Turn a fixed weekly training budget into a clear order of protected sessions so a busy week does not force random cuts.
0 means not a current priority; 10 means protect it first.
Most weekly plans are written as if every session has equal value. Real weeks do not behave that way. A priority allocator forces the user to state what matters most so a time shortage has an explicit response.
The output is a protection hierarchy, not a promise about adaptations. If strength is the highest priority, the planner protects strength time before lower-priority categories. If goals are balanced, the user can choose a strategy that keeps smaller allocations alive instead.
Start with the time you can reliably train, not an aspirational schedule. Then rate the outcomes that actually matter for the current phase. A 9/10 versus 7/10 is not a scientific measure; it is a decision weight that communicates preference.
The block size controls how granular the plan becomes. Smaller blocks give finer allocations, while larger blocks force the user to make clearer trade-offs. The maximum practical capacity is also capped by the number of available days multiplied by preferred session length.
The numbers in this tool represent time allocation, not a physiological dose. A 30-minute block of strength work is not automatically equivalent to a 30-minute cardio block in training effect. The allocator uses a common currency—time—because that is the constraint many people can actually control. It then lets users make the trade-offs explicit across their goals.
Protected work is the portion of the schedule the user would be most reluctant to lose. Flexible work is the first place to make cuts when the week becomes smaller. By showing both the minutes and the protection order, the tool gives the user a practical rule for future schedule changes. This is more useful than a single weekly recommendation because it explains how the plan should adapt when circumstances change.
A 15-minute planning block can produce a fine-grained allocation, while a 45-minute block forces stronger decisions. Neither is universally correct. The best granularity depends on how specifically the user schedules training. The tool therefore exposes the block size rather than hiding rounding inside the formula. That transparency makes the result easier to audit and easier to change.
A user has 240 reliable minutes, four training days, and strength at 9/10 while cardio is 6/10. The allocator can give more time to strength while retaining a smaller cardio block. When one training day disappears, the user already has a clear rule for which allocation should be protected and which should be trimmed first.
Rerun the tool when your weekly time budget changes materially, when the main goal of a block changes, or when a new sport commitment takes a predictable amount of time. Keeping the same priority weights while changing only the time budget can show exactly what the schedule loses during a busy phase.
No. It is a planning weight you assign. The tool does not convert a priority score into a physiological prescription.
A weekly minute budget is only useful if it can fit inside the days and session length you actually have.
Only when that matches your intention. The tool allows zero so secondary goals can be deliberately left outside the current block.
Yes. Re-run it with the reduced minute budget and the same priorities to see what work should be protected.