ArticleBiology of sport2025
A professional assessment of training plans for muscle hypertrophy and maximal strength developed by generative artificial intelligence.
Article in Biology of sport, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Training competence questionnaire for endurance and strength training: development and validation.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
- Physiological relevance and generation-level stability of artificial intelligence-generated race-day warm-up and cool-down plans for sprint swimming: an expert-rated comparison of four large language models.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of resistance training plans for muscle hypertrophy and maximal strength generated by three large language models (LLMs): GPT-3.5 (via ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot) and Google Gemini (GG). A total of 10 experienced coaches, each with at least a bachelor's degree in exercise science and at least 2 years of coaching experience, rated these plans on a 1-5 Likert scale based on 27 criteria essential for effective training plan design. The LLMs were accessed on April 30, 2024, with a prompt structure that included key training objectives and the training history of a fictional advanced trainee. Results showed that the overall quality of the LLM-generated training plans was moderate. GG outperformed GPT-3.5 (via ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot) for hypertrophy-related plans on 2 out of 27 criteria (advanced exercise methods, recovery strategies; p < 0.05), while GPT-3.5 (via Microsoft Copilot) outperformed GG for strength-related plans on 1 out of 27 criteria (testing procedure; p < 0.05). Across all criteria, GG received ratings > 3 more frequently than GPT-3.5 (via ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot), particularly for general aspects, training principles, and training methods. Differences between hypertrophy- and strength-oriented plans within each LLM were minimal, although GPT-3.5 (via ChatGPT) showed the most inconsistency in ratings. Although LLM-generated plans can serve as an initial framework for hypertrophy and strength development, expert supervision remains crucial to refine these plans, as LLMs cannot account for individual responses to training, safety considerations, and the complex physiological adaptation processes observed by experienced coaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.