A workout at your pace. Our choices explained.

Teixeira et al. (2012) review motivation and physical activity: 66 articles, mostly observational. This supports considering autonomy. It does not show that our prepared workout or fewer questions improve consistency. We offer an adjustable workout so a programme need not be rebuilt each time.

This meta-analysis compares training to failure with non-failure training. It finds no general advantage to seeking failure; a small overall advantage for non-failure in dynamic strength does not appear in every subgroup. This does not mean any light effort is enough. The app measures neither technique nor the exact number of repetitions still possible.

The ACSM overview concerns healthy adults and includes home programmes. Several resistance types support adaptations, with no equipment consistently superior. This does not make every variant interchangeable: available difficulty, progression, setup and stability still matter. The app cannot physically inspect supports.

Kassiano et al. (2022) include 8 studies and 241 young men. The review mainly examines strength and hypertrophy and cautions against excessive or random variation. It defines no optimal schedule and does not establish better consistency. We retain variety to make workouts less predictable; its effect on boredom remains to be evaluated.

We start from recorded work and today's constraints. This choice does not prove that the app makes people return more often. No journal entry does not necessarily mean no training. Elapsed time alone no longer removes a set after two closely spaced workouts; it does not guarantee recovery either.

These settings remain subject to equipment, time and mode constraints. A preference is not a measure of capacity or recovery. We do not automatically lower the level based on sex or infer menstrual phases. The general programme does not replace appropriate support for pregnancy, postpartum, rehabilitation or pain.