MyFitCoach isn't designed to let you build completely custom training plans or splits from scratch. The reason is our coaching approach, which is based on complex, science-based logic. It ensures that your training stays structured, progressive and targeted to your goals.

Our goal is to give you a training plan that is effective – not just today, but in the long run.

To do this, we use an algorithm that continuously analyzes your performance, progress and recovery capacity and adjusts your plan accordingly.

From a training science perspective, the following principles are key:

If a training plan is created completely freely, it can become harder to coordinate key parameters such as volume, intensity, frequency and exercise selection sensibly. This can mean that

Even though MyFitCoach manages your overall plan, you have plenty of ways to personalize it:

This keeps you flexible without disrupting the training logic.

If your adjustments deviate too much from the recommended structure, MyFitCoach will, after a while, bring your plan closer to its intended balance of volume, intensity and frequency again.

This keeps your training effective in the long run – much like a personal trainer who sets the big picture while you shape the small details yourself.

If you'd still rather stick to your own plan or split because you enjoy it more and it keeps you consistent, that's completely fine. If you make many manual changes to your plan, we recommend turning off the deload function in your training profile.

Why? The algorithm then no longer adjusts your training volume automatically. Your plan won't be re-“optimized” every week, and your changes won't be discarded. With deloads turned off, you can also decide after each training week whether you'd like some variation and want exercises to be swapped automatically. → What are deloads – and why are they important?

With a classic bro split, you train only one or a few muscle groups per session – so each muscle group is usually trained once a week (e.g., Monday: chest, Tuesday: back, Wednesday: legs). For a long time, we didn't offer this approach. Now you can choose it as the Bodybuilding Split with 4 or 5 training days. The reason is the current evidence from meta-analyses:

The first meta-analysis on the topic (10 studies) found greater gains at equal volume when a muscle was trained twice rather than once a week (Schoenfeld et al. 2016). The follow-up meta-analysis of 25 studies, however, found no significant difference at equal volume – not even in trained individuals or with direct measures of muscle growth (Schoenfeld et al. 2019).

The largest meta-regression to date (67 studies, 2,058 participants) reaches the same conclusion: the effect of frequency on muscle growth is compatible with a negligible effect (Pelland et al. 2026). Compared with frequency, weekly volume is therefore of central importance for muscle growth. How you distribute it across the week at equal volume most likely plays a minor role.

As weekly volume increases, muscle growth and strength increase, but the added benefit becomes smaller – much more so for strength than for muscle growth (Pelland et al. 2026).

For sets per exercise, older meta-analyses show a similar pattern: for muscle growth, multiple sets per exercise were associated with greater gains than a single set. Between 2–3 and 4–6 sets, however, there was no significant difference (Krieger 2010). For strength, 2–3 sets per exercise were associated with 46% greater gains than 1 set. There was no additional significant advantage of 4–6 over 2–3 sets (Krieger 2009).

Without equating volume, a higher frequency was associated with slightly more muscle growth; however, the difference between 1 and 3 or more sessions per week was small (Schoenfeld et al. 2019). A higher frequency can therefore mainly help to distribute a higher weekly volume sensibly across several sessions.

For strength, the newer meta-analyses point to an advantage of higher frequency: Pelland et al. (2026) found greater strength gains with increasing frequency, with diminishing returns. Tao et al. (2026, 47 studies) also found a small strength advantage for higher frequency, but no effect of frequency on muscle mass. Older meta-analyses, by contrast, found no significant effect in studies with equal volume (Grgic et al. 2018; Ralston et al. 2018). Pelland et al. attribute the difference partly to more data, a different way of counting frequency and non-linear models.

As an explanation, Pelland et al. mainly cite learning effects: more sessions mean more frequent practice of the tested exercise or a similar movement pattern – simply practicing the strength test already provides a strong strength stimulus. More frequent practice could also improve execution quality and thus allow heavier loads. The authors explicitly frame this as a hypothesis that requires further research.

In the largest meta-regression, 79% of participants were men, with an average age of 25 (Pelland et al. 2026). In the meta-analysis on sets per exercise, the highest category studied was 4–6 sets (Krieger 2010). Whether a very high number of sets for one muscle in a single session is less effective than the same amount spread across several sessions has not yet been clarified by meta-analyses.

Our approach: MyFitCoach's holistic plan continues to rely on a higher training frequency and a balanced distribution of volume. This makes it easier to distribute higher weekly volumes and can offer advantages, especially for strength-focused training. If you prefer a bro split, it is, based on current evidence, an equivalent option for muscle growth at equal weekly volume.

The most important thing is that you feel comfortable with how your training is split and that you don't skip sessions. Find a split that fits well into your everyday life.

Your training week (microcycle) doesn't necessarily have to fit into a calendar week. Think of it more as an ongoing plan that can sometimes run a little longer or shorter.

Also, keep your chosen settings for at least 6–8 weeks and stick with them consistently – only then can changes really be assessed. The biggest enemy is too much variation and constant re-planning: someone who sticks to their plan in the long term, even if it isn't perfect, usually achieves better results than someone who keeps chasing the latest recommendation and constantly “optimizes” their plan.