Unfortunately it's not that simple. I mean, you can put it simply, it's the amount of work. But 1lb x 100 reps x 10 sets is less work than 100lbs x 1 rep x 1 set despite having 10x more volume according to your formula.
An accurate formula would be more like simply the number of sets and each set doesn't necessarily equal 1, but is weighted according to proximity to failure.
more work is more results
bigger sum of sets x reps x weight is not necessarily more results
therefore the amount of volume is not simply sets x reps X weight
>If you lift a dumbbell, but put them back on the rack where you found, have you really done any work?
Yes, because the work is done with a non-conservative force in this case.
Physically sure, but that doesn't represent the amount of energy your body actually uses to do that work. For example, walking a mile burns fewer calories than running a mile
The amount of energy your body uses. You can reread my post
1 month ago
Anonymous
> Thread is started asking for the definition of a word > Simple definition is given > Apparently still too hard to understand
1 month ago
Anonymous
And I was noting that it's just a useful approximation, and doesn't entirely represent the amount of energy used. This is what we call an internet forum, we discuss things here
1 month ago
Anonymous
Are you really this fricking stupid?
1 month ago
Anonymous
Maybe I am. Running a mile and walking a mile involves the same amount of work. Do you burn the same # of calories for each?
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Running a mile and walking a mile involves the same amount of work
Nope
The last 5 sets to failure are when you actually have to start working. Count those as the volume and increase said volume and it will be a good metric. You will make gains. Linearly.
I made it simple and effective. You complicate it and make it useless, based on the false premise that you can nothing for something.
Are you only muscle and no brain? Volume is just some metric. You don't have to go by it, but it is what it is.
If the last 5 sets are what you are counting then why don't you do only 5 sets if what's before that doesn't matter?
>If the last 5 sets are what you are counting then why don't you do only 5 sets if what's before that doesn't matter?
I meant to say reps.
1 month ago
Anonymous
then why don't you only go to the gym and do only 5 reps if that's the only thing that matters?
1 month ago
Anonymous
That's why the basic programs work on 5 reps, what are you even talking about?
1 month ago
Anonymous
5 reps 1 set? I know Hamza did it, but that's all.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>1 set?
Where are you getting this from? Count the last 5 reps to failure. More of them is more stimulus. If you need more than 5 then you need more than 1 set.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Multiple sets.
We're talking about how many reps you're leaving out before failure. >Failure : too fatiguing, not worth it >0 to 3 or 4 reps shy of failure: hard but won't destroy you, and you'll grow >5+ reps shy of failure: warm up to waste of time >Going even further beyond failure: super strength, but you'll need magic beans to recover in a timely fashion
If you want, you could do a single well stimulating set, but the growth is pretty much dose dependant... More useful sets, more growth.
You could always choose to stay small, I guess.
1 month ago
Anonymous
I usually do. Sometimes I'm progressed further than expected though and don't fail at 5, so I do more. Also sometimes I don't feel like loading it as heavy so I'll load to where I fail at around 8-10. It's all the same.
It's a vague way of saying "work done". The most accurate way seems to be the amount of heavy sets done, but I think a heavy set of 10 reps is better than a heavy set of 3 reps.
Everything in fitness is just a vague estimate/guess
You can consider it the measure of your recovery capacity.
As in, you can recover from this many sets, but more than that and you'll need an extra day of rest before lifting heavy again.
It’s fricking insane having eyes and a functioning brain and seeing the askshually crew of midwits with trash physiques on the internet spread the idea that the big problem most guys have is they’re working out too much. Pro bodybuilders who base their whole lives around working out are working out too much. YOU are not working out too much, you fricking morons. The kind of person who embraced this philosophy is the kind of person it least applies to. But here we are, increasingly headed toward the idea that working out for more than 45 minutes with 2 minute+ breaks is overtraining
>here we are, increasingly headed toward the idea that working out for more than 45 minutes with 2 minute+ breaks is overtraining
Which of the 29 posts before yours is saying anything remotely related to this idea?
The ideal weighing of each factor strongly depends on genetics but all of it works which is why both Arnold and Mentzer and everything in between is correct) but for recreational lifters it just needs to be enough stimulus aka you need to train hard by ensuring you always push the frontier of aboves equation by pushing any number of its parameters
weight x reps x sets
Unfortunately it's not that simple. I mean, you can put it simply, it's the amount of work. But 1lb x 100 reps x 10 sets is less work than 100lbs x 1 rep x 1 set despite having 10x more volume according to your formula.
An accurate formula would be more like simply the number of sets and each set doesn't necessarily equal 1, but is weighted according to proximity to failure.
No. Work is literally the sum total amount of weight you lifted in some period, it doesn't matter how you chop it up.
Don't be silly. You can get a huge sum total by terminating sets before they get difficult and achieve nothing at all with it.
Yes, and?
more work is more results
bigger sum of sets x reps x weight is not necessarily more results
therefore the amount of volume is not simply sets x reps X weight
No. That's not what work or volume means
You're being silly again.
W=Fs
No you just made that up.
There's a difference between expending energy and doing work.
If you lift a dumbbell, but put them back on the rack where you found, have you really done any work?
This is why I don't tidy up after I'm done lifting in the gym.
> There's a difference between expending energy and doing work.
If you are moving something then you are doing work
>If you lift a dumbbell, but put them back on the rack where you found, have you really done any work?
Yes, because the work is done with a non-conservative force in this case.
Physically sure, but that doesn't represent the amount of energy your body actually uses to do that work. For example, walking a mile burns fewer calories than running a mile
wtf you talking about?
I swear nobody on this board graduated high school
The amount of energy your body uses. You can reread my post
> Thread is started asking for the definition of a word
> Simple definition is given
> Apparently still too hard to understand
And I was noting that it's just a useful approximation, and doesn't entirely represent the amount of energy used. This is what we call an internet forum, we discuss things here
Are you really this fricking stupid?
Maybe I am. Running a mile and walking a mile involves the same amount of work. Do you burn the same # of calories for each?
>Running a mile and walking a mile involves the same amount of work
Nope
I felt for the bait, you win
fell*
Volume is volume. It might not translate to muscle gain linearly, it might be a shitty metric, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still volume.
The last 5 sets to failure are when you actually have to start working. Count those as the volume and increase said volume and it will be a good metric. You will make gains. Linearly.
I made it simple and effective. You complicate it and make it useless, based on the false premise that you can nothing for something.
You're talking about something that isn't "volume"
Fine but you have to fricking pick one.
>volume is the driver of hypertrophy
or
>volume is sets x reps x weight
wut
It's the latter, that's the definition of it
Then you may as well just answer OP with
>useless
You are just mad that cardiobunny has higher volume than you.
Are you only muscle and no brain? Volume is just some metric. You don't have to go by it, but it is what it is.
If the last 5 sets are what you are counting then why don't you do only 5 sets if what's before that doesn't matter?
>If the last 5 sets are what you are counting then why don't you do only 5 sets if what's before that doesn't matter?
I meant to say reps.
then why don't you only go to the gym and do only 5 reps if that's the only thing that matters?
That's why the basic programs work on 5 reps, what are you even talking about?
5 reps 1 set? I know Hamza did it, but that's all.
>1 set?
Where are you getting this from? Count the last 5 reps to failure. More of them is more stimulus. If you need more than 5 then you need more than 1 set.
Multiple sets.
We're talking about how many reps you're leaving out before failure.
>Failure : too fatiguing, not worth it
>0 to 3 or 4 reps shy of failure: hard but won't destroy you, and you'll grow
>5+ reps shy of failure: warm up to waste of time
>Going even further beyond failure: super strength, but you'll need magic beans to recover in a timely fashion
If you want, you could do a single well stimulating set, but the growth is pretty much dose dependant... More useful sets, more growth.
You could always choose to stay small, I guess.
I usually do. Sometimes I'm progressed further than expected though and don't fail at 5, so I do more. Also sometimes I don't feel like loading it as heavy so I'll load to where I fail at around 8-10. It's all the same.
Volume on it's own is not useful. When people talk about volume they mean high intensity volume. I.e. working weight range.
It's a vague way of saying "work done". The most accurate way seems to be the amount of heavy sets done, but I think a heavy set of 10 reps is better than a heavy set of 3 reps.
Everything in fitness is just a vague estimate/guess
You can consider it the measure of your recovery capacity.
As in, you can recover from this many sets, but more than that and you'll need an extra day of rest before lifting heavy again.
In bro terms
>above 4 sets = volume
>below 4 sets = intensity
It’s fricking insane having eyes and a functioning brain and seeing the askshually crew of midwits with trash physiques on the internet spread the idea that the big problem most guys have is they’re working out too much. Pro bodybuilders who base their whole lives around working out are working out too much. YOU are not working out too much, you fricking morons. The kind of person who embraced this philosophy is the kind of person it least applies to. But here we are, increasingly headed toward the idea that working out for more than 45 minutes with 2 minute+ breaks is overtraining
>here we are, increasingly headed toward the idea that working out for more than 45 minutes with 2 minute+ breaks is overtraining
Which of the 29 posts before yours is saying anything remotely related to this idea?
Volume is the duration of mechanical tension
Stimulus = blood circulation + mechanical tension
Mechanical tension = duration + intensity
The ideal weighing of each factor strongly depends on genetics but all of it works which is why both Arnold and Mentzer and everything in between is correct) but for recreational lifters it just needs to be enough stimulus aka you need to train hard by ensuring you always push the frontier of aboves equation by pushing any number of its parameters
bunch of fricking nerds in here, just pick up the weight and put it down
Volume be like, how much be liftin total all added up n shit
Nah mean
yee bruh i feel u