Original Manuscript

Perceptual and Motor Skills

2023, Vol. 0(0) 1–16
Accuracy of Predicted Intraset © The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
Repetitions in Reserve (RIR) in sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00315125231169868
journals.sagepub.com/home/pms
Single- and Multi-Joint
Resistance Exercises Among
Trained and Untrained Men
and Women

Jacob F. Remmert1,2 , Kelly R. Laurson1 , and

Michael C. Zourdos2 

Abstract
We assessed the accuracy of intraset repetitions in reserve (RIR) predictions on single-
joint machine-based movements of trained and untrained men and women. Participants
were 27 men (M age = 22, SE = 0.6 years; M weight = 90.8, SE = 4.0 kg; M height =
182.3, SE = 1.4 cm; M training experience = 66, SE = 9 months) and 31 women (M age =
20, SE = 0.4 years; M weight = 67.8, SE = 2.3 kg; M height = 167.6, SE = 1.1 cm; M
training experience = 22, SE = 4 months). In one session, participants performed a five-
repetition maximum (5RM) test on biceps curl, triceps pushdown, and seated row
exercises; we then estimated one repetition maximum (1RM). Participants then
performed four sets of each exercise, in a randomized order, to the point of mo-
mentary muscular failure at 72.5% of 1RM. During each set, participants indicated when
they first perceived 5RIR and then predicted RIR on every repetition thereafter until
failure. The difference between actual repetitions performed and predicted repetitions
at each intraset prediction was determined to be the RIR difference (RIRDIFF). A 3-way
repeated measures ANCOVA found that a 3-way interaction was not statistically

1
School of Kinesiology and Recreation, Illinois State University, Normal, IL, USA
2
Department of Exercise Science and Health Promotion, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA

Corresponding Author:
Jacob F. Remmert Department of Exercise Science and Health Promotion Florida Atlantic University
777 Glades Road, FH11, Boca Raton, FL 33431-0992, USA.
Email: jremmert2020@fau.edu
2 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

significant (p = 0.435) and no covariates of sex (p = 0.917), training experience

(p = 0.462) nor experience rating RIR significantly affected RIRDIFF (p = 0.462–0.917).
There were significant main effects for the proximity to failure of the prediction and the
set number (p < 0.01) but not for exercise (p = 0.688). Thus, intraset RIR predictions
were more accurate when closer to failure and in later sets, but sex, training expe-
rience, and experience rating RIR did not significantly influence RIR prediction accuracy
on machine-based single-joint exercises.

Keywords
rating of perceived exertion, resistance training, weight lifting, resistance loads

Introduction
Participants’ repetitions in reserve (RIR)-based rating of perceived exertion (RPE)
(Zourdos et al., 2016) may be used for prescribing resistance training. For example,
athletes might be prescribed three sets of 10 repetitions at 2-3 RIR, which would allow
an individual to choose a load leading to completion of the prescribed number of
repetitions at a specific proximity to failure. The autoregulation capabilities of RIR-
based prescription resolve limitations of traditional load prescription methods such as
percentage of one-repetition maximum (1RM) and repetition maximum (RM) zone
training. Specifically, percentage-based training (e.g., three sets of 10 repetitions at 75%
of 1RM) does not control for proximity to failure due to interindividual variation in
repetitions performed at a given percentage of 1RM. For example, Cooke et al. (2019)
observed that 58 well-trained men and women performed 6–26 repetitions during a
back squat set to failure at 70% 1RM. Additionally, RM zone prescription (e.g., three
sets at 8-12RM) requires training to failure on every set. Consequently, training to
failure leads to a longer recovery time course than non-failure training (Morán-Navarro
et al., 2017), possibly impacting weekly training volume. Further, training too far from
failure with percentage-based training may lead to an inefficient stimulus for desired
adaptations.
Although RIR-based training prescription aims to individualize and control for
proximity to failure, the utility of this strategy is dependent upon the accuracy of the
individual’s RIR prediction. A meta-analysis from Halperin et al. (2022) that included
data from 414 participants reported that RIR predictions are generally accurate to
within <1 repetition, and they are more accurate when made closer to failure, when
fewer repetitions were performed in a set, and in later sets of multi-set training.
Despite the recent research attention RIR has received, the accuracy of intraset RIR
predictions remains understudied in women, untrained individuals, and with single-
joint exercises. Specifically, of the 414 participants included in Halperin et al.’s (2022)
meta-analysis, only 154 were women, and only 73 of these were part of studies in-
volving the prediction of intraset RIR, since the meta-analysis included two studies
Remmert et al. 3

(Servais, 2015; Steele et al., 2017) in which individuals predicted RIR before a set. This
research knowledge gap is important because a sex difference in RIR prediction ac-
curacy has been observed (Hackett et al., 2017) but was not analyzed in the Halperin
et al. meta-analysis. Specifically, Hackett et al. (2017) reported that men predicted RIR
more accurately than women when repetitions from failure on the leg press were ≥4. In
addition, only two of the 13 studies Halperin et al. (2022) analyzed included par-
ticipants with less than one year of resistance training experience, and in a third study
the participants’ training experience was unclear. Importantly, Zourdos et al. (2016)
reported a stronger relationship between barbell velocity and RIR ratings for expe-
rienced participants (r = 0.88) compared to novice participants (r = 0.77). Further,
Steele et al. (2017) observed that those with >3 years of training experience predicted
RIR before a set more accurately than those with ≤6 months experience. To our
knowledge, Steele et al. (2017) were the only investigators who examined a single-joint
movement (the biceps curl) for RIR prediction accuracy, but participants made their
predictions before, but not during, sets. Importantly, previous research found that RIR
prediction accuracy may differ, based on the exercise performed (Hackett et al., 2017;
2018).
In the context of this background literature, our aim in this study was to use a novel
methodology for collecting RIR predictions to examine the accuracy of intraset RIR
predictions on both single and multi-joint exercises at various proximities to failure by
both men and women of varied training levels. We hypothesized that intraset RIR
predictions would be more accurate closer to failure and would become more accurate
set-to-set. Further, we hypothesized that those with high training experience
(>60 months) would be more accurate than those with less experience, but that there
would be no effect of sex on prediction accuracy.

Methods
Outline of Experimental Design
Each participant visited the laboratory for a single session. After preliminary paperwork
(informed consent, medical history, physical activity readiness questionnaire, and
training experience questionnaire), we assessed participants height and weight and then
explained the exercise standards and RIR scale. Next, participants performed a five-
minute dynamic warm-up, completed a 5RM test, and then performed, in randomized
order, four sets to muscular failure of three different exercises (cable biceps curl, cable
triceps extension, and seated cable row). We estimated a 1RM from the 5RM on each
exercise using the Brzycki equation (Brzycki, 1993), and used 72.5% of the predicted
1RM for the failure sets.
During the sets to failure, participants verbally indicated when they perceived
themselves to have 5RIR; from that point onward, participants verbally indicated their
perceived RIR after every repetition, continuing until momentary muscular failure. We
used the absolute value of the difference between actual and reported RIR (RIRDIFF) to
4 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

determine accuracy of RIR rating and to determine relationships between RIR accuracy
and sex, training experience, total repetitions performed in the set, and actual RIR.

Participants
The University’s Institutional Review Board approved this investigation (IRB-2019–
537), conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki prior to data collection,
and all participants provided their written informed consent prior to participation.
Recruitment was conducted via word of mouth at the university and university rec-
reation center.
Given the degree of work involved in resistance training interventions, a small
sample size can be justified by feasibility considerations (Lakens, 2022). We performed
no formal power analysis but attempted to recruit as many participants as possible,
given constraints on the investigators’ time and the participants’ pending graduation.
Participants were recruited from among University students and included 31 women (M
age = 20.3, SE = 0.4 years; M weight = 67.8, SE = 2.3 kg; M height = 167.6, SE =
1.1 cm; M training experience = 22, SE = 4 months) and 27 men (M age = 22.2, SE =
0.6 years; M weight = 90.8, SE = 4.0 kg; M height = 182.3, SE = 1.4 cm; M training
experience = 66, SE = 9 months) (Table 1). For inclusion, participants must have
been ≥18 years of age and free of any contraindications to exercise (i.e., heart disease,
diabetes, musculoskeletal disorders) as determined by their self-reported medical
history and physical activity readiness questionnaires. All participants were instructed
to refrain from exercise on the day of testing.

Procedures
Training Experience Questionnaire. All participants completed a training experience
questionnaire to determine their training age and RIR experience. On this question-
naire, participants were asked how many months they had been consistently engaged in
resistance training and whether they had experience rating RIR in their own training
Figure 1.

Table 1. Participant Characteristics Overall and by Sex.

Age Height Body Training Experience

n (years) (cm) Mass (kg) (months) RIR Experience (yes/no)

Overall 58 21.2 (0.4) 174.4 (1.3) 78.5 (2.7) 42.4 (5.7) 19 yes; 39 No
Male 27 22.2 (0.6) 182.3 (1.4) 90.8 (4.0) 65.9 (9.4) 12 yes; 15 No
Female 31 20.3 (0.4) 167.6 (1.1) 67.8 (2.3) 21.9 (4.3) 7 yes; 24 No

Note: Data are presented as means (standard error). RIR = Repetitions in Reserve.
Remmert et al. 5

Figure 1. Study Timeline.

Note: In the ‘Training’ portion, the biceps curl, triceps pushdown, and seated row were
performed in randomized order. The full training protocol was completed for an exercise
before beginning the protocol again for the next exercise.

Anthropometrics. We measured participants’ height to the nearest 0.1 cm using a wall-

mounted stadiometer (SECA, Hamburg, Germany) and their weight to the nearest
0.1 kg using a calibrated digital scale (SECA, Hamburg, Germany).

5-Repetition Maximum Test. Following a 5-minute dynamic warm-up, participants

performed 1-2 submaximal sets of 8–10 repetitions, followed by 1–2 submaximal sets
of five repetitions at self-selected but progressively heavier loads, followed by 5RM
attempts with 2–3 minutes between attempts. Load increases were chosen by the
investigator for each 5RM attempt, and the participant provided an RIR rating fol-
lowing each attempt to aid the investigator in choosing an appropriate load. The 5RM
was considered valid under one of the following conditions (Zourdos et al., 2016):
(a) the participant failed on the sixth repetition, (b) the participant reported zero
repetitions in reserve upon completion of the fifth repetition and the investigator
determined that another repetition could not be safely completed, or (c) the participant
reported a submaximal performance and then failed to complete five repetitions with a
load increase of 2.27 kg or less. The investigator then used the 5RM load to
estimate 1RM with the Brzycki equation (Brzycki, 1993), mathematically expressed as:
1RM = load/(1.0278 - (0.0278 * number of repetitions)).
All exercises were performed using a dual adjustable pulley cable motion machine
(Life Fitness, Schiller Park, Illinois, USA). Participants were allowed to utilize a self-
selected concentric and eccentric tempo on all repetitions. Movement standards varied
per exercise. The biceps curl was performed using a low-cable attachment. Participants
stood, holding the attachment with arms fully extended. While minimizing movement
at all other joints, the elbows were flexed as much as possible, and then extended back
to the starting position in a controlled manner. The triceps pushdown was performed
using a high-cable attachment. Participants stood, holding the attachment with the
elbows fully flexed. While minimizing movement at all other joints, the elbows were
extended until the arms were fully straightened, and then returned to the starting
position in a controlled manner. For the seated row exercise, an adjustable bench was
braced against the cable machine and adjusted such that it formed approximately a 90-
6 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

degree angle. Participants were seated on the bench with their chest against the upright
portion of the bench, for support and to eliminate swinging or use of momentum. A
mid-cable attachment was used and adjusted to be approximately shoulder-level for the
participant. Participants held the attachment with arms fully extended, performed a row
until the wrists were even with the torso, and then returned to the starting position in a
controlled manner.

Sets to Failure. Following the 5RM test, on each exercise, participants rested for
five minutes and then performed four sets to momentary failure with a goal repetition
range of 12–20 repetitions. Based on pilot testing, 72.5% of the 1RM estimated from
the 5RM test was used for the first set to failure of each exercise, with load adjustments
occurring set-to-set as needed to remain within the target repetition range. Participants
were allowed to utilize a self-selected concentric and eccentric tempo on all repetitions.
Two-minute rest intervals were used between the failure sets. During the sets to failure,
participants verbally indicated when they perceived themselves to have five RIR, and,
from that point onward, they verbally indicated their perceived RIR after every rep-
etition and continued the set until momentary muscular failure. Momentary muscular
failure was defined as the point where, despite attempting to do so, the participant was
unable to complete the concentric portion of a repetition without deviation from the
prescribed exercise technique (Refalo et al., 2022). Verbal encouragement was pro-
vided to help ensure participants reached true muscular failure. Although load was set
to 72.5% of 1RM on the first set, load was adjusted in 1.13 kg increments if necessary to
ensure the repetitions performed in each set stayed within the range of 12–20. If a
participant performed 1–2 repetitions outside of the intended range (i.e., 10–11 or 21–
22 repetitions) the load was decreased or increased by 1.13 kg, respectively. If the
participant performed 3–4 repetitions outside of the intended range, load was adjusted
by 2.27 kg. Following the fourth set to failure, two minutes of rest were given before the
participant began the 5RM testing protocol for the next exercise. This procedure was
repeated for the biceps curl, triceps extension, and seated row in randomized order. The
reported perceived RIRs were recorded along with actual repetitions performed on a
repetition-to-repetition basis.

Participants’ Prediction Accuracy

RIR Difference (RIRDIFF). We calculated the difference between the participants’ per-
ceived RIR and their actual RIR on the sets to failure and considered this as RIRDIFF
(Helms et al., 2017; Odgers et al., 2021; Zourdos et al., 2021); we used the absolute
value of all RIRDIFF values for further analyses. For example, if a participant reported
three RIR, and preceded to complete five more repetitions, RIRDIFF was calculated as
3 (perceived repetitions) – 5 (actual repetitions) = 2, the absolute value of which was
2. Additionally, the mean RIRDIFF for the first RIR prediction of all sets performed
was considered the “initial RIRDIFF” and was used as a covariate in the analysis.
Remmert et al. 7

Statistical Analyses. We used a three-way 3 (Exercise: biceps curl vs. seated row vs.
triceps pushdown) × 4 (Set: 1 vs. 2 vs. 3. vs. 4) × 5 (Actual RIR: 1 vs. 2 vs. 3 vs. 4 vs. 5)
repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to examine RIR accuracy
(RIRDIFF), with a Greenhouse Geisser correction for sphericity. Covariates were: sex,
training experience (low, moderate, or high), RIR experience (yes or no), and initial
RIRDIFF. We reported mean values (and standard errors), associated 95% confidence
intervals, and partial eta squared values from the results of the ANCOVA. We used
Tukey’s post hoc test for multiple comparisons as necessary and set statistical sig-
nificance at p ≤ 0.05, using the statistical package, SPSS version 25 (IBM Corp.,
Armonk, New York, USA), for all analyses. The data used for this analysis are available
on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/98sd7).

Results
3-Way Interaction and Covariates
The 3-way interaction (Exercise × Set × Actual RIR) in the original model was not
statistically significant, F (10.7, 556.9) = 1.011, p = 0.435, n 2p = .019; as a result, a
reduced model was fit with the 3-way interaction term removed. The specific p-values
and partial eta squared values for the model are shown in Table 2. Thus, two-way
interactions and main effects for exercise, set, and actual RIR were explored.
Regarding covariates, sex (p = 0.917), training experience (p = 0.462), and RIR
experience (p = 0.560) did not significantly affect RIRDIFF. However, the initial
RIRDIFF did significantly contribute to the model (p < 0.001); this suggests that
accuracy on the first RIR prediction was related to accuracy on the remainder of
predictions. The mean value for the initial RIRDIFF across all 58 participants was 6.6
(SE = 0.20) repetitions. The specific p-values, partial eta squared values, and sample
sizes for each covariate analysis are shown in Table 3. The mean (and standard error)
RIRDIFF and associated 95% confidence intervals are shown in Table 4.

Table 2. Main Model.

2
Adjusted Model df F p-value n p

Exercise 2 0.375 0.688 0.007

Set 3 5.749 0.001* 0.100
RIR 5 28.233 < 0.001* 0.352
Exercise * set 5.1 0.960 0.444 0.018
Exercise * RIR 3.5 0.556 0.671 0.011
Set * RIR 6.3 1.435 0.197 0.027
Exercise * sets * RIR 10.7 1.011 0.435 0.019
Note: *Statistically significant (p < 0.05). RIR = Repetitions in Reserve.
8 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

Table 3. Covariates.
2
Covariate df F p-value n p N

Sex 1 0.011 0.917 0.000 Male = 27

Females = 31
Training experience 2 0.784 0.462 0.029 <6 months = 17
6 – 59 months = 22
>60 months = 19
RIR experience 1 0.344 0.560 0.007 Yes = 19
No = 39
Initial RIRDIF 1 17.680 < 0.001 0.254 58

Note: *Statistically significant (p < 0.05). RIRDIF = Repetitions in Reserve Difference. Initial RIRDIFF = The
first time RIR was predicted.

Table 4. RIR Difference for Covariates.

RIR Std. 95% confidence interval 95% confidence interval

difference Error minimum maximum

Sex
Males 0.809 0.054 0.700 0.917
Females 0.817 0.050 0.716 0.918
Training experience
≤6 months 0.881 0.071 0.737 1.024
6–59 months 0.777 0.052 0.673 0.882
≥60 months 0.780 0.062 0.655 0.904
RIR experience
Yes 0.792 0.057 0.677 0.907
No 0.833 0.039 0.755 0.912

Note: RIR = Repetitions in Reserve. Yes = Answered “yes” to having experience using RIR. No = Answered no
to having experience using RIR.

2-Way Interactions
There was no statistically significant 2-way interaction for Set × Actual RIR, F(6.3,
556.9 = 1.435, p = 0.197 n 2 p = .027; indicating that RIRDIFF was not statistically
different at the same predicted RIR between sets. However, despite the lack of sig-
nificance, visual inspection of the data shows that the initial RIR prediction during sets
2, 3, and four tended to have a lower RIRDIFF than the initial prediction during set 1
(Figure 2). There was no significant interaction for Exercise × Set, F(5.1, 556.9) =
0.960, p = 0.444, n 2 p = .018; indicating, set number did not influence RIRDIFF when
comparing exercises. Lastly, there was no significant interaction for Exercise × Actual
RIR, F(3.5, 556.9) = 0.556, p = 0.671, n 2 p = .011, demonstrating that RIRDIFF was
not statistically different between exercises.
Remmert et al. 9

Figure 2. RIR Difference from Set to Set.

Note: RIR Difference at various actual proximities to failure across each set when averaged
across all performed exercises. RIR = repetitions in reserve.

Main Effects
There were significant effects for both Actual RIR, F(5, 556.9) = 28.233, n2 p = .352,
p < 0.001, and Sets, F(3, 556.9) = 5.749, p = 0.001, n 2 p = .100, on RIRDIFF, but not
for Exercise, F(2, 556.9) = 0.375, p = 0.688, n 2 p = .007. For actual RIR, post hoc
analysis revealed that each RIRDIFF was significantly different from all others (all
p-values ≤0.001). For Sets, post hoc results showed that RIRDIFF was significantly
greater on set 1 versus sets 3 (p < 0.001) and 4 (p < 0.001). Further, RIRDIFF was
significantly greater on set 2 versus set 3 (p = 0.01). These effects indicate RIR accuracy
was improved when RIR was predicted closer to failure, that RIR was improved in later
sets, and that RIR accuracy was not statistically different between exercises. The mean
(and standard error) RIRDIFF and associated 95% confidence intervals for the actual
RIR and set analyses are shown in Table 5.

Discussion
The aim of this study was to examine the accuracy of trained and untrained men and
women’s intraset RIR predictions during four sets to failure at 72.5% of 1RM on cable
biceps curl, cable triceps extension, and seated cable row. We hypothesized that ab-
solute RIR accuracy would improve as RIR was predicted closer to failure and during
later sets. Both of our hypotheses were supported. Specifically, averaging the RIRDIFF
10 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

Table 5. RIR Difference for Actual RIR and Set Analysis.

RIR Std. 95% Confidence Interval 95% Confidence Interval
Difference Error Minimum Maximum

Actual RIR
5 RIR 1.237* 0.036 1.165 1.309
4 RIR 1.131* 0.042 1.046 1.216
3 RIR 0.994* 0.045 0.903 1.085
2 RIR 0.758* 0.039 0.680 0.835
1 RIR 0.464* 0.047 0.369 0.560
0 RIR 0.293* 0.045 0.201 0.384
Set number
1# 0.955 0.037 0.880 1.029
2^ 0.852 0.063 0.726 0.977
3 0.706 0.045 0.616 0.797
4 0.738 0.045 0.648 0.828

Note: RIR = Repetitions in Reserve. *RIRDIFF was significantly different than all other proximities to failure
(p ≤ 0.001). #Significantly greater RIRDIFF than sets three and 4 (p < 0.001).^Significantly greater RIRDIFF than
set 3 (p = 0.01).

for all exercises, there were significant main effects for actual RIR and sets, indicating
that RIRDIFF decreased as RIR predictions were made closer to failure and during later
sets. Interestingly, neither training experience nor sex was significantly related to
RIRDIFF. Overall, these findings suggest that both men and women, regardless of
training status, can predict RIR within ∼1 repetition, and that intraset RIR prediction
accuracy improves when predictions are made closer to failure and during later sets.
A recent meta-analysis by Halperin et al. (2022) concluded that actual proximity to
failure is a key determinant of RIR accuracy. In agreement, we found a significant main
effect of actual RIR on RIRDIFF, and post hoc analysis revealed RIRDIFF to sig-
nificantly decrease at each repetition closer to failure at which the prediction was made
(all p-values <0.001). Specifically, we observed a mean initial RIRDIFF across all
participants of 6.6 (SE = 0.20) repetitions; however, the RIRDIFF decreased to a mean
of 1.237 (SE = 0.036) at five RIR and to 1.131 (SE = 0.042) at four RIR. In our design
the actual RIR, being a determinant of RIR accuracy, was well-illustrated by partic-
ipants predicting RIR on every repetition, since prediction accuracy significantly
improved with each subsequent prediction.
In a meta-regression, Halperin et al. (2022) found RIR accuracy to improve on later
sets compared to earlier sets. We did not observe a significant two-way Set × Actual
RIR interaction, suggesting that, at the same predicted RIR, there was not a significant
difference in RIRDIFF between sets. However, visual inspection of Figure 2 suggests a
higher RIRDIFF at actual RIRs of 6, 5, and four on set one versus sets 2–4. Indeed,
there was a significant main effect for Set. Further, post-hoc analyses revealed that with
all predictions averaged together, accuracy was significantly worse on set one than on
sets 3 (p < 0.001) and 4 (p < 0.001), while prediction accuracy was significantly worse
Remmert et al. 11

on set two than on set 3 (p = 0.01). The improvement in RIR accuracy from set-to-set
could be due to a learning effect; however, empirical evidence supports that accuracy
improved from set-to-set because participants performed fewer repetitions in later sets.
Specifically, when repetitions from all exercises were averaged together participants
performed averages of 18.11 (SD = 3.51)) repetitions on set 1, 13.46 (SD = 2.34) on set
2, 13.52 (SD = 2.11) on set 3, and 14.00 (SD = 2.39) on set 4, which is a decline of
22.70% from set one to set 4. Indeed, Halperin et al.’s (2022) meta-regression found
that when ≥12 repetitions were performed in a set, RIR accuracy tended to decrease
with more repetitions. Further, Mansfield et al. (2020) observed RIRDIFF to signif-
icantly decrease from set to set when mean repetitions of 21.00 (SD = 2.81), 14.00
(SD = 2.60), and 11.24 (SD = 2.61) were performed on sets one, two, and three,
respectively, during bench press sets to failure at 60% of 1RM. Therefore, in our study it
seems likely that RIR prediction accuracy improved from set-to-set due to fewer
repetitions being performed per set.
To our knowledge, this is the first study directly comparing the accuracy of intraset
RIR predictions among three different machine-based upper body exercises. We did not
observe a significant main effect for Exercise, indicating that RIRDIFF was not
significantly different between the three exercises examined. The previous literature is
mixed regarding differences in prediction accuracy between exercises. The meta-
regression by Halperin et al. (2022) reported slightly more accurate RIRDIFF with
much narrower confidence intervals (CI) on upper body (M = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.09 –
1.75) versus lower body exercises (M = 1.51, 95% CI = 0.38 – 3.40). Indeed, Hackett
et al. (2018) found that during two sessions of three sets per exercise, intraset RIR
predictions were more accurate during upper body (chest press) versus lower body
exercise (leg press) on sets 1 (p = 0.005) and 3 (p = 0.013) of the first session. Possibly,
the greater magnitude of muscle mass involvement in the leg press accounted for less
accurate RIR ratings in Hackett et al. (Hackett et al., 2018), whereas other studies
(Mansfield et al., 2020; Odgers et al., 2021), including the present study, compared RIR
differences between exercises that used a similar magnitude of muscle mass. Spe-
cifically, Mansfield et al. (2020) reported similar RIR prediction accuracy during three
sets to failure at both 60 and 80% of 1RM on the bench press and barbell prone row,
while Odgers et al. (2021) reported similar prediction accuracy on the front squat and
hexagonal barbell deadlift over four sets to failure at 80% of 1RM. Therefore, since all
exercises we tested were machine-based, solely upper body, and involved a similar
magnitude of muscle mass, it is not surprising that RIR accuracy was not exercise-
specific.
The covariates of sex, RIR experience, and training experience were not signifi-
cantly related to RIRDIFF. Previously, Hackett et al. (2017) reported that men predicted
intraset RIR more accurately than women on the chest press and leg press. However, it
is important to note that Hackett et al. (2017) analyzed predicted repetitions minus
actual repetitions performed, but did not take the absolute value before analysis as we
did in the present study. This methodological difference could potentially explain the
disparity between studies. In contrast to Hackett et al. (2017), although Odgers et al.
12 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

(2021) did not compare RIRDIFF between men and women, the reported RIRDIFF
values were similar between them. For example, when predicting one RIR on the
hexagonal barbell deadlift, women had a mean RIRDIFF of 0.21 (SD = 0.44) repetitions
while men had a mean RIRDIFF of 0.25 (SD = 0.46) repetitions. Although our findings
align with Odgers et al. (2021), the impact of sex on RIR accuracy remains under-
studied and uncertain.
The lack of a significant impact of RIR experience and training experience on
RIRDIFF in our study aligns with previous data. Halperin et al. (2022) reported that
RIR prediction accuracy was not moderated much by training experience, and Zourdos
et al. (2021) did not find that previous experience with rating RIR was related to intraset
prediction accuracy during one set to failure at 70% of 1RM on the back squat. Al-
though it seems logical that training and RIR experience would relate to RIR prediction
accuracy, previous investigators (Zourdos et al., 2021) examined this variable as a
continuum among trained individuals without much difference in training status.
However, in cross-sectional research, Zourdos et al. (2016) and Ormsbee et al. (2019)
compared participants with a wide gap between years of training experience (novice:
≤6 months; trained: ≥5 years) and found that novice and trained individuals recorded
significantly different RIRs during single repetition sets at various percentages of 1RM.
Further, Steele et al. (2017) found that men and women with >3 years of training
experience predicted RIR before a set to an RIRDIFF of <1, while those with <6 months
of training experience had an RIRDIFF of ∼5 repetitions across a variety of exercises
(e.g., seated row, chest press, leg press, biceps curls, and pulldowns). Therefore, based
upon the totality of these data across different studies, training experience may affect
RIR prediction accuracy, but this effect may only be observed when there are large
differences in training experience.
Despite our finding of no impact on RIRDIFF from various covariates (sex, training
experience, and RIR experience), the initial RIRDIFF (first RIR prediction on each set)
was positively related to the remaining predictions,. Thus, individuals who tended to be
more accurate with their initial prediction remained more accurate when predicting RIR
closer to failure. It is important to note that even though the overall mean prediction
accuracy was ∼1 or less at all predicted RIRs (Table 5) the initial RIRDIFF across all
participants averaged 6.6 (SE = 0.20) repetitions, which represents a large degree of
inaccuracy. This degree of inaccuracy suggests that RIR-based load prescription may
not be useful when training far from failure. For example, if an individual aimed to
terminate a set at five RIR, they may actually have had 11 or 12 RIR upon set ter-
mination. This initial prediction likely improves in accuracy when multiple sets are
performed, as evidenced by visual inspection of our data on RIRDIFF from set to set,
and by the observed main effect of Set on RIRDIFF. Therefore, stopping a high
repetition set ≥12 repetitions at an initial RIR of ≥5 may result in a large error, at least on
the first set; but, in lower repetition sets or later high repetition sets, RIR predictions
made farther from failure become more accurate. Indeed, our study, in which par-
ticipants predicted RIR on every repetition, ultimately revealed that participants’ final
Remmert et al. 13

prediction of five RIR across all sets resulted in an average RIRDIFF of 1.237 (SE =
0.006) repetitions.

Limitations and Directions for Further Research

The primary limitation of this study was that RIR was predicted when participants first
perceived five RIR, and then on every subsequent repetition until reaching failure. This
methodology likely caused RIR predictions closer to failure to be influenced by earlier
predictions in the set. Therefore, we cannot be certain that the low average RIRDIFF at
the final predictions at each proximity to failure (Table 5) would have occurred had the
participants not made earlier predictions in the set. However, this limitation may
enhance the ecological validity of our results, since, in practice, trainees are likely to
internally rate RIR on every repetition, even if they are not verbalizing this prediction.
Another limitation was our limited examination of the biceps curl, triceps push-
down, and seated cable row. Thus, even though the data regarding exercise-specific
RIR accuracy is largely equivocal (Hackett et al., 2018; Halperin et al., 2022; Mansfield
et al., 2020; Odgers, J. B., 2021) the exact RIRDIFF values from these three exercises
should not be extrapolated to other exercises we did not study. Further, although we did
control for training experience as a covariate this variable only encompassed how many
months a participant had previously trained for. It is possible that other variables (e.g.,
volume, intensity, frequency) could affect RIR accuracy. For example, someone who
consistently trains to momentary failure would have more experience anchoring a
0 RIR and could theoretically be more accurate with RIR ratings.
Finally, we only analyzed the absolute value of the RIRDIFF. In other words, we did
not examine the raw RIRDIFF. For example, if after the fifth repetition a participant
predicted four RIR (prediction of nine total repetitions) but actually performed
12 repetitions the absolute RIRDIFF would equal 3 |(9 – 12)|. However, in that same
scenario the raw RIRDIFF would equal 3 (9 – 12), which would indicate direc-
tionality (over- or under-prediction). While this is valuable information, we chose to
focus on the singular question of absolute RIR accuracy.

Conclusion
In summary, we took a novel approach to examining intraset RIR accuracy by having
women and men of various training status predict RIR when they believed they were
initially at a five RIR and again for every repetition thereafter. We found the accuracy of
intraset RIR predictions not to be significantly different between machine-based biceps
curl, triceps extension, and seated row exercises. Further, neither sex, RIR experience,
nor training experience affected RIR accuracy. However, participants who had more
accurate initial RIR predictions tended to be more accurate on all subsequent
predictions.
These findings reveal that even though there may be a large error in the initial RIR
prediction during high repetition sets (i.e., ≥12 total repetitions) when the initial
14 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

prediction is made far from failure (i.e., ≥5 RIR), subsequent predictions within the
same set can be made to an accuracy of ∼1 repetition or less. Therefore, it does seem
that RIR-based load prescription can be used to effectively control for proximity to
failure during high-repetition machine-based exercises; however, coaches and prac-
titioners should be aware that prediction accuracy increases when predictions are made
closer to failure. It should be acknowledged that due to the subjective nature of RIR
some prediction error is to be expected. To account for this error, it is advisable that
practitioners use an RIR range, rather than requiring an exact value. For example,
trainees could be prescribed to perform three sets at 75% of 1RM and stop each set at
the number of repetitions resulting in 4–6 RIR, in which trainees are instructed to aim
for a five RIR, but the goal is to terminate the set anywhere within the given range. If
trainees are concerned their rating still may be inaccurate, then they can apply the
findings of the present study and when far from failure (e.g., five RIR) they can wait
until their perceived RIR declines past five; thus, they may record a five RIR twice but
not stop the set until they finally record a four RIR. Alternatively, when training closer
to failure (e.g., 1-3 RIR) trainees can stop the set as soon as an RIR is recorded within
the range since predictions are more accurate closer to failure. Ultimately, the goal of
RIR-based prescription should be kept in mind; this is to autoregulate load and training
volume based upon individual daily performance in order to control for proximity to
failure. Therefore, it seems that a small RIR prediction error is allowable as a general
gauge of proximity to failure is still achieved. Lastly, RIR prediction accuracy is
individual, so if an individual consistently rates a three RIR on a repetition then fails on
the next repetition, this individual may not be well-suited for RIR-based programming.
Nonetheless, RIR-based training prescription remains a feasible and relatively accurate
tool free from monetary cost for many to autoregulate training.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

Data Analysis
The data used for this analysis are available on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/98sd7).

ORCID iDs
Jacob F. Remmert  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5227-6541
Kelly R. Laurson  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1028-046X
Michael C. Zourdos  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3265-7683
Remmert et al. 15

References
Brzycki, M. (1993). Strength testing—predicting a one-rep max from reps-to-fatigue. Journal of
Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 64(1), 88–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/
07303084.1993.10606684
Cooke, D. M., Haischer, M. H., Carzoli, J. P., Bazyler, C. D., Johnson, T. K., Varieur, R., Zoeller,
R. F., Whitehurst, M., & Zourdos, M. C. (2019). Body mass and femur length are inversely
related to repetitions performed in the back squat in well-trained lifters. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research, 33(3), 890–895. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.
0000000000003021
Hackett, D. A., Cobley, S. P., Davies, T. B., Michael, S. W., & Halaki, M. (2017). Accuracy in
estimating repetitions to failure during resistance exercise. Journal of Strength and Con-
ditioning Research, 31(8), 2162–2168. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001683
Hackett, D. A., Cobley, S. P., & Halaki, M. (2018). Estimation of repetitions to failure for
monitoring resistance exercise intensity: Building a case for application. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research, 32(5), 1352–1359. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.
0000000000002419
Halperin, I., Malleron, T., Har-Nir, I., Androulakis-Korakakis, P., Wolf, M., Fisher, J., & Steele, J.
(2022). Accuracy in predicting repetitions to task failure in resistance exercise: A scoping
review and exploratory meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 52(2), 377–390. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s40279-021-01559-x
Helms, E. R., Brown, S. R., Cross, M. R., Storey, A., Cronin, J., & Zourdos, M. C. (2017). Self-
rated accuracy of rating of perceived exertion-based load prescription in powerlifters.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 31(10), 2938–2943. https://doi.org/10.
1519/JSC.0000000000002097
Lakens, D. (2022). Sample size justification. Collabra: Psychology, 8(1), 33267. https://doi.org/
10.1525/collabra.33267
Mansfield, S. K., Peiffer, J. J., Hughes, L. J., & Scott, B. R. (2020). Estimating repetitions in
reserve for resistance exercise: An analysis of factors which impact on prediction accuracy.
Journal of strength and conditioning research. Publish Ahead of Print https://doi.org/10.
1519/JSC.0000000000003779
Morán-Navarro, R., Pérez, C. E., Mora-Rodrı́guez, R., de la Cruz-Sánchez, E., González-Badillo,
J. J., Sánchez-Medina, L., & Pallarés, J. G. (2017). Time course of recovery following
resistance training leading or not to failure. European Journal of Applied Physiology,
117(12), 2387–2399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-017-3725-7
Odgers, J. B., Zourdos, M. C., Helms, E. R., Candow, D. G., Dahlstrom, B., Bruno, P., & Sousa,
C. A. (2021). Rating of perceived exertion and velocity relationships among trained males
and females in the front squat and hexagonal bar deadlift. Journal of Strength and Con-
ditioning Research, 35(Suppl 1), S23–S30. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.
0000000000003905
Ormsbee, M. J., Carzoli, J. P., Klemp, A., Allman, B. R., Zourdos, M. C., Kim, J.-S., & Panton,
L. B. (2019). Efficacy of the repetitions in reserve-based rating of perceived exertion for the
16 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

bench press in experienced and novice benchers. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 33(2), 337–345. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001901
Refalo, M. C., Helms, E. R., Hamilton, D. L., & Fyfe, J. J. (2022). Towards an improved
understanding of proximity-to-failure in resistance training and its influence on skeletal
muscle hypertrophy, neuromuscular fatigue, muscle damage, and perceived discomfort: A
scoping review. Journal of Sports Sciences, 40(12), 1369–1391. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02640414.2022.2080165
Servais, B. (2015). Regulating resistance exercise intensity using perceptual response and the
“anticipatory feedback” model [Master’s theses]: Humboldt State University; 2015.
Steele, J., Endres, A., Fisher, J., Gentil, P., & Giessing, J. (2017). Ability to predict repetitions to
momentary failure is not perfectly accurate, though improves with resistance training
experience. PeerJ, 5, e4105. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4105
Zourdos, M. C., Goldsmith, J. A., Helms, E. R., Trepeck, C., Halle, J. L., Mendez, K. M., Cooke,
D. M., Haischer, M. H., Sousa, C. A., Klemp, A., & Byrnes, R. K. (2021). Proximity to
failure and total repetitions performed in a set influences accuracy of intraset repetitions in
reserve-based rating of perceived exertion. Journal of strength and conditioning research.
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002995
Zourdos, M. C., Klemp, A., Dolan, C., Quiles, J. M., Schau, K. A., Jo, E., Helms, E., Esgro, B.,
Duncan, S., Garcia Merino, S., & Blanco, R. (2016). Novel resistance training–specific
rating of perceived exertion scale measuring repetitions in reserve. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 30(1), 267–275. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001049

Author Biographies
Jacob F. Remmert, MS, CSCS, holds a Master’s degree in Exercise Science and
Health Promotion. He is currently a PhD student at Florida Atlantic University, where
his research focuses on resistance training program design for strength and
hypertrophy.
Kelly R. Laurson, Ph.D., CSCS, is a professor in the School of Kinesiology and
Recreation at Illinois State University. His research activity focuses on designing
health-related and percentile standards for physical fitness, as well as physical activity
assessment in youth. Other areas of research interest include determinants of physical
activity, fitness, and health.
Michael C. Zourdos, Ph.D., CSCS, is a Full Professor and the Department Chair in the
Department of Exercise Science and Health Promotion at Florida Atlantic University’s
(Boca Raton, FL.) College of Science. Michael is also the director of the Muscle
Physiology Laboratory. His research examines resistance training program design on
muscle strength and hypertrophy, neuroprotection, and health-related quality of life in
cancer patients. Michael earned his Ph.D. in Exercise Physiology from Florida State
University in 2012.