60 days isn't long enough to evaluate program performance; that's about the length of one mesocycle and thus it is not sufficient for evaluating how that perfor

60 days isn't long enough to evaluate program performance; that's about the length of one mesocycle and thus it is not sufficient for evaluating how that performance carries forward. E.g. you could compare a peaking cycle to a volume cycle and falsely conclude that the peaking cycle is strictly better for strength gains. However, peaking is not sustainable and only provides temporary adaptations. You're also analyzing increases in volume, whereas most people will be interested in increasing 1RM strength. Volume is obviously a key component of this, but volume as a metric is also tricky. The number of challenging sets is likely a better indicator of training stress and a driver of muscle growth. https://www.strongerbyscience.com/can-we-predict-muscle-growth/ https://www.strongerbyscience.com/can-we-predict-muscle-grow... For instance, it's trivial to increase total volume by performing high reps of a light weight over a long period of time. I can spend all day lifting 35% of my 1RM, accumulate astronomical volume, but see little to no training benefit. I also take issue with your claim that your algorithm 'optimizes for accelerated muscle growth', yet it does not appear you have measured muscle growth at all. It's an absurd claim to make; you've optimized for a setsXrepsXweight volume metric. This is perhaps a semantic issue, but deceptive nonetheless. ______ I imagine that the app results in reasonable programming, and it may even be effective, but you have a long way to go before claiming any kind of empirical validation.