Skip to content
UmAtletaIA

Coach · being validated in the beta

Rules with sources. Explanations in plain language.

The Coach builds your week with rules that cite studies, says how strongly science supports them and warns when a rule is coaching practice. The AI only explains. You are the one who approves.

15
topics with sources
49
checked references
4
levels of evidence

Example week

1 hard in 6 sessions

  1. Mon

    Day offOff

    The week starts again after an easy or free day.

  2. Tue

    Bike 30/15HardEvidence moderate

    Intensity early in the week. 30/15 intervals gave more VO2max than 4 × 5 min. See the source

  3. Wed

    Technique swimEasyEvidence moderate

    An easy day between two hard ones. Technique is part of the warm-up, with no promise of a measured gain. See the source

  4. Thu

    Supporting strengthModerateEvidence strong

    Heavy strength work improves economy. Two days a week in the base phase, never to failure. See the source

  5. Fri

    Z2 run and mobilityEasyEvidence strong

    Easy. About 10 minutes of mobility a week is already enough to improve range of motion. See the source

  6. Sat

    Long Z2 rideEasyEvidence moderate

    The long session stays at the end of the week and never the day after intervals. See the source

  7. Sun

    Easy runEasyEvidence moderate

    Closes the week with no extra load. Volume progresses by 10% at most. See the source

An illustrative example for an amateur triathlete. For people who only ride, the same rules build the cycling week. Not a real person, and not a prescription.

How the Coach decides

Rules decide. The AI explains. You approve.

The week does not come from a language model's guess. Every step has an owner and every number has an origin.

01 · Rules

The skeleton is testable code

How many hard sessions fit, how much volume can rise, what cannot come the day before intervals. Safety rules no AI can cross, and each one points to its source.

02 · AI

Picks content, writes the why

Within what the rules allow, the AI picks exercises and writes the explanation. Turned the AI down? The week comes out the same, by rules alone.

03 · You

Accept, adjust or ask for another

“I'm sick”, “I'm traveling”, “no gym”: the Coach replans. Nothing becomes a workout without your approval.

The scientific basis

What the literature supports, and what the Coach does with it.

For each prescription decision: the finding, the strength of the evidence and the rule the Coach adopted. Nothing here was made up: what is coaching practice with no study behind it is labeled as practice.

Evidence strong

A consistent meta-analysis or systematic review.

Evidence moderate

Small controlled trials, or a meta-analysis with few studies.

Evidence limited

Observational study, case study or expert consensus.

Evidence practice

A coaching rule no study has tested. Called practice, never science.

Endurance

Intensity distribution

Evidence moderate

What science says

Polarized and pyramidal training outperform the threshold model (a lot of time at moderate-to-hard pace) in trained athletes. Between the two, the difference is small and depends on the person and the race. High-level endurance athletes spend 75% to 90% of their time at low intensity.

What the Coach does

About 80% of the week's sessions are easy or technical and about 20% are hard, capped at 3 hard sessions a week (2 for beginners). Base phase and the health goal follow the pyramidal model; the specific phase and short races, the polarized one. We don't fight over labels: adherence matters more.

Caveat. The difference between polarized and pyramidal is not consistent across studies.

Sources (4)

Volume progression and running injury

Evidence moderate

What science says

In 873 novice runners, increasing weekly distance by more than 30% over two weeks was associated with more distance-related injuries, but without statistical significance (risk 1.59; interval 0.96 to 2.66). Between 10% and 30% there was no clear difference. The 10% rule is a cautious reference, not a proven limit.

What the Coach does

The default is to increase by at most 10% a week in each sport, and a week more than 30% above the two previous ones is not saved (a hard rule). The long run stays within 35% of weekly volume: that is coaching practice, with no study that fixes the number.

Sources (1)

Tapering before a race

Evidence strong

What science says

Meta-analysis: reducing volume progressively for about two weeks, while keeping intensity and frequency, improves performance. Reductions of 41% to 60% of volume were the most effective; 21% to 40% also helped.

What the Coach does

A taper of 8 to 14 days in running and cycling (longer in swimming). Volume drops 40% to 60% gradually, with the same frequency and the same intensity: the short intervals stay. No long session in the final stretch.

Sources (2)

Blocks and recovery weeks

Evidence moderate

What science says

Block periodization improves endurance performance, with few studies and almost all in cyclists. The 3:1 split (three loading weeks and one easy week) has no study to support it: it is a coaching convention.

What the Coach does

With no race scheduled, the plan moves in 4-week blocks (3 loading and 1 easy). The 3:1 shows on screen as coaching practice, not as evidence.

Caveat. 3:1 blocks: coaching practice.

Sources (1)

Strength for runners and cyclists

Evidence strong

What science says

Heavy strength training (from about 80% of 1RM) improves running economy and time-trial performance, with no effect on VO2max. The certainty of the evidence is moderate to low.

What the Coach does

Supporting strength work twice a week in the base phase and once in the specific phase and the taper, with heavy loads and few reps on compound leg exercises, never to failure. The Coach does not promise VO2max.

Caveat. The exact dose (2 and 1 per week) is the Coach's design, supported by the reviews, not a number taken from a single study.

Sources (2)

Strength and endurance in the same week

Evidence strong

What science says

Adding endurance does not reduce maximal strength or hypertrophy; it reduces explosive strength, more so when both are in the same session. In the same session, doing strength first gives more leg strength gains. Interference grows with the frequency and duration of endurance work, and running interferes more than cycling.

What the Coach does

If strength training is the person's focus, strength comes before cardio. If it is supporting work, endurance comes first or in another window of the day, about 6 hours apart. Running weighs more than cycling in the interference count.

Caveat. The 6-hour gap is the most cited practical guide, not a measured limit.

Sources (4)

How we measure load: effort, sleep and HRV, no ACWR

Evidence strong

What science says

Session perceived exertion (a 0 to 10 rating times the minutes) is a valid and reliable measure of internal load. Training guided by heart rate variability (HRV) improves things slightly and produces fewer non-responders, but the studies are small. The acute-to-chronic workload ratio (ACWR) has no evidence that it predicts injury.

What the Coach does

The load of strength work and of sessions without heart rate enters the count as perceived exertion times duration. Sleep and HRV only adjust the day's intensity and never rewrite the week. ACWR is left out.

Sources (5)

Cycling: short intervals

Evidence moderate

What science says

Intervals of 30 s hard and 15 s easy, in sets, gave more VO2max and power than 4 × 5 min in trained cyclists, in studies lasting a few weeks. For sweet spot (88% to 94% of FTP) there is no direct basis proving it optimal.

What the Coach does

30/15 is used as a VO2 session alongside 4 × 4–5 min. Sweet spot and threshold become tempo sessions in the base phase, for those short on time, labeled as practice.

Caveat. Sweet spot: coaching practice.

Sources (1)

Swimming: CSS, volume and technique

Evidence moderate

What science says

Critical swim speed (CSS) is a valid field estimate, but it overestimates the lactate threshold by about 8%: it is better for following a trend. Short, intense training matched high-volume training in studies of a few weeks with young swimmers. Which drills work, almost no one has tested.

What the Coach does

Swim zones have a conservative margin (threshold = CSS minus 3%). With 2 sessions a week, quality counts as much as volume. Drills are part of the warm-up, with no promise of a measured gain.

Sources (4)

Triathlon and multisport

Evidence limited

What science says

In recreational half-distance triathletes, pyramidal and polarized patterns were related to the result, in a small study. For the brick (bike followed by run) there are few studies, and the argument is specificity: running right after the bike changes the movement pattern.

What the Coach does

Swim, bike and run with at least 2 sessions each. A brick every 2 weeks, only in the specific phase, labeled as coaching practice and not as evidence of gains.

Caveat. Brick: coaching practice.

Sources (2)

Strength

Strength training: how much, how often, how far

Evidence strong

What science says

There is a relationship between weekly volume and hypertrophy: 10 sets per muscle per week is a practical floor and 12 to 20 is the recommended range. Training each group 2 times a week or more is a reasonable pattern. Going to failure gives a trivial advantage for hypertrophy and none for strength. Resting more than 60 s between sets brings a small gain, and doing compound lifts first gives more strength in them.

What the Coach does

10 to 20 sets per group per week when the goal is hypertrophy (6 to 10 as supporting work), 2 times or more per group, 1 to 3 reps in reserve as the target (failure only optional and never on the legs of someone who runs), 2 to 3 minutes of rest on compound lifts, and compound lifts first.

Sources (7)

Strength training: periodize, autoregulate and deload

Evidence moderate

What science says

Periodized training beats non-periodized training for maximal strength. Autoregulating by reps in reserve yields as much as fixed percentage-based loading or more, with few good studies. The deload (an easier week) is expert consensus, and the only trial with a deload week in the middle of nine found no benefit for hypertrophy.

What the Coach does

Light undulation within the mesocycle and progression by reps. The deload is not mandatory: it falls in the endurance recovery week or at the end of the mesocycle, and only when the check-in or pain call for it.

Caveat. Deload: limited evidence (consensus), so it is conditional, not automatic.

Sources (4)

Body and recovery

Mobility and stretching

Evidence strong

What science says

Long static stretching (more than 60 s per muscle) before exercise reduces strength and power; up to 60 s within a dynamic warm-up has a trivial effect. Range of motion improves with weekly volume, around 10 minutes per week per muscle. Full range-of-motion strength training improves flexibility as much as stretching.

What the Coach does

Dynamic preparation, without long static stretching; finishing with 20 to 30 s holds. A target of about 10 minutes per week per priority area, and full range-of-motion strength work counts toward the target.

Sources (3)

Health and longevity goal

Evidence strong

What science says

Guidelines for adults call for 150 to 300 minutes per week of moderate activity (or 75 to 150 of vigorous), strength exercise on 2 or 3 days and regular flexibility work.

What the Coach does

For people with the health goal, the week's floor follows these guidelines (150 minutes or more, strength twice, mobility twice) and progression is the slowest of the three.

Sources (2)

Muscle soreness when returning to strength training

Evidence strong

What science says

The first session with a new exercise protects against damage and soreness in the following ones (the repeated bout effect), so strong soreness belongs to the first 1 or 2 weeks. Stretching before or after does not reduce soreness in a meaningful way. Foam rolling after training slightly reduces perceived soreness, and massage is the technique with the largest effect on delayed-onset soreness.

What the Coach does

People returning to strength training start with about 50% to 60% of the sets, 3 to 4 reps in reserve and no eccentric emphasis in the first two weeks. With strong soreness, that day and the next have no hard session, endurance stays easy and short, and foam rolling and dynamic mobility come in. Stretching is not a treatment.

Sources (7)

Honesty

When it is coaching practice, the screen says it is practice.

Part of what a good coach does has never been tested in a study. The Coach uses these rules because they work in practice, and does not dress them up as science.

What stays as practice

  • Evidence practice4-week blocks with 3 loading weeks and 1 easy week
  • Evidence practiceLong run within 35% of weekly volume
  • Evidence practiceA brick every 2 weeks in the specific phase
  • Evidence practiceSweet spot and threshold as tempo sessions in the base phase
  • Evidence practiceAbout 6 hours between strength work and endurance
  • Evidence practicePyramid sets as the person's preference, not as evidence

What the Coach does not do

  • It does not diagnose

    It organizes and explains your data. Strong pain, symptoms or injury call for a professional.

  • It does not touch medication

    It does not recommend, adjust or calculate doses of medication or supplements.

  • It does not use ACWR

    The acute:chronic workload ratio has no evidence that it predicts injury, so it is left out of the count.

  • It does not promise VO2max

    It promises judgment: what was asked, what was done, why it changed and how strongly science supports it.

  • It does not fake certainty

    When a rule is coaching practice, the screen says it is practice.

Transparency

How this page was made, and what is still missing.

Checked references

Each of the 49 references was checked (authors, year, journal, volume and DOI) in public databases, Crossref and PubMed, on October 18, 2026.

Reading from abstracts

The studies were read from their abstracts, on October 15, 2026. Where the full article was not opened, we do not state numbers from it.

Review by professionals: pending

Exercise professionals and researchers have not reviewed these rules yet. When they do, their names and the date will be added here. Found a mistake? Write to contato@umatleta.ia.br.

References

All sources.

  1. Afonso et al. (2021). Strength Training versus Stretching for Improving Range of Motion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Healthcare, 9:427. doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9040427
  2. Baz-Valle et al. (2022). A Systematic Review of the Effects of Different Resistance Training Volumes on Muscle Hypertrophy. Journal of Human Kinetics, 81:199-210. doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2022-0017
  3. Behm et al. (2016). Acute effects of muscle stretching on physical performance, range of motion, and injury incidence in healthy active individuals: a systematic review. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 41:1-11. doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2015-0235
  4. Bell et al. (2023). Integrating Deloading into Strength and Physique Sports Training Programmes: An International Delphi Consensus Approach. Sports Medicine - Open, 9. doi.org/10.1186/s40798-023-00633-0
  5. Blagrove, Howatson e Hayes (2018). Effects of Strength Training on the Physiological Determinants of Middle- and Long-Distance Running Performance: A Systematic Review. Sports Medicine, 48:1117-1149. doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0835-7
  6. Bosquet et al. (2007). Effects of tapering on performance: a meta-analysis. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 39:1358-1365. doi.org/10.1249/mss.0b013e31806010e0
  7. Bull et al. (2020). World Health Organization Issues New Guidelines on Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 54:1451-1462. doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2020-102955
  8. Cheung, Hume e Maxwell (2003). Delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS). Sports Medicine, 33:145-164. doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200333020-00005
  9. Coleman et al. (2024). Gaining more from doing less? The effects of a one-week deload period during supervised resistance training on muscular adaptations. PeerJ, 12:e16777. doi.org/10.7717/peerj.16777
  10. Davis et al. (2020). Effect of sports massage on performance and recovery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine, 6:e000614. doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2019-000614
  11. Dekerle et al. (2002). Validity and Reliability of Critical Speed, Critical Stroke Rate, and Anaerobic Capacity in Relation to Front Crawl Swimming Performances. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 23:93-98. doi.org/10.1055/s-2002-20125
  12. Düking et al. (2021). Monitoring and adapting endurance training on the basis of heart rate variability monitored by wearable technologies: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 24:1180-1192. doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2021.04.012
  13. Dupuy et al. (2018). An Evidence-Based Approach for Choosing Post-exercise Recovery Techniques to Reduce Markers of Muscle Damage, Soreness, Fatigue, and Inflammation: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis. Frontiers in Physiology, 9. doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.00403
  14. Eddens, van Someren e Howatson (2018). The Role of Intra-Session Exercise Sequence in the Interference Effect: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. Sports Medicine, 48:177-188. doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0784-1
  15. Foster et al. (2001). A New Approach to Monitoring Exercise Training. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 15:109. doi.org/10.1519/1533-4287(2001)015<0109:anatme>2.0.co;2
  16. Garber et al. (2011). Quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neuromotor fitness in apparently healthy adults: guidance for prescribing exercise. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 43:1334-1359. doi.org/10.1249/mss.0b013e318213fefb
  17. González-Ravé et al. (2021). Training Intensity Distribution, Training Volume, and Periodization Models in Elite Swimmers: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 16:913-926. doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2020-0906
  18. Haddad et al. (2017). Session-RPE Method for Training Load Monitoring: Validity, Ecological Usefulness, and Influencing Factors. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 11. doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2017.00612
  19. Herbert, de Noronha e Kamper (2011). Stretching to prevent or reduce muscle soreness after exercise. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd004577.pub3
  20. Hyldahl, Chen e Nosaka (2017). Mechanisms and Mediators of the Skeletal Muscle Repeated Bout Effect. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, 45:24-33. doi.org/10.1249/jes.0000000000000095
  21. Impellizzeri et al. (2020). Acute:Chronic Workload Ratio: Conceptual Issues and Fundamental Pitfalls. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 15:907-913. doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2019-0864
  22. Javaloyes et al. (2019). Training Prescription Guided by Heart-Rate Variability in Cycling. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 14:23-32. doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2018-0122
  23. Larsen, Kristiansen e van den Tillaar (2021). Effects of subjective and objective autoregulation methods for intensity and volume on enhancing maximal strength during resistance-training interventions: a systematic review. PeerJ, 9:e10663. doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10663
  24. McHugh (2003). Recent advances in the understanding of the repeated bout effect: the protective effect against muscle damage from a single bout of eccentric exercise. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 13:88-97. doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0838.2003.02477.x
  25. Millet e Vleck (2000). Physiological and biomechanical adaptations to the cycle to run transition in Olympic triathlon: review and practical recommendations for training. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 34:384-390. doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.34.5.384
  26. Murlasits, Kneffel e Thalib (2018). The physiological effects of concurrent strength and endurance training sequence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 36:1212-1219. doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2017.1364405
  27. Nielsen et al. (2014). Excessive Progression in Weekly Running Distance and Risk of Running-Related Injuries: An Association Which Varies According to Type of Injury. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 44:739-747. doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2014.5164
  28. Nugent et al. (2017). Effects of Low-Volume, High-Intensity Training on Performance in Competitive Swimmers: A Systematic Review. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 31:837-847. doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0000000000001583
  29. Nunes et al. (2021). What influence does resistance exercise order have on muscular strength gains and muscle hypertrophy? A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Sport Science, 21:149-157. doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2020.1733672
  30. Refalo et al. (2023). Influence of Resistance Training Proximity-to-Failure on Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 53:649-665. doi.org/10.1007/s40279-022-01784-y
  31. Revisão sistemática (2023). Effects of tapering on performance in endurance athletes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 18:e0282838. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282838
  32. Robinson et al. (2024). Exploring the Dose–Response Relationship Between Estimated Resistance Training Proximity to Failure, Strength Gain, and Muscle Hypertrophy: A Series of Meta-Regressions. Sports Medicine, 54:2209-2231. doi.org/10.1007/s40279-024-02069-2
  33. Rønnestad e Mujika (2014). Optimizing strength training for running and cycling endurance performance: A review. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 24:603-612. doi.org/10.1111/sms.12104
  34. Rønnestad et al. (2015). Short intervals induce superior training adaptations compared with long intervals in cyclists – An effort-matched approach. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 25:143-151. doi.org/10.1111/sms.12165
  35. Rønnestad, Hansen e Ellefsen (2014). Block periodization of high-intensity aerobic intervals provides superior training effects in trained cyclists. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 24:34-42. doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2012.01485.x
  36. Rosenblat et al. (2025). Which training intensity distribution intervention will produce the greatest improvements in maximal oxygen uptake and time-trial performance? A network meta-analysis of individual participant data. Sports Medicine, 55:655-673. doi.org/10.1007/s40279-024-02149-3
  37. Rosenblat, Perrotta e Vicenzino (2019). Polarized vs. Threshold Training Intensity Distribution on Endurance Sport Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 33:3491-3500. doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0000000000002618
  38. Schoenfeld et al. (2016). Longer Interset Rest Periods Enhance Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy in Resistance-Trained Men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 30:1805-1812. doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0000000000001272
  39. Schoenfeld, Ogborn e Krieger (2016). Effects of Resistance Training Frequency on Measures of Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Medicine, 46:1689-1697. doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0543-8
  40. Schoenfeld, Ogborn e Krieger (2017). Dose-response relationship between weekly resistance training volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35:1073-1082. doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1210197
  41. Schumann et al. (2022). Compatibility of concurrent aerobic and strength training for skeletal muscle size and function: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 52:601-612. doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01587-7
  42. Sellés-Pérez et al. (2019). Polarized vs pyramidal training intensity distribution in recreational marathoners: A randomized controlled study. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 18:708-715. PubMed 31827355
  43. Stöggl e Sperlich (2014). Polarized training has greater impact on key endurance variables than threshold, high intensity, or high volume training. Frontiers in Physiology, 5. doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2014.00033
  44. Stöggl e Sperlich (2015). The training intensity distribution among well-trained and elite endurance athletes. Frontiers in Physiology, 6. doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2015.00295
  45. Thomas et al. (2018). The Relation Between Stretching Typology and Stretching Duration: The Effects on Range of Motion. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 39:243-254. doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-101146
  46. Wakayoshi et al. (1992). Determination and validity of critical velocity as an index of swimming performance in the competitive swimmer. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 64:153-157. doi.org/10.1007/bf00717953
  47. Wiewelhove et al. (2019). A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Foam Rolling on Performance and Recovery. Frontiers in Physiology, 10. doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2019.00376
  48. Williams et al. (2017). Comparison of Periodized and Non-Periodized Resistance Training on Maximal Strength: A Meta-Analysis. Sports Medicine, 47:2083-2100. doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0734-y
  49. Wilson et al. (2012). A Proposed Model for Examining the Interference Phenomenon between Concurrent Aerobic and Strength Training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26:2293-2307. doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0b013e31823a3e2d

We are in closed beta. Your data, finally in one place.

Join the waitlist and we will let you know when more spots open. No spam, and you can leave whenever you want.