PPL vs Upper/Lower: Which Split for How Many Days?

“Push Pull Legs or upper/lower?” sounds like a question about which training system is better.

It is really a question about organisation first.

Upper/lower divides training into two session types. PPL divides it into three. That determines how often the same session comes back at a given number of training days — but it does not automatically follow which split produces more muscle or strength.

Making that distinction makes the comparison considerably easier.

The frequency arithmetic

If both splits are trained as a rolling cycle, the raw maths looks like this:

That table is correct — but it is easily misread.

More frequency is not automatically more muscle growth. When weekly volume is comparable, meta-analyses show no meaningful hypertrophy advantage purely from training a muscle more often. Split and full-body programs likewise deliver very similar results in volume-equated training.

So the frequency arithmetic mainly answers a practical question:

Across how many sessions are you spreading your work?

More on placing frequency per muscle group in context.

For strength, higher exercise frequency can still be interesting, because you practise a specific movement more often. And for hypertrophy it can help you spread a lot of volume across several sessions rather than cramming everything into one long one.

That is an indirect benefit of frequency — not a magic effect of the number “2×”.

What PPL actually buys you: volume

Strictly speaking, PPL does not automatically buy more volume.

You can do 80 sets per week on four upper/lower days and 80 on six PPL days as well. The split only decides how that work gets distributed.

In the hitPR catalogue plans, though, the specific templates differ in size:

The Reddit PPL contains considerably more work than the 4-day upper/lower in this particular selection. But that is a property of those two programs, not of the split’s name.

What PPL genuinely makes structurally easier is distributing high volumes. If you want to fit 14 direct and indirect chest sets per week, for instance, they can be spread across two focused push days without having to train your entire back at the same time.

That is the real organisational advantage.

Where upper/lower wins

On four fixed training days, upper/lower is hard to beat.

Monday upper, Tuesday lower, Thursday upper, Friday lower: the week reads simply, each session repeats twice, and there are no rotating weekdays.

PPL works on four days too. The cycle simply keeps rolling: pull-push-legs-pull, then push-legs-pull-push. If that does not bother you, there is nothing physiologically “wrong” with it.

So upper/lower wins here mainly on schedulability.

With an irregular routine, the two-way split can be more robust as well. When a session drops out, upper/lower is often easier to push back without individual body regions waiting a long time for their next session.

If you want fewer gym days, the arithmetic is unambiguous anyway: four trips are fewer than six. That sounds trivial, but it is often more important for long-term consistency than small differences in programming theory.

Where PPL wins

PPL fits particularly well when you like training five or six days and want more focused sessions.

An upper day has to fit chest, back, shoulders and usually both arms into the same session. That can get long at higher weekly volume. PPL distributes the same body regions across push and pull, creating more room within each session.

That is especially useful:

When your upper sessions get too full. Not because 20 sets per session are inherently too many, but because your last priorities can suffer under pre-fatigue and time pressure.

When you want to fit in many exercises sensibly. Two different chest presses, side delts, triceps and possibly an isolation are easier to organise on a push day than among several back exercises in the same upper session.

When you prioritise arms and shoulders more heavily. PPL structurally reserves its own time slots for them. Upper/lower can do the same, but the sessions get correspondingly fuller.

So PPL does not win here through a higher “quality” of split, but through more specialisation per session.

The hybrid: 5 days, both

Between four upper/lower days and six PPL days lies what many find the most interesting range: five training days are realistic, six are not.

The upper/lower + PPL hybrid uses both arrangements for this.

The structure in the hitPR plan: Monday upper heavy, Tuesday lower heavy, Wednesday off, Thursday push volume, Friday pull volume, Saturday legs volume, Sunday off.

The point here is less to generate mathematically maximal frequency. The advantage is the separation of different jobs: the first two sessions concentrate the heavier compound work, the later three days distribute additional work across push, pull and legs.

In the catalogue it comes to 92 sets rather than the 86 of the 4-day upper/lower. So the extra day is not simply there to inflate the weekly workload but mainly to distribute the work differently and keep the average session shorter.

Exercise placement can be spread out this way too. In the specific hitPR hybrid, heavy lower-body training and the later leg day sit several days apart. That is not a universal requirement, but an example of how five training days create more room in weekly planning.

So the hybrid is not automatically a “more advanced” split. It makes sense when five fixed training days suit your life and your desired volume better.

”PPL Rest Upper Lower Rest” — the seven-day cycle

Push–pull–legs–rest–upper–lower–rest is also a legitimate 5-day split.

The advantage: the cycle is exactly seven days long. Monday stays Monday, without push, pull and legs wandering through the week.

The real programming question is the overlap.

After push, pull and legs come an upper and a lower day later on. That gives many muscle groups work twice a week, but the demands of the individual days have to fit together. If push and pull already contain a lot of volume, the upper day can get unnecessarily full. If legs is very heavy, the lower day needs enough spacing and a sensible exercise selection.

So the scheme is neither problematic nor automatically better than the hybrid above. It is another way to organise five days.

When to switch?

Switching from upper/lower to PPL is worth it mainly when the new arrangement actually solves your problem.

Typical reasons:

• You want to train five or six days reliably.
• Your upper sessions get so full that later exercises regularly suffer.
• You want to fit in more direct arm, shoulder or back work without lengthening individual sessions further.
• You simply prefer focused sessions and therefore stick with them more consistently long-term.

Not a particularly good reason, by contrast: “PPL sounds more advanced.”

A split is not a level system. If your 4-day upper/lower is producing progress, fits your life and you recover from it, there is no programming-theory compulsion to switch.

The reverse also holds: if a 6-day PPL is on paper but you consistently only manage four sessions, an honestly planned 4-day split would probably be the more robust solution.

The short version

Both splits work.

So the better question is not: “Which split builds more muscle?”

It is: “With which split can I most reliably bring together my sensible weekly volume, my priorities and my available training days?”

How the exercises are divided within the PPL days is covered in the Push Pull Legs guide; which exercises make sense per day, in what order and with how many sets, in PPL exercise selection.

Sources

• Ramos-Campo DJ et al. (2024). Efficacy of Split Versus Full-Body Resistance Training on Strength and Muscle Growth: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 38(7):1330-1340.
• Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Krieger J. (2019). How many times per week should a muscle be trained to maximize muscle hypertrophy?. Journal of Sports Sciences, 37(11):1286-1295.
• Pelland JC et al. (2026). The Resistance Training Dose Response: Meta-Regressions Exploring the Effects of Weekly Volume and Frequency on Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength Gains. Sports Medicine, 56(2):481-505.
• American College of Sports Medicine. (2026). Resistance Training Prescription for Muscle Function, Hypertrophy, and Physical Performance in Healthy Adults: An Overview of Reviews.