TL;DR: Lifters follow fixed templates that prescribe the same load whether the last session went well or badly, so progress tracking becomes a spreadsheet chore most people drop. FitNexx logs each working set, recalculates estimated 1RM, and adjusts the next session from what was actually lifted.

Built product · Product owner · Live demo (sample data)

Live demo · PRD · BRD · MRD · Spec · Code

The problem

The market splits in two. Logging apps are descriptive: they show what happened and change nothing. Program templates and PDFs are prescriptive but have no feedback loop once bought. Personal coaching adapts properly but costs too much to scale. FitNexx sits between templates and a coach: a plan that changes because of what you logged. It is also my B2C test bed, a deliberate contrast to the B2B operations tools in the rest of this portfolio.

Evidence

The gap above comes from comparing what logging apps, templates and coaching each do. The product has been tested only as a demo: the log, e1RM and next-session loop runs on sample data in the live demo. No lifters have used it yet.

How it works

flowchart LR
	A["Pick a track<br>strength / hybrid / conditioning"] --> B["Planned session"]
	B --> C["Log each working set<br>weight + reps"]
	C --> D["Recalculate<br>estimated 1RM"]
	D --> E["Adjust next session load"]
	E --> B
	D --> F["Progress view"]

Decisions and trade-offs

  1. Logging speed is the product. If logging a set is slow, consistency drops and the adaptive loop breaks. Weight and reps per working set, nothing more.
  2. Estimated 1RM as the single progress number. One derived figure the lifter can trust, recalculated on every log instead of a manual formula.
  3. Three program tracks, one engine. Strength, hybrid and conditioning/mobility share the same adjust-from-logged-performance logic.
  4. Marketing pages ship with the app. Programs, method, pricing and FAQ pages exist so the positioning and price can be tested, not just the features.
  5. Static multi-page web, no backend. Vanilla HTML/CSS/JS keeps the build cheap while the core loop is unproven.

What I cut

Risks I'm watching