315 for 5 and this is his 5rep max
john decides work is the sole factor and instead squats 78lbs for 20 reps.
John will not feel very tired after this exercise because muscles do not respond directly proportional to work.
You can be john too. take your 5rep max. divide it by 4 and go for 20 reps.
Your muscles should feel a little tired afterwords, but nowhere near levels that if you did your 5 rep max

In my post I said that I was using a model of a person of height ~180cm. I'm 183, I did a quick estimation that my shoulders are about 30cm below the top of my head. So the bar is resting at about 150cm off the ground, or 1.5m. I then set the frame such that the ground was at 0m.

No, I didn't use rep ranges. Reread the first line which says "Work for 1 rep" = Fdx. The two cases presented were squats at 225 and 315 pounds, I admit it would've been a bit clearer if I had omitted the rep ranges when referring to the two specific cases that OP mentioned.

I can draw a picture and reformat the document if that helps your understanding.

this calculus is wrong and you integrated incorrectly

Bunch of obese powerlifters ITT. The correct answer is to train with high volume for hypertrophy. You pick a weight with which you would barely be able to squeeze out the last rep with good form and you do it for 3-4 sets of 8-12.

>ground at 0
>conclusion is 7 reps @ 225 = 5 reps @ 315
You srsly don't see anything wrong with this? I don't need to see it again, it is not valid even fi you presented it correctly. FFS even the 15 rep vs 5 rep is a better comparison

See . That is the only discussion to be had

>It's a Veeky Forumsfit/ thread

No man you gotta lift heavy shit for 3x4-5 with 20 min rest between sets for optimal gains. Don't listen to the curlbros. Trust me

Go ahead and do it correctly then. This is a trivial integral that's literally just the integrand times 1.5.

who cares, doing easy weight you can handle for 10+ reps is boring as fuck, i'd much rather do 5 reps of a weight that is somewhat challenging

Have you considered that possibility that your 20RM is not the same as your 5RM/4?

Because if you had been lifting for more than a month you would know that to be the case.

Muscles contract to generate force, acting to move the bones as levers. These cases have equal mechanical loads. These are literally the same energy demands even if they don't feel like it.

I'm going to think about this for awhile though and come back to this. Just so you know, I'm genuinely enjoying this discussion and I hope you're not getting too worked up about this whole thing.

Hey there samefig! You do know you're wrong, right?

>no u
How?

Because you haven't cited any studies to back your shit up.

>Hurr 20 reps for mass bro just like Kali Muscle!

P R O V E I T

You do know that the poster was claiming that the 5 reps of 315 >> 7-15 reps of 225, right?
Try reading the replies next time