The best workout split is the one your week survives: how Pocket Fit builds your program, and every split it offers

You open the app, you are asked for a split, and you freeze. Push/Pull/Legs sounds serious. The bro split sounds like something you should have grown out of. Full body sounds like what beginners do. So you pick the one with the best reputation, and three weeks later you are missing the fourth day, then the third, and the program quietly stops being a program.

The reasonable assumption is that the split is the plan. It is not. The split is a filing system. It decides which muscles share a day, and almost nothing else. What actually drives the result is how many times each muscle gets trained in a week and how many hard sets it collects, and those two numbers are set by your training days, not by the label on the split.

Once you see it that way, choosing gets easy, and a few of the rules Pocket Fit enforces stop looking arbitrary. This is the full guide: how a program is generated inside the app, then every split it offers, with the weekly layout, the frequency maths, the trade-offs, and the person who should not pick it.

Build your split with Pocket Fit. Tell it your goal, your days and the equipment you actually have, and it writes the week around them instead of handing you a template. Free on the App Store and Google Play, no card needed.

What the app asks you, and why each answer changes the program

Generation takes six required inputs and a few optional ones. None of them are cosmetic.

• Goal. Gain Muscle, Lose Fat, or Gain Strength. This sets the rep ranges, the set counts and the rest periods, and nothing else in the app rewrites them afterwards.
• Days per week. The single most consequential answer. It sets per muscle frequency and it constrains which splits are even legal.
• Difficulty. Beginner, Intermediate or Advanced. This changes set counts and it changes which exercises are eligible, because the exercise database is filtered by a difficulty-based frequency tier before anything is picked.
• Equipment. Bodyweight, Dumbbells, Barbells, Machines, Cables. Any combination. This is a hard filter, so nothing gets prescribed that you cannot physically perform.
• Split. One of seven, covered in detail below.
• Limitations and injuries. Free text. Written in plain language, "dodgy left shoulder", "no overhead pressing", "bad knees on deep flexion".
• Optional: exercise variations and a duration in weeks.

The output is not immediately your program. It is created as an artifact: a full draft week you can read, swap exercises inside, or reject entirely and regenerate. Only when you accept it does it become the thing you train. That gap matters, because a generated plan you never inspected is a plan you never agreed to.

How the program is actually generated, step by step

This is the part most apps do not describe, so here it is plainly.

Step one: your inputs become a query. Goal, days, difficulty, equipment and split are turned into an embedding and used to search a vector index of program templates. What comes back is not a workout. It is a skeleton.

Step two: the template is a set of slots, not exercises. Each training day arrives as a workout structure string: a sequence of exercise slots separated by arrows, plus per-day exercise rules, target areas, and a written explanation of what the day is for. A slot is a role, for example a primary compound for a given target area, an accessory compound, or an isolation movement. The system reads the focus words out of the slot and flags it as primary, compound or accessory.

Step three: the candidate list is pre-filtered before anything chooses. For each slot, the exercise database is narrowed by difficulty-based frequency, preferring high frequency movements first and dropping to medium frequency next, then by your actual equipment, then by the target area for that slot. Only after that narrowing does a model pick the single best exercise from what remains, and it writes a one sentence reason for the pick. That sentence is the comment you see next to the exercise in the app. The model is choosing from a legal shortlist, not inventing from the whole world of exercises.

Step four: anti-repetition rules run twice. Within a workout: no two exercises from the same movement family, only one deadlift variation, only one row variation, a balance between dumbbell and barbell pressing, and no doubling up on the same isolation pattern such as two triceps extensions. Across the week: a running avoid list carries forward so the same movement does not appear on every day.

Step five: nothing is allowed to fail. If a slot filter returns an empty list, the selection relaxes through four progressive fallback tiers rather than producing a hole in your week. A slightly less ideal exercise beats a missing one.

Step six: prescription and scheduling. Sets, reps and rest are applied from a fixed matrix, given below. Session duration and calories are estimated. The program is scheduled by default, so reminders work without you making a second decision after you already made the hard one.

Per muscle weekly frequency: the number that actually decides the outcome

Before the splits, the maths that makes them comparable. Take any split and ask one question: how many times per week does a given muscle get trained?

• Full body, 3 days: roughly 3 times per week per muscle.
• Upper/Lower plus a full body day, 3 to 5 days: 2 to 3 times.
• Push/Pull/Legs, 6 days: 2 times. At 3 days: once.
• Upper duo split, 4 days: once to twice, depending on the muscle.
• Bro split, 5 days: once.
• Glute focused, 4 days: glutes and hamstrings 2 to 3 times, upper body once or twice.

That number is not trivia. Schoenfeld, Ogborn and Krieger pooled ten studies for Sports Medicine and compared training a muscle once a week against twice a week with total weekly volume held equal. Twice a week produced a larger effect on muscle size, 0.49 against 0.30. Same sets, better result, purely from spreading them.

Their controlled trial in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research pushed the same idea in trained men. Twenty well-trained lifters were randomised to a once-a-week split routine or three full body sessions a week, with volume equated across eight weeks. Strength gains were similar. Muscle thickness favoured the higher frequency group, significantly so in the forearm flexors.

Now the honest counterweight, because it changes the advice. Grgic and colleagues pooled 22 studies in Sports Medicine on frequency and strength. Raw effect sizes rose with frequency, 0.74, 0.82, 0.93 and 1.08 for one, two, three and four-plus sessions per week. But in the volume-equated subgroup analysis the frequency effect vanished. Their reading: frequency mostly helps because it lets you accumulate more good volume, not because the muscle needs a specific number of touches.

That is the whole argument in one line. Frequency is a delivery mechanism for volume. Pick the split that lets you deliver more quality sets in the days you genuinely have.

Let Pocket Fit do the frequency maths. You choose the days you can train, it chooses the structure that fits them. Free on iOS and Android.

Full Body Split: 1 to 6 days a week

Who it is for. Beginners, anyone training two or three days a week, anyone with an unpredictable schedule, and returning lifters rebuilding a habit. It is also, quietly, the strongest option for a lot of experienced lifters who only have three sessions in them.

The weekly layout. Every session touches a lower body push, a lower body hinge, an upper body push, an upper body pull, and one or two isolation slots. Three days looks like Monday, Wednesday, Friday, each a complete session with different exercise choices for the same patterns.

The fatigue and frequency logic. At three days you hit every muscle three times a week with a comfortable rest day between sessions. Volume per muscle per session is low, which is exactly why it recovers. You are trading depth per session for repetition across the week.

Per muscle weekly frequency. 2 days: 2 times. 3 days: 3 times. 4 or more days: 4 or more, which is where it starts to strain.

Trade-offs. Sessions run long if you try to give every muscle a fair share. Per-muscle volume in a single session is capped by fatigue, because by the time you reach your fifth pattern you are not fresh. And it is hard to specialise. If your rear delts are lagging, full body gives you one slot to fix it, three times a week, not four slots once a week.

Common failure modes. Squatting heavy at the start of every session and eventually dreading the session. Running the same five exercises for twelve weeks, which is a boredom problem more than a physiology one. And bloating the session to nine exercises so it takes ninety minutes and stops fitting your evening.

Who should not pick it. Anyone who genuinely trains five or six days and wants high per-muscle volume. Anyone training around an injury that makes one pattern painful, because in full body that pattern shows up every session. And anyone whose bottleneck is arm or shoulder detail work, which needs slots that a full body day does not have.

Upper/Lower + Full Body: 1 to 6 days a week

Who it is for. The intermediate who has three or four days and does not want to choose between the frequency of full body and the volume of a split. This is the most flexible structure the app offers, and for most people asking "what is the best workout split", it is the honest answer.

The weekly layout. At four days: Upper, Lower, Upper, Lower. At three days: Upper, Lower, Full Body. At five: Upper, Lower, Upper, Lower, Full Body. The full body day acts as a patch, catching whatever the week under-served.

The fatigue and frequency logic. Splitting upper from lower halves the fatigue that competes inside a session. You can press hard without your squat already having drained you. The full body day then restores frequency without adding a fifth or sixth training day.

Per muscle weekly frequency. 3 days: 2 times. 4 days: 2 times. 5 days: 2 to 3 times.

Trade-offs. Lower days are brutal if you program them honestly, because squat, hinge and single-leg work in one session is a lot of systemic fatigue. Upper days can feel scattered, since chest, back, shoulders and arms all want attention in one sitting.

Common failure modes. Treating the full body day as an optional extra and skipping it, which turns a 2 to 3 times structure into a 2 times structure and quietly removes the whole reason you picked it. Also, front-loading both upper days with pressing and letting back volume drift below pressing volume.

Who should not pick it. Someone training exactly six days who wants clean, repeatable sessions, because at six days this structure gets fiddly and Push/Pull/Legs is simply tidier. And a raw beginner who would be better served by the simplicity of full body.

Push/Pull/Legs: 3 or 6 days a week only

Who it is for. Intermediates and above who can commit to either three or six sessions, no other number. The three day version is far more beginner-friendly than its reputation suggests, as covered in the push pull legs guide for beginners.

The weekly layout. Push covers chest, shoulders and triceps. Pull covers back and biceps. Legs covers quads, hamstrings, glutes and calves. Three days: one rotation. Six days: two rotations, usually with the second rotation biased differently, more incline and more horizontal rowing, or more hinge and less squat.

The fatigue and frequency logic. This is the cleanest fatigue segregation available. Muscles that already assist each other train together, so nothing gets hit twice by accident. Your triceps are not fried on pull day, and your lower back is not the limiting factor on push day.

Per muscle weekly frequency. 3 days: once. 6 days: twice.

Why only 3 or 6. Because the rotation has three elements and only divides evenly into three and six. At four days you would be running Push, Pull, Legs, Push, and next week starts on Pull, so your weeks stop repeating, your frequency becomes uneven across muscles, and any weekly comparison you try to make is noise. At five days it is worse. The app refuses those numbers rather than shipping a rotation that drifts out of phase with your calendar.

Trade-offs. The three day version gives every muscle only one weekly session, which is the lower-frequency arm of the Schoenfeld data. The six day version is a real commitment, and six sessions of mediocre effort is not superior to four sessions of hard effort.

Common failure modes. Choosing six days aspirationally, hitting four, and ending up with lopsided frequency where legs get trained once and chest three times. Also, push day becoming a chest day with a token shoulder movement bolted on at the end when you are already empty.

Who should not pick it. Anyone whose real availability is four or five days. That is not a soft preference, the validator will reject it. Pick Upper/Lower + Full Body at four or five days instead.

The Upper Duo Split, Back & Biceps / Chest & Triceps / Shoulders / Legs: 4 days only

Who it is for. The lifter with exactly four days who wants upper body detail and does not want to hide shoulders at the end of a push day. It is a bodybuilding structure with a physique bias.

The weekly layout. Day one back and biceps. Day two chest and triceps. Day three shoulders, which gets a full session of its own. Day four legs.

The fatigue and frequency logic. Pairing a large muscle with the small muscle that already assists it is the same logic as PPL, but the shoulders are pulled out into their own day. The result is that lateral and rear delts get real volume instead of the two exhausted sets they usually receive.

Per muscle weekly frequency. Once for most muscles. Biceps and triceps get a little indirect work on their partner day, so they are effectively somewhere between one and two.

Why only 4. The rotation has exactly four named days. There is no coherent fifth day and no way to compress it into three without merging two of the four and losing the point of the structure.

Trade-offs. One leg day a week. That is the cost, and for a lifter who cares about lower body strength it is a real one. Everything is on a once-a-week frequency, which is the weaker side of the frequency evidence, and the compensation has to be volume within the session.

Common failure modes. The leg day becoming the one that gets skipped, which turns this into a four day upper body program. And under-training the rear delts even on a dedicated shoulder day, because pressing feels more productive than raises.

Who should not pick it. Anyone chasing lower body strength or glute development. Anyone who cannot train four days, since the validator accepts nothing else. And anyone in their first six months, who would build more from higher frequency on the basics.

The Bro Split, one muscle group per day: 5 days only

Who it is for. The lifter who trains five days, enjoys long focused sessions, and wants to hammer one area at a time. It has a bad reputation online and a very good adherence record in real gyms, which is worth saying out loud.

The weekly layout. Chest, back, shoulders, arms, legs. Five days, five slots, one muscle group each.

The fatigue and frequency logic. Maximum local volume, maximum recovery time. Your chest gets fifteen to twenty hard sets and then a full week to recover. The bet is that a large single dose plus long recovery matches smaller doses spread out.

Per muscle weekly frequency. Once. There is no version of this split that changes that.

Why only 5. The structure needs exactly five slots to cover chest, back, shoulders, arms and legs. Drop to four and one of them disappears. Go to six and you are repeating a day, which is no longer a bro split.

Trade-offs. This is the structure most at odds with the frequency data. Schoenfeld's meta-analysis put once weekly at an effect of 0.30 against 0.49 for twice weekly at equal volume, and the eight week trial in well-trained men favoured the higher frequency group on muscle thickness. The counter-argument is Grgic's finding that the frequency advantage disappears once volume is equated, which means a bro split can work if the weekly volume genuinely lands. The problem is that fifteen sets for one muscle in one session are not fifteen equal sets. Set twelve is not set two.

Common failure modes. Missing chest day and going eleven days between chest sessions, because there is no second touch to absorb the miss. Junk volume in the back half of the session. And arms day becoming the favourite while legs day becomes the one with a plausible excuse.

Who should not pick it. Beginners, who get more from frequency and from practising each movement more often. Anyone with an unreliable schedule, since one missed day costs a full week of that muscle. And anyone training three or four days, where it is not even offered.

The Glute-Focused Split: 1 to 6 days a week

Who it is for. Anyone whose priority is glutes and posterior chain, most commonly women training three to five days, but the structure is available to anyone who selects it.

The weekly layout. Lower body days built around hip thrusts, Romanian deadlifts, split squats, step-ups and reverse lunges, with upper body days interleaved so the lower body gets recovery without you losing training days.

The fatigue and frequency logic. Glutes tolerate frequency well, partly because hip thrust and bridge patterns generate far less systemic fatigue than heavy squatting for the same amount of glute work. That is why this split can put glutes on two or three days a week without wrecking you, where three heavy squat sessions would.

Per muscle weekly frequency. Glutes and hamstrings 2 to 3 times. Quads 1 to 2. Upper body 1 to 2.

Trade-offs. Upper body volume is lower by design. If you want a balanced physique you will need to accept slower upper body progress, or add days.

Common failure modes. Piling on more and more glute isolation while the loaded hinge and thrust barely progress, which is volume standing in for overload. The fix is the same rule as everywhere else: earn the reps first, then add the weight, as laid out in the reps first then weight guide.

Who should not pick it. Anyone whose main goal is upper body size or general strength. Anyone with a hip or lower back issue that makes repeated hinging painful, at least until that is assessed properly.

BodyWeight Push / Pull / Legs, and the override you did not ask for

Who it is for. Home trainers, travellers, and anyone who selected Bodyweight and nothing else.

The override. If the only equipment you select is Bodyweight, the app overrides whatever split you chose and gives you the bodyweight Push/Pull/Legs structure. That is a deliberate decision, and it is worth defending.

A bro split without external load falls apart. A dedicated shoulder day with no dumbbells is push-ups on an angle and holds, which is a push day wearing a different name. A dedicated arms day with no weights is close-grip push-ups and inverted rows, which is push and pull. Once you remove external load, the only thing that meaningfully separates a training day is the movement pattern, so the app collapses to the structure that is defined by movement pattern: push, pull, legs. Every other split would be a label over the same three sessions, and a label that promises something it cannot deliver is worse than no label.

The weekly layout. Push: push-up variations, dips, pike push-ups. Pull: rows, chin-ups, whatever anchor you have. Legs: squat, split squat, hinge and single-leg variations, with tempo and range doing the work that load normally does.

Per muscle weekly frequency. Once at three days, twice at six.

Trade-offs. Pulling is the honest weak point. Without a bar or rings, back training is genuinely limited, and no amount of programming fixes that. Progression relies on leverage, tempo, range and unilateral variations rather than the bar going up, which is slower to measure.

Who should not pick it. Nobody, if bodyweight is all you have. But if you own a single pair of dumbbells, select them. It changes the program more than any other input you can give.

The prescription matrix, exactly as the app applies it

Once the exercises are chosen, sets, reps and rest come from a fixed matrix keyed on your goal, your experience and the slot type. These are the actual numbers.

Rep ranges by goal and slot type

| Slot | Gain Muscle | Gain Strength | Lose Fat | |---|---|---|---| | Primary compound | 6 to 10 | 3 to 6 | 6 to 10 | | Accessory compound | 8 to 12 | 5 to 7 | 8 to 12 | | Isolation | 8 to 12 | 8 to 12 | 12 to 15 |

Sets by goal, experience and slot type

| Slot and goal | Beginner | Intermediate | Advanced | |---|---|---|---| | Primary compound, Gain Muscle | 4 | 5 | 4 | | Primary compound, Gain Strength | 5 | 6 | 6 | | Primary compound, Lose Fat | 4 | 5 | 4 | | Accessory compound, Gain Muscle | 4 | 3 | 3 | | Accessory compound, Gain Strength | 5 | 5 | 4 | | Accessory compound, Lose Fat | 4 | 3 | 3 | | Isolation, any goal | 3 | 3 | 3 |

Rest in seconds by goal and slot type

| Slot | Gain Muscle | Gain Strength | Lose Fat | |---|---|---|---| | Primary compound | 120 | 180 | 90 | | Accessory compound | 90 | 120 | 60 | | Isolation | 60 | 60 | 45 |

Two things worth noticing. Advanced lifters do not always get more sets than intermediates, because at that level per-session volume is often reduced in favour of quality and recovery. And rest is treated as part of the prescription, not an afterthought, because 180 seconds on a heavy triple and 45 seconds on a fat loss isolation set are doing completely different jobs.

Session length is estimated rather than guessed: reps multiplied by 2.5 seconds per rep, plus all the intra-exercise rest, plus 60 seconds between exercises, then multiplied by a 1.7 real world factor. That factor is a 1.5 base plus a 20 percent contingency, because people do not train at stopwatch pace. They re-rack, they wait for the bench, they check a message. An estimate that assumes otherwise is a lie that makes you late.

Calories per set are estimated too, which feeds the training and deficit relationship rather than pretending training and eating are separate problems.

Get the numbers written for you. Sets, reps and rest arrive already matched to your goal and experience, and they update as you log. Free on iOS and Android.

The rules that differ for female users

The generator applies a distinct selection rule set for female users. This is not a softer program, it is a different set of defaults, and it is worth stating plainly rather than hiding.

• Lower body selection is glute-priority: hip thrusts, Romanian deadlifts, split squats, step-ups and reverse lunges are preferred.
• Barbell is preferred for hip thrust and Romanian deadlift patterns, because those are the two lifts where load matters most for the target.
• Barbell and smith machine bench press patterns are excluded, with dumbbell or machine chest press used instead.
• Flies are dumbbell or machine rather than cable crossovers.
• Triceps work uses rope and cable pushdowns rather than overhead cable extensions.
• Curls are dumbbell rather than machine.
• Only one squat variation and one bridge variation per workout, strictly enforced.

You can override any of it inside the artifact before you accept the program. The defaults reflect what most users in that group actually want and stick with. They are not a claim about what anyone is capable of.

Where the evidence runs thin

Everything above sits on a body of research with real limits, and you should know them.

The frequency meta-analysis by Schoenfeld and colleagues rests on ten studies, most of them short, most of them in untrained or moderately trained participants, and mostly in men. The controlled trial that supports it had twenty participants across eight weeks, which is a small sample over a short window for a question about long-term physique change.

Grgic's volume-equated finding is the one that should make you cautious about strong split claims. When volume was matched, frequency stopped mattering for strength. That directly undercuts the simple story that more frequent is better.

Ralston and colleagues pooled 9 studies and 61 treatment groups for Sports Medicine and found a graded dose-response for weekly sets, but the effect sizes were modest, 0.23 for high versus low weekly sets on isolation exercises and 0.15 for medium versus low. Real, but not dramatic.

Schoenfeld, Ogborn and Krieger's volume dose-response in the Journal of Sports Sciences found each additional weekly set worth an effect of 0.023, about 0.37 percent extra gain. Also real. Also small, and it does not continue upward forever.

And none of these studies compared named splits. There is no trial of "Push/Pull/Legs versus bro split". Researchers manipulate frequency and volume, not marketing labels, so every split argument in this article is an inference from frequency and volume data, not a direct test. Anyone telling you a specific split is proven superior is going past the evidence.

The practical conclusion is deflating and useful: within sensible ranges, the split you pick matters much less than whether you complete it.

How to actually choose, in four questions

1. How many days will you train in your worst week, not your best? Answer honestly and pick from what is legal at that number. Two or three days: full body. Four or five: Upper/Lower + Full Body. Exactly three or six: Push/Pull/Legs is on the table. Exactly four with an upper body bias: upper duo. Exactly five with long sessions you enjoy: bro split.
2. What is your equipment, really? If it is bodyweight only, the choice is made for you, and correctly. If you can add one thing, add dumbbells.
3. What is the goal for the next twelve weeks? Gain Strength buys you 3 to 6 rep primaries and 180 second rests. Lose Fat buys 12 to 15 rep isolation and 45 second rests. They are different programs, not the same program with different food.
4. What have you actually finished before? If you have never completed eight weeks of anything, take the structure with the fewest ways to fail.

Put it together

The split is a filing system. Frequency is the delivery mechanism. Volume is the dose. Adherence is the multiplier that sits in front of all three, and if it is zero, nothing behind it matters.

Pocket Fit is built around that order. It asks for your real days first and constrains the split to what divides evenly into them, which is why Push/Pull/Legs takes only 3 or 6, the upper duo only 4, and the bro split only 5. It filters exercises to the equipment you have before anything gets chosen, so nothing in your week is theoretical. It applies the same prescription matrix every time, so your sets and rests are not a mood. Once the program exists, the deterministic progression engine takes over: reps first to a cap of fifteen, weight only off a confirmed plateau, which is the reps first then weight rule doing the boring work in the background. The scheduler reshuffles a missed session into the rest of the week instead of dropping it, which is the single most valuable thing you can do to a bro split. The AI coach rebuilds a session from a sentence when your shoulder is angry or the squat rack is taken. Fuel keeps the food side in the same place, scan a plate or a barcode, check protein, carbs and fat, no red numbers and no shame. And the Body budget keeps a running tally of the four deposits, your workout, your streak, your sleep and your nutrition, so a hard week reads as a hard week rather than a failure.

Georgi built it because of the bad weeks, not the good ones. He went from 122 kg to competing at The Yard Games, having lost 38 kg along the way, and the version of him who kept missing the fourth day is the person every one of those rules is written for. That story is at our story.

Start with Pocket Fit, free. Answer six questions, read the draft week, change what you want, then train it. Personalised in minutes on iOS and Android.

Workout splits: common questions

What is the best workout split for building muscle?

The one that lets each muscle be trained at least twice a week within the days you will genuinely complete. Schoenfeld's meta-analysis found twice weekly beat once weekly at equal volume, an effect of 0.49 against 0.30. For most people that means full body at two or three days, Upper/Lower + Full Body at four or five, or Push/Pull/Legs at six.

Why does Pocket Fit only allow 3 or 6 days for Push/Pull/Legs?

Because the rotation has three elements and only divides evenly into three and six. At four or five days the rotation drifts out of phase with the calendar, so your weeks stop repeating and each muscle gets a different frequency from week to week. The validator rejects those numbers instead of shipping a structure that quietly stops working.

Is the bro split really that bad?

Not bad, just the least forgiving. It trains each muscle once a week, which is the weaker arm of the frequency evidence, and one missed session means eleven days without that muscle. Grgic's volume-equated analysis found that frequency stopped mattering once volume was matched, so a bro split can work, provided the weekly sets genuinely land and the last third of each session is not junk.

How many sets per muscle per week should I do?

More helps, with diminishing returns. Ralston found effects of 0.23 for high versus low weekly sets and 0.15 for medium versus low, and Schoenfeld found each extra weekly set worth about 0.37 percent additional gain. Those are real but modest numbers, which is why the app prescribes 3 to 6 sets per slot rather than chasing volume for its own sake.

Why did the app change my split to bodyweight?

Because Bodyweight was the only equipment you selected. Without external load, the only thing that meaningfully separates one training day from another is the movement pattern, so a bro split or an upper duo split would just be push, pull and legs under a misleading name. Select dumbbells if you have them, and the full set of splits opens back up.

References

1. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW (2016). Effects of Resistance Training Frequency on Measures of Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Medicine, 46(11), 1689-1697. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-016-0543-8
2. Grgic J, Schoenfeld BJ, Davies TB, Lazinica B, Krieger JW, Pedisic Z (2018). Effect of Resistance Training Frequency on Gains in Muscular Strength: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Medicine, 48(5), 1207-1220. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-018-0872-x
3. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW (2017). Dose-response relationship between weekly resistance training volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(11), 1073-1082. DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1210197
4. Ralston GW, Kilgore L, Wyatt FB, Baker JS (2017). The Effect of Weekly Set Volume on Strength Gain: A Meta-Analysis. Sports Medicine, 47(12), 2585-2601. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-017-0762-7
5. Schoenfeld BJ, Ratamess NA, Peterson MD, Contreras B, Tiryaki-Sonmez G (2015). Influence of Resistance Training Frequency on Muscular Adaptations in Well-Trained Men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 29(7), 1821-1829. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000970

---

Pocket Fit is a fitness and wellbeing app, not a medical device. It does not diagnose, treat or prevent any condition. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional before starting or changing a training or nutrition programme, and if you have persistent problems with sleep, pain or fatigue.

Georgi, founder of Pocket Fit. He went from 122 kg to competing at The Yard Games, having lost 38 kg along the way.