Training plans are often marketed as if their weekly split is the decisive ingredient. A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis found no significant difference between split and full-body routines for strength or muscle growth when training volume was equated.
That does not make programming irrelevant. Exercise selection, weekly work, progression, effort, technique and recovery still matter. It means Sanos can choose a schedule around the user’s actual life without pretending that one fashionable split is universally superior.
A person with three reliable training days may thrive on full-body sessions. Someone who enjoys shorter, more frequent sessions may prefer a split. Adherence and recovery are useful personalisation signals for the digital twin.
Practical takeaways
- Choose the structure that fits the number and length of sessions you can sustain.
- Keep weekly volume and progressive overload visible when changing schedules.
- Use soreness, performance and completion history to adjust—not a single missed workout.
Where caution matters
- Previous injury, pain and clinical restrictions should shape exercise selection and loading.
- Equivalent average outcomes do not mean every individual responds identically.
- A schedule change should be previewed with its effect on recovery and weekly volume.