>> |
Anonymous
>>451749
I'll try, but it's a simple concept.
We can represent exercise 3-dimensional body or abstract shape. This will be governed by the usual laws of topology and geology. I won't bore you with the details, but from the Tietze extension theorem, we can show that area of such shapes allow us to predict the efficacy of certain exercises. The model isn't perfect, but it is fairly accurate. Particularly for an-aerobic exercise.
Now it's not a coincidence that pyramid sets can be modeled by a rough-pyramid shape. The shape isn't a perfect pyramid because changes in blood pressure effect the gradient of the sides over time. But for our purposes, it will do.
We don't have the mathematics to integrate such a shape (to my knowledge) and hence find the exact area, but from properties of basic shapes, we can approxiamate.
A 5x5 workout is modeled by a cube. There is little variation in the side-lengths, because there is relatively little change in blood pressure with such a workout.
Now the volumes of such shapes actually represent how much energy it requires to perform the workouts. It is possible to show, although not over 4chan, that the area of the cube exceeds the area of the pyramid. I know, because I did it when I first started lifting.
It is true, however, that the height of the pyramid exceeds that of the cube, so at its highest intensity, pyramid sets work best, but overall, in terms of net effect, 5x5 is better.
>>451757
That is an overly simplified approach. It doesn't account for the net effect of the exercise. Because each subsequent set cannot be considered independant of the preceeding sets, this does not work.
|