Build your split.
Get it graded.
Lay out your training week exercise by exercise. The rater checks it the way a good coach would: enough volume for every muscle, push balanced against pull, recovery gaps respected, sessions you can actually finish. Then it tells you exactly what to fix.
Add exercises to any day, or start from a template, and the grade appears here instantly.
How the grading works
There is no AI behind this score. Every rule is written down here, and the same week always gets the same grade. The score is a weighted blend of five checks.
Volume, 35 percent. Each major muscle is scored against a weekly hard-set band drawn from the hypertrophy literature, roughly 10 to 20 sets for large muscles with lower bands for arms because they collect indirect work from every press and pull.[1][2] Primary muscles of an exercise earn one set of credit per set performed, secondary muscles half a set.
Frequency, 20 percent. Muscles trained across two or more days score full marks.[3][4] Once a week is workable at low volume, but cramming ten or more sets into that single day gets marked down hard: by the eighth set of the same muscle, you are mostly generating fatigue, not growth.
Balance, 20 percent. Three structural ratios: pushing vs pulling sets (healthiest near 1:1), lower body share of total volume (at least about a third), and quads vs hamstrings and glutes. These ratios are coaching convention, not meta-analysis; we say so because the difference matters.
Recovery, 15 percent. A muscle loaded with 4 or more sets on back-to-back days gets flagged; muscle protein synthesis runs elevated for roughly 24 to 48 hours after a hard session, and hitting the muscle again mid-way cuts the last one short.[5] Training all seven days also costs points.
Session design, 10 percent. Sessions between 6 and 24 working sets score best. Past about 25 sets, or 12 sets for one muscle in one session, the later sets stop being worth much.
| Muscle | Optimal weekly sets | Minimum effective |
|---|---|---|
| Chest | 10 to 20 | 4 |
| Back (lats) | 10 to 22 | 4 |
| Shoulders | 8 to 20 | 4 |
| Biceps | 6 to 16 | 3 |
| Triceps | 6 to 16 | 3 |
| Quads | 8 to 18 | 4 |
| Hamstrings | 6 to 16 | 3 |
| Glutes | 6 to 16 | 3 |
What this tool cannot see. It grades structure, not effort. It does not know how close to failure you take your sets, how you sleep, or how many years you have trained, and it treats a set of squats and a set of curls as equally recoverable, which flatters the curls. A structurally perfect week done at half effort will still beat nobody. Treat the grade as a blueprint check, not a guarantee.
Want a structure that already grades well? Start from the push pull legs split, the upper lower split, or a proven program like 5x5 and PHUL, then adjust it here until the report card is clean.
References
- Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Dose-response relationship between weekly resistance training volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sports Sci. 2017;35(11):1073-1082. PubMed 27433992
- Baz-Valle E, Balsalobre-Fernandez C, Alix-Fages C, Santos-Concejero J. A systematic review of the effects of different resistance training volumes on muscle hypertrophy. J Hum Kinet. 2022;81:199-210. PubMed 35291645
- Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Effects of resistance training frequency on measures of muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2016;46(11):1689-1697. PubMed 27102172
- Grgic J, Schoenfeld BJ, Latella C. Resistance training frequency and skeletal muscle hypertrophy: A review of available evidence. J Sci Med Sport. 2019;22(3):361-370. PubMed 30236847
- MacDougall JD, Gibala MJ, Tarnopolsky MA, MacDonald JR, Interisano SA, Yarasheski KE. The time course for elevated muscle protein synthesis following heavy resistance exercise. Can J Appl Physiol. 1995;20(4):480-486. PubMed 8563679