The methodology

How a weekly volume ceiling becomes tonight's target

Every number below traces back to a named, dated source. Where we've bridged two separate literatures ourselves rather than lifted a figure directly from a paper, we say so plainly rather than let it read as more settled than it is.

The formula

From a weekly ceiling to a single session

Volume landmarks (MEV / MAV / MRV) describe a whole week. But a single session needs a fair slice of that number, and a flat divisor treats a 36-hour muscle the same as a 72-hour one. MYPertrophy derives the divisor from the same recovery baseline already driving the readiness grid:

session_dose_divisor = clamp( 168 / base_recovery_hours, 2.0, 4.0 )
168 = hours in a week. The result is "how many times this muscle could reasonably be trained per week," clamped so no muscle's single-session target assumes once-weekly training, and no muscle's target assumes more than a hard 3–4×/week even at the fastest end.
MuscleRecovery baselineDivisorWeekly ceilingSingle-session target
Biceps36h4.00320 sets5.0 sets
Chest48h3.5022 sets6.3 sets
Quads72h2.3320 sets8.6 sets

This is an engineering bridge between two separately-sourced literatures — weekly volume landmarks, and muscle-specific recovery timelines — not itself a number lifted from a single study, and we say so plainly rather than overclaim it:

  • 1Baz-Valle et al., 2022, Journal of Human Kinetics — systematic review of training volume and hypertrophy. Quads and biceps showed comparable dose-response curves, plateauing around 12–20 sets/week; triceps kept responding beyond 20, likely because it's usually a synergist rather than a prime mover in pushing compounds.
  • 2Pelland et al., 2025, Sports Medicine — dose-response meta-regression. Training frequency showed a negligible independent effect on hypertrophy once weekly volume was held equal, which is why this model doesn't claim training a muscle more often independently grows it faster — only that the single-session share of a fixed weekly ceiling should scale with how quickly that muscle actually recovers.
  • 3Fisher & Steele, 2019, Sports (MDPI) — acute EMG evidence that a synergist's involvement in a compound lift (triceps during a bench press, roughly half of pec major's activation) is real but partial. The lower and upper clamp on the divisor above (2.0×–4.0×) are our own engineering judgment, disclosed as such, not a number this or any single paper states directly.
Then it adapts to you

The zones above are a starting point, not a verdict

The landmarks in the table are literature defaults — the same numbers for everyone. Once a muscle has enough qualifying weeks of your own logged training, evaluated on a rolling trailing 12 weeks, MYPertrophy compares two purely objective signals pulled from your own sets, never a soreness or effort check-in: whether you've handled volume at or above the default maximum-adaptive landmark with no plateau in sight (tolerance), and whether a plateau has fired even at or below the default minimum (struggle). The balance between the two sets a scalar — 1.0 + 0.25 × (tolerance ratio − struggle ratio), clipped to 0.75–1.25 — that scales your maximum-adaptive and maximum-recoverable landmarks up or down together, keeping any calibrated number inside the range published dose-response literature has actually tested. Your minimum never moves; it's the most literature-stable of the three, and the two landmarks that do move are floored against each other so calibration can never push your maximum below your minimum. It's surfaced on the Progress screen, where the calibration note names the direction and size of the shift; every other screen — the dashboard, Build Workout, the dose targets in the table above — uses the calibrated numbers without saying so, the same "science translated into plain English, numbers rarely surfaced raw" approach the rest of the app follows. See it running on a real account →

References
  1. Baz-Valle, E., et al. (2022). A systematic review of the effects of resistance training volume on muscle hypertrophy. Journal of Human Kinetics.
  2. Pelland, J. C., et al. (2025). Dose–response relationships between resistance training variables and hypertrophy: a meta-regression. Sports Medicine.
  3. Fisher, J. P., & Steele, J. (2019). Heterogeneity in EMG activity of synergist muscles during compound resistance exercise. Sports (MDPI).

Train with the recovery windows already worked out for you.

Free, ad-free, and built on published research — currently in private testing.