The Best Workout Plan for You (Hint: It's Not What You Think)

You've probably asked yourself this question: What's the best workout plan?

Maybe you've Googled it. Maybe you've downloaded a popular program from a fitness influencer. Maybe you've followed what your gym buddy does because it worked for him.

Here's the truth that most fitness advice won't tell you: There is no single best workout plan. There isn't even a single best methodology that works for everyone.

This isn't just opinion. It's what the science actually shows when researchers look at individual results instead of just group averages.

And once you understand this, you'll see why most cookie-cutter programs fail—and what actually works instead.

The Problem with "Best" Workout Programs

When scientists study exercise, they usually report average results. You'll read things like "participants gained 10% more muscle" or "strength increased by 25%."

But here's what those averages hide: massive differences between individuals.

A landmark study by Hubal and colleagues (2005) looked at 585 people doing the exact same 12-week arm training program. Same exercises. Same sets. Same reps. Same rest periods.

The results? Strength gains ranged from 0% to over 250%. Muscle growth ranged from losing 2% to gaining 59%.

Read that again. Some people more than tripled their strength. Others gained nothing. Same program. Completely different results.

This isn't a one-off finding. Study after study shows the same pattern. When Bamman and colleagues (2007) analyzed 66 people doing knee exercises, they found three distinct groups:

• High responders who gained 58% more muscle fiber size
• Moderate responders with average gains
• Non-responders who gained essentially zero

All following the same "evidence-based" program.

Why You Might Be a "Non-Responder" to Your Current Program

If you've ever followed a popular workout plan and got disappointing results, you probably blamed yourself. Maybe you thought you weren't trying hard enough. Maybe you figured your genetics were bad.

But the research suggests something different: You might just need a different approach.

Scientists used to think some people were simply "non-responders" to exercise—that their bodies just couldn't adapt. But newer research is turning this idea upside down.

A fascinating study by Montero and Lundby (2017) put this to the test. They found that when people trained just once per week, 69% showed no real improvement. But when they increased to 4-5 sessions per week? Zero non-responders. Everyone improved.

The "non-responders" weren't broken. They just needed more.

The Volume Discovery: What Low Responders Actually Need

Here's where it gets really interesting—and really practical for you.

Lixandrão and colleagues (2024) published a clever study in the Journal of Applied Physiology. They had 85 older adults train both legs at the same time, but with different amounts of work. One leg did just 2 sets per week. The other did 8 sets per week.

What they found changes everything we thought about "non-responders."

40% of people showed no real muscle growth with the low-volume approach. But those same people—doing more sets with their other leg—gained just as much muscle as the high responders.

Let that sink in. The same person was a "non-responder" on one leg and a normal responder on the other. The only difference was how much work they did.

Another study by Hammarström and colleagues (2020) found that 38% of people showed clear extra benefits from higher training volume. For these individuals, doing more sets wasn't just slightly better—it was the difference between gaining muscle and not gaining muscle.

The Science of Workout Plan Response

Let's go deeper into what the research actually shows. Because once you see the full picture, you'll understand why personalized training isn't just nice to have—it's essential.

The Magnitude of Individual Variation

The differences between people aren't small. They're enormous.

The Hubal et al. (2005) study in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise remains the largest of its kind, examining 585 subjects across eight research centers. The individual responses showed remarkable heterogeneity: 1RM strength gains ranged from 0% to over 250%, while biceps cross-sectional area changes ranged from -2% to +59%. Approximately 6% of participants showed less than 5% hypertrophy despite identical training protocols.

Bamman et al. (2007) in the Journal of Applied Physiology pioneered cluster analysis to classify responders. They identified extreme responders (n=17) who achieved 58% myofiber hypertrophy with robust increases in IGF-1Ea (+105%) and mechanogrowth factor (+126%). Meanwhile, non-responders (n=17) showed essentially zero change in muscle fiber size and minimal growth factor response.

This molecular signature was further explored by Petrella et al. (2008), who found extreme responders demonstrated 117% increases in satellite cell number versus negligible changes in non-responders.

More recent work by Mobley et al. (2018) in PLoS ONE examined 67 untrained males and found ribosome biogenesis as a key differentiator: high responders showed 32% increases in total muscle RNA compared to just 8% in low responders.

A 2024 systematic review in Sports Medicine and Health Science across 13 studies with 921 subjects found non-responder prevalence for muscle strength ranged from 0% to 44%, for muscle size 0% to 84%, and for functional performance 0% to 42%—with wide variation largely due to how researchers defined non-response.

Crossover Studies: Proof That Protocol Matters

The most compelling evidence comes from studies where the same people try different training approaches.

The Lixandrão et al. (2024) study used a within-subject unilateral design—meaning each person served as their own control. One leg trained at 2 sets per week, the other at 8 sets per week. The critical finding: 40% were classified as non-responders to low volume, but these same individuals achieved 5.5% quadriceps hypertrophy with higher volume. This directly demonstrates that apparent non-responders can "rescue" their adaptation with increased training dose.

Hammarström et al. (2020) in The Journal of Physiology compared 1 versus 3 sets per exercise using a contralateral limb design. They found 38% of participants displayed clear benefit from higher volume for hypertrophy. Individual differences were linked to ribosome biogenesis capacity—participants with greater early increases in total RNA showed substantially larger dose-response benefits.

A crossover study by Bonafiglia et al. (2016) found no correlation between responses to endurance versus sprint interval training. Yet all individuals responded on at least one variable when exposed to both protocols—suggesting that switching your approach can address apparent non-response.

Do True Non-Responders Even Exist?

The scientific consensus is shifting. Many researchers now argue that true non-responders don't exist—only people who haven't found the right stimulus yet.

Bonafiglia et al. (2021) published a systematic review in Frontiers in Physiology examining 149 studies. They found that only 6% appropriately estimated inter-individual differences in trainability. Most studies inappropriately interpreted observed variability as evidence of true individual differences when it might just be measurement error.

The influential review by Pickering and Kiely (2019) in Sports Medicine synthesized the evidence and concluded that non-response appears modality-specific rather than global. Subjects showing poor response to one type of training often respond positively to another. They recommend replacing the term "non-responders" with "did not respond" or "stubborn responders."

The Volume-Response Relationship

If you're not responding to your current program, research suggests you probably need more volume—not less.

Meta-analyses by Schoenfeld et al. (2017) in the Journal of Sports Sciences found each additional weekly set was associated with approximately 0.37% greater muscle gain. But as Schoenfeld notes, "there is always large inter-individual variability in response, so some will respond better to less while others more."

The practical solution? Researchers like Eric Helms and Mike Zourdos (Helms et al. 2020) have investigated autoregulation frameworks using Repetitions in Reserve (RIR) and RPE scales. This allows real-time adjustment of training load and volume based on your daily readiness—addressing individual variation without requiring expensive testing.

Of course, we automate that and more in Dr. Muscle.

The Real Lesson: Your Optimal Program Is Personal

So what does this mean for you?

It means the program that works great for your friend might not work for you. It means the influencer's "perfect" routine might be perfect for them—and mediocre for you.

The research points to several factors that differ between individuals:

Your volume needs are unique. Some people grow well on 10 sets per muscle per week. Others need 20+ sets to see the same results.

Your recovery capacity is unique. High responders in studies show different molecular signatures—more satellite cells, more growth factors, faster protein synthesis. But even if you're not genetically gifted, you can often compensate with adjusted training variables.

Your response to different exercises is unique. Someone who doesn't respond well to one movement pattern might respond great to another.

The bottom line: We should stop calling people "non-responders" and start calling them "haven't found what works yet."

Why Generic Programs Can't Solve This

Here's the problem with downloading a workout plan from the internet—even a science-based one.

That program was designed for the average person. But as we've seen, no one is actually average. You're either above average or below average on every training variable. The program that's "optimal on average" might be far from optimal for you.

You might need:

• More volume than the program prescribes (if you're a low responder who needs extra stimulus)
• Less volume (if you're a high responder who recovers slowly)
• Different rep ranges
• Different exercise selection
• More or less frequency

The only way to know is to track your individual response and adjust accordingly.

But who has time to analyze their training data, calculate progressive overload, and fine-tune every variable? Who knows exactly when to add a set, when to back off, when to change exercises?

This is exactly the problem Dr. Muscle was built to solve.

How Dr. Muscle Finds Your Best Workout

Dr. Muscle is an AI-powered workout app that does what no generic program can: it learns what works for you.

Here's how it works:

It tracks your individual response. Every workout, Dr. Muscle monitors your performance—your reps, your weights, your rate of progress. Not compared to averages. Compared to you.

It adjusts your volume automatically. Remember how the research shows low responders often need higher volume? Dr. Muscle detects when you're not progressing and can increase your training dose. If you're progressing well on lower volume, it doesn't add unnecessary work.

It uses RPE-based autoregulation. The app uses a Reps in Reserve (RIR) system—the same approach recommended by researchers like Eric Helms and Mike Zourdos. This means your training adapts to your daily readiness, not just a static plan.

It optimizes over time. The longer you use it, the better it understands your response patterns. It's like having a coach who's been tracking your data for months—except it never forgets and it's always doing the math.

It applies progressive overload intelligently. Instead of arbitrary weekly increases, Dr. Muscle adjusts your weights and reps based on actual performance. This is how you ensure you're always training at the right intensity for your current abilities.

Think of it this way: Generic programs give you a map designed for "average terrain." Dr. Muscle gives you GPS navigation that recalculates based on the actual road you're on.

The 10th Anniversary: Introducing Dr. Muscle X

After 10 years of helping people find their optimal training approach, we're launching something new: Dr. Muscle X.

This next-generation version takes everything we've learned from a decade of user data and scientific research, and makes the personalization even smarter.

Read about what's new in Dr. Muscle X →

Try It Free: Find Your Best Workout

The research is clear: what works best for you might be different from what works for everyone else. The only way to know is to train with a system that learns your individual response.

That's exactly what Dr. Muscle does.

Download Dr. Muscle free and start your personalized program →

Stop wondering if you're a "non-responder." Stop following programs designed for someone else. Start training in a way that adapts to you.

Because the best workout plan isn't the most popular one, or the one with the most scientific citations, or the one your favorite influencer uses.

The best workout plan is the one that works for you. And the only way to find it is to let your training evolve based on your own results.