Back in May, I wrote a lil’ post about the advantages of percentage-based training. I still think it’s a great tool, but if I’m being completely honest, I haven’t used it in a loooong time. These days, I find RPE (Rate of Perceived Exertion) and autoregulation better align with my needs. So, here’s Part II that I promised: Why I Don’t Always Love Percentage-Based Training.
Not Everyone Is Ready for Max Testing
Percentage-based training is primarily reserved for the “big lifts” like squats, presses, deadlifts, or Olympic lifts. But here’s the thing: I work with a lot of older adults with mobility limitations and folks who are newer to the gym. For someone still working on foundational movement patterns—like squatting to parallel or achieving a stacked overhead position—asking them to find a 1RM (one-rep max) or 3RM for a lift they can barely perform isn’t helpful.
Of course, the goal is to build to a place where a meaningful 1RM is possible, but it’s not always immediately appropriate.
It Assumes Consistency That Many Lack
Percentage-based programs were built for athletes with structured training routines—not the average person juggling a high-stress 9-to-5, parenting duties, and maybe a social life. If someone trains once or twice a week or takes a three-week hiatus for vacation or life, hitting prescribed percentages is not realistic.
Here’s the kicker: strength adaptations don’t just pause when life happens, but they do regress. Studies indicate that muscle strength can decline by up to 8% after a three-week break in untrained individuals. Imagine trying to jump back into 85% of your 1RM after a month off—it’s setting people up for failure.
That’s where RPE shines. It meets people where they’re at, allowing flexibility for missed sessions without sacrificing progress. It’s a tool for sustainability in training, not just performance.
Refining Skills Sometimes Means Stepping Back From Heavy Loads
When I was in the trenches, trying to figure out how to squat or deadlift without ridiculous spinal extension, I had to drop the weight—a lot, for a little while. Anything above 70% of my 1RM, and my body only knew one way to do it.
For clients learning a new motor pattern or refining old ones, lighter loads allow room to practice. But percentage-based programs? They don’t always leave space for technical refinement.
Percentages Used to Stress Me Out
Most days, I love training. But some days, if I looked at my program and saw squats at a high % relative to the reps, I’d be like, “Ugh, nope. Not today.” I can be a little bit of a perfectionist and fall into black-and-white thinking. If I couldn’t hit my percentages, what was the point?
Enter: RPE. It gave me mental freedom to go lighter when I wasn’t feeling it and not beat myself up over it. 9/10 times I’d go heavy anyway. But knowing I could go lighter if I needed to made all the difference.
The Bottom Line
Percentage-based training is a tool that should absolutely be in any coach’s toolbox. But like any tool, it works best when used for the right job—and in combination with other methods.
In occupational therapy, we talk a lot about clinical decision-making. It’s about understanding the client, their needs, and making the best call based on the info you’ve got. This applies to training, too. Whether you use percentages, RPE, or a mix of both, factors like experience, movement quality, and consistency should guide your approach.
At the end of the day, it’s all about meeting people where they are and setting them up for success—no matter how they get there