Original Research

Estimating Repetitions in Reserve for Resistance

Exercise: An Analysis of Factors Which Impact on
Prediction Accuracy
Sean K. Mansfield,1,2 Jeremiah J. Peiffer,1,2 Liam J. Hughes,1,2 and Brendan R. Scott1,2
1
Faculty of Exercise Science, College of Science, Health, Engineering & Education, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia;
and 2Murdoch Applied Sports Science Laboratory, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia

Abstract
Mansfield, Sean, K, Peiffer, Jeremiah, J, Hughes, Liam, J, and Scott Brendan, R. Estimating repetitions in reserve for resistance
exercise: an analysis of factors which impact on prediction accuracy. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000–000, 2020—The purpose of
this study was to examine the influence of knowing the load being lifted on the accuracy of repetitions-in-reserve (RIR) estimates,
during both moderate- (60% 1 repetition maximum [RM]) and heavy-load (80% 1RM) exercise. Twenty trained men (age: 25.9 6 4.5
years, height: 181 6 7 cm, body mass: 86.5 6 13.7 kg) were assessed for 1RM in bench press (98.4 6 16.4 kg) and prone row (72.0
6 11.7 kg), before being randomized into control (i.e., informed of the load; n 5 10) or blinded (noninformed; n 5 10) conditions.
Participants then completed 2 protocols in a randomized order: 3 sets at 80% 1RM and 3 sets at 60% 1RM. During each set of these
protocols, participants were asked to estimate their RIR before continuing the set to failure. Differences in estimated and actual RIR
between sets and conditions were determined via 3-way repeated measures analysis of variance for the 60 and 80% 1RM protocols
independently. No differences in RIR accuracy were observed between blinded vs nonblinded conditions. Repetitions-in-reserve
estimates were lower than actual RIR for the first set of both exercises in 60 and 80% protocols (p # 0.007, effect size [ES]:
1.30–2.89 [moderate-large]) and for set 2 of the 80% bench press protocol (p 5 0.046, ES: 0.39 [small]). Knowing the load during
resistance exercise or the %1RM of the load lifted did not influence the estimates of RIR. The ability to accurately determine RIR in
the 60 and 80% 1RM protocols improved from sets 1–3, indicating that estimation of RIR is enhanced when an individual is
estimating RIR at a closer point to actual failure.
Key Words: repetitions-in-reserve, bench press, prone row, autoregulating

Introduction failure (11,33), provides a subjective means to autoregulate

training, and can be completed without the need for specialized
Implementing a periodized approach to manipulating the loads
equipment. Research indicates that individuals who are well fa-
lifted and volume of training is common when training to develop
miliarized with a given exercise can accurately use the RIR
muscular qualities such as hypertrophy, strength, and power (18).
method to regulate their exercise volume (6,33). In addition,
The choice of load is often determined as a percentage of an
previous research by Hackett et al. (11) has established that
individual’s one-repetition maximum (1RM) or other RM value
resistance-trained individuals demonstrate an acceptable degree
(7). However, using a 1RM based on a previous test to prescribe
of reliability to estimate RIR when performing both the bench
the load for a session, does not account for acute decrements in
press and back squat to failure (ICC: 0.92–1.0 and 0.96–1.0 for AU2
training performance that occur when training to failure (15).
the bench press and back squat, respectively). However, it is
Although submaximal training may not cause the same residual
possible that the accuracy of RIR estimates may be influenced by
fatigue as training to failure (31), routinely performing maximal
preconceived ideas that experienced lifters have, regarding how
strength assessments to prescribe training volume and load,
many repetitions they should be able to complete in a set based on
particularly for more than one exercise, is time consuming.
the load they are asked to lift (6,33). Rather than using the sen-
Therefore, an alternative to testing for maximal strength is
sations of exertion during exercise to estimate their proximity to
autoregulation, which is the self-management of training vari-
failure (10), individuals may simply use their previous experience
ables (i.e., load or volume) based on the individual’s strength or
with the load lifted to set and reach a target number of repetitions.
performance on the day to meet sessional goals (27). Using
If individuals indeed set and attempt to reach a specific number of
autoregulation, instantaneous adjustments of load or volume
repetitions based on previous experience, then it is likely that the
within a training session will theoretically ensure that the correct
RIR method does not represent a true autoregulatory method.
level of stress is applied.
In addition to knowing the load being lifted, the accuracy of RIR
Of the available methods of autoregulation, repetitions-in-
may be influenced by the load itself (1), specifically, because it
reserve (RIR), whereby an individual estimates the number of
relates to the proximity of the individual to failure (6,9–11). Indi-
repetitions they are able to perform during a set, before muscular
viduals train with a variety of loads as a percentage of their 1RM in
Address correspondence to Sean K. Mansfield, sean.mansfield@outlook.com. resistance training, with a large range of repetitions possible at each
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 00(00)/1–7 of these loads (2,3). Heavy loads (e.g., .70% 1RM) are associ-
ª 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association ated with greater motor unit recruitment (4,21) and as a result,

Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 AU1 Knowledge of the Load Does Not Influence RIR Estimate Accuracy (2020) 00:00
increased fatigue (1). As such, an increase in the load lifted brings
individuals closer to the point of muscular failure, reducing the
total possible repetitions during a set (2,3) and therefore the pos-
sible number of remaining repetitions which can be estimated
(6,9–11). Currently, there is no research as to how the relative load
of an exercise, in relation to an individual’s 1RM, may influence the
ability to estimate RIR. Should the load lifted have an impact on
RIR estimates, it is possible this technique of autoregulation may
not be appropriate for all situations.
The primary aim of this study was to investigate whether the
accuracy of RIR estimates for trained individuals are influenced
by knowing the load being lifted for the bench press and prone
row exercises, and therefore the number repetitions that could
likely be performed, compared with being blinded to the load. In
addition, a secondary aim of this study was to examine whether
the accuracy of RIR estimates is affected by the actual load being
lifted (60 vs. 80% of 1RM). It was hypothesized that RIR accu-
racy would be reduced when individuals possessed knowledge of
the load lifted, and that individuals would be more accurate in
their RIR predictions when using 80% of 1RM over 60%
of 1RM.
AU3 Methods
Experimental Approach to the Problem
This study was a mixed design, with between-subject compari-
sons to assess the effect of blinding of the load lifted, and within-
subject comparisons to determine the impact of lifting 60% or
80% 1RM loads within each condition. Each participant visited
the laboratory on 3 occasions with each session separated by 4–7
days. Before baseline testing, participants were allocated into ei-
ther a nonblinded (control) or blinded (experimental) condition,
based on the order they were recruited into the study. Those in the
nonblinded condition were informed of the load of each set and
how many repetitions they could expect to complete at the load,
based on estimates from established calculations (2,3), whereas
those in the blinded condition were not made aware of either at
any point in the study. In this way, we were able to compare the
accuracy of RIR estimates between individuals who had no
knowledge of the load or its potential impact on their perfor-
mance, with participants who were provided with all information
that would normally be available to a well-trained individual
during training. During their first visit to the laboratory, partic-
ipants were assessed for 1RM in the bench press and prone row
exercises. The order of sessions 2 and 3 were randomized and
required participants to perform 4 sets to failure for both exercises
at 2 different loads: session 2 at 60% of 1RM and session 3 at
80% of 1RM. During each set, participants were asked to provide
an estimate of RIR when the prescribed number of repetitions was
reached (8 repetitions for the 60% 1RM protocol, 3 repetitions
for the 80% 1RM protocol) which was compared with the total
repetitions to failure to establish the estimate accuracy. The rep-
etition that RIR was asked at in each protocol was determined by
pilot testing and is explained later in this paper.
AU4 Subjects
AU5 Twenty healthy men (age: 25.9 6 4.5 years, height: 181 6 7 m,
body mass: 86.5 6 13.7 kg, 1RM bench press 98.4 6 16.4 kg,
1RM prone row 72.0 6 11.7 kg) (control group, n 5 10, blinded
group, n 5 10) volunteered to participate in this study. All par-
ticipants had previous experience with resistance training
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
($2 resistance training sessions per week for $2 years) and self-
reported that they had no previous experience with the RIR sys-
tem. Participants were screened for risk factors using the Exercise
and Sports Science Australia Adult Pre-Exercise Screening Tool
and were free of any musculoskeletal injuries. They also self-
reported that they were not taking supplements or medication at
the time of testing that could affect the results of the study. Par-
ticipants were instructed to refrain from performing any other
strenuous activity 48 hours before each session and were
instructed to match dietary intakes before each session. All par-
ticipants were provided with information detailing the require-
ments, aims, benefits, and risks of the study. Signed informed
consent was obtained before commencing the research. This
study and its methods were approved by the Human Research
Ethics Committee at Murdoch University.
Procedures
1-Repetition Maximum Testing and Familiarization. During their
first visit to the laboratory, participants completed 1RM testing
for the bench press and prone row exercises. This commenced
with a 5-minute warm-up on a rowing ergometer at a self-selected
intensity followed by 5 minutes of upper body self-selected dy-
namic stretching. The specific stretches were recorded and re-
peated verbatim in the following sessions. The participants then
completed 5 warm-up sets for bench press which involved: 3
repetitions at 20% 1RM (as estimated by participants), 3 repe-
titions at 40% 1RM, 3 repetitions at 60% 1RM, one repetition at
80% 1RM, and one repetition at 90% 1RM (15), with 90 seconds
rest between each set. The load was then increased by ;5% and
participants performed a single repetition. If the lift was suc-
cessful, the load was increased again for another attempt, and this
process continued until the participant could no longer adhere to
correct technique or complete a repetition. Three minutes of rest
was provided between each 1RM attempt. Five minutes after
concluding the bench press assessment, participants completed
1RM testing for the prone row using the same methodology. The
1RM was defined as the heaviest completed repetition and was
determined within 3–5 sets for both exercises.
The bench press and prone row exercises were selected for use
as they required directly opposite direction of force applications
in the upper body musculature. Participants were instructed to
complete the eccentric portion of each repetition under control,
and the concentric portion as quickly as possible (15). The bench
press began with arms fully extended, before the bar was lowered
to touch the chest and returned to full arm extension. Participants
started the prone row laying prone on a bench, holding the barbell
at full arm extension before pulling the bar towards their body
and returning it to full arm extension (25). A customized elastic
string-line was set at the height of the bar when participants
performed full scapular retraction so the barbell came into con-
tact with the string-line at the top position to notify that appro-
priate range had been reached (26). All participants were required
to wear lifting straps (VELO Weight Lifting Wrist Wraps, VELO)
for the prone row, to ensure that grip strength was not a limiting
factor for the exercise. Grip width was standardized for both
exercises so that the forearms remained as close to vertical as
possible throughout the entire range of motion.
Five minutes after the prone row 1RM assessment, participants
were instructed in how to provide a RIR score during a set of
exercise, by considering how many additional complete repetitions
they could perform in the set before failure. Failure was defined as
 Knowledge of the Load Does Not Influence RIR Estimate Accuracy (2020) 00:00
the point at which; (a) the participant could no longer move the bar
concentrically, (b) they paused for more than one second when the
arms were in the extended position, or (c) if they were unable to
complete a repetition with a full range of motion (16,17). When
participants indicated they understood these instructions, they
completed a single set of the bench press and prone row to failure
using 70% of their 1RM load and were asked to provide an RIR
score at the fifth repetition. Participants in the blinded condition
completed this assessment with blinding in place.
Experimental Exercise Protocols. During the second and third
sessions, participants completed 4 sets of the bench press and
prone row using either a 60% 1RM or 80% 1RM exercise pro-
tocol. The order in which participants completed these protocols
was randomized. After completing a general warm-up as per
session one, participants performed 3 bench press warm-up sets
with 3 minutes of rest between sets, according to the prescribed
load for the session: 60% protocol comprised 10 3 20% 1RM,
10 3 40% 1RM, and 5 3 50% 1RM; 80% protocol comprised
10 3 20% 1RM, 5 3 50% 1RM, and 3 3 70% 1RM. Partici-
pants then rested for 3 minutes before completing 4 sets of bench
press to failure with 3 minutes of rest between sets. After the
eighth or third repetitions in each set for the 60 and 80% trials,
respectively, participants provided an RIR score (11), before
continuing to complete the set to failure without any delay. After
the bench press exercise, participants rested for 5 minutes before
completing the same protocol for the prone row.
Repetition-in-Reserve Estimates. It was expected that partici-
pants would be able to complete a maximum of ;15 repetitions in
the 60% 1RM protocol and ;6–8 repetitions in the 80% 1RM
protocol (2,3). However, in pilot testing, it was observed that the
number of maximal repetitions possible declined with each sub-
sequent set as individuals fatigued. Therefore, to enable the as-
sessment of accuracy of RIR, participants were asked to estimate
RIR at 8 repetitions in the 60% protocol and 3 repetitions in the
80% 1RM protocol, before completing repetitions to failure after
this number.
Blinding of Participants. Within the blinded conditions, circular
cardboard screens were placed on both sides of the barbell, ob-
scuring the participants’ view of the weights with a black bag
½F1 placed over both the screen and the weight plates (Figure 1).
Participants were also blindfolded during any time when weights
were added or removed from the barbell. Individuals allocated to
the nonblinding condition were allowed full knowledge of the
load being lifted at all times.
Statistical Analyses
The mean 6 SD and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) (displayed as:
mean 6 SD, CI: lower CI, upper CI) were calculated for all vari-
ables. A 3-way repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA)
was used to examine differences between actual and estimated RIR
between conditions (blinded vs. nonblinded) and sets (1–3). The
accuracy of RIR estimates (actual 2 estimated RIR) were compared
between loads (60 vs. 80%) and sets using a 2-way repeated mea-
sure ANOVA. Significant main effects of actual RIR and estimated
RIR, and interactions between actual RIR and estimated RIR, were
analyzed post-hoc using Holms Sequential Bonferroni adjusted
pairwise comparison and the power of these effects are reported.
When performing the fourth set for each exercise in both 60 and
80% protocols, a large number of participants were unable to reach
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
| www.nsca.com
the repetition at which RIR was asked for the 60 and 80% 1RM
protocols across both exercises. Therefore, the fourth set for both
protocols was excluded from the analyses. Statistical analysis was
performed with the SPSS Statistics software (v.25, IBM, New York).
Significance for all tests performed was set at p # 0.05 and statistical
power for the group sample size was 0.95. Effect sizes (Hedges g; ES)
were also calculated to estimate the magnitude of differences be-
tween variables, by dividing the mean difference of the variables
(estimated and actual RIR, 60 and 80% load, and sets 1–3) by their
pooled standard deviation and were interpreted as trivial (ES ,
0.35), small (ES 5 0.35–0.79), moderate (ES 5 0.80–1.50), and
large (ES . 1.50) (22). This study used recommendations for
interpreting ESs specifically for resistance exercise research outlined
in Rhea et al. (22), based on the training status of the participant
group, which was determined to be “recreationally trained.”
Results
Table 1 presents the total and condition-specific demographic ½T1
values. No main effect for blinding was observed for condition in
any exercise task: 60% bench press (difference in accuracy be-
tween blinded vs. nonblinded 5 1.04 6 0.79 [CI: 20.66 to 2.73],
p 5 0.21, Power 5 0.23, ES 5 0.28 [trivial]), 80% bench press
(20.10 6 0.27 [CI: 20.68 to 0.48], p 5 0.72, Power 5 0.06, ES 5
0.06 [trivial]), 60% prone row (0.90 6 0.69 [CI: 20.60, 2.38], p
5 0.22, Power 5 0.23, ES 5 0.63 [small]), and 80% prone row
(0.37 6 0.39 [CI: 20.45, 1.19], p 5 0.35, Power 5 0.15, ES 5
0.17 [trivial]). Thus, the blinded and nonblinded conditions were
combined for the remaining analyses.
Repetitions-in-Reserve Accuracy Between Conditions
No interaction between conditions 3 set 3 RIR accuracy (dif-
ference between estimated and actual RIR between conditions)
was observed in the bench press for the 60% 1RM protocol (F 5
0.39, p 5 0.68, Power 5 0.08), or the 80% 1RM protocol (F 5
0.74, p 5 0.49, Power 5 0.11). No interaction between condi-
tions 3 set 3 RIR was observed in the prone row for the 60%
1RM protocol (F 5 0.40, p 5 0.68, Power 5 0.10) or the 80%
1RM protocol (F 5 0.11, p 5 0.89, Power 5 0.06). As high-
lighted in Figure 2, an interaction between RIR accuracy 3 set ½F2
was observed, showing that actual RIR was greater than esti-
mated RIR during set one in the 60% 1RM bench press (differ-
ence in repetitions between sets 5 7.03 6 0.62 [CI: 5.70–8.35], F
5 127.80, p , 0.001, Power 5 1.0, ES 5 2.92 [large]) and during
set one (2.20 6 0.37 [CI: 1.42–2.98], F 5 34.85, p , 0.001,
Power 5 0.99, ES 5 1.84 [large]) and set 2 (0.40 6 0.19 [CI:
0.01–0.79], F 5 4.57, p 5 0.046, Power 5 0.53, ES 5 0.39
[small]) in the 80% 1RM bench press. As highlighted in Figure 3, ½F3
an interaction between RIR accuracy 3 set was observed,
showing that actual RIR was greater than estimated RIR during
set one in the 60% 1RM prone row (3.13 6 0.84 [CI: 1.31–4.94],
F 5 13.69, p 5 0.002, Power 5 0.93, ES 5 1.27 [moderate]) and
80% 1RM prone row (1.38 6 0.44 [CI: 0.43–2.32], F 5 9.60, p 5
0.007, Power 5 0.83, ES 5 0.97 [moderate]).
Repetitions-in-Reserve Accuracy Between Loads
Repetitions-in-Reserve accuracy scores (estimated 2 actual), as a
percentage of total repetitions completed for each set, are shown
in Figure 4. No interaction was observed between load and set for ½F4
either the bench press (F 5 3.21, p 5 0.054, Power 5 0.37) or
prone row (F 5 0.354, p 5 0.71, Power 5 0.08). Irrespective of
 Knowledge of the Load Does Not Influence RIR Estimate Accuracy (2020) 00:00

Figure 1. Visible weight plates used in the nonblinded condition (left) and plastic bags placed over
the weight plates used in the blinded condition (right). The bar has the same amount of plates and
load (70 kg) in both images.

load, for the bench press, significant main effects were observed (F demonstrates that exercise feedback allows individuals to adjust
5 65.49, p , 0.001, Power 5 0.99), showing that actual RIR was exercise intensity and therefore performance while exercising (30).
greater than estimated RIR in set one when compared with set 2 The current study was the first to the author’s knowledge to
(23.5 6 2.8% [CI: 16.0–31.0%], p , 0.001, ES 5 1.63 [large]) identify that although individuals may hold preconceptions about
and set 3 (30.3 6 2.6% [CI: 23.3–37.3%], p , 0.001, ES 5 2.03 their performance in resistance exercise, this ultimately gives way to
[large]), and set 2 when compared with set 3 (6.8 6 2.9% [CI: adjustments in a pacing strategy specific to the demands of the
1.0–14.6%], p 5 0.03, ES 5 0.45 [small]). Irrespective of load, exercise at the time. These results support the use of the RIR
for the prone row, significant main effects were observed (F 5 method as preconceptions of exercise performance do not seem to
13.22, p , 0.001, Power 5 0.99), showing that actual RIR was affect the individual’s ability to estimate repetitions to failure.
greater than estimated RIR in set one when compared with set 2 The total number of repetitions being performed in each set de-
(12.3 6 3.8% [CI: 2.0–22.6%], p , 0.01, ES 5 0.69 [small]) and creased across both exercise protocols and for both exercises. Pre-
3 (20.8 6 4.6% [CI: 8.3–33.3%], p , 0.01, ES 5 1.03 [moder- vious research (9,11) has determined that decreases in the number of
ate]), and set 2 when compared with set 3 (8.5 6 3.7% [CI: repetitions which can be performed across multiple sets of resistance
1.4–18.4%], p 5 0.04, ES 5 0.46 [small]). exercise are related to peripheral (5,8,13,24,28) and central factors
of fatigue (29). Considering that participants in the current study
estimated their RIR at a predetermined point in each set (after 8 and
Discussion 3 repetitions for the 60 and 80% 1RM trials, respectively), the re-
The purpose of this study was to examine whether subjective duction in repetitions per set across the protocols resulted in par-
estimates of RIR are influenced by knowing the load being lifted ticipants providing RIR estimates at a closer point to actual failure as
and how many repetitions an individual could typically complete they progressed through the exercise protocol. Importantly, our re-
during resistance exercise (blinded vs. non-blinded conditions). In sults showed that the accuracy of RIR estimates improved across the
addition, we assessed whether the accuracy of RIR estimates are exercise protocols. This may indicate that the accuracy of RIR as-
affected by the load being lifted (60 vs. 80% of 1RM) in 2 dif- sessment is improved when an individual provides the estimate closer
ferent upper body exercises (bench press vs. prone row). The main to the point of failure (9,11). This finding supports recent research by
findings from this study were; (a) knowing the bar load and how Zourdos et al. (32), who reported that RIR estimates were in-
many repetitions a participant could expect to complete did not creasingly accurate when subjects predicted they were at 5RIR,
influence the accuracy of using RIR, (b) RIR accuracy was not 3RIR, and 1RIR while performing a single set of barbell squats at
influenced by the load being lifted or the type of upper body 70% of 1RM to concentric failure. An additional explanation for the
exercise, and (c) the RIR accuracy improved over successive sets, improved accuracy of RIR estimates across the exercise protocols is
as the number of repetitions that participants could perform after that sensations of fatigue from the initial set had an impact on
providing the RIR estimate decreased. These results suggest that
the RIR method may be a viable approach to autoregulating re-
sistance exercise volume, as long as the RIR estimates are made Table 1
within close proximity to muscular failure. Total and condition-specific demographic values.*
It was hypothesized that individuals may become less accurate at Total Control Blinded p
estimating RIR when they are aware of the load being lifted, be- n 20 10 10
cause they are likely to be influenced by preconceptions of the total Age (y) 25.9 6 4.5 23.4 6 2.2 26.5 6 5.6 0.12
amount of repetitions possible (6,33). Contrary to our hypothesis, Height (m) 1.81 6 0.07 1.82 6 0.06 1.80 6 0.08 0.46
individuals who were aware of the load being lifted were no more Weight (kg) 86.5 6 13.7 81.0 6 8.7 92.0 6 15.9 0.07
accurate than those who were blinded to the load. This finding Training experience (y) 6.0 6 4.5 5.0 6 1.61 7.0 6 6.2 0.35
contradicts some autoregulation research in aerobic exercise which 1RM bench press (kg) 98.4 6 16.0 94.7 6 12.6 102.0 6 18.8 0.32
1RM prone row (kg) 72.0 6 11.7 67.8 6 9.7 76.2 6 12.4 0.11
states that pacing strategies are determined before the performance
of exercise (20), although is in agreeance with other research that *RM 5 repetition maximum.

Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Knowledge of the Load Does Not Influence RIR Estimate Accuracy (2020) 00:00
Figure 2. Estimated RIR (d) and actual RIR (d) during sets 1 to
3, in 60% 1RM (A) and 80% 1RM bench press (B). Solid lines
represent the condition mean values. *Significantly greater
than estimated RIR (p , 0.05). RIR 5 repetitions-in-reserve;
RM 5 repetition maximum.
enhancing RIR predictions. By being more aware of their proximity
to the endpoint from the sensations of fatigue received from the
previous set (19), individuals may have improved the accuracy of
RIR estimates in the following sets for that exercise. Investigating the
mechanisms by which RIR estimates can be improved was beyond
the scope of this study; however, future research may be warranted
to investigate this area.
In resistance training, the total number of repetitions possible
during a set decreases the closer the load is to an individual’s 1RM
(2,3). With a reduced number of repetitions to estimate RIR, we
hypothesized that RIR estimates would be more accurate when in-
dividuals used a heavy load (80% 1RM) compared with a moderate
load (60% 1RM). Contrary to our hypothesis, the accuracy of RIR
was not influenced by the load lifted. There were no differences in RIR
accuracy (as a percentage of total repetitions) between 60 and 80%
loads for both bench press and prone row. Our results show for the
first time that the percentage of 1RM of a load does not influence RIR
estimates, rather, in support of previous findings, that it is the prox-
imity to failure that influences the accuracy of RIR estimates (9–11). It
should be noted that in the 80% 1RM bench press a difference be-
tween actual and estimated RIR was observed during the second set.
However, a difference of 0.40 6 0.19 repetitions should be viewed as
small, in accordance with previous research that has presented new
effect size magnitudes specific to resistance training research (22).
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
| www.nsca.com
Figure 3. Estimated RIR (d) and actual RIR (d) during sets 1 to
3, in 60% 1RM (A) and 80% 1RM prone row (B). Solid lines
represent the condition mean values. *Significantly greater
than estimated RIR (p , 0.05). RIR 5 repetitions-in-reserve;
RM 5 repetition maximum.
Although this study has provided novel information for the use
of RIR, it would be remiss not to acknowledge some limitations
with the research. First, the order of exercises performed in the
experimental protocols was not randomized. This may have
influenced the accuracy of estimates for the prone row, as indi-
viduals may not have been able to perform as many repetitions in a
fatigued state, having performed the bench press sets first. Partici-
pants may therefore have been closer to failure while performing
the prone row which lead to overall more accurate RIR estima-
tions. Second, RIR estimates were asked at a consistent point in the
set for each protocol. This may have created an increased accuracy
of the RIR assessment especially as this point would have been
closer to true failure with progressive sets. Hence, future studies
investigating the RIR method should instruct participants to pro-
vide an estimate when they think they are in close proximity to
failure, rather than at a consistent point during the set.
Practical Applications
Our investigation shows that use of the RIR method is not
influenced by the athlete’s knowledge of the load being lifted
during a set and therefore is a viable strategy of autoregulation
 Knowledge of the Load Does Not Influence RIR Estimate Accuracy (2020) 00:00

Figure 4. RIR prediction accuracy, as a percentage of total repetitions completed, between 60%
1RM (d) and 80% 1RM (d) loads during sets 1 to 3 in the bench press (A) and the prone row (B). Solid
lines represent the condition mean values. Closer to zero 5 better accuracy. *Significantly more
accurate than set 1 (p , 0.05). **Significantly more accurate than set 2 (p , 0.05). RIR 5 repetitions-
in-reserve; RM 5 repetition maximum.

able to be used in resistance training. Because of the high vari-
ability of repetitions performed to failure between individuals,
evident in the current study and previous research (10,14,23), a
large difference in fatigue responses between individuals can oc-
cur when exercise is prescribed using a set repetition number at a
certain %1RM. The RIR method may be used to equate training
performance to ensure that individuals are being exposed to a
similar training stimulus, as regardless of the total number of
repetitions performed, they will perform their sets to a similar
proximity to failure. Practitioners who prescribe RIR-based
autoregulation of resistance training should aim to use relatively
low values (e.g., 1–4 RIR) to enhance the validity of this ap-
proach. For example, training sets could be prescribed to be
completed to 2 RIR, meaning that the athlete can adjust the

Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Knowledge of the Load Does Not Influence RIR Estimate Accuracy (2020) 00:00
volume of each set at a given load to correspond with their current
performance potential. Although the number of repetitions in
each successive set may decrease as athletes begin to fatigue, ad-
hering to the RIR target may provide a method to individualize
the training stimulus relative to this intrasession fatigue. Care
should be taken in interpreting RIR scores when an athlete is not
close to volitional failure, because athletes may under-predict
their proximity to failure when using 60–80% of 1RM.
References
1. Ament W, Verkerke GJ. Exercise and fatigue. Sports Med 39: 389–422,
2009.
2. Baechle TR, Earle RW. Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2008.
3. Brzycki M. Strength testing - predicting a one-rep max from reps-to-fa-
tigue. JOPERD 64: 88, 1993.
4. Cook SB, Murphy BG, Labarbera KE. Neuromuscular function after a
bout of low-load blood flow-restricted exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 45:
67–74, 2013.
5. Dawson MJ, Gadian DG, Wilkie DR. Muscular fatigue investigated by
phosphorus nuclear magnetic resonance. Nature 274: 861–866, 1978.
6. Fisher J, Endres A, Gentil P, Giessing , Jr, Steele J. Ability to predict
repetitions to momentary failure is not perfectly accurate, though im-
proves with resistance training experience. PeerJ 5: e4105, 2017.
7. Fleck SJ, Kraemer WJ. Designing Resistance Training Programs. Cham-
paign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2004.
8. Green HJ. Mechanisms of muscle fatigue in intense exercise. J Sports Sci
15: 247–256, 1997.
9. Hackett DA, Cobley SP, Davies TB, Michael SW, Halaki M. Accuracy in
estimating repetitions to failure during resistance exercise. J Strength Cond
Res 31: 2162–2168, 2017.
10. Hackett DA, Cobley SP, 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.
11. Hackett DA, Johnson NA, Halaki M, Chow C-M. A novel scale to assess
resistance-exercise effort. J Sports Sci 30: 1405, 2012.
12. Helms ER, Cronin J, Storey A, Zourdos MC. Application of the repeti-
tions in reserve-based rating of perceived exertion scale for resistance
AU6 training. Strength Cond J 38: 42–49, 2016.
13. Hirvonen J, Rehunen S, Rusko H, Harkonen M. Breakdown of high-energy
phosphate compounds and lactate accumulation during short supra-
maximal exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 56: 253–259, 1987.
14. Hoeger WWK, Hopkins DR, Barette SL, Hale DF. Relationship between
repetitions and selected percentages of one repetition maximum: A com-
parison between untrained and trained males and females. J Strength
Cond Res 4: 47–54, 1990.
15. Hughes LJ, Banyard HG, Dempsey AR, Scott BR. Using load-velocity
relationships to predict 1rm in free-weight exercise: A comparison of the
AU7 different methods. J Strength Cond Res 1, 2018.
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
| www.nsca.com
16. Izquierdo M, González-Badillo J, Häkkinen K, et al. Effect of loading on
unintentional lifting velocity declines during single sets of repetitions to
failure during upper and lower extremity muscle actions. Int J Sports Med
27: 718–724, 2006.
17. Izquierdo M, Ibañez J, González-Badillo JJ, et al. Differential effects of
strength training leading to failure versus not to failure on hormonal re-
sponses, strength, and muscle power gains. J Appl Physiol 100:
1647–1656, 2006.
18. Mann JB, Thyfault JP, Ivey PA, Sayers SP. The effect of autoregulatory
progressive resistance exercise vs. linear periodization on strength im-
provement in college athletes. J Strength Cond Res 24: 1718–1723, 2010.
19. Noakes TD. The central governor model of exercise regulation applied to
the marathon. Sports Med 37: 374–377, 2007.
20. Noakes TD. Time to move beyond a brainless exercise physiology: The
evidence for complex regulation of human exercise performance. Appl
Physiol Nutr Metab 36: 23–35, 2011.
21. Ogborn D, Schoenfeld BJ. The role of fiber types in muscle hypertrophy:
Implications for loading strategies. Strength Cond J 36: 20–25, 2014.
22. Rhea MR. Determining the magnitude of treatment effects in strength
training research through the use of the effect size. J Strength Cond Res 18:
918–920, 2004.
23. Richens B, Cleather DJ. The relationship between the number of repeti-
tions performed at given intensities is different in endurance and strength
trained athletes. Biol Sport 31: 157–161, 2014.
24. Sadri K, Khani M, Sadri I. Role of central fatigue in resistance and en-
durance exercises: An emphasis on mechanisms and potential sites. 2014. AU8
25. Sánchez-Medina L, González-Badillo J, Pérez C, Pallarés J. Velocity- and
power-load relationships of the bench pull vs. bench press exercises. Int J
Sports Med 35: 209–216, 2014.
26. Scott BR, Dascombe BJ, Delaney JA, et al. The validity and reliability of a
customized rigid supportive harness during smith machine back squat
exercise. J Strength Cond Res 28: 636–642, 2014.
27. Siff M. Supertraining. Denver, Co: Supertraining Institute, 2000.
28. Takada S, Okita K, Suga T, et al. Low-intensity exercise can increase
muscle mass and strength proportionally to enhanced metabolic stress
under ischemic conditions. J Appl Physiol (1985) 113: 199–205, 2012.
29. Taylor JL, Amann M, Duchateau J, Meeusen R, Rice CL. Neural contri-
butions to muscle fatigue: From the brain to the muscle and back again.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 48: 2294–2306, 2016.
30. Ulmer HV. Concept of an extracellular regulation of muscular metabolic
rate during heavy exercise in humans by psychophysiological feedback.
Experientia 52: 416–420, 1996.
31. Vernon A, Joyce C, Banyard HG. Readiness to train: Return to baseline
strength and velocity following strength or power training. Int J Sports Sci
Coach 15: 204–211, 2020.
32. Zourdos MC, Goldsmith JA, Helms ER, et al. Proximity to failure and
total repetitions performed in a set influences accuracy of intraset repeti-
tions in reserve-based rating of perceived exertion. J Strength Cond Res
2019. Epub ahead of print. AU9
33. Zourdos MC, Klemp A, Dolan C, et al. Novel resistance training–specific
rating of perceived exertion scale measuring repetitions in reserve.
J Strength Cond Res 30: 267–275, 2016.