Compare two completed strength-training blocks across exercise selection, weekly sets, sessions, duration and recorded performance changes.
Single-session comparisons are noisy. A training block gives context for exercise selection, weekly volume, session frequency and duration. Comparing those variables side-by-side makes it easier to describe what actually changed between phases.
Start with structure: weekly sets, sessions per week, average session duration and block length. Then inspect exercise-specific performance. This separates program changes from performance observations.
A load increase is easier to interpret when the exercise itself stayed consistent. A change in exercise, rep range or exposure can make a direct number comparison less meaningful. The tool therefore keeps exercise rows explicit.
A useful review question is not simply “did the numbers go up?” It is “what changed, and what happened at the same time?” The answer can guide the design of the next block without pretending that one factor caused every outcome.
The tool relies entirely on your inputs. It does not assess technique quality, readiness, sleep, injury status or the statistical reliability of a performance change. Block comparison is descriptive, not causal.
Yes. Enter each block length separately.
Yes. The comparison shows the direction and approximate percentage change.
No. It shows co-occurring changes; it does not establish causation.
Yes. Exercise-specific rows make those changes visible.
Yes. Use the same unit within a given exercise row.
It is designed around strength blocks and strength-performance records.