PROXIMITY TO FAILURE AND TOTAL REPETITIONS

PERFORMED IN A SET INFLUENCES ACCURACY OF

INTRASET REPETITIONS IN RESERVE-BASED RATING
OF PERCEIVED EXERTION
MICHAEL C. ZOURDOS,1 JACOB A. GOLDSMITH,1 ERIC R. HELMS,2 CAMERON TREPECK,1,3
JESSICA L. HALLE,1 KRISTIN M. MENDEZ,1 DANIEL M. COOKE,1 MICHAEL H. HAISCHER,1
COLBY A. SOUSA,1 ALEX KLEMP,4 AND RYAN K. BYRNES1
1
Department of Exercise Science and Health Promotion, Muscle Physiology Laboratory, Florida Atlantic University, Boca
Raton, Florida; 2Sport Performance Research Institute New Zealand (SPRINZ), Auckland University of Technology,
Auckland, New Zealand; 3Department of Ocean and Mechanical Engineering, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton,
Florida; and 4Department of Nutrition, Food, and Exercise Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida

ABSTRACT tiple linear regression revealed that more repetitions performed

Zourdos, MC, Goldsmith, JA, Helms, ER, Trepeck, C, Halle, JL,
Mendez, KM, Cooke, DM, Haischer, MH, Sousa, CA, Klemp, A,
and Byrnes, RK. Proximity to failure and total repetitions
performed in a set influences accuracy of intraset repetitions in
reserve-based rating of perceived exertion. J Strength Cond Res
XX(X): 000–000, 2019—The aim of this study was to assess the
accuracy of predicting repetitions in reserve (RIR) intraset using
the RIR-based rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale. Twenty-
five men (age: 25.3 6 3.3 years, body mass: 89.0 6 14.7 kg,
height: 174.69 6 6.7 cm, and training age: 4.7 6 3.2 years)
reported to the laboratory. Subjects performed a 1 repetition
per set was a significant predictor of RIR prediction inaccuracy at
the called 5 (p = 0.003) and 7 (p = 0.011) RPEs, while training
age (p . 0.05) was not predictive of rating accuracy. These data
indicate RIR predictions are improved during low to moderate
repetition sets and when there is close proximity to failure.
KEY WORDS resistance training, autoregulation, strength,
fatigue, individualization, program design
INTRODUCTION

maximum (1RM) squat followed by one set to failure at 70% of
1RM. During the 70% set, subjects verbally indicated when they
believed they were at a 5RPE (5RIR), 7RPE (3RIR), or 9RPE
(1RIR), and then continued to failure. The difference between
actual repetitions performed and participant-predicted repetitions
was calculated as the RIR difference (RIRDIFF). The average
load used for the 70% set was 123.10 6 24.25 kg and the
average repetitions performed were 16 6 4. The RIRDIFF was
lower (RPEs were more accurate) closer to failure (RIRDIFF at
9RPE = 2.05 6 1.73; RIRDIFF at 7RPE = 3.65 6 2.46; and
RIRDIFF at 5RPE = 5.15 6 2.92 repetitions). There were signif-
icant relationships between total repetitions performed and
RIRDIFF at 5RPE (r = 0.65, p = 0.001) and 7RPE (r = 0.56,
p = 0.004), but not at 9RPE (r = 0.01, p = 0.97). Thus, being
farther from failure and performing more repetitions in a set were
associated with more inaccurate predictions. Furthermore, a mul-
Address correspondence to Dr. Michael C. Zourdos, mzourdos@fau.edu.
00(00)/1–8
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association
T
he amount of repetitions that can be performed at
a specific percentage of 1 repetition maximum
(1RM) is highly individual (12,17). Specifically,
a recent investigation observed that a range of
6–26 repetitions were performed in trained lifters at 70% of
1RM in the back squat (4). Thus, prescribing a predeter-
mined number of repetitions at a percentage of 1RM would
likely produce highly variable degrees of muscular stress and
fatigue between individuals. For example, prescribing 4 sets
of 8 repetitions at 70% of 1RM on a specific exercise could
lead to multiple sets to failure for some, whereas others
could be far from failure during each set. Importantly, recent
evidence has demonstrated failure training to elongate
recovery time vs. nonfailure training (14), which could lead
to diminished training frequency and volume. An additional
limitation of percentage-based or RM zone load prescription
is the inability to account for day-to-day readiness, which
could lead to missed training volume and diminished long-
term adaptations (10).
Therefore, to account for the limitations of percentage
and RM-based load prescription, the repetitions in reserve
(RIR)-based rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale was

VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2019 | 1

Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 RIR-Based RPE Accuracy

individuals than traditional

Borg RPE (1), as data have
demonstrated submaximal rat-
ings on the Borg scale during
resistance training even when
a set has been taken to failure
(9).
Indeed, Helms et al. (10)
recently demonstrated that
RIR-based RPE load prescrip-
tion resulted in greater back
squat (effect size [ES] = 0.50)
and bench press (ES = 0.28)
strength over 8 weeks than
percentage-based load pre-
scription in well-trained males.
Despite these findings, it is
important to note that the util-
ity of intrasession RPE is pred-
icated on the accuracy of the
rating. It is clear that with close
proximity to failure (7,15,19)
Figure 1. Resistance training–specific rating of perceived exertion scale. Adapted from Zourdos et al. 2016 with
permission.
and greater training age (18),
the accuracy of RIR is
improved (8). However, the
accuracy of intraset RIR-based
developed to allow individuals to estimate the number of RPE has not been assessed at multiple points on the scale
RIR at the completion of a set (19). Thus, the RIR-based during the same set in a compound movement. Thus, to
RPE scale can be used in lieu of percentage of 1RM to pre- further advance RIR-based RPE programming, additional
scribe training load. Specifically, a training program could data are required to determine exactly how far from failure
prescribe 4 sets of 8 repetitions at an 8RPE (2RIR) rather RIR predictions become inaccurate, if prior experience using
than assigning a percentage (i.e., 70% of 1RM) to the pre- RIR improves rating accuracy, and if the number of repeti-
scribed repetitions. When using this approach, the lifter tions performed in a set affects accuracy. Although RIR-
would select a load that they believe they can perform based RPE training improves with training age, intraset
10 repetitions, stopping the set at an 8RPE (2RIR). Further- RIR-based RPE accuracy has not been assessed in truly
more, the RIR-based RPE scale can be used to implement well-trained individuals with a similar training status to the
autoregulation (15), thus when RPE scores are too high or long-term data from Helms et al. (squat 1RM = 141.3 6 21.2
low, training load can be adjusted for subsequent sets to kg, relative strength = 1.82 times body mass [BM]). Further-
meet the RPE goal (10), which can be beneficial considering more, the number of repetitions in a set has not been inves-
day-to-day variation performance. Importantly, RIR-based tigated in relation to rating accuracy; however, it is possible
RPE seems to have more utility at equating for effort across that high-repetition sets would be associated with more

TABLE 1. Subject characteristics.*

Body Body 70% Mean ACV at

Age (y) Height (cm) mass (kg) fat (%) TA (y) REX (mo) 1RM:BM load (kg) TR 70% 1RM (m$s21)

Mean 6 25 174.69 88.95 12.94 5 10 1.98 123.10 16 0.27

SD 3 6.70 14.72 4.50 3 7 2.36 24.25 4 0.07

*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.

the TM

2 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

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
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-
*RIRDIFF = rating of perceived exertion difference (actual repetitions 2 predicted repeti-
sessed (height, total BM, and
tions); RPE = rating of perceived exertion; closest = the closest RIRDIFF and the number of body fat percentage). Next,
times it occurred; farthest = the farthest RIRDIFF and the number of times it occurred. subjects performed a five-
†Data are mean 6 SD. N = 20.
zRIRDIFF significantly lower than called 5RPE (p , 0.001). minute dynamic warm-up
§RIRDIFF significantly lower than called 7RPE (p , 0.001). and then completed a 1RM
back squat test following val-
idated procedures (19). After
the 1RM test, a 10-minute
inaccurate RIR predictions due to the potential presence of rest interval was administered. Subjects then performed
metabolic fatigue, which is not present to the same degree one set to volitional failure at 70% of 1RM in the squat.
during low-repetition sets (2). Importantly, the RIR-based During the 70% set, subjects verbally called when they
RPE scale has gained significant popularity in both the ath- believed they were at a 5RPE (5RIR), 7RPE (3RIR),
letic and fitness communities; thus, elucidating these details and 9RPE (1RIR) using the RPE scale from Zourdos
will provide practitioners the ability to implement the scale et al. (19) (Figure 1). Furthermore, subjects were blinded
when appropriate and to find alternative methods of autor- to the load being lifted and the percentage of 1RM being
egulation and gauging proximity to failure in situations when used for the set to volitional failure (not during the 1RM
ratings are inaccurate. test). To blind subjects to the load, opaque trash bags
Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to examine were positioned over the weight discs on each side of
the accuracy of gauging intraset RIR-based RPE when the barbell and subjects waited outside of the laboratory
verbally called by the lifter at a perceived “5,” “7,” and “9” after the 1RM test until 70% of 1RM was loaded onto the
RPE (5, 3, and 1 RIR) before continuing the set to volitional barbell and the trash bags were in position.
failure in well-trained males. A secondary aim was to exam-
ine if total repetitions performed, training age and RPE rat- Subjects
ing experience affected the accuracy of intraset RIR Twenty-five well-trained men participated in this study
predictions. We hypothesized that intraset accuracy would and the specific subject characteristics can be seen in
improve closer to failure, in that the “9” would be more Table 1. For inclusion, all subjects must have performed
accurate than the “7,” which would be more accurate than the back squat an average of once per week for at least 2
the “5” RPE in gauging RIR. In addition, we hypothesized consecutive years as determined through a Physical Activ-
that both training age and RPE experience would be posi- ity Questionnaire. Subjects who had any contraindications
tively related to accuracy and that higher numbers of repe- to exercise (e.g., heart disease, serious musculoskeletal dis-
titions in a set would be associated with more inaccurate orders, etc.), as determined through the Health History
RIR predictions. Questionnaire, were excluded. In addition, subjects were

TABLE 3. Relationships between independent variables and RIRDIFF.*

TR TR TR TA TA TA REX REX REX CA CA CA

RPE5 RPE7 RPE9 RPE5 RPE7 RPE9 RPE5 RPE7 RPE9 RPE5 RPE7 RPE9

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.

VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2019 | 3

Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 RIR-Based RPE Accuracy
TABLE 4. Multiple linear regression results.*
Predictor
Results with RIRDIFF at called 5RPE as dependent variable
Total repetitions performed
Training age
Results with RIRDIFF at called 7RPE as dependent variable
Total repetitions performed
Training age
Chronological age
*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
and were required to refrain from exercise for 48 hours
before testing. Florida Atlantic University Review Board
approved this investigation and all subjects provided writ-
ten informed consent before participation within the
study.
Procedures
Training Age and Repetitions in Reserve–Based Rating of Per-
ceived Exertion Experience. After providing informed written
consent, all subjects completed a Physical Activity Ques-
tionnaire. On this questionnaire, subjects were asked for how
many years they had been consistently engaged in resistance
training and for how many months (if any) they had been
using the RIR-based RPE scale in training. Those responses
were used to determine training age and RPE experience,
respectively.
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
digital scale (Mettler-Toledo, Columbus, OH, USA) to the
nearest 0.01 kg. Body fat percentage (BF%) was estimated
using the average sum of 2 measurements of skinfold
thickness acquired from 3 sites (abdomen, front thigh,
and chest); if any site measurement differed by more than
2 mm, a third measurement was taken. The Jackson and
Pollock (13) equation was used to compute body fat
percentage.
One Repetition Maximum Test. Squat 1RM testing was
administered in accordance with previously validated
procedures (19). First, subjects performed 5 repetitions with
20% of their estimated 1RM (obtained from the Physical
Activity Questionnaire), followed by 3 repetitions at 50% of
estimated 1RM, 2 repetitions at 70%, one repetition at 80%,
and one repetition at 90% of 1RM. Following the 90% load,
increases in subsequent 1RM attempts were administered
the TM
4 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Unstandardized Standardized
beta 6 SE beta T value p
0.569 6 0.167 0.591 3.411 0.003†
20.140 6 0.152 20.159 20.920 0.368
0.350 6 0.127 0.513 2.771 0.011†
0.023 6 0.189 0.030 0.122 0.904
20.207 6 0.178 20.274 21.159 0.259
at the investigator’s discretion. Average concentric velocity
(m$s21), which was measured with the Open Barbell Sys-
tem (Squats & Science Labs LLC, Seattle, WA, USA), and
RPE were collected on each 1RM attempt so that investi-
gators could use this information to aid in selecting the next
attempt. Five to 7 minutes of rest were allowed between
each attempt. A 1RM was considered valid if one of 3
conditions were met: (a) Participant reported a “10” on
the RIR scale and the investigator determined a subsequent
attempt with increased body mass could not be successfully
completed, (b) Participant reported a “9.5” on the RIR/
RPE scale and failed the subsequent attempt with a load
increase of 2.5 kg or less, and (c) Participant reported a “9”
or lower on the RIR/RPE scale and failed the subsequent
attempt with a load increase of 5 kg or less. Finally, Eleiko
barbells and lifting discs (Chicago, IL, USA), calibrated to
the nearest 0.25 kg, were used to ensure accuracy of the
load lifted.
Repetitions to Failure and Intraset Rating of Perceived Exertion.
After the 10-minute post-1RM testing rest period, subjects
performed repetitions until volitional failure at 70% of 1RM
while being blinded to the load with opaque trash bags
positioned over the weight discs. Volitional failure was
determined as the subject either failing on a repetition or both
the subject and investigator determining that another repetition
could not be completed. To predict RIR during the set to
failure, subjects verbally indicated when they believed they had
reached a 5RPE (5RIR), 7RPE (3RIR), and 9RPE (1RIR) using
the RPE scale from Zourdos et al. (19) (Figure 1). Both pre-
dicted repetitions to failure at each called RPE and actual rep-
etitions performed were recorded. Next, the difference between
the actual and predicted repetitions performed (actual repeti-
tions 2 predicted repetitions) was recorded as the RIR differ-
ence (RIRDIFF) for all 3 intraset RPEs. Three different points
on the scale were used for intraset RPE calls to achieve RIR
predictions at different proximities to failure. We chose a 5RPE

as starting point, as recent evidence has shown training at a 5–6
RPE over 8 weeks produced similar hypertrophy to training at
a 7–8 RPE (10), thus performing repetitions at $5RPE ensures
an effective stimulus to evoke adaptation.
Statistical Analyses
The absolute RIRDIFF (actual repetitions 2 predicted rep-
etitions) for the set to volitional failure was calculated at all
intraset RPEs. For example, if a participant completed
15 total repetitions and called a 5RPE after 7 repetitions
(predicting he could do a total of 12 repetitions), then the
RIR difference would equal 3. Therefore, a smaller RIRDFF
indicates a higher degree of accuracy and vice versa. To
determine the accuracy of intraset RIR-based RPEs across
several called RPEs, the RIRDIFF was statistically compared
between the called 5, 7, and 9 RPEs using a repeated-
measures analysis of variance. Paired t-tests were used for
multiple comparison purposes. Furthermore, 5 subjects failed
to call at least one of the intraset RPEs, thus 20 subjects were
included in the repeated-measures analysis. In addition, ES
were calculated between each RIRDIFF with the formula:
ES = (Mean1 2 Mean2)/SDpooled. The magnitude of each
ES was interpreted in accordance with Cohen (3). Pearson
product-moment correlations were used to assess relation-
ships between the independent variables (total repetitions
performed, training age, RPE experience, and chronological
age) with the absolute RIRDIFF for each called RPE. Fur-
thermore, to assess the influence of these variables in pre-
dicting RIRDIFF, a multiple linear regression was performed
to predict dependent variables when at least 2 bivariate
correlations were significant or approaching significance
(i.e., p , 0.10). All statistical analyses were performed using
Statistica (StatSoft, Tulsa, OK, USA) for Windows and
SPSS version 25.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Signif-
icance was set at p # 0.05.
RESULTS
Repetitions in Reserve Difference
The specific values for RIRDIFF at each intraset RPE are
displayed in Table 2. There was a significant condition
effect (p , 0.001) indicated that the RIRDIFF was lower
(i.e., RPEs were more accurate) closer to failure. Specifi-
cally, the RIRDIFF at the called 7 was significantly lower
(p , 0.001, ES = 0.56) than the 5RPE. The RIRDIFF at the
called 9RPE was significantly lower than both the called 7
(p , 0.001, ES = 0.75) and 5 RPEs (p , 0.001, ES = 1.29).
Bivariate Correlations
The specific r and p values for all relationships can be seen in
Table 3. The total repetitions performed on the 70% set were
16 6 4 with a minimum of 9 repetitions and a maximum of
26 repetitions. Total repetitions performed in the 70% of
1RM set were positively and significantly related to
RIRDIFF at the called 5 (r = 0.65, p = 0.001) and 7 RPEs
(r = 0.56, p = 0.004), but not at the called 9RPE, indicat-
ing that more repetitions per set were associated with less
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
accurate RIR prediction. An inverse association between
training age and RIRDIFF at the intraset 5 (r = 20.35, p =
0.094) and 7 RPEs (r = 20.34, p = 0.096) approached sig-
nificance, but did not at the called 9RPE (p = 0.32), indicat-
ing that more years of training experience was potentially
associated with more precise prediction of RIR when further
from failure. Chronological age was inversely and signifi-
cantly associated with RIRDIFF at the called 9 intraset
RPE (r = 20.50, p = 0.021) and approached significance at
the called 7RPE (r = 20.36, p = 0.077), but not at the 5RPE
(p = 0.20), signifying that older lifters predicted RIR more
accurately than younger lifters when closer to failure. Inter-
estingly, there was no significant relationship at any intraset
RPE between experience with the RPE scale and RIRDIFF.
Multiple Linear Regression
Based on the bivariate correlations, 2 multiple linear
regressions were conducted. Specifically, total repetitions
performed and training age were entered as predictors with
the RIRDIFF at the called 5RPE as the dependent variable
for one regression. For the second regression, total repeti-
tions performed, training age, and chronological age were
entered with the RIRDIFF at the called 7RPE as the
dependent variable. The R2 for the RIRDIFF at the 5RPE
model was 0.436, whereas the R2 for the RIRDIFF at 7RPE
model was 0.377. In each regression, the total repetitions per
set was shown to be a significant predictor of RIRDIFF
(5RPE: p = 0.003; 7RPE: p = 0.011), whereas training age
and chronological age were not significant predictors
(p . 0.05). Further details of the regression analyses can
be seen in Table 4.
DISCUSSION
The primary aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of
intraset RIR-based RPE. Our hypotheses were that RIR
prediction would be more accurate closer to failure (sup-
ported), more repetitions per set would be related to more
inaccurate RIR predictions (supported), and greater training
age and RPE experience would be related to increased
accuracy of RIR prediction (not supported). Therefore, our
main findings were as follows: (a) RIR prediction was more
accurate closer to failure in that the 9RPE calls were more
accurate than the 7RPE calls, which were more accurate
than the 5RPE calls, (b) more repetitions per set were
predictive of more inaccurate RIR predictions at the 5 and
7RPE calls, and (c) both training age and RPE experience
were not significantly related to RPE accuracy. Overall, these
findings suggest that the RIR-based RPE scale is best used
when closer to failure during moderate- to low-repetition
sets.
The notion that RIR is gauged more accurately closer to
failure has been previously reported (7,15,19). However, this
study is the first, to the best of our knowledge, to directly
compare 3 different predictions (5RIR, 3RIR, and 1RIR)
within the same set. The results indicated a fair amount of
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2019 | 5
 RIR-Based RPE Accuracy
inaccuracy when gauging $3RIR in a high-repetition, mod-
erate intensity barbell back squat set while blinded to the
load. However, the level of accuracy when gauging 7RPE
varied between individuals. Indeed, one participant had an
RIRDIFF of 0 at 7RPE, indicating perfect accuracy. There-
fore, it may be that RPE is useful for some, but not all, to
assess proximity to failure. Furthermore, the present data
demonstrated fairly accurate RIR prediction at the called
9RPE (RIRDIFF = 1.95), which is similar to Hackett et al.
(7) who reported an RIR of 61 when subjects were 0–3
repetitions from failure in the chest press and leg press.
One explanation for the slightly less accurate predictions
in this study is that subjects were blinded to the load, thus
lifters could not have had a predetermined repetition target.
This factor is both a limitation and benefit of the present
investigation. It serves as a limitation because lifters are
rarely blinded to a load under normal training conditions.
Conversely, load-blinding may be viewed as a benefit, as
subjects may have truly reached a repetition maximum
rather than simply meeting a self-determined repetition tar-
get if using a known load.
Interestingly, the total repetitions performed per set was
a significant predictor of RIRDIFF at the called 5 and 7
RPEs, suggesting that it is more difficult to gauge RIR during
high-repetition sets. Existing data suggest it is more difficult
to predict RIR when $3 repetitions from failure; however,
the present data indicate that the amount of repetitions in
a set also affects this rating. For example, in a 15–20 repeti-
tion set, our data suggest it is difficult to gauge RPE when
$3 repetitions from failure; however, in a set #12 repeti-
tions, a fairly accurate RIR rating can be given when $3
repetitions from failure and RIR can be predicted with pre-
cision when ,3 repetitions from failure. A possible explana-
tion for this phenomenon is that during high-repetition sets,
there is a greater degree of metabolic fatigue coupled with
neuromuscular fatigue, which may convolute an individual’s
ability to gauge RIR. Indeed, Buitrago et al. (2) demonstrated
greater increases in blood lactate with repetitions to failure at
70 vs. 85% of 1RM. Therefore, it is plausible that significant
metabolic fatigue was present in the current study in subjects
who performed high repetitions, which in turn hindered
their ability to accurately gauge intraset RIR.
Moreover, because high-repetition sets lead to more
inaccurate RIR predictions, it is worth noting that the utility
of the RIR-based RPE scale may be optimal with higher
intensities ($80% of 1RM), in which typically lower repeti-
tions are performed. If using RPE to monitor proximity to
failure or autoregulate during higher repetition sets, perhaps
it is best to assign an RPE range (i.e., 5–7 or 6–8) rather than
an exact number. In fact, this approach by Helms et al. (10)
led to greater strength adaptations when using RPE-based
loading than percentage-based loading over 8 weeks.
Data have shown RIR predictions before a set to improve
with training age (18); however, the current regression anal-
ysis did not show training age or RPE experience to be
the TM
6 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
a significant predictor of intraset RIR prediction. Zourdos
et al. (19) and Ormsbee et al. (15) suggested that experienced
lifters recorded more accurate RPEs at 100% of 1RM com-
pared with novice lifters. This claim was made due to expe-
rienced lifters having higher RPE at 100% of 1RM than
novice lifters. However, another explanation is that novice
lifters had poor rate of force development; thus, after record-
ing a submaximal RPE (;8–9), they simply could not
complete their next attempt. In that interpretation, the RPE
scores were not necessarily inaccurate, but rather, novice
individuals are incapable of performing a true 10RPE lift due
to “neuromuscular inefficiency.” In addition, Steele et al. (18)
demonstrated accuracy of RIR prediction improved with
training experience; however, in this study, the subjects
made a prediction of how many repetitions they could
complete before a set rather than during a set. Therefore, in
Steele et al.’s study, it is possible that lifters with more
training experience were more familiar with how many
repetitions they can typically perform at a given load, which
is not necessarily indicative of intraset RIR prediction. In
addition, this study only employed trained lifters, whereas
previous studies either inferring greater RIR prediction
accuracy (7,15,19) or showing greater accuracy (18), com-
paring trained lifters with beginners. Therefore, it is possible
that training age plays a role in RIR prediction accuracy;
however, there may be a point of diminishing returns.
Therefore, because all lifters in this study had $2 years of
training experience, the present comparison of training age
was different than that of previous investigations.
Notably, experience with the RIR-based RPE scale did
not affect rating accuracy. One participant who reported “0”
months of experience with RIR-based RPE was the only
individual to have an RIRDIFF of zero (i.e., perfect predic-
tions) at all intraset called RPEs. However, this participant
also had the highest training age (12 years) and perhaps
more importantly, only performed 10 repetitions during his
70% to failure set. Although this is only one data point, it is
consistent with the totality of data in this study and high-
lights that repetitions per set seems to have a greater con-
tribution to accuracy than prior experience with the RPE
scale. Interestingly, the only significant bivariate correlation
at the called 9RPE was chronological age to be signifi-
cantly and inversely related to RIRDIFF at the called
9RPE (r = 20.50, p = 0.021), suggesting that when close
to failure, a more mature individual may have a more real-
istic interpretation of their limitations. This specific finding
seems tenuous and further corroboration is needed; how-
ever, it seems reasonable that an older lifter might be more
aware of his limitations.
A limitation of this study is that it only used male lifters
and examining only the squat exercise, thus we cannot
extrapolate our findings to female lifters or other compound
movements such as the bench press and deadlift. It is also
possible that performing 1RM testing before the 70% to
failure set could have negatively impacted the amount of

repetitions to failure and the subsequent RPE ratings;
however, the average repetitions performed of 16 6 4 is
quite high and suggests that performance was not harmed.
An additional limitation, as stated previously, is that sub-
jects were blinded to the load, which is rarely the case in
practice. Importantly, this study is the first to examine the
accuracy of intraset RPE scores in the squat during a mul-
tiple repetition set. Furthermore, this study is the first to
examine the relationship of total repetitions per set, training
age, and RPE experience with the accuracy of ratings in
well-trained lifters. Therefore, the novelty of these findings
advances RIR-based RPE programming and provides
greater application for practitioners to individualize load
prescription and adjustment.
In summary, well-trained males gauged intraset RPE more
accurately closer to failure at 70% of 1RM in the squat.
However, the total repetitions per set significantly impacted
the accuracy of intraset RIR prediction, in that when greater
repetitions were performed, less accurate RIR predictions
were made at all called RPEs (5 and 7 RPEs). Ultimately, our
results suggest that well-trained individuals can predict RIR
accurately during low-repetition sets and that accuracy
improves closer to failure.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
A critical observation of the present data is that a wide range
(9–26) and high average (16 6 4) number of repetitions were
performed during the 70% of 1RM set to failure. The highly
variable ability to perform repetitions to failure at a moderate
intensity in the squat provides further support for use of the
RIR-based RPE scale to equate for effort across individuals
(11). For example, 4 sets of 10 repetitions at 6–8 RPE could
be programmed for the back squat instead of prescribing 10
repetitions at 70% of 1RM. By using RPE, coaches and ath-
letes could ensure that athletes are performing effective rep-
etitions (i.e., $5RPE per set) but are not reaching failure
consistently. Importantly, training to failure has shown
diminished performance for 48 hours (16) and is associated
with longer recovery even when directly compared with
volume-equated nonfailure training (14). Importantly, failure
training is not required to optimize strength and hypertro-
phy (5) and because failure training elongates recovery, it
could decrease training frequency and subsequent training
volume limiting long-term adaptations. Although measuring
barbell velocity might be more accurate to predict RIR than
the RPE scale (6), not all coaches and athletes have access to
valid and reliable velocity tools, whereas the RIR-based RPE
scale can be used by anyone. Therefore, because velocity
measurements are not feasible for everyone, the RIR-based
RPE scale provides a viable alternative for intraset RIR pre-
diction, especially in well-trained individuals during low-
repetition sets.
Furthermore, athletes can view their load-repetition and
RPE relationships from previous training sessions to guide their
current and future sessions. Thus, it is possible that in practice,
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
RIR prediction may be even more accurate than is represented
in this acute laboratory study. Finally, RIR-based RPE could
also be used to gauge progress overtime in lieu of always
performing RM testing to mitigate fatigue. For example, if an
athlete performs a back squat with 200 kg at a 9RPE before
a training block and after the training block performs a 200 kg
back squat for one repetition at a 6RPE, it can be concluded
the progress was made without the stress of RM testing.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the subjects for their time and
effort. M.C. Zourdos and E.R. Helms would like to disclose
that they are writers within the fitness industry. No other
authors have any potential conflict of interest.
REFERENCES
1. Borg, G. Perceived exertion as an indicator of somatic stress. Scand J
Rehabil Med 2: 92–98, 1970.
2. Buitrago, S, Wirtz, N, Yue, Z, Kleinöder, H, and Mester, J. Effects of
load and training modes on physiological and metabolic responses in
resistance exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol 112: 2739–2748, 2012.
3. Cohen, J. The T-Test for Means. In: Statistical Power Analysis for the
Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates,
1988. pp. 24–27.
4. Cooke, DM. Relationship between Anthropometric Measurements and
Average Concentric Velocity in the Back Squat. Boca Raton, FL: Florida
Atlantic University, 2017.
5. Davies, T, Orr, R, Halaki, M, and Hackett, D. Effect of training
leading to repetition failure on muscular strength: A systematic
review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine 46: 487–502, 2016.
6. Garcı́a-Ramos, A, Torrejón, A, Feriche, B, Morales-Artacho, AJ,
Pérez-Castilla, A, Padial, P, et al. Prediction of the maximum
number of repetitions and repetitions in reserve from barbell
velocity. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 13: 353–359, 2018.
7. Hackett, DA, Cobley, SP, Davies, TB, Michael, SW, and Halaki, M.
Accuracy in estimating repetitions to failure during resistance
exercise. J Strength Cond Res 31: 2162–2168, 2017.
8. Hackett, DA, Cobley, SP, and Halaki, M. Estimation of repetitions
to failure for monitoring resistance exercise intensity: Building a case
for application. J Strength Cond Res 32: 1352–1359, 2018.
9. Hackett, DA, Johnson, NA, Halaki, M, and Chow, CM. A novel scale to
assess resistance-exercise effort. J Sports Sci 30: 1405–1413, 2012.
10. Helms, ER, Byrnes, RK, Cooke, DM, Haischer, MH, Carzoli, JP,
Johnson, TK, et al. RPE vs. percentage 1RM loading in periodized
programs matched for sets and repetitions. Front Physiology 9: 247, 2018.
11. Helms, ER, Cronin, J, Storey, A, and Zourdos, MC. Application of
the repetitions in reserve-based rating of perceived exertion scale for
resistance training. Strength Cond J 38: 42, 2016.
12. Hoeger, WW, Hopkins, DR, Barette, SL, and Hale, DF.
Relationship between repetitions and selected percentages of one
repetition maximum: A comparison between untrained and trained
males and females. J Strength Cond Res 4: 47–54, 1990.
13. Jackson, AS and Pollock, ML. Generalized equations for predicting
body density of men. Br J Nutr 40: 497–504, 1978.
14. Morán-Navarro, R, Pérez, CE, Mora-Rodrı́guez, R, de la Cruz-
Sánchez, E, González-Badillo, JJ, Sánchez-Medina, L, et al. Time
course of recovery following resistance training leading or not to
failure. Eur J Appl Physiol 117: 2387–2399, 2017.
15. Ormsbee, MJ, Carzoli, JP, Klemp, A, Allman, BR, Zourdos, MC,
Kim, JS, et al. Efficacy of the repetitions in reserve-based rating of
perceived exertion for the bench press in experienced and novice
benchers. J Strength Cond Res 33: 337–345, 2019.
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2019 | 7
 RIR-Based RPE Accuracy
16. Párraga-Montilla, JA, Garcı́a-Ramos, A, Castaño-Zambudio, A,
Capelo-Ramı́rez, F, González-Hernández, JM, Cordero-Rodrı́guez,
Y, et al. Acute and delayed effects of a resistance training session
leading to muscular failure on mechanical, metabolic, and
perceptual responses. J Strength Cond Res, 2018. Epub ahead of print.
17. Richens, B and Cleather, DJ. The relationship between the number
of repetitions performed at given intensities is different in endurance
and strength trained athletes. Biol Sport 31: 157, 2014.
the TM
8 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
18. Steele, J, Endres, A, Fisher, J, Gentil, P, and Giessing, J. Ability to
predict repetitions to momentary failure is not perfectly accurate,
though improves with resistance training experience. PeerJ 5: e4105,
2017.
19. Zourdos, MC, Klemp, A, Dolan, C, Quiles, JM, Schau, KA, Jo, E,
et al. Novel resistance training–specific rating of perceived exertion
scale measuring repetitions in reserve. J Strength Cond Res 30: 267–
275, 2016.