RPE rates a set from 1 to 10 by how many reps you had left: RPE 10 = none, RPE 9 = one, RPE 8 = two. Program most work sets at RPE 7–9 and adjust the weight to hit the target. Studies show RPE-based training gains strength at least as well as fixed percentages.
RPE (rate of perceived exertion) based on reps in reserve lets lifters auto-regulate training load. Research shows it is a valid measure of effort and produces strength gains comparable to percentage-based programs.
The reps-in-reserve based RPE scale (Zourdos et al., 2016) ties each RPE score to how many more reps you could have done.
| RPE | Reps in reserve (RIR) | How it feels |
|---|---|---|
| 10 | 0 | Maximal — no more reps, no more weight |
| 9.5 | 0–1 | Maybe a little more weight, no more reps |
| 9 | 1 | One more rep left |
| 8.5 | 1–2 | Definitely 1, maybe 2 |
| 8 | 2 | Two more reps |
| 7.5 | 2–3 | Two, maybe three |
| 7 | 3 | Fast, controlled, three left |
| 5–6 | 4–6 | Warm-up / technique effort |
Estimated with the Brzycki formula, treating reps + reps in reserve as the number of reps you could have done. Individuals vary by a few percent, especially on high reps.
| Reps | @10 | @9.5 | @9 | @8.5 | @8 | @7.5 | @7 | @6.5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 100% | 99% | 97% | 96% | 94% | 93% | 92% | 90% |
| 2 | 97% | 96% | 94% | 93% | 92% | 90% | 89% | 88% |
| 3 | 94% | 93% | 92% | 90% | 89% | 88% | 86% | 85% |
| 4 | 92% | 90% | 89% | 88% | 86% | 85% | 83% | 82% |
| 5 | 89% | 88% | 86% | 85% | 83% | 82% | 81% | 79% |
| 6 | 86% | 85% | 83% | 82% | 81% | 79% | 78% | 76% |
| 7 | 83% | 82% | 81% | 79% | 78% | 76% | 75% | 74% |
| 8 | 81% | 79% | 78% | 76% | 75% | 74% | 72% | 71% |
| 9 | 78% | 76% | 75% | 74% | 72% | 71% | 69% | 68% |
| 10 | 75% | 74% | 72% | 71% | 69% | 68% | 67% | 65% |
Enter a set you just did and how hard it felt. You get an estimated 1RM and the load for common RPE targets.
Reps
RPE
Estimated 1RM
270 lb
(122 kg)
| Target | Load |
|---|---|
| 1 @ RPE 9 | 265 lb |
| 3 @ RPE 8 | 240 lb |
| 5 @ RPE 8 | 225 lb |
| 5 @ RPE 7 | 220 lb |
| 8 @ RPE 8 | 205 lb |
Educational estimate only, not medical advice. Validate with your doctor before applying it.
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Strength gains vs. % 1RM | Similar or slightly better | Moderate |
| Rating accuracy | Good within ~1 rep near failure | Moderate |
| Fatigue management | Better day-to-day matching | Moderate |
| Beginners | Less reliable | Limited |
“RPE is too subjective to be useful.”
Mostly falseRIR-based RPE tracks bar speed well in experienced lifters, and accuracy improves with practice.
“RPE 10 means you failed the rep.”
FalseRPE 10 means you completed the rep with nothing left — a failed rep is beyond RPE 10.
For: Intermediate strength
For: Lifters new to RPE
Zourdos et al. · J Strength Cond Res · 2016
For your training: Rating sets by reps left is a valid way to measure effort.
Helms et al. · Strength Cond J · 2016
For your training: Use RPE targets per set and adjust the weight to hit them.
Helms et al. · Frontiers in Physiology · 2018
For your training: Auto-regulating with RPE is at least as effective as percentages.
A set where you could have done about 2 more reps with good form.
Neither is clearly superior. RPE adapts to daily readiness; percentages are simpler. Many programs combine both.
Most working sets at RPE 7–9. Reserve RPE 10 for tests, singles or last sets of isolation work.
Take occasional sets to true failure on safe exercises, log every RPE, and compare your estimate with the reps you actually got.
Ranked by citations. Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0).
Clinician’s Guide to Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing in Adults ↗
Gary John Balady, Ross A Arena, Kathy E. Sietsema et al. · Circulation · 2010 · 1,963 citations · Study · Open access
Exercise and Type 2 Diabetes ↗
Sheri R. Colberg, Ronald Jeremy Sigal, Bo Fernhall et al. · Diabetes Care · 2010 · 1,957 citations · Study · Open access
2020 ESC Guidelines on sports cardiology and exercise in patients with cardiovascular disease ↗
Antonio Pelliccia, Sanjay Sharma, Sabiha Gati et al. · European Heart Journal · 2020 · 1,950 citations · Study · Open access
Exercise Standards for Testing and Training ↗
Gerald F. Fletcher, Gary John Balady, Ezra A. Amsterdam et al. · Circulation · 2001 · 1,925 citations · Study · Open access
Interventions for treating obesity in children ↗
Hiltje Oude Luttikhuis, Louise Alison Baur, Hanneke Jansen et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2009 · 1,531 citations · Study · Open access
Enrichment Effects on Adult Cognitive Development ↗
Christopher K. Hertzog, Arthur F. Kramer, Robert S. Wilson et al. · Gothic.net · 2008 · 1,484 citations · Study · Open access
Andrew L. Ries, Gerene S. Bauldoff, Brian W. Carlin et al. · CHEST Journal · 2007 · 1,306 citations · Study · Open access
International Exercise Recommendations in Older Adults (ICFSR): Expert Consensus Guidelines ↗
Míkel Izquierdo, Reshma Aziz Merchant, John Edward Morley et al. · The journal of nutrition health & aging · 2021 · 1,238 citations · Study · Open access
Physical activity and exercise for chronic pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews ↗
Louise J. Geneen, Andrew Moore, Clare Clarke et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2017 · 1,220 citations · Review · Open access
Lindsay S. Nagamatsu, Alison Chan, Jennifer C. Davis et al. · Journal of Aging Research · 2013 · 1,089 citations · Study · Open access
Marco Ambrosetti, Ana Abreu, Ugo Corrà et al. · European Journal of Preventive Cardiology · 2020 · 959 citations · Study · Open access
Julia C. Basso, WENDY A. SUZUKI · Brain Plasticity · 2016 · 908 citations · Review · Open access
European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (version 2012) ↗
Joep Perk · European Journal of Preventive Cardiology · 2012 · 864 citations · Study
Physical fitness training for stroke patients ↗
David H. Saunders, Mark F. Sanderson, Sara Hayes et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2016 · 758 citations · Study · Open access
Raúl Artal, M. O'Toole · British Journal of Sports Medicine · 2003 · 727 citations · Study · Open access
RPE vs. percentage 1RM loading in periodized programs matched for sets and repetitions ↗
Helms et al. · Frontiers in Physiology · 2018 · 0 citations · Study
Helms et al. · Strength Cond J · 2016 · 0 citations · Study
Zourdos et al. · J Strength Cond Res · 2016 · 0 citations · Study
Put the research into practice
Tozemoon is a free workout tracker: log every set, detect PRs and get AI coaching.
Tozemoon is not a medical provider, and its authors are not physicians, dietitians or licensed healthcare professionals. All content, calculators, tables and protocols on this site are provided for general information and education only. They are not medical, nutritional or health advice, diagnosis or treatment, and do not create any professional relationship.
Results from calculators are rough estimates based on published averages and may not apply to you. Individual responses to supplements, caffeine, diet, cold exposure and training vary widely, and some can be dangerous for people with heart, kidney, liver or blood pressure conditions, during pregnancy or breastfeeding, for minors, or when combined with medication.
Always consult your doctor or a qualified healthcare professional before acting on anything you read here. Never ignore professional medical advice or delay seeking it because of this content. If you experience chest pain, palpitations, dizziness or any worrying symptom, stop exercising and seek medical help immediately. You use this information at your own risk; Tozemoon accepts no liability for any consequence of its use.
How we write these guides: we rank studies by citations using OpenAlex, prioritise meta-analyses and position stands, and summarise them in our own words with links to every source. Educational summary, not medical advice. Consult a professional before changing your diet or supplementation.