Version 2

Introduction to RPE/RIR
RPE/RIR is one of the most commonly used terms in today’s strength culture.
RPE stands for Rating of Perceived Exertion and is a measurement of how
hard training is. Mike Tuchscherer originally adapted RPE for strength
training to incorporate Repetitions In Reserve (RIR) (Table 1).

RPE Description
10 Could not do any more repetitions

9.5 Could maybe do 1 more repetition

9 Could do 1 more repetition

8.5 Could do 1 more repetition, chance at 2

8 Could do 2 more repetitions

7.5 Could do 2 more repetitions, chance at 3

7 Could do 3 more repetitions

6.5 Could do 3 more repetitions, chance at 4

6 Could do 4 more repetitions

1-5.5 This scale continues

Table 1: The Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) scale based on Repetitions in Reserve (RIR)

In practice, RPE/RIR has served as a tool for lifters to adjust training based on
their daily readiness. Load can be adjusted by the lifter within the training
session to achieve the desired number of repetitions at the desired RPE/RIR.
This within-session adjustment is termed autoregulation.

In addition to being a practical tool for autoregulation, RPE/RIR provides a

quantification of how close to failure a set is terminated. In this guide, we will
use the RPE/RIR scale to frame the discussion of “how close to failure should
our training be for maximizing increases in muscle size and strength?”

1
 Version 2

Commonly Proposed Model

To answer the question of how close to failure we should train, a few models
have been proposed. One such model that has gained traction is what we’ll
call the “threshold model” (Figure 1).

Figure 1: The “threshold model”

This model suggests that “effective” training occurs only in the range of 0-4
RIR or 6-10 RPE. While this may be a decent practical recommendation at
times, our interpretation of the research leads us to different conclusions. Our
interpretation of the research is discussed here for strength (as well as this
podcast) and here for hypertrophy. In short, our view is that there is sufficient
research indicating that lifters can train outside the 0-4 RIR range and still
maximize gains in strength and size in the right conditions. This is especially
the case for strength. We’ll discuss some caveats to the practical application
of this later in this guide.

Perhaps more importantly, the threshold model takes options off the table. In
our coaching experience, we’ve observed that some lifters cannot accumulate
sufficient training volume while only training only in the RPE 6-10 range.
We’ve found that reducing average RPE can unlock progress for these
individuals.

2
 Version 2

The mentioned factors have led us to create our own model (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Our proposed RPE/RIR model

Our proposed model doesn’t differentiate effectiveness between RPE ranges.

This might seem unhelpful at first, but we’ll give more specific models for
each strength and hypertrophy in a bit.

At this point, things might seem a bit paradoxical. On one hand, we think
appropriate RPE/RIR is an extremely overlooked aspect to program design
and individualization - heck, we’re writing a guide on it. On the other hand,
we can’t offer an RPE/RIR range that’s “optimal.” That’s the point, though: a
wide range of RPE/RIR can be effective.

Our goal in the rest of this guide is to provide the conceptual framework so
you can decide for yourself what RPE range makes the most sense based on
the goal of the set (i.e., strength or hypertrophy), the overall context of the
programming, and the lifter’s response to training. Let’s start with strength.

RPE/RIR for Strength

Before we dive into RPE/RIR considerations for strength, it’s important to take
a step back and think through the characteristics of maximum strength. A
1RM is a test of maximal force production at a slow velocity. Next, we need to

3
 Version 2

consider why a 1RM is slow - this is of course because a 1RM load is heavy for
the individual.

This is opposed to a repetition being slow in a multi-rep set during training.

These reps slow down due to the fatigue accumulated from the reps that
have already been performed in the set. Since the barbell cannot be
accelerated to the same degree as fatigue accumulates, force production also
decreases (Figure 3). Figure 3 is relevant to volume work, in which the load
utilized is typically ~70-85%. Importantly, this concept of force production
decline is at a given load. Heavier loads will generally lead to higher force
production: greater force is required on the first rep and force can only drop
off so much before failing with heavier loads.

Figure 3: Specificity during a multi-rep set at a given load through the lens of force
production

When you are performing a multi-rep set to failure, your ability to produce
force decreases as you fatigue within the set. Therefore, through the lens of
force production, the slow reps at the end of a multi-rep set to failure are
actually less specific to a 1RM. Thus, the routes at which a 1RM and the last
reps in a set to failure become slow are different (Table 2).

4
 Version 2

Rep Type Velocity Mechanism Force Production

1 Rep Max Slow Due to the load being heavy High

Reps late in a Due to fatigue

Slow Lower
multi-rep set accumulated with the set
Table 2: Why repetition velocity and force production don’t always align

Specificity through the lens of force production (Figure 3) essentially flips the
“threshold” model on its head - it suggests the reps eary in a multi-rep set are
actually the most beneficial for strength. We do subscribe to this line of
thinking, but there are some important caveats. While force production is a
vital aspect of 1RM specificity, specificity is multifactorial. The reps later in a
multi-rep set provide practice with movement variability; that is, practice
“grinding” through reps and shifting the loading demands to other muscles
(Figure 4).

Figure 4: There are benefits to reps earlier and later in multi-rep sets

Thus, if you only perform lower RPE sets, you’ll lack practice with movement
variability. However, when top sets (i.e., 1-5 reps at RPE 6-10) are included in a
program, this will be taken care of. Further, the movement variability
exposure you get from these top sets will be due to the load being heavy as
opposed to fatigue within a set, which is more specific to a 1RM. Heavy top

5
 Version 2

sets in combination with volume work in the 70-85% range that avoids large
within-set drop offs in force production is an excellent formula for “checking
your boxes” for strength with a high degree of specificity.

RPE/RIR for Hypertrophy

For muscle growth, we simply want to put options back on the table. Based
on the current research, we’re not convinced sets need to be within 0-4 RIR to
maximize muscle growth in the right conditions. This is primarily in the
context of heavy loads, which we define as >75% of 1RM. If the load is >75%
(generally 10RM loads or heavier), we think the primary advantage of training
closer to failure is that more reps are being completed per set and thus more
volume is accumulated, which seems to improve outcomes. If the total
number of reps at a given load are equated (as long as it’s >75% of 1RM), we
think hypertrophy outcomes will be similar (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Proposed RPE/RIR model for hypertrophy at a given load

We’re still leaving the door open to the possibility that the reps closer to
failure (even with >75% of 1RM) are a bit more stimulative for hypertrophy, but
we’re fairly confident in saying this isn’t a night and day difference. We’ll
discuss how we account for this uncertainty in the practical applications
section.

6
 Version 2

As an example of our proposed model for hypertrophy, let's examine 24 total

reps being completed at 75% of 1RM via two different protocols:

1. 3 sets of 8 reps @ 2 RIR

2. 6 sets of 4 reps @ 6 RIR

Protocol #2 is an example of how you can set up training that violates the
threshold model but will almost certainly lead to similar muscle growth. Since
the load is sufficiently heavy, each rep completed is more or less the same
stimulus for muscle growth no matter how close to failure that rep is. Further,
an advantage to protocol #2 is that many find this to be less fatiguing than
protocol #1, so more total reps may be able to be completed.

Importantly, training to or close to failure is probably necessary to maximize

muscle growth when using lighter loads. Also, it is possible that training to or
close to failure is necessary to maximize muscle growth for synergistic
muscles as well as in all regions of the target muscle, but more research is
needed to answer this question.

Practical Applications
First and foremost, we hope you now have more programming options on
the table than if you were to follow the threshold model. For instance, if you
find you experience disproportionate fatigue with sets to or close to failure,
you may want to explore lower RPE protocols. In our coaching experience, we
often find that this change can allow lifters like this to accumulate the
necessary volume to progress.

For strength athletes in general, we’d suggest reconsidering how volume

work is designed. As mentioned, practicing with heavy weights is a vital
aspect of any solid strength program, but the configuration of the volume
work is where things can get tricky. Instead of performing multiple sets very
close to failure, consider breaking up the same amount of total repetitions
into more sets. This will lead to less bar speed reduction, which means there

7
 Version 2

will be more total force production, ultimately maximizing this aspect of

specificity for the volume work.

For those with body composition related goals (physique athletes and
strength athletes far from competition), there are also more options on the
table. With sufficiently heavy loads (>75% of 1RM), training to or close to failure
does not seem to be required for effective hypertrophy training. However, in
practice, we still bias higher RPEs when muscle growth is the primary goal. As
mentioned, there is some uncertainty as to whether the reps closer to failure
are more stimulative for hypertrophy compared to the reps farther from
failure. Again, we’re fairly confident it’s not a night and day difference, but we
don’t want to put all our eggs in one basket. We like to think about this as a
cost-benefit analysis. If there isn’t a massive fatigue cost to training close to
failure, it probably makes sense to accumulate your volume that way. Taking
your bicep curls to RPE 8-10 probably will not dramatically reduce the total
volume you can tolerate. If there is a disproportionate fatigue cost to training
close to failure for a certain exercise, then exploring lower RPE options may be
warranted. In our coaching experience, whether or not an exercise has a
disproportionate fatigue cost will vary from individual to individual, so some
tinkering may be required here.

We hope this guide stimulated some thought on how to best conceptualize

RPE/RIR, and most importantly, we hope you have some new tools in your
toolbelt!

- This RPE guide was created by Zac Robinson and Josh Pelland -
For further reading as well as the references that informed this guide, check
out this article we wrote for strength, this “research update” podcast for
strength, and this article we wrote for hypertrophy.