The use of RPE ( rate of perceived exertion) or RIR (reps in reserve) within strength training has grown massively in popularity over the last 5 years, with some solid research behind its use, it’s certainly a very useful tool for managing your training efforts.
You may see prescriptions like this within a program:
3 x 5 @ RPE 7
3 x 5 @ 3 RIR
The rise of these methods has seen the ‘older’ approach of using %’s calculated from your 1RM to determine your training loads take a bit of back seat in programming approaches.
A valid argument for using RPE is that allows for fluctuations in recovery, energy or stress levels.
The counter-argument to this is that % based approaches have been used for many years and produced results, which is a valid point.
A study by Helms et al.,2018 compared RPE vs %1RM loading over 8 weeks with trained individuals to see the difference in strength and muscle thickness between the two. Strength differences between groups were small and variable enough to fall short of statistical significance, they found similar findings with muscle thickness. Whilst further research is required in this area it’s fair to say that neither is ultimately superior, it is also worth noting that they also do not need to mutually exclusive for determining loading within a programme.
The RIR method is similar to RPE in that it also allows for autoregulation to be used but with potentially more accuracy compared to solely using RPE.
Considerations and Applications for %, RPE and RIR:
It is worth highlighting that a combination of these can be a very effective way to program, they do not need to be kept separate, in fact, they can be used together to help create an effective training approach.
- RPE/RIR – The accuracy of this is dependant on the individual using it, one’s perception of an RPE 10 to another may be very different, this may also be influenced by your environment and your personality type. Just as ensuring your 1RM that you calculate your loads from work is accurate, RPE is the same.
- Training experience plays an important role, both RPE & %’s accuracy with newer trainees isn’t going to be the most accurate due to the speed at which a new trainee will progress in strength and skill as they will be able to make progress session to session. It’s a hard argument to say that someone who has just learned how to perform a barbell squat has any idea of what a max effort set feels like.
- Each method provides a way of managing progressive overload. Using the RPE reference chart created by Mike Tuscherer of RTS. If you were to keep your reps and sets the same but increase your RPE by 0.5-1 each week, it’s not too dissimilar to the loading we would commonly see with % approach by adding 2-2.5% per week.
Take an individual with a 1RM of 100kg
- Wk 1 3 x 5 @ RPE 7 – 77-78%
- Wk 2 3 x 5 @ RPE 7.5 – 79-80%
- Wk 3 3 x 5 @ RPE 8 – 81-82%
- Wk 4 3 x 5 @ RPE 8.5 – 82-83%
- If you are new to the auto-regulation system, don’t programme RPE/RIR targets but start tracking them alongside each of your sets. After doing this for some time you may start to become more in tune with the system and can begin to prescribe RPE/RIR Targets.
- Prescribe a % range rather than a set % to allow for some level of autoregulation.
(i.e – 3 x 5 @ 72-75%)
- Work within a “goal” RPE range alongside a % approach (i.e., 3 x 10 at 60% with a goal RPE of 6–8), if the first set RPE is out of the goal range then the load may be adjusted.
Recent Comments