Yes. RPE-based deadlift training appears to build strength about as well as percentage-based loading. In a 2026 randomized trial in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, deadlift 1RM rose by 12.3 kg with RPE-based loading and 10.8 kg with fixed percentages, a difference that was not meaningful. The RPE group also reported lower fatigue before each session.

That makes this a useful piece of strength training research for any lifter who has wondered whether to trust the spreadsheet or trust how the bar feels on the day. The answer from this study is not that one method wins. Both work, and they differ mainly in how they manage fatigue.

Key Finding

Two groups ran the same deadlift sets and reps. One group picked loads from a fixed percentage of their 1RM. The other picked loads from a target rating of perceived exertion (RPE). Both groups got stronger by similar amounts.

The RPE group showed two secondary differences. Right-hand grip strength improved only in that group, and its pre-session fatigue scores were lower. Neither group's body composition changed.

A useful way to read this: in this study, autoregulation worked as a steering wheel, not a bigger engine. It did not produce more strength. It produced similar strength at a lower perceived cost.

Study Details

Researchers led by Alexander D. Young randomly assigned 24 young adults to one of two deadlift programs:

  • RPE group: n = 12, mean age 23.6 ± 1.6 years
  • Percentage group: n = 12, mean age 25.2 ± 2.1 years

Both programs used identical set and repetition schemes. The only planned difference was how load was prescribed. One group used fixed %1RM values. The other adjusted load to hit a target effort rating.

Outcomes measured before and after the intervention:

  • Primary: deadlift 1RM
  • Secondary: hand grip strength, and body composition via dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA)
  • Ongoing: fatigue, rated on a 100-mm visual analog scale throughout the study

Nine participants per group completed the program. The data were analyzed with 2-way mixed-model ANOVAs and independent t-tests, with significance set at p < 0.05.

Results: What the Numbers Show

Training load and volume

The groups trained at nearly the same intensity:

  • Average relative load: RPE 82 ± 2% 1RM vs. percentage 80 ± 2% 1RM (no significant difference)
  • Average deadlift volume per session: RPE 1,212 ± 159 kg vs. percentage 1,338 ± 123 kg (no significant difference)

One figure stands out. Total training volume per session was reported as 2,059 ± 325 kg for the RPE group and 4,496 ± 582 kg for the percentage group, a significant difference with a large effect size (d = 1.715). The abstract does not explain how total volume was defined beyond deadlift volume, so read this with care until you can see the full methods.

Strength outcomes

  • Deadlift 1RM: RPE +12.3 ± 2.8 kg, percentage +10.8 ± 2.0 kg. Both groups improved significantly, and the difference between groups was small.
  • Right-hand grip strength: +3.6 ± 1.5 kg in the RPE group only.

Fatigue and body composition

  • Average pre-session fatigue: RPE 27.8 ± 1.4 mm vs. percentage 32.7 ± 1.6 mm on the 100-mm scale. Only the RPE group's scores were significantly lower.
  • Body composition: no change in either group.

The percentage group appears to have done considerably more total work for a similar strength result. If that holds up in the full paper, it points toward efficiency. Extra volume did not translate into extra 1RM here.

Limitations

This is a small, focused trial. Three limitations matter most:

  1. Sample size. With nine completers per group, the study can detect large differences but may miss small ones. "No difference" here means "no difference this study could detect."
  2. Single-lift scope. The program centered on the deadlift. Results may not carry over to squats, presses, or full programs where fatigue builds up across many movements.
  3. Short-term, narrow outcomes. Body composition did not change, so this is not a hypertrophy study in any practical sense. The grip strength finding was limited to one hand and is modest, so treat it as a curiosity rather than a conclusion.

The broader evidence lines up with these results. Helms and colleagues (2018, Frontiers in Physiology) compared RPE and percentage loading in programs matched for sets and reps and also found similar strength outcomes. Research consistently suggests that autoregulation is a valid way to prescribe load, not a superior one.

What This Means for Your Training

The practical message is reassuring. You don't have to pick the "right" loading system to make progress. The more useful question is which system you'll apply accurately and consistently. Here's how to use these findings:

If you use percentages

Keep going. Percentages produced solid strength gains here. Watch for warning signs that fixed loads are outpacing your recovery, such as bar speed slowing on early sets or pre-session fatigue climbing week over week. If that happens, a percentage program with a built-in RPE ceiling is a reasonable hybrid. For example, run 80% for 3 sets of 5, but drop 5% if any set goes above RPE 9.

If you want to try RPE-based deadlifts

  1. Learn the scale first. Use a repetitions-in-reserve (RIR) RPE scale, where RPE 8 means about two reps left in the tank. This format was described by Zourdos and colleagues (2016) in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.
  2. Anchor to a familiar intensity. Both groups averaged roughly 80–82% 1RM. For most lifters, that sits around RPE 7–8 for sets of 3–5. Start conservatively, because deadlift RPE is easy to underestimate.
  3. Rate every working set right after you finish it. Ratings given minutes later tend to drift.
  4. Set a load-adjustment rule. If your top set lands 1 RPE point above target, reduce the back-off sets by about 5%. If it lands 1 point below, add 2.5–5% next session.
  5. Check calibration every 4–6 weeks. Compare your logged RPE against an estimated 1RM or a planned rep-out set. Calibration matters more than the method.

Track fatigue, not just load

The clearest difference in this study was perceived fatigue before sessions. That's easy to monitor. A simple 1–10 readiness score before you train, logged next to your sets, gives you the same kind of signal the researchers collected.

How This Fits Into Your Training Log

Kenso's AI Coach can read your logged deadlift sessions and help you judge whether rising fatigue or stalled loads call for adjustment. Ask the Kenso AI coach how this applies to your program.

The Bigger Picture for Evidence-Based Training

This study is a good example of evidence-based training in practice. It answers a narrow question well and doesn't overreach. RPE-based deadlifting is not a shortcut, and percentages are not outdated. Both are ways of steering toward the same goal: enough hard, repeatable work over many months.

For most lifters, the gap between the two methods is far smaller than the gap between logging sessions consistently and guessing. Kenso's rule-based progression engine is designed around that idea. It makes your next prescribed step clear and grounds it in what you have actually done.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does RPE-based training build more strength than percentage-based training?

Not in this study. Deadlift 1RM increased by 12.3 kg with RPE loading and 10.8 kg with percentage loading, and the difference between groups was small. Earlier research comparing the two methods has found similarly comparable outcomes.

Why did the RPE group report less fatigue?

The abstract doesn't identify a mechanism. A plausible explanation is that RPE loading lets lifters reduce weight on days when they are under-recovered, which keeps cumulative fatigue lower. The percentage group may also have done more total work, which could contribute.

Is RPE-based training good for beginners?

It can work, but newer lifters often misjudge how many reps they have left, especially on deadlifts. Many beginners do well starting with percentages or simple linear progression and adding RPE once their ratings are reliable.

Did this study measure muscle growth?

It measured body composition with DXA, and neither group changed. The study wasn't designed or long enough to draw conclusions about hypertrophy, so treat it as strength research.

What RPE should I use for deadlifts?

Both groups trained at about 80–82% of 1RM on average, which corresponds to roughly RPE 7–8 for moderate rep sets for many lifters. Start at the lower end and adjust based on your logged ratings.

Conclusion

This trial adds to a consistent message in the literature. RPE-based and percentage-based loading produce comparable strength gains when sets and reps are matched. The RPE approach may get there with less perceived fatigue. The method you can apply honestly, log consistently, and review over time will serve you better than either system followed carelessly.

If you want a clear record of every session and a progression engine that turns that record into your next step, try Kenso on iOS and train with intention.

Citation

Young AD, Asthana A, Stephan JJ, Lee SY, Newton NJ, Newland A, Perkins R. Effects of rating of perceived exertion-based deadlift training on muscle performance: A practical approach to program design. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2026. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000005690. PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42842475/