Rate of Perceived Exertion for faster results

Within strength training, it is common practice to lift weights at a prescribed load based on one’s repetition maximum (1RM). This is highly effective, as loads directly correspond with the number of reps and sets, as well as the desired performance outcome. 

A common example for a trainee may be performing four sets of three reps at their 85% maximum load on the back squat. If their 1RM was 300 pounds, they would do four sets of three repetitions at 255 pounds. What this does is allow the trainee to work with loads that they know they can handle for a given number of reps, while developing a specific physiological quality.  

Again, while this is highly effective and convenient, it is only one way to train, and does carry its own cons. 

Mainly, it does not count for daily fluctuations in energy levels, gains in exercise proficiency, or strength over time. If one continuously uses 300 pounds as their known 1RM, they will perform every rep of subsequent sets off that number. Some days the trainee may be fatigued and unable to meet the proposed demands, while other days you may feel fresh and capable of more. Fortunately, there is another highly effective alternative. 


A different way

Another method to prescribing and performing training loads is through rate of perceived exertion via the CR-10 Borg Scale. The number 1 represents the lowest level of effort whereas 10 represents maximum effort. 

This method has been proven effective since its inception nearly 60 years ago as an alternative method to monitor and prescribe training loads through workouts. A study in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research titled “Monitoring Exercise Intensity During Resistance Training Using the Session RPE Scale” states that the use of an RPE scale prior to a workout allows confidence in exercise intensity without having to test as frequently. 

Essentially, the study concluded that RPE was as effective as training RM percentages when it came to exercise execution. Allowing one to choose a load that is attributed to RPE rather than an exact number derived from testing also appears to alleviate stressful situations where trainees are unsure if they can meet the numerical daily standard. 

Overall, this could equate to fewer injuries, lower levels of burnout, and greater trainee independence via autoregulation. 

It must not go without saying that loads and programs prescribed via 1RM are still highly effective. Often times I will use a blend of both methods when creating training programs, with the understanding that each method has its own time and place. 

That being said, for the novice trainee it would likely be beneficial to use the RPE scale through the first six months to a year of training as they may not know their 1RM on each lift or have any reason to test it yet. 

One should not completely abandon RM prescriptions, or 1RM testing for that manner as they are still highly valuable tools. Instead, two methods should be used synergistically and integrated into programming appropriately. 

Remember that training is a science, thus defined as “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment,” according to Merriam Webster. 

We can assume that different methods will vary in their effectiveness amongst populations and there is no one size fits all. Keep experimenting and seeking better ways to train. 

Should you train to failure?


A common misconception in strength training is that each and every set must be taken to failure in order to yield positive adaptation.

When it comes to high repetition hypertrophy and endurance training, the body will ultimately discontinue work as a result of your intolerance to bear the high level of hydrogen accumulation known as “lactic acid.” This is a natural process, as the body is trying to protect itself from excessive muscle damage.

When it comes to low rep maximal strength work, (1-3 reps) the body discontinues work in your inability to adequately recruit muscle fibers for the job. In certain situations, carrying sets of exercise to repetition failure are advantageous, such as one rep max testing or short microcycles aiming to achieve maximal strength. In most cases however, training to failure is both unnecessary and detrimental to performance.


Unfortunately, the notion that training to failure is necessary has come about in the past few decades. Advocates often cite that it is necessary to drive adaptation and push the limits.

This couldn’t be further from the truth, and the most effective methods are often less complicated than you’d believe. The issue with training to absolute failure in the sense of maximal strength is that it causes neural fatigue and disruptions in resting hormonal concentrations. Athletes and recreational gym users pushing to the point of failure in one session set themselves up for the inability to properly recover and repeat performance over the next few days. In a phase where one is seeking to gain strength, they will find that they are fatigued and becoming weaker if they consistently push to failure. Additionally, this leads to injury and retraction from strength training all together, with the label that lifting heavy makes them stiff, tired and hurt.

When seeking hypertrophy or muscular endurance, reaching absolute failure is less detrimental from an injury, hormonal and neuromuscular standpoint however it is still not necessary. It can lead to overuse, excessive muscular damage and other similar peripheral issues.


If you resist the urge to bury yourself and always push for that last rep, you will find the results rather pleasant.

The most effective method of training is the incorporation of the idea “reps in reserve.” What this means is that when you are working at a percentage of your one rep max, say 85 percent, you should theoretically be able to complete four reps with the attempt of a fifth resulting in failure. Rather than pushing for four reps at 85 percent of your one-rep max, the idea should be to aim for two or three technically sound reps. This is a continuum that can be implemented with nearly any rep range. In 2011, the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science for Sport presented a study that displayed two subjects both doing squats at approximately 80 percent of their one-rep max. Subject one quit squatting with the weight when his movement velocity decreased by 20 percent (leaving more RIR) and subject two quit squatting when his movement velocity decreased by 40 percent (leaving less RIR). These two subjects followed the program for several week and the results were astonishing. Despite subject two completing more overall work and pushing himself closer to failure, he encountered a significantly lower gain in strength than did subject one who quit each set earlier to failure. This and many other similar research studies have displayed the same result.

What this means is that strength training should always be performed with technical proficiency and that in most cases pushing to failure is unnecessary or even detrimental. Obviously, certain situations will be different in the cases of novice vs. experienced trainees, however the general takeaway is the same. Remember to train intelligently and understand that sometimes the old adage that “less is more” can still reign true. Thanks for reading.

Jimmy Pritchard has a BSc in exercise science from Colorado Mesa University and is a certified strength and conditioning specialist through the National Strength and Conditioning Association. He is the director of strength and conditioning at Ski & Snowboard Club Vail. Contact him at 970-331-3513 or