This week's strength training research shows that two programming decisions shape your results more precisely than many lifters assume: how you prescribe load and which exercise you choose. A 2026 study found that RPE-based deadlift training produced strength gains comparable to fixed percentage-based training while lifters reported lower pre-session fatigue. A second 2026 study found that cable hip extension and hip abduction grew different regions of the gluteal muscles, which means exercise selection determines where you build muscle, not just whether you do.
The Common Thread: Precision in the Prescription
Both papers in this weekly research summary come from the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. On the surface, they share little: one examines deadlift loading strategy, the other compares two glute isolation exercises using MRI.
Underneath, they ask the same question. Once sets, reps, and effort are roughly equal, do the finer details of a program still change the outcome? The answer in both cases is yes, but in different ways. Load prescription changed how lifters felt across the training block. Exercise selection changed where muscle grew.
For evidence-based training, the lesson is that a program is more than its volume and intensity totals. The method behind each number matters.
Study 1: RPE-Based vs. Percentage-Based Deadlift Training
Key Finding
Lifters who chose deadlift loads by rating of perceived exertion (RPE) gained about as much 1RM strength as lifters following fixed percentages of their 1RM. The RPE group also reported lower fatigue before sessions.
Study Details
Young and colleagues randomly assigned 24 young adults to RPE-based or percentage-based deadlift training. Both groups followed identical set and rep schemes; only the method of choosing the load differed. Researchers measured deadlift 1RM, hand grip strength, and body composition via DXA before and after training, and tracked fatigue throughout using a 100-mm visual analog scale.
Results
- Deadlift 1RM increased in both groups: +12.3 kg (RPE) and +10.8 kg (percentage).
- Average relative load was nearly identical: 82% vs. 80% of 1RM.
- Average deadlift volume per session was similar: 1,212 kg (RPE) vs. 1,338 kg (percentage).
- The percentage group completed more total training volume per session: 4,496 kg vs. 2,059 kg.
- Right-hand grip strength improved only in the RPE group (+3.6 kg).
- Average pre-session fatigue was lower in the RPE group: 27.8 vs. 32.7 mm.
- Body composition did not change in either group.
The notable detail is the volume gap. The RPE group reached similar strength outcomes despite substantially less total volume.
Limitations
- The sample was small. Only nine lifters per group completed the intervention, which limits statistical power and generalizability.
- The abstract does not fully explain how the two volume measures differ, so the total volume finding should be interpreted with caution.
- The grip strength result was one-sided and small, and it should not be read as a meaningful advantage on its own.
Study 2: Hip Extension vs. Hip Abduction for Glute Growth
Key Finding
Cable hip extension and cable hip abduction both grew the gluteus maximus, but in different regions. Hip extension produced more overall growth concentrated in the lower glute, while abduction favored the upper glute and modestly grew the gluteus medius and minimus.
Study Details
Attarieh and colleagues used a within-subject design in which 17 young adults trained one leg with unilateral cable hip extension and the other with cable hip abduction. Legs were assigned randomly and balanced for limb dominance. Participants trained twice weekly for 10 weeks at roughly 10 sets per week in the 8-12RM range. Muscle size was measured with MRI across proximal, middle, and distal regions.
Results
- Overall gluteus maximus growth favored hip extension: 9% vs. 5%.
- Hip extension growth pattern (proximal/middle/distal): 5% / 8% / 14%.
- Hip abduction growth pattern: 10% / 4% / 1%.
- Gluteus medius plus minimus: 2% with hip extension (not significant) vs. 4% with abduction.
- Each exercise improved its own 1RM most: hip extension 1RM rose 40% vs. 23%; abduction 1RM rose 35% vs. 17%.
Limitations
- Within-subject designs control for genetics and diet but may allow some cross-education between limbs.
- Seventeen participants over 10 weeks is a reasonable but modest sample.
- Both movements were cable-based isolation exercises, so the findings may not transfer directly to squats, deadlifts, or hip thrusts.
What These Studies Mean Together
Read side by side, these papers point to a useful distinction. Some programming variables control how much adaptation you get. Others control what kind.
The RPE study suggests that load prescription mainly affects the cost of training. Strength outcomes were similar, but the RPE group reached them with lower perceived fatigue and less total volume. That matters over months and years, when recoverability determines how consistently you can train.
The glute study suggests that exercise selection affects the shape of adaptation. Ten weekly sets of hip extension and ten weekly sets of hip abduction are equal on paper, yet they produced different muscle in different places.
What This Means for Your Training
Here is how to apply these findings without overhauling a program that already works:
- Consider RPE for your heaviest hinge or squat work. Prescribe a top set by effort, such as RPE 8 (about two reps in reserve), rather than a fixed percentage. Your load will flex with sleep, stress, and recovery.
- Keep percentages as a reference point. The study's RPE group averaged about 82% of 1RM, close to the percentage group. If your RPE-selected loads drift far from your expected range, that is worth investigating.
- Track fatigue alongside load. A simple 1-10 readiness rating before each session gives you the same kind of signal the researchers collected.
- Choose glute exercises by target region. If lower glute development is the goal, prioritize hip extension patterns. For upper glute and gluteus medius work, include abduction.
- Split glute volume deliberately. As one reasonable example, a lifter doing about 10 weekly glute sets might allocate 6 to hip extension and 4 to abduction, then adjust based on progress.
- Test what you train. Both studies show strength gains were most specific to the trained movement. Evaluate progress on the lifts you actually program.
How This Fits Into Your Training Log
Kenso's AI Coach can review your logged deadlift sessions and glute accessory volume together, helping you judge whether effort-based loading or a different exercise split suits your history. Ask the Kenso AI coach how RPE loading fits your deadlift program.
Connecting to Structured Programming and Progression
Neither study argues against structure. The RPE group followed fixed set and rep schemes; only the load was flexible. The glute study used a defined 10-week block with set ranges and frequency held constant. Autoregulation and exercise specificity work best inside a planned program, not as substitutes for one.
This is where consistent tracking earns its value. RPE only becomes reliable once you have enough logged sessions to compare a rated effort against the load actually lifted. Regional hypertrophy only becomes useful once you know which exercises filled your weekly volume. In Kenso, a rule-based progression engine handles the structured side, while your session history provides the context to judge whether a change is working.
Intelligent progression is less about adding weight every session and more about making each variable intentional: why this load, why this exercise, why this volume.
Conclusion
This week's research reinforces a practical principle. When training volume and effort are roughly matched, the details of a program still shape the result. RPE-based loading delivered comparable deadlift strength with lower perceived fatigue, and exercise selection determined which parts of the glutes grew. Both studies are small and short, so treat them as useful evidence rather than final answers. The lifters who benefit most will be those who apply these ideas inside a consistent, well-tracked program and evaluate the outcome over months, not weeks.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is RPE-based training better than percentage-based training for strength?
In this study, neither method was clearly better for strength. Both groups improved deadlift 1RM by similar amounts, but the RPE group reported lower pre-session fatigue, which may make it easier to sustain over longer training periods.
Which exercise is best for growing the lower glutes?
The study found that cable hip extension produced the most growth in the distal, or lower, gluteus maximus, with a 14% increase in that region compared with 1% from hip abduction.
Do hip abduction exercises build the glutes?
Yes. Hip abduction grew the gluteus maximus by about 5% overall, mostly in the upper region, and produced a small increase in gluteus medius and minimus size.
How many sets per week did the glute study use?
Participants trained twice per week with approximately 10 sets per week per exercise in the 8-12RM range for 10 weeks.
Can beginners use RPE to choose their training loads?
RPE ratings tend to become more accurate with experience. Newer lifters can start by pairing RPE with a percentage or rep target and logging both, which helps build a reliable sense of effort over time.
Citations
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/
Attarieh P, Nunes JP, Khani S, Moniri A, Goli A, Negahdar S, Mohammadinia F, Fallah MH, Shahrbanian S. Regional hypertrophy of the gluteal muscles is task-specific: Differential responses to 10 weeks of hip extension versus hip abduction training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2026. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000005701. PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42842490/