Murdoch University Research Repository

Welcome to the Murdoch University Research Repository

The Murdoch University Research Repository is an open access digital collection of research
created by Murdoch University staff, researchers and postgraduate students.

Learn more

Estimating repetitions in reserve in four commonly used resistance exercises [RETRACTED]

Hughes, L.J., Peiffer, J.J.ORCID: 0000-0002-3331-1177 and Scott, B.ORCID: 0000-0002-2484-4019 (2020) Estimating repetitions in reserve in four commonly used resistance exercises [RETRACTED]. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research . ahead-of-print.

Link to Published Version:
*Subscription may be required


Hughes, LJ, Peiffer, JJ, and Scott, B. Estimating repetitions in reserve in four commonly used resistance exercises. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000–000, 2020—This study aimed to determine the accuracy and reliability of estimating repetitions in reserve (RIR) across the squat, bench press, overhead press, and prone row exercises, using both free-weight and Smith machine modalities. Twenty-one trained men attended the laboratory on 14 occasions. They were assessed for 1 repetition maximum (1RM) for the squat, bench press, prone row, and overhead press exercises and subsequently completed 6 RIR testing sessions using 65, 75, and 85% 1RM. In these trials, subjects indicated when they reached 2 RIR (i.e., perceive they could only perform 2 more repetitions), before continuing the set to failure. The same process was then replicated using the alternative equipment modality. To determine accuracy of 2-RIR estimates, 1-sample t-tests assessed differences between 2 and the actual number of repetitions completed after subjects indicated they had reached 2 RIR. Intraclass correlation coefficients were used to determine the reliability of test-retest RIR estimated. There were no clear differences in the accuracy or reliability of estimating RIR between free-weight and Smith machine exercises. Load, however, proved an important factor with the highest accuracy associated with RIR estimations performed when using 85%, followed by 75 and 65% 1RM, respectively. When using loads of 75 and 65% 1RM, it was increasingly likely that individuals would underestimate RIR by >1 repetition, which would practically lead to an undesired reduction in training volume. These results highlight that although estimates of 2 RIR may be accurate and reliable in heavy load resistance training (≥85% 1RM), practitioners should be wary of using this measure with lighter loads.

Item Type: Journal Article
Murdoch Affiliation(s): Psychology, Counselling, Exercise Science and Chiropractic
Murdoch Applied Sports Science Laboratory
Publisher: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Copyright: © 2021 by the National Strength & Conditioning Association
Item Control Page Item Control Page