13 meta-analyses

Strength Training · 30–60 min · 2x/week (lower); 4x/week total

Upper/Lower Split - Lower Day

The lower-body day of a 4-day upper/lower split, delivering ~3-6 sets per muscle. Pair with the upper day twice weekly. Duration is a default you can change.

How often: 2–4 sessions/week · trial frequency reported by the sources of the review summary this routine was written from (6 of 13 sources named by SR02.4 state one) · planning default: 2x/week (lower); 4x/week total · the review report’s bottom line: 3×/week (most common protocols, as reported)

When: any time · the sources state no time of day; the planner's slot is a default

The time slot is a planning choice: a swap can keep it.

The evidence applies to the practice, not to these particular steps — they are one way to carry it out.

1
Barbell Back Squat
4 sets x 6-10 reps, ~2-3 min rest
Primary squat.
Slot: squat / knee-dominant
Named by a Round-2 reviewApp-designed prescription1 paper reports 90 s restthe finding states sets per muscle group per week, across every session; this step is in one session, so it contributes toward quadriceps, gluteals, adductors or erector spinae and the week is compared where its sessions are known — the programme chooser and the planner; the finding states no reps or rest for this.
3 options for this requirement
These are the practices the completed Round-2 reviews name for squat / knee-dominant. The evidence rating on this routine belongs to the practice and its dose, not to any one of these. Choosing one changes what you read on this page only — it is not saved on any session in your week, and it never changes what the routine prescribes. To keep a choice, make it on the session itself in My Week.
Leg press
Compared in the review
12 papers put it in this slot · dose in sets × reps
Evidence and how-to
Smith machine exercise
Compared in the review
1 paper put it in this slot · dose in duration
Cannot be used here: This step's dose is measured in sets × reps and this option's in duration. Converting between them is not something the research says, so the swap is refused rather than converted.
Evidence and how-to
Split squat / RFESS
Compared in the review
1 paper put it in this slot · dose in duration
Cannot be used here: This step's dose is measured in sets × reps and this option's in duration. Converting between them is not something the research says, so the swap is refused rather than converted.
Evidence and how-to
2
Romanian Deadlift
3 sets x 8-12 reps, ~2 min rest
Hip hinge.
Slot: hinge / hip-dominant
Named by a Round-2 reviewApp-designed prescriptionthe finding states sets per muscle group per week, across every session; this step is in one session, so it contributes toward hamstrings, gluteals or erector spinae and the week is compared where its sessions are known — the programme chooser and the planner; the finding states no reps or rest for this.
6 options for this requirement
These are the practices the completed Round-2 reviews name for hinge / hip-dominant. The evidence rating on this routine belongs to the practice and its dose, not to any one of these. Choosing one changes what you read on this page only — it is not saved on any session in your week, and it never changes what the routine prescribes. To keep a choice, make it on the session itself in My Week.
Deadlift
Compared in the review
22 papers put it in this slot · dose in sets × reps
Evidence and how-to
Glute bridge
Compared in the review
1 paper put it in this slot · dose in sets × reps
Evidence and how-to
Hip thrust
Compared in the review
9 papers put it in this slot · dose unit not stated
Evidence and how-to
Kettlebell exercise
Compared in the review
1 paper put it in this slot · dose unit not stated
Evidence and how-to
Leg press
Compared in the review
2 papers put it in this slot · dose in sets × reps
Evidence and how-to
Romanian deadlift
Compared in the review
5 papers put it in this slot · dose in sets × reps
Evidence and how-to
3
Bulgarian Split Squat
3 sets x 8-12 reps/leg, ~90 sec rest
Unilateral quad/glute.
Slot: single-leg / lunge
Named by a Round-2 review (by reading)App-designed prescriptionthe finding states sets per muscle group per week, across every session; this step is in one session, so it contributes toward quadriceps, gluteals or hamstrings and the week is compared where its sessions are known — the programme chooser and the planner; the finding states no reps or rest for this.
2 options for this requirement
These are the practices the completed Round-2 reviews name for single-leg / lunge. The evidence rating on this routine belongs to the practice and its dose, not to any one of these. Choosing one changes what you read on this page only — it is not saved on any session in your week, and it never changes what the routine prescribes. To keep a choice, make it on the session itself in My Week.
Split squat / RFESS
Compared in the review
1 paper put it in this slot · dose in duration
Cannot be used here: This step's dose is measured in sets × reps and this option's in duration. Converting between them is not something the research says, so the swap is refused rather than converted.
Evidence and how-to
Step-up
Compared in the review
2 papers put it in this slot · dose in sets × reps
Evidence and how-to
4
Leg Curl
3 sets x 10-15 reps, ~75 sec rest
Hamstring isolation.
Slot: isolation
Named by a Round-2 review (by reading)App-designed prescriptionthe finding states sets per muscle group per week, across every session; this step is in one session, so it contributes toward hamstrings and the week is compared where its sessions are known — the programme chooser and the planner; the finding states no reps or rest for this.
7 options for this requirement
These are the practices the completed Round-2 reviews name for isolation. The evidence rating on this routine belongs to the practice and its dose, not to any one of these. Choosing one changes what you read on this page only — it is not saved on any session in your week, and it never changes what the routine prescribes. To keep a choice, make it on the session itself in My Week.
Biceps curl
Compared in the review
3 papers put it in this slot · dose in sets × reps
Evidence and how-to
Calf raise
Compared in the review
2 papers put it in this slot · dose in sets × reps
Evidence and how-to
Hip thrust
Compared in the review
2 papers put it in this slot · dose unit not stated
Evidence and how-to
Isometric hold
Compared in the review
2 papers put it in this slot · dose in duration
Cannot be used here: This step's dose is measured in sets × reps and this option's in duration. Converting between them is not something the research says, so the swap is refused rather than converted.
Evidence and how-to
Plank
Compared in the review
1 paper put it in this slot · dose in sets × time
Cannot be used here: This step's dose is measured in sets × reps and this option's in sets × time. Converting between them is not something the research says, so the swap is refused rather than converted.
Evidence and how-to
Side plank
Compared in the review
1 paper put it in this slot · dose unit not stated
Evidence and how-to
Triceps extension
Compared in the review
3 papers put it in this slot · dose unit not stated
Evidence and how-to
5
Standing Calf Raise
4 sets x 10-15 reps, ~60 sec rest
Calves.
Slot: isolation
Named by a Round-2 reviewApp-designed prescription1 paper reports 3 sets1 paper reports 12 reps1 paper reports 60 s restthe finding states sets per muscle group per week, across every session; this step is in one session, so it contributes toward gastrocnemius or soleus and the week is compared where its sessions are known — the programme chooser and the planner; the finding states no reps or rest for this.
7 options for this requirement
These are the practices the completed Round-2 reviews name for isolation. The evidence rating on this routine belongs to the practice and its dose, not to any one of these. Choosing one changes what you read on this page only — it is not saved on any session in your week, and it never changes what the routine prescribes. To keep a choice, make it on the session itself in My Week.
Biceps curl
Compared in the review
3 papers put it in this slot · dose in sets × reps
Evidence and how-to
Calf raise
Compared in the review
2 papers put it in this slot · dose in sets × reps
Evidence and how-to
Hip thrust
Compared in the review
2 papers put it in this slot · dose unit not stated
Evidence and how-to
Isometric hold
Compared in the review
2 papers put it in this slot · dose in duration
Cannot be used here: This step's dose is measured in sets × reps and this option's in duration. Converting between them is not something the research says, so the swap is refused rather than converted.
Evidence and how-to
Plank
Compared in the review
1 paper put it in this slot · dose in sets × time
Cannot be used here: This step's dose is measured in sets × reps and this option's in sets × time. Converting between them is not something the research says, so the swap is refused rather than converted.
Evidence and how-to
Side plank
Compared in the review
1 paper put it in this slot · dose unit not stated
Evidence and how-to
Triceps extension
Compared in the review
3 papers put it in this slot · dose unit not stated
Evidence and how-to
6
Plank
3 sets x 30-60 sec, ~60 sec rest
Core.
Slot: anti-extension & anti-rotation core
Named by a Round-2 reviewApp-designed prescription1 paper reports 45 minthe finding states sets per muscle group per week, across every session; this step is in one session, so it contributes toward rectus abdominis, transverse abdominis or obliques and the week is compared where its sessions are known — the programme chooser and the planner; the finding states no rest or duration for this.
2 options for this requirement
These are the practices the completed Round-2 reviews name for anti-extension & anti-rotation core. The evidence rating on this routine belongs to the practice and its dose, not to any one of these. Choosing one changes what you read on this page only — it is not saved on any session in your week, and it never changes what the routine prescribes. To keep a choice, make it on the session itself in My Week.
Kettlebell exercise
Compared in the review
1 paper put it in this slot · dose unit not stated
Evidence and how-to
Plank
Compared in the review
1 paper put it in this slot · dose in sets × time
Evidence and how-to

Muscle mapping: app-authoredThis session’s volume: SR02.P4 states ≥10 and ≤20 sets per muscle group per week, across every session in the week. This session contributes 7 for quadriceps, 10 for gluteals, 4 for adductors, 7 for erector spinae, 9 for hamstrings, 4 for gastrocnemius, 4 for soleus, 3 for rectus abdominis, 3 for transverse abdominis and 3 for obliques. One session is not a week: the comparison against that figure is made on the programme page and in the planner, where the week's sessions are known. Counted this way: every set counted in full toward each muscle the catalogue names as primary; secondary muscles are not recorded anywhere in the records and are not counted. The finding states no rule for counting a set that trains more than one muscle, so the outcome could differ under another. Under a direct-only count — sets from a step whose slot names the muscle, which in the slot vocabulary is the isolation slot alone — this session contributes 3 for hamstrings; nothing for quadriceps, gluteals, adductors, erector spinae, gastrocnemius, soleus, rectus abdominis, transverse abdominis and obliques. That count leaves Standing Calf Raise out entirely: its slot names “biceps”, “triceps”, “deltoids”, “calves”, “forearms”, “hamstrings” and “quadriceps” and the catalogue names “gastrocnemius” and “soleus” for it, and no record equates the two words. The muscle mapping is app-authored: every exercise in the catalogue carries evidence_source component_library, and no review states one.

Sets per muscle group, and the steps behind each

quadriceps · 7 sets (0 counting only the steps whose slot names it): Barbell Back Squat 4 (squat / knee-dominant), Bulgarian Split Squat 3 (single-leg / lunge)
gluteals · 10 sets (0 counting only the steps whose slot names it): Barbell Back Squat 4 (squat / knee-dominant), Romanian Deadlift 3 (hinge / hip-dominant), Bulgarian Split Squat 3 (single-leg / lunge)
adductors · 4 sets (0 counting only the steps whose slot names it): Barbell Back Squat 4 (squat / knee-dominant)
erector spinae · 7 sets (0 counting only the steps whose slot names it): Barbell Back Squat 4 (squat / knee-dominant), Romanian Deadlift 3 (hinge / hip-dominant)
hamstrings · 9 sets (3 counting only the steps whose slot names it): Romanian Deadlift 3 (hinge / hip-dominant), Bulgarian Split Squat 3 (single-leg / lunge), Leg Curl 3 (isolation)
gastrocnemius · 4 sets (0 counting only the steps whose slot names it): Standing Calf Raise 4 (isolation)
soleus · 4 sets (0 counting only the steps whose slot names it): Standing Calf Raise 4 (isolation)
rectus abdominis · 3 sets (0 counting only the steps whose slot names it): Plank 3 (anti-extension & anti-rotation core)
transverse abdominis · 3 sets (0 counting only the steps whose slot names it): Plank 3 (anti-extension & anti-rotation core)
obliques · 3 sets (0 counting only the steps whose slot names it): Plank 3 (anti-extension & anti-rotation core)
SR02.P4: “Volume (as reported): practical targets cluster at ≥10 sets/week/muscle group, with a 12–20 set/week band cited as optimal for hypertrophy (Bernárdez-Vázquez et al. 2022; Baz-Valle et al. 2022; Korotych 2024); more yields diminishing returns.”

Safety, and where each line comes from

17 product safeguard (app-authored)6 source silent

Each line below says where it comes from. “Reported by the review’s sources” is the source’s own words about adverse events or contraindications. “Product safeguard” is written by this app, not by the research. “Source silent” means the studies behind this routine report nothing on that point, which is not the same as saying it carries no risk.

Who should modify or avoid this

Product safeguard (app-authored)Deconditioned individuals should start with the lower dose and build gradually.
From this routine’s block record, written by this app.
Product safeguard (app-authored)Healthy adults of any age seeking an efficient, well-rounded program.
From this routine’s block record, written by this app.
Product safeguard (app-authored)Designed for generally healthy adults. Not a rehabilitation programme: an injury, a joint condition or a medical restriction on lifting changes what is appropriate here.
Source silentThe sources behind this routine's finding report no contraindications or population restrictions.

Prerequisites

Product safeguard (app-authored)Written for intermediate level. Equipment: barbell, bodyweight, dumbbell, machine. Warm up before the working sets, and learn each movement at a light load or short range before adding effort.
Source silentThe sources behind this routine's finding report nothing on prerequisites or starting level.

Hazards and adverse events

Product safeguard (app-authored)Barbell Back Squat: Use safety pins or a rack; keep the spine neutral.
From the exercise catalogue, written by this app.
Product safeguard (app-authored)Romanian Deadlift: Stop lowering when the back can no longer stay flat.
From the exercise catalogue, written by this app.
Source silentThe sources behind this routine's finding report no adverse events.

Progression and regression

Product safeguard (app-authored)Barbell Back Squat: regress with Goblet Squat; Leg Press; Bodyweight Squat and progress with Front Squat; Pause Squat; Heavier load.
From the exercise catalogue, written by this app.
Product safeguard (app-authored)Romanian Deadlift: regress with Dumbbell Romanian Deadlift; Kettlebell Deadlift and progress with Deficit RDL; Heavier load.
From the exercise catalogue, written by this app.
Product safeguard (app-authored)Bulgarian Split Squat: regress with Split Squat; Reverse Lunge and progress with Heavier load; Deficit Bulgarian Split Squat.
From the exercise catalogue, written by this app.
Product safeguard (app-authored)Leg Curl: regress with Lighter load and progress with Heavier load; Nordic Curl.
From the exercise catalogue, written by this app.
Product safeguard (app-authored)Standing Calf Raise: regress with Bodyweight Calf Raise and progress with Single-Leg Calf Raise; Heavier load.
From the exercise catalogue, written by this app.
Product safeguard (app-authored)Plank: regress with Knee Plank; Incline Plank and progress with Long-Lever Plank; Weighted Plank; RKC Plank.
From the exercise catalogue, written by this app.
Source silentThe sources behind this routine's finding report nothing on how to progress or regress it.

Stop conditions

Product safeguard (app-authored)Stop the set if you feel sharp or joint-localised pain, dizziness, chest discomfort or a sudden loss of control of the load; finish a set short rather than with broken form.
Source silentThe sources behind this routine's finding report no stop conditions.

When to seek supervision or clearance

Product safeguard (app-authored)New or worsening joint pain that persists beyond normal soreness
From this routine’s block record, written by this app.
Product safeguard (app-authored)Chest pain, dizziness or breathlessness during exertion
From this routine’s block record, written by this app.
Product safeguard (app-authored)Get clearance from a clinician before starting if you have a heart condition, uncontrolled blood pressure, a recent injury or surgery, or are pregnant; ask a qualified coach to check your form on any lift you have not done before.
Product safeguard (app-authored)Signs of a medical emergency (chest pain or pressure, trouble breathing, fainting, sudden weakness or numbness) mean 911 or your local emergency services; thoughts of self-harm or suicide mean the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline. This app does not diagnose, treat or give personalised medical advice.
Source silentThe sources behind this routine's finding report nothing on supervision or clearance.

How to do it

A full-body routine trains every major muscle group in each session; an upper/lower split divides the week by region, and push/pull/legs divides it by movement pattern.

2-3 sessions per week · moderate-heavy, sets taken 1-3 reps from failure · 1-3 sets per major muscle group per session · 30-60 min per session

The evidence behind this practice doesn't establish a dose-response relationship, so this specific frequency and duration is a reasonable design choice, not a research-backed number.

What the evidence says

The evidence is inherited from the practice this routine implements. Any duration is allowed; the label shows where you land against the studied dose.

This practice is one way to carry out what the sources on the concept entry (phys.strength.repetition-tempo) studied: program-design choices compared at matched volume. Ramos-Campo 2024 (meta-analysis) reports no significant difference in strength or muscle growth between split and full-body routines when training volume is equated; Rosa 2022 (meta-analysis) concludes that whole-muscle hypertrophy is similar between multi-joint and single-joint training; Coleman 2022 (meta-analysis) concludes that its findings would seem to indicate that drop sets and traditional sets are both viable options for muscular adaptations, and that drop sets may provide a more time-efficient alternative; Schoenfeld 2015 (meta-analysis) concludes that a fairly wide range of repetition durations can be employed if the primary goal is muscle growth. The full account, source by source, is on the concept entry this practice links to (phys.strength.repetition-tempo).

Key sources

meta-analysisEfficacy of Split Versus Full-Body Resistance Training on Strength and Muscle Growth: A Systematic Review With Meta-AnalysisD. Ramos-Campo, Pedro J. Benito-Peinado, Luis Andreu-Caravaca, Miguel A Rojo-Tirado, J. Á. Rubio-Arias (2024) · Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · 10.1519/jsc.0000000000004774 · full text

meta-analysisHypertrophic Effects of Single- Versus Multi-Joint Exercise of the Limb Muscles: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysisA. Rosa, Gregory Vazquez, J. Grgic, Anoop T Balachandran, J. Orazem, B. Schoenfeld (2022) · Strength & Conditioning Journal · 10.1519/ssc.0000000000000720 · full text

meta-analysisComparing the effects of variable and traditional resistance training on maximal strength and muscle power in healthy adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.V. Andersen, O. Prieske, N. Stien et al. (2022) · Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport · 10.1016/j.jsams.2022.08.009 · full text

Each source is shown by its own study design.

13 meta-analyses

Agreement: The review summary this entry was written from does not say whether its sources agree at this claim. Direction recorded for 5 of 13 sources; not yet recorded for the rest. A review summary is the written synthesis this entry was first built from; it is not one of the sources counted here.
The claim's outcome: Outcome not yet recorded
Certainty: No source states a certainty rating.
Authors: Sources share authors: B. Schoenfeld (senior author of 2 sources).

What each source measured and concluded (13)

meta-analysis · 2024

Ramos-Campo et al. (2024) — Efficacy of Split Versus Full-Body Resistance Training on Strength and Muscle Growth: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

What it measured: Strength performance via 1RM bench press and lower limbs; cross-sectional area of elbow extensors, elbow flexors, vastus lateralis; lean body mass.
How it measured it: Validated one-repetition maximum test for strength; ultrasound, DXA, anthropometry, bioelectrical impedance for muscle mass.
Direction it states for the claim's outcome: No effect
How it was read: read in full text
What the review says it includes: systematic review and meta-analysis
Studies and participants, as stated: N = 392 participants across 14 studies
Heterogeneity, as stated: Heterogeneity in methods used to quantify muscle mass

meta-analysis · 2022

Rosa et al. (2022) — Hypertrophic Effects of Single- Versus Multi-Joint Exercise of the Limb Muscles: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

What it measured: Muscle hypertrophy of the limb muscles
Direction it states for the claim's outcome: No effect
How it was read: read in full text

meta-analysis · 2022

Andersen et al. (2022) — Comparing the effects of variable and traditional resistance training on maximal strength and muscle power in healthy adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

What it measured: Maximal muscle strength and muscle power.
How it measured it: Pre/post-test between-subject standardized mean differences (SMDs).
How it was read: read in full text
What the review says it includes: meta-analysis
Studies and participants, as stated: N = 491 participants across 17 studies
Heterogeneity, as stated: Heterogeneity in variable resistance approaches.

meta-analysis · 2022

Coleman et al. (2022) — Muscular Adaptations in Drop Set vs. Traditional Training: A meta-analysis

What it measured: Muscle strength and hypertrophy.
How it measured it: Muscle strength: isometric or dynamic tests; Muscle hypertrophy: ultrasound, CT, MRI.
Direction it states for the claim's outcome: No effect
How it was read: read in full text

meta-analysis · 2021

Happ et al. (2021) — Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation Training vs. Conventional Strength Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effect on Strength Development

What it measured: Strength development or strength gains
How it measured it: Not explicitly detailed
Direction it states for the claim's outcome: No effect
How it was read: read in full text

meta-analysis · 2024

Mirzayev et al. (2024) — Comparison of Muscle Adaptation to Blood Flow-Restricted Versus Traditional Resistance Training in Healthy Adults: A Brief Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

What it measured: Muscle size, muscle strength, endurance
Direction it states for the claim's outcome: No effect
How it was read: read in full text

meta-analysis · 2025

Wang et al. (2025) — Effect of blood-flow restricted vs heavy-load resistance training on strength, power, and speed for healthy volunteers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

What it measured: Muscle strength (isometric and isokinetic), muscle power (e.g., countermovement jump, squat jump, depth jump, and long jump), and sprint speed (10-30 m sprint).
How it measured it: Through various exercises and tests as indicated by the types of strength and power assessments mentioned.
How it was read: read in full text
What the review says it includes: meta-analysis, systematic review
Studies and participants, as stated: N = 853 participants across 41 studies

meta-analysis · 2018

Lixandrão et al. (2018) — Magnitude of Muscle Strength and Mass Adaptations Between High-Load Resistance Training Versus Low-Load Resistance Training Associated with Blood-Flow Restriction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

What it measured: Muscle strength and muscle hypertrophy
How it measured it: Laboratory tests or standardized assessments (validation not explicitly mentioned)
How it was read: read in full text

meta-analysis · 2015

Schoenfeld et al. (2015) — Effect of Repetition Duration During Resistance Training on Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

What it measured: Hypertrophic response to resistance training (RT)
How it measured it: Measured morphologic changes via biopsy, imaging, and/or densitometry (validated laboratory tests)
Its conclusion, in its own words: “a fairly wide range of repetition durations can be employed if the primary goal is to maximize muscle growth.”
How it was read: read in full text

meta-analysis · 2017

Davies et al. (2017) — Effect of Movement Velocity During Resistance Training on Dynamic Muscular Strength: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

What it measured: Dynamic muscular strength via 1 RM test.
How it measured it: Validated 1 RM test.
How it was read: read in full text
What the review says it includes: meta-analysis, systematic review
Studies and participants, as stated: N = 509 participants across 15 studies

meta-analysis · 2018

Hackett et al. (2018) — Effect of movement velocity during resistance training on muscle-specific hypertrophy: A systematic review

What it measured: Muscle hypertrophy of the quadriceps and biceps brachii.
How it measured it: Direct measures using cross-sectional area and muscle thickness.
How it was read: read in full text
What the review says it includes: systematic review and meta-analysis
Studies and participants, as stated: N = 119 participants across 6 studies

meta-analysis · 2022

Refalo et al. (2022) — Influence of Resistance Training Proximity-to-Failure on Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis

What it measured: Muscle hypertrophy
How it measured it: Raw data (mean and standard deviation) from pre-intervention and post-intervention
How it was read: read in full text

meta-analysis · 2021

Vieira et al. (2021) — Effects of Resistance Training Performed to Failure or Not to Failure on Muscle Strength, Hypertrophy, and Power Output: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.

What it measured: Muscle strength, hypertrophy, and power output.
How it measured it: Quantitative measurement using standardized mean differences (SMDs).
How it was read: read in full text

Open the week builder