Review

Perceptual and Motor Skills

2024, Vol. 131(3) 940–970
Feasibility and Usefulness of © The Author(s) 2024

Repetitions-In-Reserve Scales Article reuse guidelines:

[Link]/journals-permissions
for Selecting Exercise DOI: 10.1177/00315125241241785
[Link]/home/pms
Intensity: A Scoping Review

Vasco Bastos1,2 , Sérgio Machado3,4 , and

Diogo S. Teixeira1,2

Abstract
The intensity of resistance training (RT) exercise is an important consideration for
determining relevant health and performance-related outcomes. Yet, current objective
exercise intensity measures present concerns in terms of viability or cost. In response
to these concerns, repetition-in-reserve (RIR) scales may represent an adequate
method of measuring and regulating intensity. However, no recent review has focused
on how RIR scales have been used for this purpose in prior research. We prepared the
present scoping review to analyze the feasibility and usefulness of RIR scales in selecting
RT intensity. We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO,
and [Link] databases (last search date April 2023) for experimental and non-
experimental studies that utilized an RIR scale to measure proximity to failure in RT
activities with apparently healthy individuals of any age. We qualitatively analyzed
31 studies (N = 855 mostly male adult participants) published between 2012-2023. RIR
scales appeared to be contextually feasible and useful in prescribing and adjusting RT
intensity. The most common trend in this research was to prescribe a target RIR and
adjust the exercise load for a desired proximity to muscle failure. Additionally, when

1
Faculty of Physical Education and Sport (ULHT), Lusófona University, Lisbon, Portugal
2
Research Center in Sport, Physical Education, and Exercise and Health (CIDEFES), Lisbon, Portugal
3
Center of Physical Activity Neuroscience, Neurodiversity Institute, Queimados-RJ, Brazil
4
Laboratory of Panic and Respiration, Institute of Psychiatry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil

Corresponding Author:
Vasco Bastos, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport (ULHT), Lusófona University, Campo Grande, 376,
Lisboa 1749-024, Portugal.
Email: [Link]@[Link]
Bastos et al. 941

measuring proximity to failure as an outcome of interest, the literature suggests that

the RIR prediction should be made close to task failure to increase its accuracy. Future
research should further explore the impact of sex, RT experience, exercise selection,
and muscle conditioning on the overall RIR approach.

Keywords
resistance training, repetitions in reserve, proximity to failure, estimated repetitions to
failure, intensity

Introduction
Exercise intensity is an important variable in a resistance training (RT) program; it can
be prescribed in conjunction with other exercise variables (e.g., volume), to elicit
several desired health and performance-related outcomes (American College of Sports
Medicine, 2021; Momma et al., 2022; Westcott, 2012). RT intensity is usually defined
by the load being lifted according to a percentage of one repetition maximum (1-RM;
American College of Sports Medicine, 2021; National Strength and Conditioning
Association, 2012), but it can also encompass the level of effort exerted during training
(Fisher et al., 2022; Schoenfeld, 2021). This intensity of effort can be gauged by the
concept of proximity to muscular failure (i.e., the point of a set at which the muscles can
no longer produce the necessary force to lift the load; Schoenfeld, 2010, 2021).
Evidence suggests that how close an individual trains to concentric muscle failure is
relevant for outcomes such as strength and the development of muscle hypertrophy
(Fisher et al., 2020; Grgic et al., 2022) and for fatigue management (Izquierdo et al.,
2006). Traditionally, the intensity of effort can be measured by ratings of perceived
exertion (RPE) scales (Hampson et al., 2001). By measuring the level of effort exerted
during an exercise and/or exercise session, necessary adjustments can be made ac-
cording to the reported versus intended effort (Ferreira et al., 2014; Helms et al., 2016).
However, this approach has some limitations, such as in set-to-set adjustments and,
particularly, in accurately reporting maximal RPE values even when a set is performed
to task failure (Hackett et al., 2012; Pritchett et al., 2009).
An alternative method for regulating intensity of effort is to measure the repetitions
in reserve (RIR). In this approach, an RIR scale measures how close an individual is to
muscle failure during a set, by reporting how many repetitions remain before task
failure. To date, we identified only three RIR-based scales. The first, found in a training
manual, was a self-report 7-point Likert-type RPE scale ranging from 4 (“Recovery”) to
10 (“Maximal), introduced by Tuchscherer (2008) for powerlifting, that features RIR in
the descriptors of its top three items or points (e.g., “last rep is tough, but still 1 rep left
in the tank” for RPE-9). Although we found no indications of this scale having been
utilized in RT research, it was the first scale that recognized the potential to use RIR to
manage exercise intensity. Years later, Hackett et al. (2012) developed the Estimated
942 Perceptual and Motor Skills 131(3)

Repetitions to Failure (ERF) scale. This scale consists of 11 points for estimating RIR,
ranging from 0 (i.e., muscular failure reached) to “10 or greater” (i.e., 10 or more
repetitions could still be performed). Lastly, Zourdos et al. (2016) created a 10-point
RIR-based rating of perceived exertion scale (RPE-RIR) (i.e., each RPE score has an
RIR-based descriptor; e.g., RPE-9 has a description of one repetition remaining [1-
RIR]). In RT research, the ERF and the RPE-RIR are commonly used to measure RIR.
The main difference between these two scales is that the RPE-RIR incorporates both
effort and RIR measurement, while the ERF focuses directly on RIR. While these
differences should be acknowledged, both approaches are quite similar in their ap-
plication, which usually results in their being encapsulated into a more global RIR
approach (Halperin et al., 2022). These RIR scales have gained prominence as a method
to measure the proximity to muscle failure, with claims of accuracy in predicting task
failure and usefulness for RT prescription and supervision (Helms et al., 2016;
Schoenfeld, 2021).
Another reason that RIR scales may measure exercise intensity is that the more
commonly used 1-RM tests present several limitations. For example, 1-RM may
show day-to-day fluctuations due to sleep quality oscillations (Bulbulian et al.,
1996), inter-individual variability (Richens & Cleather, 2014), and/or instability
with novice exercisers (Bocalini et al., 2013). These limitations raise situational
concerns that hinder the use of 1-RM-based prescription for intended fitness
outcomes.
Attempts to counteract these 1-RM limitations have included contemporary
exercise velocity-based methods (González-Badillo & Sánchez-Medina, 2010).
Using a device such as a linear position transducer, the mean concentric velocity of
an exercise can be measured, with decreases in the concentric velocity indicating
fatigue and proximity to failure (González-Badillo & Sánchez-Medina, 2010;
Weakley et al., 2021). Additionally, regression equations based on load-velocity
relationships can be used to estimate 1-RM (González-Badillo & Sánchez-Medina,
2010; Weakley et al., 2021). The velocity-based method has been proposed as better
for prescribing load intensity due to its greater sensitivity towards daily fluctuations
and between-person variations (González-Badillo & Sánchez-Medina, 2010;
Jovanović & Flanagan, 2014; Nevin, 2019). However, a main limitation of velocity-
based methods is the cost of the required equipment for it. While the accessibility of
this equipment is rising (Jovanović & Flanagan, 2014), these devices remain cost-
prohibitive in many RT contexts.
Alternatively, RIR scales can offer a subjective but easy-to-use and low-cost option
for determining exercise load. Some researchers have verified the utility of these scales
for prescribing and adjusting exercise load for a single RT session (e.g., Bastos et al.,
2022; Cavarretta et al., 2022; Refalo et al., 2023) or for multiple-week exercise
programs (e.g., Androulakis-Korakakis et al., 2018; Arede et al., 2020; Graham &
Cleather, 2021). Yet, to the best of our knowledge, there has been no recent research
review that has focused on the feasibility and usefulness of RIR scales for RT intensity
prescription and regulation. Thus, in the present scoping review, we aimed to analyze
Bastos et al. 943

the feasibility and usefulness of RIR scales in RT intensity selection. We selected a

population, concept, and context (PCC) strategy to develop the following research
review question: “Are RIR scales feasible and useful for helping to select/prescribe
exercise intensity for resistance training?” We focused on how the ERF and the RPE-
RIR scales have been used in RT and how useful they were for exercise intensity
prescriptions and adjustments. Additionally, we explored the scales’ contextual fea-
sibility according to several sociodemographic variables (e.g., age, sex, and RT ex-
perience) and specific exercise characteristics (intensity, equipment, and exercise type),
encompassing both clinical and research applications.

Method
In this review, we followed recommendations proposed by the PRISMA extension for
scoping reviews (Tricco et al., 2018), and we registered this study in the Open Science
Framework on March 22, 2023, with the code number JXHY2. Due to our aims for this
study and methodological heterogeneity in this research field, we deemed a scoping
review to be more suitable than a traditional systematic review; we sought to provide a
broader analysis of the contextual feasibility and usefulness of RIR scales for intensity
selection in RT.

Eligibility Criteria
We applied the following inclusion criteria for selecting articles to review: (a) ex-
perimental and non-experimental studies; (b) written in English; (c) published in a peer-
reviewed journal or as grey literature until April 30, 2023; (d) utilized an RIR scale to
measure proximity to failure in RT activities (i.e., describes the scale in the methods
section and/or presents results related to an RIR scale [e.g., RPE-9; 1-RIR; 2-ERF]); (e)
sampled individuals of any age (children, teenagers, adults, and older people); and (f)
focused on apparently healthy individuals. Our exclusion criteria were as follows: (a)
populations with mental disease; (b) mixed exercise programs (i.e., circuit training and
similar exercise program structures); (c) instrument validation studies; and (d) review
studies.

Information Sources and Search Strategy

We conducted a wide search of the literature from August 1, 2022, until April 30, 2023,
on PubMed (host: MEDLINE), SportDISCUS (host: EBSCO), PsycINFO, and
[Link] databases. The search was executed with the following entry in each
database: [(“physical activity” OR “physical exercise”) AND (“resistance training” OR
“resistance exercise” OR “weight training”) AND (“repetitions in reserve” OR “RIR”
OR “estimated repetitions to failure” OR “ERF” OR “proximity to failure”)]. We then
examined bibliographic references from related research and other sources with the
944 Perceptual and Motor Skills 131(3)

purpose of including more studies that potentially met our inclusion criteria (the last
search was conducted on April 30, 2023).

Selection of Sources of Evidence

Two researchers (VB and DT) were independently involved in the article selection
process. Both are trained in this procedure; they settled their disagreements in group
discussions in which a third researcher (SM) helped find a consensus. In Level I
screening, we first analyzed the title and abstract of all identified records from the
database search to check them against our eligibility criteria. We then retrieved full-text
publications of every study not eliminated in Level I for a complete Level II review in
which we read the full-text publication to ensure that the inclusion criteria were met and
no exclusion criteria were present. We included research articles in peer-reviewed
journals and grey literature with relevant experimental studies (e.g., thesis). The
complete search and screening process is depicted in Figure 1.

Data Charting Process

Authors VB, SM, and DT independently conducted the data charting process. The
Supplementary Table lists the general description of source information extracted
from the included studies: (a) bibliographic information (authors, year of publi-
cation, country of research); (b) research design; (c) participant sample size; (d)
participant characteristics; (e) intervention; (f) dependent measures; (g) statistical

Figure 1. Study Flow-Chart.

Bastos et al. 945

analyses; and (h) outcomes of interest. We created a data extraction sheet in Excel to
summarize these data. Table 1 lists a separate summary of study characteristics of
main interest: (a) sample size; (b) sex of participants; (c) location of study; (d) mean
age of participants; (e) effect size and/or power calculation; (f) scale applied; and (g)
prior training with the RPE-RIR or the ERF. Lastly, Table 2 summarizes information
about the usefulness, limitations, and methodological characteristics of the RIR
scales that were included in these studies: (a) the scale’s first author’s surname and

Table 1. Characteristics of Study Participants.

Characteristics No. Studies (%) Samples K (%)

SAMPLE SIZE 31 total 855 total

<30 23 (74%) 436 (51%)
30–50 5 (16%) 198 (23%)
50–100 3 (10%) 221 (26%)
SEX
Female only 1 (3%) 14 (2%)
Male only 16 (52%) 307 (36%)
Both sexes 14 (45%) 534 (62%)
LOCATION
North America 10 (32%) 321 (37%)
South America 1 (3%) 18 (2%)
Europe 9 (29%) 202 (24%)
Australia 11 (36%) 314 (37%)
MEAN AGE (years)
<18 2 (7%) 29 (3%)
18-64 28 (90%) 745 (87%)
≥65 1 (3%) 82 (10%)
EFFECT SIZE/POWER ANALYSIS
Yes 8* (26%)
No 23 (74%)
SCALE USED
RPE-RIR 23 (74%)
ERF 8 (26%)
FAMILIARIZATION (RPE-RIR or ERF)
Yes 24 (78%)
No 5 (16%)
Part of the sample 1** (3%)
Unclear 1*** (3%)

Note. *In one study, power calculations were conducted but not matched due to COVID-19 ‘lockdown’
(Armes et al., 2020); **Remmert et al. (2023) reported that 19 out of the 58 participants had previous
experience rating RIR; ***Santos (2018) reports that the sample had previous experience with RPE scales but
does not specify if this includes the RPE-RIR scale used in the study.
 946

Table 2. Methodological Characteristics of the RIR Scales in the Included Studies.

RT training Limitations to RIR
Author(s) Scale Timing Familiar-ization Context Applicability experience Load Scale use

Androulakis-Korakakis RPE-RIR The “daily max” For four weeks Professional The RPE-RIR scale was At least two >90% 1-RM Some participants in
et al. (2018) group was powerlifting successfully used in years the “daily max”
informed of team load prescription/ group experienced
their target adjustment some difficulties in
RPE of 9– according to an RPE selecting their
9.5 before the they should or deadlift load, as
start of the refrain from can be verified by
intervention surpassing the slightly lower-
The periodized The “daily max” group than-intended
training group managed to select average group RPE
reported RPE appropriate loads (8.9 instead of 9–
after each set and successfully 9.5)
and was reported their 1-
instructed to RM test results
not surpass The periodized
RPE-9 training group
successfully kept
their RPE scores
below 9
Arede et al. (2020) RPE-RIR The target 3-RIR For 1 month Youth basketball The RPE-RIR was used Ranged from Adjusted to 3-RIR None reported
was provided team to successfully one to two in the RIR group
before the adjust to RIR-3, years
intervention resulting in
improvements in
various indicators of
performance

(continued)
Perceptual and Motor Skills 131(3)
Table 2. (continued)
RT training Limitations to RIR
Author(s) Scale Timing Familiar-ization Context Applicability experience Load Scale use
Bastos et al.

Armes et al. (2020) RPE-RIR The target 0-RIR None reported Laboratory Participants reached At least one year Experience 1: 70% Participants typically
was provided what they perceived 1-RM; underpredicted
before the was their 0-RIR experience 2: the number of
intervention 70% daily repetitions they
isometric could perform
maximum
voluntary
contraction
Balsalobre-Fernandez RPE-RIR Immediately Participants were Gym or RIR demonstrated At least two 50–100% 1-RM None reported
et al. (2021) after a set regularly using laboratory some predictive years
the scale in (not clear) value when added to
their training velocity in a multiple
program (does regression model
not specify for with both RPE and
how long) movement velocity
Bastos et al. (2022) RPE-RIR Immediately In a prior session Gym/health club Participants 8.32 (4.54) years 70% 1-RM None reported
after a set successfully of experience
reported their RIR
in the first two sets,
allowing for the
necessary load
adjustments to
reach 0-RIR, in 8 to
14 repetitions, in
the third and last set
Buskard et al. (2019) RPE-RIR The target RIR None reported Laboratory The study´s protocol 1.3 (1.1) years of 80% 1-RM None related to this
was provided was upheld with the overall review´s objective
before the load increasing each exercise
intervention time all sets of seven experience
repetitions were (not
completed with at necessarily
least 1-RIR RT)

(continued)
947
Table 2. (continued)
948

RT training Limitations to RIR

Author(s) Scale Timing Familiar-ization Context Applicability experience Load Scale use

Cavarretta et al. (2022) RPE-RIR Immediately The scale was Gym/health club RIR was successfully No regular 50–100% 10-RM None reported
after explained to the reported after each experience
participants successful 10-RM for the past
before each attempt year
session
Davies et al. (2022) ERF Immediately In a prior session Unclear RIR was successfully 3.5 (1.9) years 85% 1-RM RIR accuracy did not
after provided with both for the cluster improve across
cluster and set group and the 6 weeks of the
traditional set 3.1 (2.0) years intervention
structures, with no for the
differences in error traditional set
prediction group
Graham and Cleather RPE-RIR The target RIR None reported Private strength By adjusting the load At least two 65–95% 1-RM Loads chosen with
(2021) (4, 3, 2, 1, 0, and with the RPE-RIR years RIR were slightly
or MAX) was conditioning scale, the lower than
provided at facility autoregulated group intended in weeks
the start of trained at greater one (62.2 and 64%
each week of intensities than the instead of 65%)
training fixed loading group, and week 12
which led to greater (91.3 and 93%
improvements in instead of 95%)
strength
Hackett et al. (2012) ERF 10th repetition In a prior session Laboratory ERF scores were 8.2 (3.2) years of 70% 1-RM Participants slightly
highly correlated experience underpredicted
with actual their actual
repetitions to failure repetitions to
failure in the initial
sets

(continued)
Perceptual and Motor Skills 131(3)
Table 2. (continued)
RT training Limitations to RIR
Author(s) Scale Timing Familiar-ization Context Applicability experience Load Scale use
Bastos et al.

Hackett et al. (2017) ERF 10th repetition In a prior session Laboratory RT exercisers can 5.5 (6.1) years 70% 1-RM for the Findings suggest ERF
accurately estimate for men chest press accuracy is highly
repetitions to failure 3.6 (4.6) years 80% 1-RM for the dependent on the
with the ERF when for women leg press proximity to
close to failure No previous failure
experience Greater accuracy
was required was found in the
chest press when
compared with the
leg press
Men were more
accurate than
women in the leg
press exercise
Hackett et al. (2018) ERF 10th repetition Before the first Laboratory ERF scores had a Most 70% 1-RM for the Men were more
session strong relationship participants chest press accurate than
with actual (42 of 48) 80% 1-RM for the women with the
repetitions to failure reported leg press ERF
Accuracy improved having over Greater accuracy
from session 1 to 2 1 year of was found in the
(in the first set of experience chest press when
the leg press) compared with the
leg press, but these
differences
dissipated in the
second session
Hackett et al. (2019) ERF 10th repetition In a prior session Unclear Findings suggest that 5.4 (6.3) years 70% 1-RM for the None reported
ERF accuracy is for men chest press
more influenced by 4.6 (5.8) years 80% 1-RM for the
proximity to task for women leg press
failure than
subjective feelings of
fatigue
949

(continued)
Table 2. (continued)
950

RT training Limitations to RIR

Author(s) Scale Timing Familiar-ization Context Applicability experience Load Scale use

Hackett (2022) ERF 10th repetition In a prior session Laboratory Mean concentric 6.9 (4.7) years 70% 1-RM The first sets of the
velocity appears to bench press were
not influence ERF less accurate when
accuracy compared to the
latter sets
Hackett and Sabag ERF 10th repetition In a prior session Laboratory RT exercisers can 6.9 (4.7) years 70% 1-RM Participants with
(2022) accurately estimate greater local
repetitions to failure muscular
with the ERF when endurance seem
close to failure to be less accurate
with the ERF in the
early sets
Helms et al. (2017a) RPE-RIR The target RPE Pre-test Gym/health club Powerlifters can At least one year Self-selected Accuracy for
of the day was accurately select according to 8 repetitions was
provided after loads to reach a RPE-RIR: superior for bench
the warm-up prescribed RPE 8 repetitions at press when
8 RPE compared to the
(hypertrophy) squat
2 repetitions at Scores for bench
8 RPE (power) press were more
3 repetitions at accurate when
9 RPE (strength) closer to failure
Helms et al. (2017b) RPE-RIR Immediately Before the Gym/health club Nearly identical RPE At least one year 1-RM test protocol None reported
after each 1- experimental values were
RM attempt session reported for three
different exercises
(bench press, squat,
and deadlift) during
1-RM testing

(continued)
Perceptual and Motor Skills 131(3)
Table 2. (continued)
RT training Limitations to RIR
Author(s) Scale Timing Familiar-ization Context Applicability experience Load Scale use
Bastos et al.

Lovegrove et al. (2022) RPE-RIR The target 1-RIR Prior session Laboratory The load was Required to Adjusted to 1-RIR None reported
was provided successfully have less than for 3, 5, and
before the adjusted for 1-RIR, 6 months 8 repetitions
intervention with a high level of
reliability between
sessions
Mangine et al. (2022) RPE-RIR After all sets During the warm- Laboratory The load was At least one year 80% 1-RM None reported
up accurately adjusted
to 3 and 0-RIR in
both conditions
Mansfield et al. (2020) RPE-RIR 8th repetition for In a prior session Laboratory Knowledge of the load At least two 60% 1-RM Accuracy was lower
the 60%1-RM being lifted did not years 80% 1-RM in the initial sets
protocol influence estimates for both exercises,
rd
3 repetition for of RIR, while for both
the 80% 1-RM accuracy improved conditions
protocol from sets 1 to 3
Odgers et al. (2021) RPE-RIR At perceived In a prior session Unclear Results support the At least 80% 1-RM Accuracy was slightly
4 and 1-RIR usage of the RPE- 6 months lower for 6-RPE
(i.e., 6 and 9- RIR scale for load (i.e., RIR-4) than
RPE) prescription for 9-RPE
(i.e., RIR-1)

(continued)
951
Table 2. (continued)
952

RT training Limitations to RIR

Author(s) Scale Timing Familiar-ization Context Applicability experience Load Scale use

Ormsbee et al. (2019) RPE-RIR Immediately Pre-test Laboratory The RPE-RIR scale can Experienced 60% 1-RM Results suggest that
after a set aid in a 1-RM-test benchers’ 70% 1-RM RIR becomes less
and can assist in the group: over 75% 1-RM accurate the
autoregulation of 2 years 90% 1-RM farther a lifter is
the training load Novice from failure
benchers’ There appears to be
group: a direct
between relationship
3 months and between RPE-RIR
2 years accuracy and
training
experience
Ratto (2019) RPE-RIR At the 4th, 12th, In a prior session Professional
The RPE-RIR scale may Experienced 225-lbs (fixed load Subjects were less
16th, and (if American be useful to regulate (unclear how for all accurate in
possible) 20th football team
volume during the much) participants) predicting RIR in
repetitions 225lbs bench press the first half of the
test set
Refalo et al. (2023) RPE-RIR The target RIR In a prior session Gym/Health club The RPE-RIR scale At least 3 years 75% 1-RM None reported
(0, 1, or 3) successfully
was provided measured proximity
before the to failure in the
session three different
experiments
Remmert et al. (2023) RPE-RIR At perceived 5- 19 out of the Laboratory RIR predictions were 42.4 (5.7) 72.5% 1-RM Predictions farther
RIR and then 58 participants provided with no months of from failure were
continued to reported having influence of sex, experience less accurate.
predict RIR on previous training experience,
every experience and experience
repetition using RIR rating RIR
thereafter significantly
until failure influencing RIR
accuracy

(continued)
Perceptual and Motor Skills 131(3)
Table 2. (continued)
RT training Limitations to RIR
Author(s) Scale Timing Familiar-ization Context Applicability experience Load Scale use
Bastos et al.

Shattock and Tee RPE-RIR After the initial Participants had Rugby team Load prescription and At least 2 years 70-80% 1-RM The velocity-based
(2022) set of each previous adjustments with 85-90% 1-RM training approach
exercise, experience the RPE-RIR scale resulted in greater
participants with the RPE- resulted in improvements
adjusted the RIR approach improvements in than the RPE-RIR
exercise load strength and power approach
according to
their RPE-RIR
scores
Sinclair et al. (2022) RPE-RIR After the warm- None reported Rugby team RPE-RIR At least 3 years Self-selected in No acceptable levels
up in demonstrated experiment 1 for of reliability and
experiment 1, generally acceptable 3, 6, and 9-RIR accuracy were
to select the levels of accuracy Self-selected in verified for the
load for 3, 6, and moderate-good experiment 2 for: bench press at 9-
and 9-RIR levels of reliability 8-10 repetitions RIR and for the
with 6-RIR deadlift for both
5-8 repetitions with 6 and 9-RIR,
4-RIR respectively
3-6 repetitions with
2-RIR
3-8 repetitions with
1-RIR

(continued)
953
Table 2. (continued)
954

RT training Limitations to RIR

Author(s) Scale Timing Familiar-ization Context Applicability experience Load Scale use

Sousa (2018) RPE-RIR At perceived Participants had Laboratory Results support the At least 2 years 80% 1-RM Accuracy was slightly
4 and 1-RIR previous usage of the RPE- lower for 6-RPE
(i.e., 6 and 9- experience RIR scale for load (i.e., RIR-4) than
RPE) with RPE scales prescription for 9-RPE
(i.e., RIR-1)
Set 4 was more
accurate than set
1 for squats and
deadlifts
Bench press was
more accurate for
RPE-6, while both
bench press and
deadlift were
more accurate for
RPE-9 than squat
Vieira et al. (2019) ERF Immediately None reported Unclear Participants At least one year 90% 10-RM None reported
after a set successfully 100% 10-RM
reported their RIR
in both groups
Zourdos et al. (2016) RPE-RIR Immediately Pre-test Laboratory Results support that Experienced 60% 1-RM RIR appears more
after a set the RPE-RIR scale is benchers’ 70% 1-RM difficult to
a useful method to group: at least 75% 1-RM estimate when a
regulate daily 2 years 90% 1-RM greater number of
training load and Novice repetitions remain
provide feedback benchers’
during the 1-RM group: less
test than 1 year
Zourdos et al. (2021) RPE-RIR At perceived 5, Pre-test Laboratory RPE-RIR appears to be At least 2 years 70% 1-RM Being farther from
3, and 1-RIR useful to predict RIR failure and
(i.e., 5, 7, and during low- performing more
9-RPE) repetition sets, repetitions in a set
particularly when was associated
closer to failure with RIR
inaccuracy
Perceptual and Motor Skills 131(3)
Bastos et al. 955

date of publication; (b) the RIR scale utilized; (c) the method of application; (d) the
timing of administration; (e) participant familiarization with the scale; (f) context of
the intervention; (g) usefulness of the RIR scale; (h) participants’ RT experience; (i)
participants’ load intensity; and (j) limitations of the scale.

Results
Sources of Evidence
Our database search produced 243 articles for potential inclusion in this review. After
removing five duplicated records, 238 studies entered Level I screening. Following a
meticulous examination of titles and abstracts, 31 studies moved on to Level II
screening. After full-text reviews of the remaining records, 12 more studies were
excluded for not using any RIR scales (Emanuel et al., 2022; Garcı́a-Ramos et al., 2018,
2021; González-Badillo et al., 2017; Janicijevic et al., 2021; Lemos et al., 2017; Morán-
Navarro et al., 2019; Rodrı́guez-Rosell et al., 2020; Sánchez-Moreno et al., 2017, 2021;
Servais, 2015; Steele et al., 2017), leaving just 19 studies. We identified 14 new studies
in the reference sections of these 19 studies; 12 of these new studies met the inclusion
criteria and two were excluded due to not applying an RIR scale (Emanuel et al., 2021;
Hernández-Belmonte et al., 2022). Thus, a total of 31 studies were ultimately included
in this scoping review for in-depth analysis.

Characteristics of Selected Sources

As noted above, a summary of the descriptive data collected from the 31 included
studies can be observed in Table 1 and in the Supplementary Table (organized in
alphabetic order according to the first author’s surname). All studies applied an
experimental/interventional design, including three randomized controlled trials, two
randomized crossover trials, and 26 quasi-experimental studies, two of which included
two experiments (Armes et al., 2020; Sinclair et al., 2022). All studies used conve-
nience sampling in recruiting participants. Participants in the studies met the inclusion
criteria set for this review, allowing for wider coverage of possible RT contexts and
ample usage of RIR scales. Participants included in these studies totaled 855; 23 studies
were conducted with less than 30 participants (74%), five studies had samples ranging
between 30 and 50 individuals (16%), and three studies had sample sizes between
50 and 100 participants (10%).

Contextual Feasibility
As can be observed in Table 2, we verified an ample selection of different 1-RM
intensities in the included studies, ranging from low (e.g., 50%RM in Balsalobre-
Fernández et al., 2021) to maximum (e.g., 100%RM in Balsalobre-Fernández et al.,
2021; Vieira et al., 2019). Only two studies (Bastos et al., 2022; Helms, et al., 2017a)
956 Perceptual and Motor Skills 131(3)

did not apply a 1-RM test, opting instead to use the RPE-RIR scale to adjust the
intensity for the desired number of repetitions. Four studies applied 1-RM testing but
followed the aforementioned RPE-RIR intensity prescription strategy as well
(Androulakis-Korakakis et al., 2018; Arede et al., 2020; Lovegrove et al., 2022;
Sinclair et al., 2022), using the 1-RM results for other experimental purposes. Lastly,
Ratto (2019) opted for a fixed load in the bench press exercise (225 lbs.).
We observed no concerns regarding the usage of RIR scales in the broad spectrum of
1-RM intensities that were reported in the included studies. However, two studies
(Zourdos et al., 2016, 2021) indicated that RPE-RIR was less accurate when more
repetitions were performed, which, indirectly, may represent some limitations for lower
percentages of 1-RM. Another limitation of both RIR scales was the distance to task
failure, with 10 studies (Hackett et al., 2017; Helms, et al., 2017a; Odgers et al., 2021;
Ormsbee et al., 2019; Ratto, 2019; Remmert et al., 2023; Sinclair et al., 2022; Sousa,
2018; Zourdos et al., 2016, 2021) demonstrating that estimations of RIR were less
accurate the farther the participant was from failure. Only Armes et al. (2020) reported
accuracy problems when close to failure.
In terms of participant characteristics, 16 studies recruited only males (52%),
14 studied both males and females (45%), and only one study recruited only females
(3%) (see the Supplementary Table). Two studies (Hackett et al., 2017, 2018) found sex
differences in estimating RIR with the ERF, with males being more accurate than
females. However, these results were not replicated in Remmert et al. (2023), who
found no sex differences in RIR accuracy. Samples were predominantly (90%) adult-
aged participants (18–64 years; 28 studies), but Buskard et al. (2019) studied older
individuals, Arede et al. (2020) and Lovegrove et al. (2022) sampled adolescents, and
Sinclair et al. (2022) included some adolescents within a sample that was primarily
young adults. Most studies (24; 77%) only recruited participants with RT experience (>
six months of regular practice), but Buskard et al. (2019) included individuals with
overall exercise experience (not necessarily RT); four studies included both experi-
enced and novice individuals (Hackett et al., 2017, 2018; Ormsbee et al., 2019; Zourdos
et al., 2016); and only two studies focused solely on inexperienced individuals
(Cavarretta et al., 2022; Lovegrove et al., 2022). The results of both Ormsbee et al.
(2019) and Zourdos et al. (2016) suggested that RT-experienced individuals may be
more accurate than novice individuals when using the RPE-RIR scale. However,
Hackett et al. (2017) and Remmert et al. (2023) did not verify this RT-experience
influence on accuracy for the ERF scale.
Regarding exercise equipment, most investigators used only free weights
(23 studies; 74%); six studies (19%) used only RT machines (Armes et al., 2020;
Buskard et al., 2019; Hackett et al., 2017, 2018, 2019; Remmert et al., 2023); and three
(10%) used both machines and free weights (Bastos et al., 2022; Cavarretta et al., 2022;
Vieira et al., 2019). A wide array of different RT exercises was performed across the
included studies, with most (25 studies; 81%) focusing exclusively on multi-joint
exercises; five using both multi- and single-joint exercises (Bastos et al., 2022; Buskard
et al., 2019; Cavarretta et al., 2022; Remmert et al., 2023; Shattock & Tee, 2022); and
Bastos et al. 957

only one applying a single-joint exercise (Armes et al., 2020). As previously men-
tioned, Armes et al. (2020) reported some RIR accuracy problems with the unilateral
leg extension exercise. However, Remmert et al. (2023) found no differences in ac-
curacy between the seated row multi-joint exercise and the biceps curl and triceps
pushdown single-joint exercises. Additionally, most interventions (19, 61%) carried out
exercises for both superior and inferior limbs. Eight studies (26%) were directed only at
the superior limbs (Davies et al., 2022; Graham & Cleather, 2021; Mangine et al., 2022;
Mansfield et al., 2020; Ormsbee et al., 2019; Ratto, 2019; Refalo et al., 2023; Remmert
et al., 2023); and four studies (13%) targeted only the inferior limbs (Armes et al., 2020;
Odgers et al., 2021; Zourdos et al., 2016, 2021). Five studies reported greater accuracy
for superior limb exercises using the RIR scales when compared with inferior limb
exercises (Hackett et al., 2017, 2018; Helms, et al., 2017a; Sinclair et al., 2022; Sousa,
2018); and Androulakis-Korakakis et al. (2018) reported that participants experienced
some difficulties in selecting their deadlift load for an RPE of 9–9.5 on the RPE-RIR
scale.

Scale Usefulness for Prescribing and Adjusting Exercise Intensity

The RPE-RIR and ERF scales were applied to prescribe and/or adjust exercise intensity
in various contexts (e.g., gym/health club; laboratory) with the necessary equipment
(e.g., free weights; machines) to perform an RT session. Although many of the included
studies were primarily related to the accuracy of RIR predictions (n = 21), some tested
for other outcomes of interest and showed that exercise prescription utilizing these RIR
scales led to participants’ increased strength (Arede et al., 2020; Graham & Cleather,
2021; Shattock & Tee, 2022; Vieira et al., 2019), power (Arede et al., 2020; Shattock &
Tee, 2022), and high-intensity actions such as sprinting, jumping, and cutting (Arede
et al., 2020).
In 13 studies participants were prescribed a target RIR (e.g., 1-RIR) and/or an RPE
(e.g., RPE-9 referring to 1-RIR) with the RPE-RIR scale used to control the proximity
to failure in one or more sets (Androulakis-Korakakis et al., 2018; Arede et al., 2020;
Armes et al., 2020; Bastos et al., 2022; Buskard et al., 2019; Graham & Cleather, 2021;
Helms, et al., 2017a; Lovegrove et al., 2022; Mangine et al., 2022; Odgers et al., 2021;
Refalo et al., 2023; Shattock & Tee, 2022; Sinclair et al., 2022). Of these studies, six
prescribed multiple RIR/RPE targets for different sets and/or sessions (Graham &
Cleather, 2021; Helms, et al., 2017b; Mangine et al., 2022; Refalo et al., 2023; Shattock
& Tee, 2022; Sinclair et al., 2022), demonstrating these scales’ utility for prescribing
different intensities. Additionally, Bastos et al. (2022) measured RIR in the first two sets
of each exercise to adjust the load to reach 0-RIR in the third and last set within a
desired number of repetitions. This represented an adaptation of the most commonly
identified strategy in these studies of prescribing a target RIR number and then per-
forming the necessary number of repetitions to reach it. Androulakis-Korakakis et al.
(2018) implemented another approach in which an experimental group was instructed
not to surpass a proximity to failure threshold of RPE-9.
958 Perceptual and Motor Skills 131(3)

In five studies, investigators used RIR scales to measure how close participants were
to task failure in their RT interventions (Balsalobre-Fernández et al., 2021; Cavarretta
et al., 2022; Helms, et al., 2017b; Ormsbee et al., 2019; Vieira et al., 2019), inves-
tigating RIR as a study outcome. As such, these studies investigated the participants’
proximity to muscle failure in their interventions (e.g., in a set performed with a specific
number of repetitions with a predetermined %1RM) instead of using it to prescribe the
intervention’s intensity. Lastly, 13 studies focused directly on RIR scale accuracy
(Hackett et al., 2012, 2017, 2018, 2019; Davies et al., 2022; Hackett, 2022; Hackett &
Sabag, 2022; Mansfield et al., 2020; Ratto, 2019; Remmert et al., 2023; Sousa, 2018;
Zourdos et al., 2016, 2021), adjusting their experimental procedures to test RIR
prediction error.

Familiarization with the RIR Scales and the Experimental Procedures

A total of 24 (74%) studies applied prior training and/or familiarization with the RPE-
RIR/ERF before data collection. More specifically, 12 studies familiarized the par-
ticipants with the RIR scale in a prior session (Bastos et al., 2022; Davies et al., 2022;
Hackett, 2022; Hackett et al., 2012, 2017, 2019; Hackett & Sabag, 2022; Lovegrove
et al., 2022; Mansfield et al., 2020; Odgers et al., 2021; Ratto, 2019; Refalo et al., 2023)
while eight studies familiarized participants during the pre-test (Cavarretta et al., 2022;
Hackett et al., 2018; Helms, et al., 2017a, 2017b; Mangine et al., 2022; Ormsbee et al.,
2019; Zourdos et al., 2016, 2021); two studies reported that participants already had
previous experience with the RPE-RIR scale that was used (Balsalobre-Fernández
et al., 2021; Shattock & Tee, 2022); and both Androulakis-Korakakis et al. (2018) and
Arede et al. (Arede et al., 2020) had subjects participate in a four-week familiarization
period. Of note, Sousa (2018) reported that the participants had previous experience
with RPE scales but did not specify if the experience was with the RPE-RIR scale that
was used or with a different RPE scale with distinct descriptors and instructions (e.g.,
the RPE Borg scale; Borg, 1982). Lastly, Remmert et al. (2023) reported that only part
of their sample (19 of 58 participants) had previous experience with RIR.
The results of five studies suggested that previous experience with the experimental
procedures (e.g., exercises performed and loads utilized) might also be of relevance
(Hackett, 2022; Hackett et al., 2012, 2018; Mansfield et al., 2020; Sousa, 2018). In
these, the accuracy of RPE-RIR/ERF seemed to improve in the latter sets compared to
the earlier sets. Additionally, in Hackett et al. (2018) the accuracy differences between
the chest press and leg press exercises that were observed in the first session dissipated
in the second session. Davies et al. (2022) was the only study in which there were no
reported RIR accuracy improvements across the intervention.

Discussion
Our objective in the present scoping review was to analyze the feasibility and utility of
RIR scales for assisting in prescribing exercise intensity for RT. We focused particularly
Bastos et al. 959

on the contextual feasibility of these scales, how the ERF and the RPE-RIR scales have
been used in research, and how useful they were in RT intensity prescription and
adjustments. Following inclusion/exclusion screening processes, we included a total of
31 studies in this review, covering 855 participants. The RIR scales were utilized in a
broad spectrum of exercise intensities (50-100% RM) and in samples consisting mainly
of adult-aged (18–64 years; 90%), male (52%), and RT-experienced (77%) participants.
This research took place in a laboratory or in a context that was appropriate for RT (e.g.,
gym or health club), mainly utilizing free weights (74%) to train both superior and
inferior limbs (61%). The scales were used to explore intensity prescription and ad-
justment in 13 of these studies (42%), to measure RIR as an outcome of interest (e.g.,
monitor the intensity of effort) in 5 studies (16%), and to investigate scale accuracy in
proximity to failure in 13 studies (42%). Overall, it appeared that RIR-based scales
were appropriate for intensity prescription and adjustment in RT sessions. However,
RIR prediction accuracy seemed to decrease when provided farther from failure and
when more repetitions were performed in a set. In addition, some accuracy disparities
concerning RT experience (i.e., novice vs. experienced trainees), sex (i.e., male vs.
female), and exercise selection (i.e., superior vs. lower limb exercises) were identified
in current research and will be further discussed below.

Contextual Feasibility
The RIR scales were used within a wide spectrum of load intensities across these
31 included studies. While no direct limitation in RIR reporting seemed to emerge, it
appears that the RPE-RIR scale seemed to be less accurate with a higher number of
repetitions, which represents a limitation for lower loads (Zourdos et al., 2016, 2021).
An explanation for this decreased accuracy may be the higher levels of perceived
fatigue and discomfort when performing lower loads and more repetitions (Fisher et al.,
2017; Stuart et al., 2018), which can be caused by greater increases in metabolic and
neuromuscular fatigue (Buitrago et al., 2012). This accumulated fatigue may therefore
limit the ability to gauge RIR accurately (Zourdos et al., 2021). Another important
consideration regarding RIR accuracy is the proximity to failure when making the
prediction. Ten research teams (32%) reported that RIR predictions were less accurate
the farther an individual was from task failure, a finding that aligns with the meta-
analysis results of a recent scoping review concerning RIR accuracy (Halperin et al.,
2022). Therefore, RIR as an outcome should be reported close to task failure, whenever
possible.
Some sex differences in accuracy were also reported for the ERF by Hackett et al.
(2017, 2018), with males more accurate than females. A possible explanation for these
discrepancies is some physiological differences between males and females (e.g.,
differences in sensory organ densities of the lower limbs) that may result in distinctly
different perceptions of effort (Hackett et al., 2018; Han et al., 2015). However, these
sex differences were not replicated in Remmert et al. (2023) and cannot be identified in
the meta-analysis of Halperin et al. (2022). Considering the overall underrepresentation
960 Perceptual and Motor Skills 131(3)

of females in RIR research (52% of these studies had male-only samples) and even in
some studies with both sexes represented (e.g., 23 males and only six females in
Zourdos et al., 2016), a full understanding of RIR use with women is a relevant gap in
this literature. Other understudied populations include older individuals and youth, with
most of these included studies having relied on participants aged between 18 and
64 years. With this limitation in mind, within this review, there were no problems with
using RIR scales with older adults (Buskard et al., 2019) or adolescents (Arede et al.,
2020; Lovegrove et al., 2022; Sinclair et al., 2022).
Concerning RT experience, conflicting evidence makes it difficult to assess the
impact of training status on RIR prediction. Two studies (Ormsbee et al., 2019; Zourdos
et al., 2016) suggested that RT experience influenced RIR accuracy prediction, while
two others (Hackett et al., 2017; Remmert et al., 2023) reported no differences between
experienced and novice participants. Additionally, in a meta-analysis, Halperin et al.
(2022) found no impact of RT experience on RIR accuracy. Although results tend to
favor using RIR scales without regard to RT experience, some caution may be prudent
in novice exercises. This is an area for future research to clarify.
Regarding exercise equipment, both RIR scales were used in an ample selection of
exercises with predominantly free weights, but also RT machines were used without any
reported limitation. Single-joint exercises were applied only in a few studies, with only one
(i.e., Armes et al., 2020) carrying out exclusively a single-joint exercise (i.e., unilateral leg
extension). In this study, some RIR accuracy concerns were reported. However, no dif-
ferences in accuracy were found between single- and multi-joint exercises in Remmert et al.
(2023). Regarding upper and lower body exercises, it appears that RIR tended to be more
accurate for upper limb exercises when compared to lower limb exercises (Hackett et al.,
2017, 2018; Helms, et al., 2017a; Sinclair et al., 2022; Sousa, 2018). Additionally, par-
ticipants in one study experienced some difficulties adjusting the load for a target RIR in the
deadlift exercise (Androulakis-Korakakis et al., 2018). Some researchers speculated that
these differences may be the result of a higher sensory organ density in the upper limbs
when compared with the lower limbs (Hackett et al., 2017; Han et al., 2015). Despite the
results of these studies, Halperin et al. (2022) found no differences between upper and
lower body exercises on RIR prediction in their meta-analysis, suggesting that these
differences may not be as significant as initially thought. Furthermore, in Hackett et al.
(2018) the RIR accuracy differences identified in the first session between the chest press
and the leg press exercises dissipated in the second session. Moreover, four more studies
(Hackett, 2022; Hackett et al., 2012; Mansfield et al., 2020; Sousa, 2018) reported RIR
accuracy improvements in the latter sets relative to the earlier ones. Only Davies et al.
(2022) reported no accuracy improvements after six weeks, but this may be due to a
particularly low initial error of prediction at the start of the intervention that may have
created a ceiling effect. These results suggest a potential learning curve, with the ex-
perimental procedures resulting in more accurate RIR predictions through time (Halperin
et al., 2022). Experience using RIR scales seems to be a basis for influencing accuracy.
Although this hypothesis is still largely underexplored, research to date does not support it
(Remmert et al., 2023; Zourdos et al., 2021). However, Hackett et al. (2018) suggested that
Bastos et al. 961

a better RIR accuracy trend may continue in the following sessions, although further
research is required to confirm this hypothesis as well.

Usefulness of RIR Scales

The main method of application of the RIR scales for intensity regulation identified in
the literature was to prescribe a target RIR (e.g., 1-RIR; 2-ERF) and/or RPE (in the case
of the RPE-RIR scale; e.g., 9-RPE referring to 1-RIR). This allowed for the selection of
an exercise’s load to perform a given number of repetitions while maintaining the
desired proximity to failure (e.g., 2-RIR). In turn, if the target RIR was not met, the load
could be adjusted in the following sets and/or sessions (i.e., decrease the load if closer to
failure than intended or increase it if the opposite is verified). Thus, a RIR target assisted
in the implementation of a given training program’s intensity, articulated with other
training variables, while simultaneously considering the day-to-day variability in an
individual’s readiness (e.g., increased fatigue due to poor sleep; Knowles et al., 2018).
For example, Graham and Cleather (2021) implemented a 12-week training program
with one of its groups choosing the load necessary to perform the desired number of
repetitions according to RIR. Each week a target RIR was provided, allowing the
participants to select and adjust the load, to reach the prescribed volume of training,
with the desired proximity to failure (e.g., in week 4 the load was regulated to perform
three sets of 10 repetitions according to 1-RIR). This strategy was thoroughly im-
plemented for the duration of the intervention and the more frequent intensity ad-
justments in this group resulted in greater load increases, which, in turn, provided
greater strength results than the group with the 1-RM% prescription. Additionally,
some investigators adapted this RIR target approach to their interventional require-
ments, with one using the RPE-RIR to measure RIR as an outcome in the first two sets
of an exercise and to confirm concentric failure in the third and last one (Bastos et al.,
2022), and another utilizing it to create a proximity to failure threshold (RPE-9) from
which the participants should refrain from surpassing (Androulakis-Korakakis et al.,
2018). The first method can be useful to pinpoint when to reach concentric failure,
which can be useful for some objectives such as, for example, muscle hypertrophy
(Fisher et al., 2022; Grgic et al., 2022) or equalizing intensity among a group of athletes/
exercisers (Bastos et al., 2022), while the second method could be an equally helpful
fatigue management strategy (Androulakis-Korakakis et al., 2018).
One particularly relevant strength of the RIR scale intensity regulation approach is
the possibility of applying it in conjunction with other methods. While the interventions
of some studies left indications that the usage of an RIR scale for intensity regulation
may suffice (Bastos et al., 2022; Helms et al., 2017a), simultaneously applying other
methods may be of value. For example, in most included studies investigators also
applied 1-RM testing at some point during their interventions (29 studies; 94%). For
instance, Refalo et al. (2023) conducted 1-RM testing during the pre-test to implement
75% RM for the bench press in three different sessions with different RIR targets (0, 1,
or 3-RIR). As such, with the right population (Bocalini et al., 2013) and with sufficient
962 Perceptual and Motor Skills 131(3)

time, 1-RM testing may serve as a starting point for load selection in a training program,
with the RIR scales approach following up with the necessary adjustments thereafter.
Another possibility is to use RIR scales with velocity-based training methods. Nine
(29%) research teams (Balsalobre-Fernández et al., 2021; Davies et al., 2022; Hackett,
2022; Hackett & Sabag, 2022; Helms, et al., 2017a, 2017b; Odgers et al., 2021;
Ormsbee et al., 2019; Zourdos et al., 2016) measured RIR and movement velocity with
no limitations reported. Balsalobre-Fernandez et al. (2021) demonstrated the possible
strengths of combining both methods, with RIR and RPE exhibiting predictive value in
load estimation when combined with movement velocity.

Other Potentially Relevant Indicators

Most of the included research teams (n = 24) ensured that their participants were
familiarized with the RIR scales. Familiarization procedures with the applied instru-
ments are of utmost importance to reduce data collection bias, by providing participants
with knowledge of what is being measured and how to give their answers (Duda, 1998).
However, five research teams failed to mention any familiarization procedure or prior
participant experience with RIR. Additionally, in Remmert et al. (2023) less than half of
the included sample had experience with RIR scales, and in Sousa (2018) the par-
ticipants had previous unspecified experience with RPE scales. Moreover, we identified
some heterogeneity in when (e.g., prior session; during the warm-up) and how the
familiarization procedures occurred. A more homogenous and rigorous approach to
these procedures is recommended to facilitate study extrapolation in RIR research.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

In this scoping review, we present evidence relevant for the use and future research of
RIR scales. However, some limitations to this review should be acknowledged for
proper interpretation of these data. First, compared with other frequently used psy-
chometric scales (e.g., the Borg, 1982), the ERF and the RPE-RIR are relatively new.
Accordingly, RIR research is recent, with all but one of the included studies (Hackett
et al., 2012) having been published in the last 10 years. As such, further progress in this
RIR research must be considered as it becomes available. Moreover, Halperin et al.
(2022) reported methodological heterogeneity in RIR research, and we found the same
concern, specifically regarding participant familiarization procedures. Future re-
searchers should adopt a more standardized, rigorous, and detailed methodological
approach to further enable study replication and data extrapolation.
More research is also warranted to clarify the potential impact of sex differences, RT
experience, and target muscle groups (mainly upper vs. lower limbs) in RIR accuracy.
Additionally, the proposed RIR learning curve with the exercise program (and perhaps
with RIR scale experience) and the possibility of altered RIR accuracy over time should
be further explored. Lastly, an individual’s conditioning status is particularly relevant in
future RIR research. For example, Hackett and Sabag (2022) demonstrated that greater
Bastos et al. 963

local muscular endurance may result in a decrease in RIR accuracy. As such, future
investigations should explore the impact of specific muscle conditioning (e.g., strength;
endurance) on this RIR approach.

Conclusion
The ERF and/or the RPE-RIR scales appear to be feasible and useful in overall RT
intensity regulation, with the prescription of a target RIR the most commonly used
method. Applying RIR scales may be more accurate when using them near the muscle
concentric failure, with higher loads and with fewer repetitions. Future research,
empowered by a more rigorous and transparent methodological approach, should
further explore the impact of sex, RT experience, exercise selection, and muscle
conditioning on RIR accuracy and, therefore, on the usefulness of the RIR approach to
RT intensity regulation.

Author Contributions
All authors contributed to the study’s conception and design. The idea of this scoping review
belongs to Diogo S. Teixeira. All authors were involved in the literature search and data analysis.
Vasco Bastos wrote the draft manuscript. Sérgio Machado and Diogo S. Teixeira made the final
critical revision.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

ORCID iDs
Vasco Bastos  [Link]
Sergio Machado  [Link]

Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References
American College of Sports Medicine. (2021). ACSM’s guidelines for exercise testing and
prescription. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Androulakis-Korakakis, P., Fisher, J., Kolokotronis, P., Gentil, P., & Steele, J. (2018). Reduced
volume ‘daily max’ training compared to higher volume periodized training in powerlifters
964 Perceptual and Motor Skills 131(3)

preparing for competition—a pilot study. Sports, 6(3), 86. [Link]

sports6030086
Arede, J., Vaz, R., Gonzalo-Skok, O., Balsalobre-Fernandéz, C., Varela-Olalla, D., Madruga-
Parera, M., & Leite, N. (2020). Repetitions in reserve vs. Maximum effort resistance training
programs in youth female athletes. The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness,
60(9), 1. [Link]
Armes, C., Standish-Hunt, H., Androulakis-Korakakis, P., Michalopoulos, N., Georgieva, T.,
Hammond, A., Fisher, J. P., Gentil, P., Giessing, J., & Steele, J. (2020). “Just one more
rep!” – ability to predict proximity to task failure in resistance trained persons. Frontiers in
Psychology, 11(1), 565416. [Link]
Balsalobre-Fernández, C., Muñoz-López, M., Marchante, D., & Garcı́a-Ramos, A. (2021).
Repetitions in reserve and rate of perceived exertion increase the prediction capabilities of
the load-velocity relationship. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 35(3),
724–730. [Link]
Bastos, V., Andrade, A. J., Rodrigues, F., Monteiro, D., Cid, L., & Teixeira, D. S. (2022). Set to
fail: Affective dynamics in a resistance training program designed to reach muscle con-
centric failure. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 32(12), 1710–1723.
[Link]
Bocalini, D. S., Portes, L. A., Ribeiro, K., Tonicelo, R., Rica, R. L., Pontes, F. L., Junior Silva, J.,
& Serra, A. (2013). Insight for learning and stability of one repetition maximum test in
subjects with or without experience on resistance training. Gezzetta Medica Italiana, 172(1),
845–851.
Borg, G. A. V. (1982). Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Medicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise, 14(5), 377–381. [Link]
00012
Buitrago, S., Wirtz, N., Yue, Z., Kleinöder, H., & Mester, J. (2012). Effects of load and training
modes on physiological and metabolic responses in resistance exercise. European Journal
of Applied Physiology, 112(7), 2739–2748. [Link]
Bulbulian, R., Heaney, J. H., Leake, C. N., Sucec, A. A., & Sjoholm, N. T. (1996). The effect of
sleep deprivation and exercise load on isokinetic leg strength and endurance. European
Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 73(3–4), 273–277. [Link]
org/10.1007/BF02425487
Buskard, A. N. L., Jacobs, K. A., Eltoukhy, M. M., Strand, K. L., Villanueva, L., Desai, P. P., &
Signorile, J. F. (2019). Optimal approach to load progressions during strength training in
older adults. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 51(11), 2224–2233. [Link]
10.1249/MSS.0000000000002038
Cavarretta, D. J., Hall, E. E., & Bixby, W. R. (2022). The effects of increasing training load on
affect and perceived exertion. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 36(1),
16–21. [Link]
Davies, T. B., Li, J., & Hackett, D. A. (2022). Effect of high-volume cluster sets vs. Lower-
volume traditional sets on accuracy of estimated repetitions to failure. The Journal of
Strength & Conditioning Research. Publish Ahead of Print. [Link]
0000000000004395
Bastos et al. 965

Duda, J. (1998). Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement. Fitness Information
Tecnology.
Emanuel, A., Har-Nir, I., Obolski, U., & Halperin, I. (2022). Seeing effort: Assessing coaches’
prediction of the number of repetitions in reserve before task-failure. Sports Medicine -
Open, 8(1), 132. [Link]
Emanuel, A., Rozen Smukas, I. I., & Halperin, I. (2021). The effects of lifting lighter and heavier
loads on subjective measures. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance,
16(2), 176–183. [Link]
Ferreira, S. S., Krinski, K., Alves, R. C., Benites, M. L., Redkva, P. E., Elsangedy, H. M., Buzzachera,
C. F., Souza-Junior, T. P., & da Silva, S. G. (2014). The use of session RPE to monitor the intensity
of weight training in older women: Acute responses to eccentric, concentric, and dynamic exercises.
Journal of Aging Research, 2014(1), 1–6. [Link]
Fisher, J., Steele, J., Androulakis-Korakakis, P., Smith, D., Gentil, P., & Giessing, J. (2020). The
strength-endurance continuum revisited:a critical commentary of the recommendation
ofdifferent loading ranges for different muscular adaptations. Journal of Trainology, 9(1),
1–8. [Link]
Fisher, J., Steele, J., & Smith, D. (2022). Intensity of effort and momentary failure in resistance
training: Are we asking a binary question for a continuous variable? Journal of Sport and
Health Science, 11(6), 644–647. [Link]
Fisher, J. P., Farrow, J., & Steele, J. (2017). Acute fatigue, and perceptual responses to resistance
exercise: Fatigue Responses to Resistance Exercise. Muscle & Nerve, 56(6), E141–E146.
[Link]
Garcı́a-Ramos, A., Torrejón, A., Feriche, B., Morales-Artacho, A. J., Pérez-Castilla, A., Padial,
P., & Haff, G. G. (2018). Prediction of the maximum number of repetitions and repetitions in
reserve from barbell velocity. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance,
13(3), 353–359. [Link]
Garcı́a-Ramos, A., Janicijevic, D., & Jukic, I. (2021). Concentric-only versus touch-and-go
bench press one-repetition maximum in men and women. Sports Health: A Multidisci-
plinary Approach, 13(4), 373–379. [Link]
González-Badillo, J. J., & Sánchez-Medina, L. (2010). Movement velocity as a measure of
loading intensity in resistance training. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 31(05),
347–352. [Link]
González-Badillo, J. J., Yañez-Garcı́a, J. M., Mora-Custodio, R., & Rodrı́guez-Rosell, D. (2017).
Velocity loss as a variable for monitoring resistance exercise. International Journal of
Sports Medicine, 38(03), 217–225. [Link]
Graham, T., & Cleather, D. J. (2021). Autoregulation by “repetitions in reserve” leads to greater
improvements in strength over a 12-week training program than fixed loading. The Journal
of Strength & Conditioning Research, 35(9), 2451–2456. [Link]
0000000000003164
Grgic, J., Schoenfeld, B., Orazem, J., & Sabol, F. (2022). Effects of resistance training performed
to repetition failure or non-failure on muscular strength and hypertrophy: A systematic
review and meta-analysis. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 11(2), 202–211. [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2021.01.007
966 Perceptual and Motor Skills 131(3)

Hackett, D. A. (2022). Influence of movement velocity on accuracy of estimated repetitions to

failure in resistance-trained men. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 36(10),
2701–2708. [Link]
Hackett, D. A., Cobley, S. P., Davies, T. B., Michael, S. W., & Halaki, M. (2017). Accuracy in
estimating repetitions to failure during resistance exercise. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research, 3 1(8 ), 2 162 –216 8. https:/ /[Link]/1 0.151 9/JSC.
0000000000001683
Hackett, D. A., Cobley, S. P., & Halaki, M. (2018). Estimation of repetitions to failure for
monitoring resistance exercise intensity: Building a case for application. The Journal of
Strength & Conditioning Research, 32(5), 1352–1359. [Link]
0000000000002419
Hackett, D. A., Johnson, N. A., Halaki, M., & Chow, C.-M. (2012). A novel scale to assess
resistance-exercise effort. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30(13), 1405–1413. [Link]
10.1080/02640414.2012.710757
Hackett, D. A., & Sabag, A. (2022). The influence of muscular strength and local muscular
endurance on accuracy of estimated repetitions to failure in resistance-trained males. Sports,
10(2), 27. [Link]
Hackett, D. A., Selvanayagam, V. S., Halaki, M., & Cobley, S. P. (2019). Associations between
perceptual fatigue and accuracy of estimated repetitions to failure during resistance ex-
ercises. Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology, 4(3), 56. [Link]
3390/jfmk4030056
Halperin, I., Malleron, T., Har-Nir, I., Androulakis-Korakakis, P., Wolf, M., Fisher, J., & Steele, J.
(2022). Accuracy in predicting repetitions to task failure in resistance exercise: A scoping
review and exploratory meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 52(2), 377–390. [Link]
1007/s40279-021-01559-x
Hampson, D. B., Gibson, A. S., Lambert, M. I., & Noakes, T. D. (2001). The influence of sensory
cues on the perception of exertion during exercise and central regulation of exercise
performance. Sports Medicine, 31(13), 935–952. [Link]
200131130-00004
Han, J., Park, S., Jung, S., Choi, Y., & Song, H. (2015). Comparisons of changes in the two-point
discrimination test following muscle fatigue in healthy adults. Journal of Physical Therapy
Science, 27(3), 551–554. [Link]
Helms, E. R., Brown, S. R., Cross, M. R., Storey, A., Cronin, J., & Zourdos, M. C. (2017a). Self-
rated accuracy of rating of perceived exertion-based load prescription in powerlifters. The
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 31(10), 2938–2943. [Link]
JSC.0000000000002097
Helms, E. R., Cronin, J., Storey, A., & Zourdos, M. C. (2016). Application of the repetitions in
reserve-based rating of perceived exertion scale for resistance training. Strength and
Conditioning Journal, 38(4), 42–49. [Link]
Helms, E. R., Storey, A., Cross, M. R., Brown, S. R., Lenetsky, S., Ramsay, H., Dillen, C., &
Zourdos, M. C. (2017b). RPE and velocity relationships for the back squat, bench press, and
deadlift in powerlifters. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 31(2), 292–297.
[Link]
Bastos et al. 967

Hernández-Belmonte, A., Courel-Ibáñez, J., Conesa-Ros, E., Martı́nez-Cava, A., & Pallarés,
J. G. (2022). Level of effort: A reliable and practical alternative to the velocity-based
approach for monitoring resistance training. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research, 36(11), 2992–2999. [Link]
Izquierdo, M., Ibañez, J., González-Badillo, J. J., Häkkinen, K., Ratamess, N. A., Kraemer, W. J.,
French, D. N., Eslava, J., Altadill, A., Asiain, X., & Gorostiaga, E. M. (2006). Differential
effects of strength training leading to failure versus not to failure on hormonal responses,
strength, and muscle power gains. Journal of Applied Physiology, 100(5), 1647–1656.
[Link]
Janicijevic, D., Jukic, I., Weakley, J., & Garcı́a-Ramos, A. (2021). Bench press 1-repetition
maximum estimation through the individualized load–velocity relationship: Comparison of
different regression models and minimal velocity thresholds. International Journal of
Sports Physiology and Performance, 16(8), 1074–1081. [Link]
0312
Jovanović, M., & Flanagan, D. E. P. (2014). Researched applications of velocity
based strength training. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 22(2),
58–69.
Knowles, O. E., Drinkwater, E. J., Urwin, C. S., Lamon, S., & Aisbett, B. (2018). Inadequate
sleep and muscle strength: Implications for resistance training. Journal of Science and
Medicine in Sport, 21(9), 959–968. [Link]
Lemos, E. A., Caldas, L. C., Leopoldo, A. P. L., Leopoldo, A. S., Ferreira, L. G., & Lunz, W.
(2017). The perception of effort is not a valid tool for establishing the strength-training zone.
Journal of Human Sport and Exercise, 12(3), 4. [Link]
Lovegrove, S., Hughes, L. J., Mansfield, S. K., Read, P. J., Price, P., & Patterson, S. D. (2022).
Repetitions in reserve is a reliable tool for prescribing resistance training load. The Journal
of Strength & Conditioning Research, 36(10), 2696–2700. [Link]
0000000000003952
Mangine, G. T., Serafini, P. R., Stratton, M. T., Olmos, A. A., VanDusseldorp, T. A., & Feito, Y.
(2022). Effect of the repetitions-in-reserve resistance training strategy on bench press
performance, perceived effort, and recovery in trained men. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research, 36(1), 1–9. [Link]
Mansfield, S. K., Peiffer, J. J., Hughes, L. J., & Scott, B. R. (2020). Estimating repetitions in
reserve for resistance exercise: An analysis of factors which impact on prediction accuracy.
The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. Publish Ahead of Print. [Link]
10.1519/JSC.0000000000003779
Momma, H., Kawakami, R., Honda, T., & Sawada, S. S. (2022). Muscle-strengthening activities
are associated with lower risk and mortality in major non-communicable diseases: A
systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. British Journal of Sports Medicine,
56(13), 755–763. [Link]
Morán-Navarro, R., Martı́nez-Cava, A., Sánchez-Medina, L., Mora-Rodrı́guez, R., González-
Badillo, J. J., & Pallarés, J. G. (2019). Movement velocity as a measure of level of effort
during resistance exercise. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 33(6),
1496–1504. [Link]
968 Perceptual and Motor Skills 131(3)

National Strength and Conditioning Association. (2012). Basics of strength and conditioning
manual. Colorado Springs, CO.
Nevin, J. (2019). Autoregulated resistance training: Does velocity-based training represent the
future? Strength and Conditioning Journal, 41(4), 34–39. [Link]
0000000000000471
Odgers, J. B., Zourdos, M. C., Helms, E. R., Candow, D. G., Dahlstrom, B., Bruno, P., & Sousa,
C. A. (2021). Rating of perceived exertion and velocity relationships among trained males
and females in the front squat and hexagonal bar deadlift. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research. Publish Ahead of Print. [Link]
0000000000003905
Ormsbee, M. J., Carzoli, J. P., Klemp, A., Allman, B. R., Zourdos, M. C., Kim, J.-S., &
Panton, L. B. (2019). Efficacy of the repetitions in reserve-based rating of perceived
exertion for the bench press in experienced and novice benchers. The Journal of
Strength & Conditioning Research, 33(2), 337–345. [Link]
0000000000001901
Pritchett, R., Green, J., Wickwire, P., & Kovacs, M. (2009). Acute and session RPE re-
sponses during resistance training: Bouts to failure at 60% and 90% of 1RM. South
African Journal of Sports Medicine, 21(1), 4. [Link]
2009/v21i1a304
Ratto, A. (2019). Application of the predicted repetitions-to-failure perceived exertion scale for
the NFL-225lb bench press test [Master’s Thesis]. Humboldt State University.
Refalo, M. C., Helms, E. R., Hamilton, D. L., & Fyfe, J. J. (2023). Influence of resistance training
proximity-to-failure, determined by repetitions-in-reserve, on neuromuscular fatigue in
resistance-trained males and females. Sports Medicine - Open, 9(1), 10. [Link]
1186/s40798-023-00554-y
Remmert, J. F., Laurson, K. R., & Zourdos, M. C. (2023). Accuracy of predicted intraset
repetitions in reserve (RIR) in single- and multi-joint resistance exercises among trained and
untrained men and women. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 130(3), 1239–1254. [Link]
org/10.1177/00315125231169868
Richens, B., & Cleather, D. (2014). The relationship between the number of repetitions per-
formed at given intensities is different in endurance and strength trained athletes. Biology of
Sport, 31(2), 157–161. [Link]
Rodrı́guez-Rosell, D., Yáñez-Garcı́a, J. M., Sánchez-Medina, L., Mora-Custodio, R., &
González-Badillo, J. J. (2020). Relationship between velocity loss and repetitions in
reserve in the bench press and back squat exercises. The Journal of Strength &
Conditi oning Research , 3 4( 9) , 25 37 – 25 47 . ht tps :// do [Link] /10 .15 19 /J SC.
0000000000002881
Sánchez-Moreno, M., Rendeiro-Pinho, G., Mil-Homens, P. V., & Pareja-Blanco, F. (2021).
Monitoring training volume through maximal number of repetitions or velocity-based
approach. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 16(4), 527–534.
[Link]
Sánchez-Moreno, M., Rodrı́guez-Rosell, D., Pareja-Blanco, F., Mora-Custodio, R., &
González-Badillo, J. J. (2017). Movement velocity as indicator of relative intensity and
Bastos et al. 969

level of effort attained during the set in pull-up exercise. International Journal of Sports
Physiology and Performance, 12(10), 1378–1384. [Link]
0791
Schoenfeld, B. (2010). The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to resistance
training. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 24(10), 2857–2872. [Link]
org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181e840f3
Schoenfeld, B. (2021). Science and development of muscle hypertrophy. Human Kinetics.
Servais, B. (2015). Regulating resistance exercise intensity using perceptual response and the
“anticipatory feedback” model [Master’s Thesis]. Humboldt State University.
Shattock, K., & Tee, J. C. (2022). Autoregulation in resistance training: A comparison of
subjective versus objective methods. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research,
36(3), 641–648. [Link]
Sinclair, J., Edmundson, C. J., & Bentley, I. (2022). The efficacy of repetitions-in-reserve vs.
traditional percentage-based resistance training: A 4-week pre-season randomized inter-
vention in elite rugby league players. Sport Sciences for Health, 18(2), 525–535. [Link]
org/10.1007/s11332-021-00837-5
Sousa, C. A. (2018). Assessment of accuracy of intra-set rating of perceived exertion in the squat,
bench press, and deadlift [Master’s Thesis]. Florida Atlantic University.
Steele, J., Endres, A., Fisher, J., Gentil, P., & Giessing, J. (2017). Ability to predict repetitions to
momentary failure is not perfectly accurate, though improves with resistance training
experience. PeerJ, 5(1), e4105. [Link]
Stuart, C., Steele, J., Gentil, P., Giessing, J., & Fisher, J. P. (2018). Fatigue and perceptual
responses of heavier- and lighter-load isolated lumbar extension resistance exercise in males
and females. PeerJ, 6(1), e4523. [Link]
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters,
M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart,
L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., & Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA
extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of In-
ternal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. [Link]
Tuchscherer, M. (2008). The Reactive Training Manual: Developing your own custom training
program for powerlifting (15th ed.). Reactive Training Systems.
Vieira, J. G., Dias, M. R. C., Lacio, M., Schimitz, G., Nascimento, G., Panza, P., Ribeiro, M.,
Ribeiro, A., Leitão, L., Novaes, J., & Vianna, J. (2019). Resistance training with repetition to
failure or not on muscle strength and perceptual responses. Journal of Exercise Physiology
Online, 22(4), 165.
Weakley, J., Mann, B., Banyard, H., McLaren, S., Scott, T., & Garcia-Ramos, A. (2021).
Velocity-based training: From theory to application. Strength and Conditioning Journal,
43(2), 31–49.
Westcott, W. L. (2012). Resistance training is medicine: Effects of strength training on health.
Current Sports Medicine Reports, 11(4), 209–216. [Link]
0b013e31825dabb8
Zourdos, M. C., Goldsmith, J. A., Helms, E. R., Trepeck, C., Halle, J. L., Mendez, K. M., Cooke,
D. M., Haischer, M. H., Sousa, C. A., Klemp, A., & Byrnes, R. K. (2021). Proximity to
970 Perceptual and Motor Skills 131(3)

failure and total repetitions performed in a set influences accuracy of intraset repetitions in
reserve-based rating of perceived exertion. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research, 35(1), S158–S165. [Link]
Zourdos, M. C., Klemp, A., Dolan, C., Quiles, J. M., Schau, K. A., Jo, E., Helms, E., Esgro,
B., Duncan, S., Garcia Merino, S., & Blanco, R. (2016). Novel resistance training–
specific rating of perceived exertion scale measuring repetitions in reserve. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 30(1), 267–275. [Link]
0000000000001049

Author Biographies
Vasco Bastos is a Professor, PhD student, and Exercise Physiologist. He has a degree in
Physical Education and Sport and a master’s degree in Exercise and Wellness. His PhD
is focused on the affective response to exercise, particularly on the influence of specific
affective moments of an exercise session and their potential impact on exercise ad-
herence. After working in health clubs for over a decade, he hopes his current research
can contribute in developing effective strategies that tackle the high dropout rates
problem in this context.
Sergio Machado is a neuroscientist with a PhD in Mental Health and in Sports Science.
He is the founder of the Neurodiversity Institute in Brazil. His main research interests
are the biological aspects of physical activity and physical exercise in the dimensions of
prevention, rehabilitation, and exercise prescription, from the perspective of promoting
health and human performance. More specifically, he investigates the acute and chronic
effects of strength, aerobic, flexibility, and neuromotor training on brain activity,
behavioral, psychophysiological, neuropsychological aspects, and quality of life in
healthy subjects (children/adolescents, adults, and elderly) in individuals with dis-
abilities and in patients with neurological diseases and psychiatric disorders.
Diogo S. Teixeira is a Professor and researcher with a multidisciplinary background
and professional practice in several areas of his academic training. He has a degree in
Physical Education and Sport; a postgraduation degree in Health, Nutrition, and
Exercise; a master’s degree in Exercise and Wellness; and a PhD degree in physical
Activity and Health. His research focuses on motivational and emotional determinants
and their relationship with the quality of practice in several health and sport contexts.