Your Basic Trainer

Library / Training principles

Listening to your body

Also called perceived exertion, rating of perceived exertion, RPE, repetitions in reserve, RIR, autoregulation, training to failure, proximity to failure

What research measures when training is guided by how it feels. Perceived exertion, repetitions in reserve, autoregulation, pain during exercise and training to failure, what studies found, and where they disagree.

Region
Across the body
Updated
October 6, 2026
Reviewed
October 6, 2026 · how entries are checked

What it is

This page covers what research measures when feel guides training. A 2017 review reports that perceived exertion has been defined as a conscious sense of how hard, heavy and strenuous work is1.

Repetitions left and failure

A 2024 scoping review (a review that maps what research exists on a topic) describes the repetitions-in-reserve (RIR) scale. It measures how close a person is to muscle failure in a set: the person reports how many repetitions remain2.

A 2023 systematic review (a study that searches for the research on a question in a set, checkable way) defines proximity to failure. It is the number of repetitions left in a set before momentary muscular failure10. At that point a person is unable to finish the lifting part of a repetition through a full range in the set form10.

Autoregulation

A 2020 review defines autoregulation as a process that changes training based mainly on measured performance, or on a person’s perceived capability4. It reports that the most popular use is to adjust load or volume within one session4. The two most popular measures for this are the RIR scale and barbell velocity4.

A 2022 systematic review describes the traditional approach, percentage-based training. Loads come from a pre-determined percentage of one-repetition maximum (1RM), the heaviest load a person can lift once5. Its primary limitation, it says, is that 1RM has been consistently seen to shift from day to day5.

Pain during exercise

A 2017 systematic review covered trials in people with chronic musculoskeletal pain, meaning long-lasting pain of the muscles, bones and joints. It defined “exercise into pain” as exercise in which pain is encouraged or allowed8.

How it is measured

Scoring a session and checking the score

The session-RPE method gives each session a training load in arbitrary units. The rated intensity is multiplied by the session’s length in minutes, so 87 minutes rated 4 gives 348 units1.

Three meta-analyses report how closely ratings tracked other measures11,12,13. Their coefficients come from different scales, people and comparisons.

Meta-analysisRatingCompared withCoefficient
2002, healthy individualsBorg RPE scaleHeart rate0.6211
2022, healthy participants, 75 studiesRPE in resistance exerciseMeasures of exercise intensity and physiological exertion0.8812
2023, adolescent athletes, 16 studiesSession RPEHeart-rate measures0.7413

The 2002 meta-analysis reported six coefficients, from 0.57 to 0.7211. The 2022 meta-analysis found very large variation between studies12.

Counting repetitions left

Studies have tested how well people predict repetitions left3:

  • A 2022 scoping review and exploratory meta-analysis pooled 12 studies of 414 healthy participants. People tended to underpredict the repetitions left to task failure by 0.95, with considerable variation between studies3.
  • In that analysis, accuracy improved slightly when predictions were made closer to failure. Training status did not seem to influence accuracy3.
  • In 24 resistance-trained men and women on the bench press, the mean absolute error of 1- and 3-RIR predictions was 0.65 repetitions. There was a minor tendency to underpredict14.
  • In a study of nine trained men who bench pressed three times a week for six weeks, RIR ratings did not get significantly more accurate. The tendency to underestimate RIR was greater in later sessions and in higher-repetition sets15.

How trials set a pain limit

In the 2017 systematic review of chronic musculoskeletal pain, each trial gave different instructions about pain8. Trials differed in whether pain was allowed or recommended, whether a level on a pain scale was given, and when pain had to settle8.

The table gives the pain rules of two trials. Both used a visual analogue scale (VAS), a line on which a person marks how much pain they feel8,16. Tendinopathy is local pain in a tendon that comes with activities that load it.

TrialPain rule
40 adults with Achilles tendon pain lasting more than three monthsPain up to 5 out of 10 on a VAS was allowed during exercise. It had to be gone by next morning, with no morning stiffness8.
76 patients with tendinopathy of the patellar tendonIn one group, load was progressed by each person’s pain response, a VAS score of 3 or less out of 1016.

What studies found

Autoregulated loads against fixed loads

Reviews of autoregulated against fixed loading have not agreed5,6:

  • A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis pooled six studies of load autoregulation in resistance-trained individuals. It found no significant difference in 1RM strength from percentage-based loads (mean difference 2.07 kg)5.
  • A 2021 systematic review and meta-analysis pooled eight studies of 166 college players and athletes, over 5 to 10 weeks. It found auto-regulated training more effective than fixed loading for maximum strength (effect size 0.64, a standard measure of how large a difference is)6.

Three meta-analyses compared velocity-based with percentage-based training17,18,19:

  • A 2021 meta-analysis of six studies (124 participants) found no significant differences in back squat 1RM, jump, linear sprint or change-of-direction speed17.
  • A 2022 meta-analysis of seven studies (139 subjects) found a small overall effect favouring velocity-based training for maximal strength18.
  • A 2026 meta-analysis of 17 studies (348 participants) found small but significant advantages for velocity-based training in jump and change-of-direction performance. It found no significant differences in maximal strength or sprint performance19.

Other studies ended each set once lifting velocity had fallen by a set percentage, called a velocity loss threshold5,20:

  • A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis pooled nine such studies in resistance-trained individuals. Ending sets at velocity losses of 25% or less produced significantly greater 1RM strength than losses above 25%. It also produced significantly less growth in muscle cross-sectional area5.
  • A 2023 systematic review with meta-regressions covered 19 longitudinal studies. The amount of velocity loss allowed in a set did not influence gains in strength or muscle endurance. Greater velocity loss was associated with more muscle growth, and it negatively affected jump, sprint and velocity against submaximal loads20.

Training to failure and stopping short

Two meta-analyses, each of 15 studies, compared sets taken to failure with sets stopped short7,10:

  • One, in young adults, found no significant difference for strength or hypertrophy (growth in the size of a muscle). It concluded that training to failure seems neither required for those gains nor detrimental to them7.
  • The other, in healthy adults, found a trivial hypertrophy advantage for set failure under any definition of failure. It found no advantage for momentary muscular failure specifically10.

In a randomised trial, 52 men aged about 66 did combined strength and endurance training for 12 weeks. Groups training to failure, not to failure, and not to failure with matched volume improved maximal strength similarly21. Thickness of the quadriceps improved in the failure group and the volume-matched group, and not in the third21.

Fatigue after sets to failure

A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis pooled 12 crossover studies, in which each person tries every option in turn. Training to failure was followed by a greater drop in measures such as jump height, movement velocity and strength than stopping short22.

In one crossover study, 24 resistance-trained men and women did six bench press sets at 75% of 1RM under three conditions. The table shows the fall in lifting velocity four minutes afterwards23.

Fall in lifting velocityAt momentary failure25 %One repetition in reserve13 %Three repetitions in reserve8 %
Fall in lifting velocity (%). Bars start at zero; the table below gives each value with its source.
Sets endedFall in lifting velocity
At momentary failure25%23
One repetition in reserve13%23
Three repetitions in reserve8%23

The differences between conditions had diminished by 48 hours23. As sets came closer to failure, ratings of discomfort, exertion and muscle soreness rose, and perceived recovery fell23.

Pain allowed or avoided, in people with a painful condition

These trials studied people who already had tendinopathy or a muscle injury16,24,25:

  • Achilles tendinopathy, 38 patients. One group kept running and jumping under a pain-monitoring model; one stopped for six weeks. Their rates of improvement did not differ significantly, and the authors found no negative effects of continuing24.
  • Patellar tendinopathy, 76 patients. One group was progressed within the limits of acceptable pain; one did pain-provoking eccentric exercise, in which the muscle works while it lengthens. After 24 weeks the first had improved more on a 100-point symptom questionnaire, 28 against 18 points16.
  • Acute strain of the hamstrings, 43 men. Exercising up to a pain threshold, against pain-free, did not change the time to clearance for return to play. The pain-threshold group recovered 15% more isometric (joint-still) knee flexor strength. Two reinjuries occurred in each group within six months25.

Two reviews pooled randomised trials in people with chronic musculoskeletal pain. The 2017 review (seven trials, 385 participants) found a small short-term benefit for pain from exercises in which pain was allowed or encouraged8. It rated that evidence moderate in quality, and found no significant difference in the medium or long term8. The 2025 review (16 trials in adults) found no difference between painful and non-painful exercise for pain intensity or disability9. Its confidence intervals (ranges showing how precise a result is) were wide, and the evidence was rated very low to low in certainty9.

What is disputed

Whether a rating measures what it is meant to

The 2002 meta-analysis concluded that Borg’s scale has been shown to be valid for exercise intensity11. It added that the validity may be lower than once thought (correlations of 0.80 to 0.90), except under certain conditions11. A 2020 review argues that the many combinations of definitions, scales, instructions and uses threaten the measurement validity of RPE26.

The 2022 review of repetition predictions concluded that participants were imperfect at predicting proximity to task failure, whatever their training background3. Whether that much inaccuracy should count as acceptable was left undetermined3. The two single RIR accuracy studies here were in resistance-trained adults14,15.

What failure and autoregulation mean

The 2023 systematic review states that no consensus definition of “failure” exists in the literature10. The authors of the meta-analysis in young adults note that its results are specific to that age group7.

The 2020 autoregulation review names inconsistent use of key terms, such as readiness and fatigue, as a primary limitation of the research4. The 2022 review was unable to pool the effect of autoregulated loads on hypertrophy, because a single study had measured it5.

What pain trials did not record

The authors of the 2017 review, in people with chronic musculoskeletal pain, note that none of its trials recorded how much pain people actually felt8. The pain trials on this page were in people with a painful condition16,24,25. This page holds no study of pain as a guide to load in people without one.

Connections

The meta-analysis of failure in young adults appears on the resistance training page7.

  • Training volume: studies of velocity loss thresholds have not separated the effect of volume from that of fatigue within sets5.
  • Rest: in one bench press study, velocity differences between failure and non-failure sets had diminished by 48 hours23.
  • Progressive overload: autoregulation adjusts the load lifted or the volume done within a session4.
  • Overtraining: perceived recovery fell as bench press sets neared failure in one study23.

The pain trials studied the tendon at two sites, the Achilles tendon and the patellar tendon16,24. Related exercise pages: bench press and back squat, both named in studies above14,17.

Listening to your body has been studied in

Listening to your body is related to

Listening to your body has been studied in people with pain in

Listening to your body has been studied in people with injuries of

Listening to your body has been studied on

Sources

  1. Haddad M, Stylianides G, Djaoui L, Dellal A, Chamari K (2017). Session-RPE Method for Training Load Monitoring: Validity, Ecological Usefulness, and Influencing Factors.. Frontiers in neuroscience. doi:10.3389/fnins.2017.00612 PMID 29163016
  2. Bastos V, Machado S, Teixeira DS (2024). Feasibility and Usefulness of Repetitions-In-Reserve Scales for Selecting Exercise Intensity: A Scoping Review.. Perceptual and motor skills. doi:10.1177/00315125241241785 PMID 38563729
  3. 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 (Auckland, N.Z.). doi:10.1007/s40279-021-01559-x PMID 34542869
  4. Greig L, Stephens Hemingway BH, Aspe RR, Cooper K, Comfort P, Swinton PA (2020). Autoregulation in Resistance Training: Addressing the Inconsistencies.. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.). doi:10.1007/s40279-020-01330-8 PMID 32813181
  5. Hickmott LM, Chilibeck PD, Shaw KA, Butcher SJ (2022). The Effect of Load and Volume Autoregulation on Muscular Strength and Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.. Sports medicine - open. doi:10.1186/s40798-021-00404-9 PMID 35038063
  6. Zhang X, Li H, Bi S, Luo Y, Cao Y, Zhang G (2021). Auto-Regulation Method vs. Fixed-Loading Method in Maximum Strength Training for Athletes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.. Frontiers in physiology. doi:10.3389/fphys.2021.651112 PMID 33776802
  7. Grgic J, Schoenfeld BJ, 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. doi:10.1016/j.jshs.2021.01.007 PMID 33497853
  8. Smith BE, Hendrick P, Smith TO, Bateman M, Moffatt F, Rathleff MS, Selfe J, Logan P (2017). Should exercises be painful in the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis.. British journal of sports medicine. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-097383 PMID 28596288
  9. Tran I, Gibbs MT, Yu N, Powell JK, Smith BE, Jones MD (2025). Effectiveness of Painful Versus Nonpainful Exercise on Pain Intensity, Disability, and Other Patient-Reported Outcomes in Adults With Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: An Updated Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.. The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy. doi:10.2519/jospt.2025.13253 PMID 40699606
  10. Refalo MC, Helms ER, Trexler ET, Hamilton DL, Fyfe JJ (2023). Influence of Resistance Training Proximity-to-Failure on Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.). doi:10.1007/s40279-022-01784-y PMID 36334240
  11. Chen MJ, Fan X, Moe ST (2002). Criterion-related validity of the Borg ratings of perceived exertion scale in healthy individuals: a meta-analysis.. Journal of sports sciences. doi:10.1080/026404102320761787 PMID 12430990
  12. Lea JWD, O'Driscoll JM, Hulbert S, Scales J, Wiles JD (2022). Convergent Validity of Ratings of Perceived Exertion During Resistance Exercise in Healthy Participants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.. Sports medicine - open. doi:10.1186/s40798-021-00386-8 PMID 35000021
  13. Liu H, Yang W, Liu H, Bao D, Cui Y, Ho IMK, Li Q (2023). A meta-analysis of the criterion-related validity of Session-RPE scales in adolescent athletes.. BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation. doi:10.1186/s13102-023-00712-5 PMID 37573328
  14. Refalo MC, Remmert JF, Pelland JC, Robinson ZP, Zourdos MC, Hamilton DL, Fyfe JJ, Helms ER (2024). Accuracy of Intraset Repetitions-in-Reserve Predictions During the Bench Press Exercise in Resistance-Trained Male and Female Subjects.. Journal of strength and conditioning research. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000004653 PMID 37967832
  15. Remmert JF, Robinson ZP, Pelland JC, John TA, Dinh S, Hinson SR, Elkins E, Canteri LC, Meehan CM, Helms ER, Hall ME, Laurson KR, Zourdos MC (2023). Changes in Intraset Repetitions in Reserve Prediction Accuracy During Six Weeks of Bench Press Training in Trained Men.. Perceptual and motor skills. doi:10.1177/00315125231189098 PMID 37436724
  16. Breda SJ, Oei EHG, Zwerver J, Visser E, Waarsing E, Krestin GP, de Vos RJ (2021). Effectiveness of progressive tendon-loading exercise therapy in patients with patellar tendinopathy: a randomised clinical trial.. British journal of sports medicine. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2020-103403 PMID 33219115
  17. Liao KF, Wang XX, Han MY, Li LL, Nassis GP, Li YM (2021). Effects of velocity based training vs. traditional 1RM percentage-based training on improving strength, jump, linear sprint and change of direction speed performance: A Systematic review with meta-analysis.. PloS one. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0259790 PMID 34793506
  18. Zhang M, Tan Q, Sun J, Ding S, Yang Q, Zhang Z, Lu J, Liang X, Li D (2022). Comparison of Velocity and Percentage-based Training on Maximal Strength: Meta-analysis.. International journal of sports medicine. doi:10.1055/a-1790-8546 PMID 35255509
  19. Wang Y, Qiu J, Dai D, Li Q, Wang X, Luo Q (2026). The effects of velocity-based vs. percentage-based resistance training on sports performance in trainedindividuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.. BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation. doi:10.1186/s13102-025-01504-9 PMID 41491263
  20. Jukic I, Castilla AP, Ramos AG, Van Hooren B, McGuigan MR, Helms ER (2023). The Acute and Chronic Effects of Implementing Velocity Loss Thresholds During Resistance Training: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Critical Evaluation of the Literature.. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.). doi:10.1007/s40279-022-01754-4 PMID 36178597
  21. da Silva LXN, Teodoro JL, Menger E, Lopez P, Grazioli R, Farinha J, Moraes K, Bottaro M, Pinto RS, Izquierdo M, Cadore EL (2018). Repetitions to failure versus not to failure during concurrent training in healthy elderly men: A randomized clinical trial.. Experimental gerontology. doi:10.1016/j.exger.2018.03.017 PMID 29577974
  22. Vieira JG, Sardeli AV, Dias MR, Filho JE, Campos Y, Sant'Ana L, Leitão L, Reis V, Wilk M, Novaes J, Vianna J (2022). Effects of Resistance Training to Muscle Failure on Acute Fatigue: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.). doi:10.1007/s40279-021-01602-x PMID 34881412
  23. Refalo MC, Helms ER, Hamilton DL, Fyfe JJ (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. doi:10.1186/s40798-023-00554-y PMID 36752989
  24. Silbernagel KG, Thomeé R, Eriksson BI, Karlsson J (2007). Continued sports activity, using a pain-monitoring model, during rehabilitation in patients with Achilles tendinopathy: a randomized controlled study.. The American journal of sports medicine. doi:10.1177/0363546506298279 PMID 17307888
  25. Hickey JT, Timmins RG, Maniar N, Rio E, Hickey PF, Pitcher CA, Williams MD, Opar DA (2020). Pain-Free Versus Pain-Threshold Rehabilitation Following Acute Hamstring Strain Injury: A Randomized Controlled Trial.. The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.8895 PMID 32005093
  26. Halperin I, Emanuel A (2020). Rating of Perceived Effort: Methodological Concerns and Future Directions.. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.). doi:10.1007/s40279-019-01229-z PMID 31745731

Every source the library cites

Changes

  • First published.