Percentage based training vs RPE

Training Q&A [Moderated]
1

Hi BBM,

I work in a Seniors Gym prescribing exercise for individuals aged over 60+.

My employer has instructed we use 1RM testing and then prescribe exercise intensity based off percentage of estimated 1RM. I love RPE training myself, and find it to be much easier to prescribe intensity based off RPE to accomdate fluctuations in performance due to life stressors etc.

They have said 1RM testing is the gold standard for strength measurement and strength training (at the appropriate intensity) and is key for treating chronic disease, sarcopenia and frailty.

They have asked for resources on RPE being better than 1RM training and do not believe RPE to be relevant for exercise intensity.

Are you guys able to help me out to support my claim we should be using RPE?

I’ve listened to the progressive loading podcast but any quick resources/evidence would be good, and any for older adults would be even better to support my claim that we should be implementing RPE would be awesome.

Cheers

​

2

John,

They are correct that some form of repetition- max testing is the gold standard for strength testing. Commonly, 1, 3, and 5-RM testing are employed in research settings. RPE vs percentage work have been compared a few times, as well as implemented in older populations:

There are pro’s and con’s to each approach. I think that testing a 1RM in an untrained individual is a bit silly, as this 1RM is immediately going to be invalid due to the rapid adaptation that typically occurs. The subsequent percentages are subsequently inaccurate. Asking people to rate RPE also can be squishy, though I have little concern that most people will under train this way, as the range of loading that will work is relatively wide.