How to Track Sets Per Muscle Group Per Week (And Why Your App Probably Does It Wrong)

Open your workout tracker. Look at your weekly summary. It probably says something like “32 sets this week” or “5 exercises for back.” Now ask yourself: does that number actually mean anything?

If your app is counting every set you log as one undifferentiated unit of “volume,” it is giving you useless data. A set of barbell rows is not the same as a set of concentration curls. They train different muscles, impose different systemic fatigue, and contribute differently to your weekly volume targets. But most trackers treat them identically.

This matters because every evidence-based approach to hypertrophy programming relies on muscle-specific set counts. Volume landmarks like MEV, MAV, and MRV are defined per muscle group, not per workout. If you cannot accurately track sets per muscle group per week, you are programming blind.

Why per-muscle-group tracking matters

The research on hypertrophy dose-response is clear on one thing: volume needs to be prescribed and monitored at the muscle group level. Schoenfeld et al. (2017) found a graded dose-response relationship between weekly sets per muscle group and hypertrophy, with higher volumes generally producing greater gains up to a point. Israetel’s volume landmark framework (MEV, MAV, MRV) is entirely built around per-muscle-group set counts.

This has direct implications for how you programme:

• Your quads might be able to handle 20+ sets per week. Your rear delts might grow optimally at 8.
• If you are only tracking total sets, you have no idea whether a muscle group is at its MEV (barely enough to grow) or blowing past its MRV (accumulating junk volume).
• Fatigue management across a mesocycle requires knowing what each muscle group is actually receiving, not just what your session total looks like.

The whole point of tracking volume is to titrate your training dose per muscle group over time. If your tracker treats every set as one undifferentiated unit, you can log your sessions but you can’t actually programme from the data.

The compound exercise problem

Here is where it gets complicated, and where most apps completely fall over.

A barbell row is a “back” exercise. But it also trains your biceps, rear delts, forearms, and to some extent your erectors and core. So when you log 4 sets of barbell rows, how many “back sets” is that? How many “bicep sets”?

The answer depends on who you ask, and it matters more than most people realise.

Option 1: Count everything as one set for the primary mover

The simplest approach. A set of barbell rows = 1 back set. Biceps get nothing on paper. This is what most apps do by default, and it is wrong for a different reason: it systematically undercounts secondary movers. If all your bicep volume comes from rows and pulldowns, you are getting significant bicep stimulus that is not showing up in your logs.

Option 2: Give full credit to every muscle involved

A set of barbell rows = 1 back set + 1 bicep set + 1 rear delt set. This overcounts badly. The mechanical tension and stretch on your biceps during a barbell row is not equivalent to a set of curls taken to failure. Counting them as equal inflates your numbers and leads you to believe you are doing more direct work than you actually are.

Option 3: Fractional credit (half sets, quarter sets)

A set of barbell rows = 1 back set + 0.5 bicep sets. This lines up with how the research actually counts secondary movers, and it’s what experienced coaches mean when they talk about “indirect volume.” The common objection — “where do the fractions come from?” — only holds if you’re guessing per-exercise. With a standardised mapping (every secondary mover counts as 0.5, regardless of which compound it came from) you get a defensible, reproducible answer that captures indirect work without inflating it.

What the research actually supports

Israetel’s practical recommendation is straightforward: count a set in full if the muscle is the primary mover, and at half credit if it’s a secondary mover trained through a meaningful range of motion. Direct work and indirect work both contribute to growth, but they don’t contribute equally.

“A set of rows counts as a set for the back. It also counts as maybe half a set for biceps. But it does not count as a set of biceps.” — Dr Mike Israetel

Schoenfeld’s work reinforces this indirectly. Studies examining the dose-response for hypertrophy typically count sets where the target muscle is the primary agonist. When researchers say “10 sets per week for biceps produced more growth than 5 sets,” those 10 sets are direct bicep work — rows and pulldowns are additional indirect stimulus on top.

The practical implication: secondary contributions are real and worth counting, but at half credit. They build into your weekly muscle group totals alongside direct work — they don’t replace it.

A practical framework for counting

Here is what I actually recommend, and what I use myself:

In practice, this looks like:

Then, when you evaluate your weekly volume:

1. Add up your primary and secondary counts per muscle group. Each set contributes 1.0 to its primary mover and 0.5 to each secondary mover. Your weekly total for biceps, for example, includes direct curls (1.0 each) plus rows and pulldowns (0.5 each).
2. Check the totals against your volume landmarks. Are your quads, chest, back, biceps, etc. between MEV and MRV?
3. Add direct work where the totals fall short. If your rear delts are sitting below MEV from secondary contributions alone, you need direct sets — face pulls, rear delt flyes, or similar.

This approach matches the research and how experienced coaches programme. It avoids the two failure modes from Options 1 and 2: undercounting indirect work entirely, or treating it as equivalent to direct work.

Common mistakes to avoid

Treating all sets as equal. A machine preacher curl to failure and a set of heavy barbell rows are not equivalent bicep stimuli. Do not let your app tell you they are. The quality of the set matters: range of motion, proximity to failure, the degree of stretch under load, and whether the target muscle is actually limiting.

Obsessing over exact fractions. Trying to assign 0.37 sets of bicep credit to a barbell row is a waste of time. The data isn’t that precise, and your body doesn’t work in spreadsheet increments. The 1.0 / 0.5 split is enough resolution — it captures the difference that matters without inventing precision that doesn’t exist.

Ignoring exercise selection quality. Not all “back sets” are created equal. A set of chest-supported rows with a full stretch and controlled eccentric is better volume for your lats than a set of sloppy barbell rows with momentum. Per-muscle-group counting is step one. Exercise selection and execution quality is step two, and arguably more important.

Never adjusting your counts over time. Volume landmarks are individual and change as you get more trained. If you have been doing 12 sets of chest for six months and progress has stalled, your MAV has probably shifted. Your tracking should make it easy to see these trends, not just give you a static weekly snapshot.

What this means for your app

Most workout trackers were designed around logging exercises. They’ll happily record that you did 4x10 barbell rows at 100kg. But ask them “how many effective sets did my biceps get this week, accounting for direct and indirect work?” and they have no answer.

This is the gap that motivated ResistX. Every exercise in the database has defined primary and secondary muscle mappings, and the app applies the 1.0 / 0.5 rule automatically. Log your sets and the weekly volume dashboard shows actual per-muscle totals — direct work counted in full, indirect work counted at half. No spreadsheets, no manual fractioning, no guesswork.

But regardless of what tool you use, the principle is the same: if you are serious about optimising hypertrophy, you need to track sets per muscle group, not just sets per session.

The framework in 30 seconds

Volume drives hypertrophy, but only if you know where it’s landing. Track your sets per muscle group, account for what compounds are actually contributing, and don’t trust an app that lumps everything into a single weekly total.