Methods Of Intensity
A Look At The Different Ways To Measure Intensity In Powerlifting
Most lifters think they have to pick an intensity measure. They don’t.
Percentage-based training, RPE, RIR, velocity loss, max effort. Every one of these is trying to solve the same problem. How hard should this set be, and how do we know? The question is the same. The methods are different attempts to answer it.
The Two Categories
Every measure of intensity falls into one of two categories.
The prescriptive category sets the load before the set starts. The reference is fixed. You walk into the gym with a number on the page, and that number does not change based on how you feel. Percentages off your 1RM are the textbook example. Max effort singles are the Westside example. Velocity-based load thresholds are the modern-tech example.
The auto-regulatory category sets the load during the set. The reference is the lifter’s response. RPE, RIR, and velocity-loss thresholds all live here, alongside related methods like APRE and RTS-style fatigue stops. The session bends to today’s readiness. Bar speed, RPE, or rep count on the day drives the load.
Every named measure follows from this distinction.
A 2025 network meta-analysis compared the three main auto-regulatory methods head-to-head. APRE, RPE-based, and velocity-based resistance training, all benchmarked for maximal strength using SUCRA rankings. All three methods have a defensible case in the literature. Which one fits depends on the lifter, the phase, and the training environment.
The Prescriptive Category
Percentage-Based Training
What it measures: external load relative to a fixed reference, your tested or estimated 1RM.
History: the Sheiko / Soviet bloc lineage. Built on decades of weightlifting and powerlifting data, refined into highly structured weekly volume distributions.
Evidence: meta-analytic evidence shows percentage-based and RM-based loading both produce strength adaptations, with percentage-based slightly favoured in some comparisons. The bigger limitation is the daily 1RM fluctuation problem. Sleep, stress, fatigue and nutrition can shift true 1RM by 10-18% on any given day. A percentage written on Monday does not know what your Tuesday looks like. The 2025 ACSM Position Stand reframes resistance training intensity around effort relative to capacity (RIR/RPE) for the first time since 2009, partly in response to this gap.
Best suits: equipped lifters dialling in gear, coached squads and clubs training in shared groups, novices and developing intermediates with stable lives, and in-person coaching environments where 1RMs are tested on a regular cadence. Less suited to solo lifters with chaotic schedules, online programming where day-to-day readiness varies sharply, and classic lifters in late comp prep where daily 1RM fluctuation matters most.
My View: The classic method of strength development, controls lots of variables for the lifter, forces you to grit your teeth and complete some work. Has very clear rules on what sessions need intensity which don’t and which phases you begin to push.
Max Effort
What it measures: today’s top single, taken to whatever load goes up clean. (You could argue this is auto-regulatory but for the sake of this article we will place it in the objective category because you likely have an objective figure you will target and then hit the rep range, or equipped max effort single which is in line with that, not use an internal load variable to cap the load)
History: Westside Barbell, Louie Simmons, the Conjugate Method. Dominant in equipped powerlifting through the 2000s. Built on the principle that you rotate the exercise variation every 1-3 weeks so the central nervous system never adapts, and you take a top single every max effort day on the rotated exercise.
Evidence: max effort is harder to study cleanly because it’s rarely tested as an isolated variable. The systematic review evidence on auto-regulation includes APRE-style daily-max protocols, which sit close to max effort logic. The Westside system as a whole has produced multi-decade competitive results in equipped powerlifting. Isolating the max effort method’s contribution from the rest of the system (dynamic effort, repetition method, accommodating resistance, exercise rotation) is not clean.
Best suits: equipped lifters needing daily neural exposure to near-maximal loads, advanced classic lifters with mature technique, and coached gym environments with reliable spotters and rotation discipline. Less suited to developing lifters whose technique is still being built, solo home lifters without spotters, and online programming where the day’s top single can’t be supervised in real time.
My View: Max effort is a good tool and I believe if you were short on time and had to get ready for a comp a late notice, I would use max effort to do it.
Velocity-Based Load Thresholds
What it measures: external load expressed via bar speed. Squat at 0.30 m/s approximates 80% 1RM for that lifter on that day. In this setting having a velocity target prior to starting training and basing load off that value.
History: emerged from sport-science labs in the 1990s, adopted into team-sport S+C through the 2010s, reaching powerlifting via the velocity-percentage equivalence work that lets you write a load prescription as a velocity target.
Evidence: the velocity-percentage relationship has strong individual-day reliability when calibrated. As a load prescription tool, VBT inherits the strengths of percentage-based training (objective external load) while adapting to daily readiness. Strong evidence base in trained males.
Best suits: lifters with VBT kit (Vitruve, GymAware, Stance or similar), online and remote coaching where the device gives the coach an objective readiness signal between sessions, solo lifters who want feedback without a coach in the room, and both classic and equipped lifting once calibration is current. Less suited to gear-free home setups and lifters who won’t engage with the data.
My View: I have been around VBT for a very long time and I think only now are people starting to use it in powerlifting more frequently with Stance. It wouldn’t be my first choice as I think using it as I have described above would not maybe take daily variance of readiness too far and the bandwidths for VBT prescription on strength qualities is broad. So you would likely be in your bandwidth even if you moved the weight up or down.
The Auto-Regulatory Category
RPE
What it measures: internal load. How hard the set felt, on a scale anchored at perceived effort.
History: developed in sport-science (Borg scale, Mike Stone’s RPE work) from the 1970s onwards. Pulled into powerlifting by Mike Tuchscherer and the Reactive Training Systems framework in the late 2000s, which mapped RPE values directly to an inverse RIR scale (RPE 10 = 0 RIR, RPE 9 = 1 RIR). Dominant intensity measure in Western powerlifting from roughly 2012 onwards.
Evidence: the convergent validity of RPE as an internal-load monitor in resistance training is supported by systematic-review and meta-analytic evidence. Trained powerlifters self-rate RPE-based loads with small absolute error when properly anchored. The 2025 ACSM Position Stand validation is the most authoritative endorsement to date.
Best suits: intermediate and advanced classic lifters, online and remote programming where the coach can’t see the day’s readiness, solo lifters with variable recovery, and lifters with technique mature enough that perceived effort tracks bar speed reliably. Less suited to true novices without an internal anchor, lifters under heavy sleep deprivation where RPE reliability degrades, and equipped lifters mid shirt-cycle who need fixed loads to dial gear.
My View: A really solid tool for a modern powerlifter, but as the research and anecdotal research tells us, the experience level of the lifter is important, like all internal load variables it is a subjective viewpoint and is subject to lots of ‘noise’ to become accurate. As time progresses and powerlifting rises in popularity there will be more and more research in this area and I think it will lead to better implementation of the method.
RIR (Reps in Reserve)
What it measures: same construct as RPE, expressed in reps left in the tank.
History: practitioner-shorthand for RPE. Same underlying scale, easier to teach. Has dominated remote coaching prescription since around 2015 because it travels well across athletes of different experience levels. Most lifters can intuit “you should have stopped this set with two reps left” faster than they can intuit “this should have been an RPE 8”.
Evidence: the most direct recent RCT on RIR prescription is Robinson 2025 in trained men. Strength gains were similar across RIR groups from 4-6 down to 0 over 8 weeks, with non-failure protocols showing slightly better outcomes. Hypertrophy was similar across the range. The longstanding “train to failure for size” position has narrowed considerably for trained men. Longitudinal fatigue accumulated faster with closer proximity to failure. Failure is not free.
Best suits: the same lifters and environments as RPE. Particularly favoured for online and remote programming because it travels well across athletes of different experience levels without face-to-face anchoring. I default to RIR for written prescriptions because it’s faster to teach and harder to misinterpret.
My View: Weirdly I feel RIR sits best with more hypertrophy related or accessory related exercises, I’m not sure why but it feels like it translates to those better and what would traditionally be higher rep ranges. RPE for 1-5, RIR for 6 plus?
Velocity-Loss Thresholds
What it measures: how much bar speed has dropped within a set, used as an autoregulatory cap.
History: emerged from velocity-based training work in the 2010s. The set ends when bar speed drops by a pre-set percentage from the first rep, regardless of how many reps you got.
Evidence: the 2023 Pareja-Blanco dose-response meta-analysis (n=336 trained males, nine studies) found a non-linear inverse-U relationship. Around 20-30% velocity loss maximises 1RM gain. Lower velocity loss is more efficient per repetition. Bigger strength gain per rep performed. Two outcomes worth tracking. Total adaptation. Adaptation efficiency. They don’t always optimise at the same dose.
Best suits: lifters with VBT kit who want an objective within-set volume cap, online programming where the coach wants a hard cap that doesn’t rely on the lifter’s own judgement, solo lifters prone to grinding extra reps that don’t contribute to adaptation, and classic lifting blocks where daily volume can flex. Less suited to gear-free setups and equipped work where fixed percentage loading dominates.
My View: Probably a little too complex for most, but a very good tool for lifters who always want to push to their detriment long term. Intensity and drive is good but over the long haul there a very few lifters who would improve when red-lining for extended periods.
All Of Them Work
Every tool in this piece works. None of them are bad methods. None of them are obsolete. The %1RM lifter, the RPE lifter, and the VBT lifter can all build the same kind of strength over the same kind of timeframe.
Each method fits a particular kind of lifter at a particular kind of moment. The job is to know what each one does, when to reach for it, and when to put it down for something else.
A lifter who fails on RPE has usually picked the wrong moment for it. The method itself is fine.
Integrating Tools Over Time
A useful way to think about this is that you are a lifter who will, over the course of a career, use most of these tools at different points.
Year one might be percentages with rep ranges. Technique is still maturing and you need predictable structure to teach pacing.
Year two and three might shift to RIR-based prescription. You have moved into online or remote coaching and you need a method that travels well between coach and lifter without face-to-face anchoring.
A hypertrophy block with a new VBT device on the bar might bring velocity-loss caps into the picture. You grind, and you want a principled way to stop the set before extra reps start costing you.
A peaking block might run RPE singles plus back-off work. The question shifts from how much volume you can tolerate to what your opener looks like.
A comp prep might come back round to percentages. The last six weeks need predictable touch days for platform-style execution.
The methods rotate around you as your circumstances change. A new training partner. A new coach. A new gym. A child. A house move. A bout of illness. A goal change from chasing total to chasing longevity. Each of these can shift which method fits.
The skill is recognising the moment. A lifter who can use one tool well will get strong. A lifter who can use the right tool at the right time will get strong for longer.
Key Takeaways
Every intensity measure solves the same problem. The methods differ only in their answer to the same question.
Two categories. Prescriptive sets the load before the set. Auto-regulatory sets the load during the set. Pick the category by context.
Every tool here works. A lifter who fails on RPE has usually picked the wrong moment for it. The method itself is fine.
Lifter profile drives the measure. Novice needs percentages with rep ranges. Advanced needs RPE singles. Equipped needs predictable loads.
Circumstances rotate the measure. A new coach, a new gym, a new VBT device, a child, an injury, a comp prep. Each shifts which method fits.
The skill is recognising the moment. A lifter who can use one tool well will get strong. A lifter who can use the right tool at the right time will get strong for longer.
The right measure fits the phase, the lifter, and the goal.