The debate surrounding Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE) in strength training continues, with some labeling it a “poor excuse.” The goal, however, remains consistent across the fitness community: helping individuals achieve optimal results. This article addresses common criticisms of RPE, aiming to clarify its role and dispel misconceptions.
RPE quantifies the difficulty of a set, similar to tracking sets and reps. An RPE of 8 suggests two more reps were possible, while an RPE of 10 indicates reaching absolute failure. Just as counting reps doesn’t dictate high or low rep ranges, tracking RPE doesn’t diminish training intensity. It simply provides a measurable metric for effort.
One common criticism targets RPE’s applicability for beginners, suggesting their inexperience hinders accurate assessment. While beginners may struggle initially, learning RPE involves understanding the feeling of an RPE 10 (failure) and gradually recognizing the sensation of leaving reps in reserve. This process is crucial for progression, regardless of experience level. Even if initial assessments are imperfect, the lower intensity threshold for beginners mitigates the risk of overexertion. Focus should remain on proper form and progressive overload, with near-failure training becoming relevant as technique solidifies.
Another argument claims some individuals “hide behind science,” using it as a justification for inadequate effort. While overemphasis on minutiae can distract from the core principle of exertion, science actually reinforces the importance of sufficient intensity. Research indicates many trainees fall short of the optimal intensity threshold for muscle growth (around RPE 7-8). Tracking RPE can elevate effort by providing a quantitative reminder of proximity to failure.
Furthermore, some dismiss RPE and science as irrelevant, claiming studies are conducted on unfit subjects with unrealistic protocols. However, research often involves intense protocols, even with experienced lifters. For example, a study utilizing blood flow restriction training on national-level powerlifters incorporated sets to failure with heavy loads. This level of intensity is not uncommon in research.
The accuracy of RPE is also questioned. Yet, studies demonstrate experienced lifters accurately estimate RPE, with minimal discrepancies between perceived and actual reps remaining. Consistent practice further enhances accuracy.
Finally, some consider RPE unnecessarily complex. However, it’s a simple concept: a 1-10 scale reflecting perceived effort. For those new to training, the focus should be on gradual introduction to the concept, emphasizing the importance of effort assessment alongside technique. Rather than imposing complex terminology, trainers can simply ask clients to rate set difficulty, fostering awareness of effort levels. This approach avoids information overload while establishing a fundamental understanding of exertion.
