Overview
RPE and percentages of 1RM are both commonly used to select loads for strength and hypertrophy training programs. Percentage based training has been used extensively for decades whereas RPE has seen a large growth in usage over the last 5 or so years (2019 as of writing).
RPE stands for rate of perceived exertion. It’s most commonly used to determine what weight to select/how many reps to perform based on your proximity to failure.
RPE 10 is a complete max effort with nothing in the tank. RPE 9,8,7 are 1,2 and 3 reps away from failure respectively. For a much more in depth article about RPE and how it can be used effectively read this.
Percentage based training determines how many reps/what load to use based on a given percentage your 1RM (the most weight you can lift for 1 rep).
For example if your deadlift 1RM is 250kg (~550lbs), your program may call for 3 sets of 3 with 85% on a specific day. This would manifest as 3 sets of 3 with 212.5kg (~470lbs)
RPE Training is Easy?
A common misconception is that RPE based training is easy and you don’t have to actually train hard. This couldn’t be further from the truth.
There are situations to take RPE based training to failure . If you’ve ever taken a set of 8 pause squats to a true RPE 8 (2 reps from failure) you can attest to the fact that it’s not easy. It may not be the absolute hardest thing you can do in the gym but easy is definitely not the right word. You still have to try.
There is also a difference between a hyped up RPE 8 and a relatively calm RPE 8. The former may allow you to squeeze out an extra rep, though this can’t be done sustainably on absolutely every set. This is something else to consider.
Intent is massively important when it comes to gaining strength. You should be trying to move the bar as fast as you can while keeping good technique.
Even when staying away from failure (whether you’re using RPE or percentages) you should focus on putting as much effort into every rep as possible which requires absolute focus throughout the entire set.
In a nutshell doing more sets but staying a bit further away from failure gets a similar stimulus but accumulates less fatigue. Therefore you can train harder for longer and make better gains in the long term.
I’d argue doing more sets a bit further away from failure is probably harder. If there was a way to split this hypothetical 10RM set up and choose to do either the first 8 reps or the final 2 I’d pick the final 2 any day of the week. Repeatedly getting under the bar set after set when you’re fatigued requires a different kind of mental strength.
Why not just do less sets but closer to failure? I’ve written an article specifically covering this topic.
Disadvantages of RPE Based Training
Percentages are objective whereas RPE is subjective. RPE can easily be affected by ego and emotion (many people including myself are guilty of this to some extent). Those who can stay the most objective despite what their ego is telling them will be the most successful at using RPE.
This works both ways, on days where the last thing you want to do is train you can convince yourself that the RPE is higher than it actually was so that you don’t need to push as hard. Not everyone will be affected by this either but it’s something to consider.
Percentages are always objective (assuming your max is accurate). When using RPE you can adjust your numbers because you want to add another 20kg/45lb plate to the bar and trick yourself into thinking your RPE 9 was actually an 8.
RPEs can also be difficult to judge when they become too low, though this can be improved with practice. Knowing whether you’re actually 4 or 5 reps from failure is challenging even for more experienced lifters. I don’t recommend training 5 reps from failure apart from on deloads.
Disadvantages of Percentage Based Training
RPE is superior to percentages on exercises that are impractical to go heavy on. 1RM calculations are less accurate the higher the reps you’re basing them on. I wouldn’t even try estimate my max with anything less than a 5RM load and even that’s pushing it. RPE is also more suited to exercises with large weight jumps (as a percentage) like dumbell exercises.
Smaller isolation exercises such as lateral raises are best kept to higher reps. Firstly because they’re almost always solely done for hypertrophy (I’ve never heard of a 1RM lateral raise competition). Secondly if you go too heavy you’re not targeting the muscle as effectively and you’ll end up using other muscles which will take away from your goal of growing the side delts. With anything done for higher reps a 1RM estimate is pretty much just a guess. Trying to calculate a percentage of a specific guess is also a guess.
There’s also the issue of not being able to actually load a specific percentage. Let’s say that you hypothetically knew your lateral raise 1RM and it was 27kg (60lbs), how would you manage to do 3*12 @ 70%?
70% would be 18.9kg (42lbs). Some gyms have dumbells that go up in 2kg increments, many actually only have 2.5kg jumps.
So you’d then have to use either 18kg (66.7%) or 20kg (74.1%) which is too far away, the reps would have to be adjusted.
Whereas with a bit of practice RPE can be used with any exercise, it shouldn’t takevery long to be able to judge when you’re 2 or 3 reps away from failure. If the load has to be adjusted, the reps can be easily adjusted with RPE. Usually smaller isolation exercises are best taken to failure anyway and fatigue can be managed by adjusting, volume, frequency and exercise selection among other things.
How many reps you can get at a specific percentage of 1RM is subject to significant variability based on a multitude of factors including:
The range of motion of the exercise, how much of a stretch reflex is used (1st rep of deadlift vs squat for example), muscle fibre type (which not only varies on a person to person basis but will also vary for a given individual between different muscles). Other factors such as nervous system efficiency and how good your body is at clearing lactic acid will also affect this.
Due to how much variability there is with reps at a given percentage of 1RM it can be be ineffective and sometimes downright dangerous for some people to just take a cookie cutter program based solely on specific percentages and run it themselves.
They may be so far away from failure that they’re not progressing or in some cases actively regressing. In other cases they may not be able to even complete the earlier weeks of a program. Due to individual differences they can’t get close to the number of reps at a given percentage of their 1RM that most people can.
I’ve worked with someone before who was an ex sprinter. He could squat 190kg with a bit in the tank but failed the 3rd rep of a 170kg triple. He wasn’t just having a bad day, I’d seen similar things in other situations.
He hit a 120kg bench at RPE 8 then straight after he hit 70kg (58.5%) for a 2*8 with both sets around RPE 8.
His 10RM was roughly 60% of his 3RM. To put into perspective how ridiculous this is, the vast majority of people can hit 20+ reps with a weight that light compared to their max. 10 reps at that weight would be a warmup not a working set!
Unfortunately it may take a couple of months to figure out how many reps each individual lifter can get with a given percentage of their 1RM across a variety of movement patterns. To get to this level where the percentages are accurate enough to be used effectively could take a while.
When to Use RPE And/Or Percentage Based Training
If the lifter is in a strength/peaking block I believe a combination of the two to be best.
If the lifter’s current main goal is hypertrophy (muscle growth) I like to use RPE based training in combination with a rep range and specific weight selection. I don’t even bother with percentages.
This way you can try to make each week of the current mesocycle better than each week of the previous mesocycle but you can also autoregulate the reps on any given day. Over time this leads to consistent progression and therefore hypertrophy.
A criticism I’ve heard about RPE only based training is that it doesn’t do a good job of ensuring progressive overload.
If you only use RPEs and have no other constraints this may be true but I don’t actually know anyone who trains like that.
I’d never have a static microcycle (training week) that was just run repeatedly with no other constraints apart from a weight or rep count and an increasing RPE. I think it’s best to combine rep ranges, weight increases and RPE increases to ensure each microcycle (training week) progresses from the previous one.
For example: I WOULDN’T program a 4 week volume/accumulation block that looks solely like this for a given exercise, using a weight selection that is completely up to the lifter:
Week 1: 3*7 @ RPE 6
Week 2: 3*7 @ RPE7
Week 3: 3*7 @ RPE 8
Week 4: 3*7 @ RPE 9
Instead I WOULD utilise something more like this:
Week 1: 92.5kg/205lbs 3*6-8 @ RPE 7-7.5
Week 2: 95kg/210lbs 3*6-8 @ RPE 7.5-8
Week 3: 97.5kg/215lbs 3*6-8 @ RPE 8-8.5
Week 4: 100kg/220lbs 3*6-8 @ RPE 8.5-9
This would be appropriate when the lifters volume PR beforehand was somewhere around 95kg/97.5kg for 3*7.
Also while I don’t think the solely RPE based progression is optimal that doesn’t mean it won’t get good results if executed well. As mentioned above, not every person would benefit from training like this. Many would struggle to stay objective and hit the correct RPEs but it can be used effectively.
As mentioned in the video linked above If we’re using solely RPE to select loads even if you increase RPE from week to week you may be selecting lighter weights if you’re not feeling as good that day.
However I don’t believe the performance variation should be THAT large if your programming is reasonable. You shouldn’t be benching 100kg (220lbs) for 6s one workout and struggling to hit 90kg (200lbs) for 5 in another one.
MAYBE this sort of thing would happen once or twice a year due to a number of factors but even that is pushing it. Though if it happened that infrequently it would have no effect on your long term progression.
It’s also important to note that Progressive overload is a range not a value.
Lets say theoretically you did the exact same workout 3 days apart, same weights, reps, sets, RPE, EVERYTHING.
If you stimulated growth in the first would you get some growth from the second? Almost certainly. It would probably be less than the first and would probably be better if the second did progress slightly, sure.
But your body doesn’t completely adapt to a stimulus THAT quickly. Now if you just repeated that workout every 3/4 days for 6 months would it stop stimulating growth at some point, yeah.
IF an RPE only program if is set up right and the lifter executes it reasonably well they shouldn’t be repeating the same workout for that long anyway.
Combing RPE and Percentages for Strength/Peaking
For strength/peaking blocks a combination of RPE and percentages works very well. RPE would increase from week to week as usual. Even if you feel particularly run down one week, the vast majority of the time a subsequent week will at least match the performance of the previous week due to the increase in RPE, most of the time it will surpass it.
Using percentage back offs can allow you to ensure a stimulus progression by using a smaller percentage drop as the block progresses. The percentage drop should be large enough so that even on bad weeks the work is doable and form can be upheld to ingrain good technique. But it shouldn’t be so easy that even on the final weeks the backoffs feel effortless.
For example a 4 week block (including the deload) may look like this for the deadlift.
Week 1 (deload) : 1*3 @ 5-5.5 then 80% of top triple for 1*5
Week 2: 1*3 @ 6.5-7 then 82% of top triple for 3*5
Week 3: 1*3 @ 7 5-8 then 84% of top triple for 3*5
Week 4: 1*3 @ 8 5-9 then 86% of top triple for 3*5
In virtually all circumstances this should ensure a progression of the main lift from week to week. Even when taking into account fluctuations in fatigue from non training related sources such as life stress, nutrition, sleep etc.
In week 2 and maybe even 3 the backoffs may still be quite easy but that’s perfectly fine, the strength stimulus has been achieved with the top triple. The back down volume helps to improve technique and get some volume in without adding much fatigue.
The back downs won’t be that effective for hypertrophy apart from maybe the final week. That’s perfectly okay in a strength/peaking block. Some hypertrophy work can be added with less fatiguing exercises after the main strength work has been prioritised.
Again since the backoff work is based on percentages it will be individual to each lifter.
To some people 3 sets of 5 with 86% of a 4RM load after the top set will be an absolute joke. Others may not even be able to complete it. Percentages will have to be tailored to each individual athlete. Cookie cutter percentages will only work well for a small group of lifters and without spending time trying it you won’t know if that includes you.
Interested in coaching to take your progress to the next level?