Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Proximity To Failure and Total Repetitions.24
Proximity To Failure and Total Repetitions.24
OF PERCEIVED EXERTION
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 06/05/2023
T
tition maximum (1RM) squat followed by one set to failure at 70%
he amount of repetitions that can be performed at
of 1RM. During the 70% set, subjects verbally indicated when a specific percentage of 1 repetition maximum
they believed they were at a 5RPE (5RIR), 7RPE (3RIR), or 9RPE (1RM) is highly individual (12,17). Specifically,
(1RIR), and then continued to failure. The difference between a recent investigation observed that a range of
actual repetitions performed and participant-predicted repetitions 6–26 repetitions were performed in trained lifters at 70% of
was calculated as the RIR difference (RIRDIFF). The average 1RM in the back squat (4). Thus, prescribing a predeter-
load used for the 70% set was 123.10 6 24.25 kg and the mined number of repetitions at a percentage of 1RM would
average repetitions performed were 16 6 4. The RIRDIFF was likely produce highly variable degrees of muscular stress and
lower (RPEs were more accurate) closer to failure (RIRDIFF at fatigue between individuals. For example, prescribing 4 sets
9RPE = 2.05 6 1.73; RIRDIFF at 7RPE = 3.65 6 2.46; and of 8 repetitions at 70% of 1RM on a specific exercise could
lead to multiple sets to failure for some, whereas others
RIRDIFF at 5RPE = 5.15 6 2.92 repetitions). There were signif-
could be far from failure during each set. Importantly, recent
icant relationships between total repetitions performed and
evidence has demonstrated failure training to elongate
RIRDIFF at 5RPE (r = 0.65, p = 0.001) and 7RPE (r = 0.56,
recovery time vs. nonfailure training (14), which could lead
p = 0.004), but not at 9RPE (r = 0.01, p = 0.97). Thus, being to diminished training frequency and volume. An additional
farther from failure and performing more repetitions in a set were limitation of percentage-based or RM zone load prescription
associated with more inaccurate predictions. Furthermore, a mul- is the inability to account for day-to-day readiness, which
could lead to missed training volume and diminished long-
Address correspondence to Dr. Michael C. Zourdos, mzourdos@fau.edu. term adaptations (10).
35(2S)/S158–S165 Therefore, to account for the limitations of percentage
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research and RM-based load prescription, the repetitions in reserve
Ó 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association (RIR)-based rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale was
the TM
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
(9).
Indeed, Helms et al. (10)
recently demonstrated that
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 06/05/2023
*TA = training age; REX = rating of perceived exertion experience; BM = body mass; 1RM:BM = the ratio of 1RM (1 repetition
maximum) strength to body mass to represent subjects’ relative strength; 70% load = load used for 70% of 1 repetition maximum; TR
70% = total repetitions performed during 70% set; Min = minimum; Max = maximum; ACV = average concentric velocity.
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
RIR-Based RPE Accuracy
METHODS
TABLE 2. Average RIRDIFF at each intraset called RPE.*† Experimental Approach to
the Problem
RIRDIFF at RIRDIFF at RIRDIFF at Subjects reported to the lab-
called 5RPE called 7RPE called 9RPE
oratory on one single day for
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
Mean 6 SD 5.15 6 2.92 3.65 6 2.46z 2.05 6 1.73z§ data collection. After prelim-
Closest 0 (1 time) 0 (1 time) 0 (4 times) inary paper work, subjects
Farthest 11 (1 time) 7 (5 times) 6 (1 time) had anthropometrics as-
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 06/05/2023
R value 0.65† 0.56† 0.01 20.35z 20.34z 20.23 20.08 0.11 0.16 20.27 20.36z 20.50†
p value 0.001† 0.004† 0.97 0.094z 0.096z 0.32 0.51 0.85 0.49 0.20 0.077z 0.021†
*RIRDIFF = rating of perceived exertion difference (actual repetitions 2 predicted repetitions); TR = total repetitions performed;
RPE = rating of perceived exertion; TA = training age; REX = RPE experience; CA = chronological age.
†Significant relationship.
zRelationship approached significance.
the TM
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Unstandardized Standardized
Predictor beta 6 SE beta T value p
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
*RIRDIFF = rating of perceived exertion difference (actual repetitions 2 predicted repetitions); RPE = rating of perceived exertion.
†Significant predictor of RIRDIFF (repetitions in reserve difference).
self-reported to be free of performance-enhancing drugs at the investigator’s discretion. Average concentric velocity
and were required to refrain from exercise for 48 hours (m$s21), which was measured with the Open Barbell Sys-
before testing. Florida Atlantic University Review Board tem (Squats & Science Labs LLC, Seattle, WA, USA), and
approved this investigation and all subjects provided writ- RPE were collected on each 1RM attempt so that investi-
ten informed consent before participation within the gators could use this information to aid in selecting the next
study. attempt. Five to 7 minutes of rest were allowed between
each attempt. A 1RM was considered valid if one of 3
Procedures
conditions were met: (a) Participant reported a “10” on
Training Age and Repetitions in Reserve–Based Rating of Per-
the RIR scale and the investigator determined a subsequent
ceived Exertion Experience. After providing informed written
attempt with increased body mass could not be successfully
consent, all subjects completed a Physical Activity Ques-
completed, (b) Participant reported a “9.5” on the RIR/
tionnaire. On this questionnaire, subjects were asked for how
RPE scale and failed the subsequent attempt with a load
many years they had been consistently engaged in resistance
increase of 2.5 kg or less, and (c) Participant reported a “9”
training and for how many months (if any) they had been
or lower on the RIR/RPE scale and failed the subsequent
using the RIR-based RPE scale in training. Those responses
attempt with a load increase of 5 kg or less. Finally, Eleiko
were used to determine training age and RPE experience,
barbells and lifting discs (Chicago, IL, USA), calibrated to
respectively.
the nearest 0.25 kg, were used to ensure accuracy of the
load lifted.
Anthropometrics. Height (cm) was measured to the nearest
0.01 cm using a wall-mounted stadiometer (SECA, Ham-
burg, Germany.). Total BM (kg) was assessed by a calibrated Repetitions to Failure and Intraset Rating of Perceived Exertion.
digital scale (Mettler-Toledo, Columbus, OH, USA) to the After the 10-minute post-1RM testing rest period, subjects
nearest 0.01 kg. Body fat percentage (BF%) was estimated performed repetitions until volitional failure at 70% of 1RM
using the average sum of 2 measurements of skinfold while being blinded to the load with opaque trash bags
thickness acquired from 3 sites (abdomen, front thigh, positioned over the weight discs. Volitional failure was
and chest); if any site measurement differed by more than determined as the subject either failing on a repetition or both
2 mm, a third measurement was taken. The Jackson and the subject and investigator determining that another repetition
Pollock (13) equation was used to compute body fat could not be completed. To predict RIR during the set to
percentage. failure, subjects verbally indicated when they believed they had
reached a 5RPE (5RIR), 7RPE (3RIR), and 9RPE (1RIR) using
One Repetition Maximum Test. Squat 1RM testing was the RPE scale from Zourdos et al. (19) (Figure 1). Both pre-
administered in accordance with previously validated dicted repetitions to failure at each called RPE and actual rep-
procedures (19). First, subjects performed 5 repetitions with etitions performed were recorded. Next, the difference between
20% of their estimated 1RM (obtained from the Physical the actual and predicted repetitions performed (actual repeti-
Activity Questionnaire), followed by 3 repetitions at 50% of tions 2 predicted repetitions) was recorded as the RIR differ-
estimated 1RM, 2 repetitions at 70%, one repetition at 80%, ence (RIRDIFF) for all 3 intraset RPEs. Three different points
and one repetition at 90% of 1RM. Following the 90% load, on the scale were used for intraset RPE calls to achieve RIR
increases in subsequent 1RM attempts were administered predictions at different proximities to failure. We chose a 5RPE
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
RIR-Based RPE Accuracy
as starting point, as recent evidence has shown training at a 5–6 accurate RIR prediction. An inverse association between
RPE over 8 weeks produced similar hypertrophy to training at training age and RIRDIFF at the intraset 5 (r = 20.35, p =
a 7–8 RPE (10), thus performing repetitions at $5RPE ensures 0.094) and 7 RPEs (r = 20.34, p = 0.096) approached sig-
an effective stimulus to evoke adaptation. nificance, but did not at the called 9RPE (p = 0.32), indicat-
ing that more years of training experience was potentially
Statistical Analyses
associated with more precise prediction of RIR when further
The absolute RIRDIFF (actual repetitions 2 predicted rep-
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
inaccuracy when gauging $3RIR in a high-repetition, mod- a significant predictor of intraset RIR prediction. Zourdos
erate intensity barbell back squat set while blinded to the et al. (19) and Ormsbee et al. (15) suggested that experienced
load. However, the level of accuracy when gauging 7RPE lifters recorded more accurate RPEs at 100% of 1RM com-
varied between individuals. Indeed, one participant had an pared with novice lifters. This claim was made due to expe-
RIRDIFF of 0 at 7RPE, indicating perfect accuracy. There- rienced lifters having higher RPE at 100% of 1RM than
fore, it may be that RPE is useful for some, but not all, to novice lifters. However, another explanation is that novice
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
assess proximity to failure. Furthermore, the present data lifters had poor rate of force development; thus, after record-
demonstrated fairly accurate RIR prediction at the called ing a submaximal RPE (;8–9), they simply could not
9RPE (RIRDIFF = 1.95), which is similar to Hackett et al. complete their next attempt. In that interpretation, the RPE
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 06/05/2023
(7) who reported an RIR of 61 when subjects were 0–3 scores were not necessarily inaccurate, but rather, novice
repetitions from failure in the chest press and leg press. individuals are incapable of performing a true 10RPE lift due
One explanation for the slightly less accurate predictions to “neuromuscular inefficiency.” In addition, Steele et al. (18)
in this study is that subjects were blinded to the load, thus demonstrated accuracy of RIR prediction improved with
lifters could not have had a predetermined repetition target. training experience; however, in this study, the subjects
This factor is both a limitation and benefit of the present made a prediction of how many repetitions they could
investigation. It serves as a limitation because lifters are complete before a set rather than during a set. Therefore, in
rarely blinded to a load under normal training conditions. Steele et al.’s study, it is possible that lifters with more
Conversely, load-blinding may be viewed as a benefit, as training experience were more familiar with how many
subjects may have truly reached a repetition maximum repetitions they can typically perform at a given load, which
rather than simply meeting a self-determined repetition tar- is not necessarily indicative of intraset RIR prediction. In
get if using a known load. addition, this study only employed trained lifters, whereas
Interestingly, the total repetitions performed per set was previous studies either inferring greater RIR prediction
a significant predictor of RIRDIFF at the called 5 and 7 accuracy (7,15,19) or showing greater accuracy (18), com-
RPEs, suggesting that it is more difficult to gauge RIR during paring trained lifters with beginners. Therefore, it is possible
high-repetition sets. Existing data suggest it is more difficult that training age plays a role in RIR prediction accuracy;
to predict RIR when $3 repetitions from failure; however, however, there may be a point of diminishing returns.
the present data indicate that the amount of repetitions in Therefore, because all lifters in this study had $2 years of
a set also affects this rating. For example, in a 15–20 repeti- training experience, the present comparison of training age
tion set, our data suggest it is difficult to gauge RPE when was different than that of previous investigations.
$3 repetitions from failure; however, in a set #12 repeti- Notably, experience with the RIR-based RPE scale did
tions, a fairly accurate RIR rating can be given when $3 not affect rating accuracy. One participant who reported “0”
repetitions from failure and RIR can be predicted with pre- months of experience with RIR-based RPE was the only
cision when ,3 repetitions from failure. A possible explana- individual to have an RIRDIFF of zero (i.e., perfect predic-
tion for this phenomenon is that during high-repetition sets, tions) at all intraset called RPEs. However, this participant
there is a greater degree of metabolic fatigue coupled with also had the highest training age (12 years) and perhaps
neuromuscular fatigue, which may convolute an individual’s more importantly, only performed 10 repetitions during his
ability to gauge RIR. Indeed, Buitrago et al. (2) demonstrated 70% to failure set. Although this is only one data point, it is
greater increases in blood lactate with repetitions to failure at consistent with the totality of data in this study and high-
70 vs. 85% of 1RM. Therefore, it is plausible that significant lights that repetitions per set seems to have a greater con-
metabolic fatigue was present in the current study in subjects tribution to accuracy than prior experience with the RPE
who performed high repetitions, which in turn hindered scale. Interestingly, the only significant bivariate correlation
their ability to accurately gauge intraset RIR. at the called 9RPE was chronological age to be signifi-
Moreover, because high-repetition sets lead to more cantly and inversely related to RIRDIFF at the called
inaccurate RIR predictions, it is worth noting that the utility 9RPE (r = 20.50, p = 0.021), suggesting that when close
of the RIR-based RPE scale may be optimal with higher to failure, a more mature individual may have a more real-
intensities ($80% of 1RM), in which typically lower repeti- istic interpretation of their limitations. This specific finding
tions are performed. If using RPE to monitor proximity to seems tenuous and further corroboration is needed; how-
failure or autoregulate during higher repetition sets, perhaps ever, it seems reasonable that an older lifter might be more
it is best to assign an RPE range (i.e., 5–7 or 6–8) rather than aware of his limitations.
an exact number. In fact, this approach by Helms et al. (10) A limitation of this study is that it only used male lifters
led to greater strength adaptations when using RPE-based and examining only the squat exercise, thus we cannot
loading than percentage-based loading over 8 weeks. extrapolate our findings to female lifters or other compound
Data have shown RIR predictions before a set to improve movements such as the bench press and deadlift. It is also
with training age (18); however, the current regression anal- possible that performing 1RM testing before the 70% to
ysis did not show training age or RPE experience to be failure set could have negatively impacted the amount of
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
RIR-Based RPE Accuracy
repetitions to failure and the subsequent RPE ratings; also be used to gauge progress overtime in lieu of always
however, the average repetitions performed of 16 6 4 is performing RM testing to mitigate fatigue. For example, if an
quite high and suggests that performance was not harmed. athlete performs a back squat with 200 kg at a 9RPE before
An additional limitation, as stated previously, is that sub- a training block and after the training block performs a 200 kg
jects were blinded to the load, which is rarely the case in back squat for one repetition at a 6RPE, it can be concluded
practice. Importantly, this study is the first to examine the the progress was made without the stress of RM testing.
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
age, and RPE experience with the accuracy of ratings in effort. M.C. Zourdos and E.R. Helms would like to disclose
well-trained lifters. Therefore, the novelty of these findings that they are writers within the fitness industry. No other
advances RIR-based RPE programming and provides authors have any potential conflict of interest.
greater application for practitioners to individualize load
prescription and adjustment.
REFERENCES
In summary, well-trained males gauged intraset RPE more
1. Borg, G. Perceived exertion as an indicator of somatic stress. Scand J
accurately closer to failure at 70% of 1RM in the squat. Rehabil Med 2: 92–98, 1970.
However, the total repetitions per set significantly impacted
2. Buitrago, S, Wirtz, N, Yue, Z, Kleinöder, H, and Mester, J. Effects of
the accuracy of intraset RIR prediction, in that when greater load and training modes on physiological and metabolic responses in
repetitions were performed, less accurate RIR predictions resistance exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol 112: 2739–2748, 2012.
were made at all called RPEs (5 and 7 RPEs). Ultimately, our 3. Cohen, J. The T-Test for Means. In: Statistical Power Analysis for the
results suggest that well-trained individuals can predict RIR Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates,
1988. pp. 24–27.
accurately during low-repetition sets and that accuracy
4. Cooke, DM, Haischer, MH, Carzoli, JP, Bazyler, CD, Johnson, TK,
improves closer to failure. Varieur, R, Zoeller, RF, Whitehurst, M, Zourdos, MC. Body Mass
and Femur Length Are Inversely Related to Repetitions Performed
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS in the Back Squat in Well-Trained Lifters. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research. 2019 Mar 1;33(3):890–5.
A critical observation of the present data is that a wide range (9–
5. Davies, T, Orr, R, Halaki, M, and Hackett, D. Effect of training
26) and high average (16 6 4) number of repetitions were per- leading to repetition failure on muscular strength: A systematic
formed during the 70% of 1RM set to failure. The highly variable review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine 46: 487–502, 2016.
ability to perform repetitions to failure at a moderate intensity in 6. Garcı́a-Ramos, A, Torrejón, A, Feriche, B, Morales-Artacho, AJ,
the squat provides further support for use of the RIR-based RPE Pérez-Castilla, A, Padial, P, et al. Prediction of the maximum
number of repetitions and repetitions in reserve from barbell
scale to equate for effort across individuals (11). For example, 4 velocity. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 13: 353–359, 2018.
sets of 10 repetitions at 6–8 RPE could be programmed for the 7. Hackett, DA, Cobley, SP, Davies, TB, Michael, SW, and Halaki, M.
back squat instead of prescribing 10 repetitions at 70% of 1RM. Accuracy in estimating repetitions to failure during resistance
By using RPE, coaches and athletes could ensure that athletes exercise. J Strength Cond Res 31: 2162–2168, 2017.
are performing effective repetitions (i.e., $5RPE per set) but are 8. Hackett, DA, Cobley, SP, and Halaki, M. Estimation of repetitions
not reaching failure consistently. Importantly, training to failure to failure for monitoring resistance exercise intensity: Building a case
for application. J Strength Cond Res 32: 1352–1359, 2018.
has shown diminished performance for 48 hours (16) and is
9. Hackett, DA, Johnson, NA, Halaki, M, and Chow, CM. A novel scale to
associated with longer recovery even when directly compared assess resistance-exercise effort. J Sports Sci 30: 1405–1413, 2012.
with volume-equated nonfailure training (14). Importantly, failure 10. Helms, ER, Byrnes, RK, Cooke, DM, Haischer, MH, Carzoli, JP,
training is not required to optimize strength and hypertrophy (5) Johnson, TK, et al. RPE vs. percentage 1RM loading in periodized
and because failure training elongates recovery, it could decrease programs matched for sets and repetitions. Front Physiology 9: 247, 2018.
training frequency and subsequent training volume limiting long- 11. Helms, ER, Cronin, J, Storey, A, and Zourdos, MC. Application of
the repetitions in reserve-based rating of perceived exertion scale for
term adaptations. Although measuring barbell velocity might be resistance training. Strength Cond J 38: 42–49, 2016.
more accurate to predict RIR than the RPE scale (6), not all 12. Hoeger, WW, Hopkins, DR, Barette, SL, and Hale, DF.
coaches and athletes have access to valid and reliable velocity Relationship between repetitions and selected percentages of one
tools, whereas the RIR-based RPE scale can be used by anyone. repetition maximum: A comparison between untrained and trained
males and females. J Strength Cond Res 4: 47–54, 1990.
Therefore, because velocity measurements are not feasible for
13. Jackson, AS and Pollock, ML. Generalized equations for predicting
everyone, the RIR-based RPE scale provides a viable alternative
body density of men. Br J Nutr 40: 497–504, 1978.
for intraset RIR prediction, especially in well-trained individuals
14. Morán-Navarro, R, Pérez, CE, Mora-Rodrı́guez, R, de la Cruz-
during low-repetition sets. Sánchez, E, González-Badillo, JJ, Sánchez-Medina, L, et al. Time
Furthermore, athletes can view their load-repetition and course of recovery following resistance training leading or not to
RPE relationships from previous training sessions to guide their failure. Eur J Appl Physiol 117: 2387–2399, 2017.
current and future sessions. Thus, it is possible that in practice, 15. Ormsbee, MJ, Carzoli, JP, Klemp, A, Allman, BR, Zourdos, MC,
Kim, JS, et al. Efficacy of the repetitions in reserve-based rating of
RIR prediction may be even more accurate than is represented perceived exertion for the bench press in experienced and novice
in this acute laboratory study. Finally, RIR-based RPE could benchers. J Strength Cond Res 33: 337–345, 2019.
the TM
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
16. Párraga-Montilla, JA, Garcı́a-Ramos, A, Castaño-Zambudio, A, 18. Steele, J, Endres, A, Fisher, J, Gentil, P, and Giessing, J. Ability to
Capelo-Ramı́rez, F, González-Hernández, JM, Cordero-Rodrı́guez, predict repetitions to momentary failure is not perfectly accurate,
Y, et al. Acute and delayed effects of a resistance training session though improves with resistance training experience. PeerJ 5: e4105,
leading to muscular failure on mechanical, metabolic, and 2017.
perceptual responses. J Strength Cond Res 34: 2220–2226, 2020. 19. Zourdos, MC, Klemp, A, Dolan, C, Quiles, JM, Schau, KA, Jo, E,
17. Richens, B and Cleather, DJ. The relationship between the number et al. Novel resistance training–specific rating of perceived exertion
of repetitions performed at given intensities is different in endurance scale measuring repetitions in reserve. J Strength Cond Res 30: 267–
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
and strength trained athletes. Biol Sport 31: 157–161, 2014. 275, 2016.
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 06/05/2023
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.