Estimating Repetitions in Reserve in Four Commonly Used Resistance Exercises

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.