Reps at a given %1RM vary even in trained rowers
In short
Among 25 trained rowers, prone bench pull reps to failure varied between individuals, with CVs of 14.2–25.8% across loads. Women did more reps at 50% 1RM; fastest-rep velocity and body measurements did not consistently predict repetition capacity.
A load percentage is not a shared allowance of repetitions. Tests of 25 national- or international-level rowers found between-person coefficients of variation of 14.2–25.8% in reps to failure across the tested loads. The sample included 16 men and nine women. Their exercise was the prone bench pull: a row performed lying face down with the chest supported on a bench, rather than a pressing movement.
How far did repetition capacity fall as load rose?
An incremental test first established 1RM and velocity at each load. The athletes then completed four failure sets at 50%, 60%, 70% and 80% 1RM, in randomized order and separated by 5–7 days. Maximum repetitions decreased as load increased (p＜0.001). The table reports the endpoint means and standard deviations supplied in the abstract; it does not fill in missing repetition averages for the intermediate loads.
| Relative load | Men: reps to failure | Women: reps to failure |
|---|---|---|
| 50% 1RM | 38.2 ± 7.1 | 46.9 ± 9.7 |
| 80% 1RM | 9.4 ± 2.2 | 10.4 ± 2.3 |
A load × sex interaction for repetitions (p=0.043) accompanied the finding that women completed more reps at 50% 1RM. That does not establish a significant sex difference at every load. Peak velocity in the fastest repetition fell as the load rose. Peak velocity in the final repetition, however, did not differ across loads (p=0.606), and was lower in women than men (p＜0.001). Those observations concern peak velocity at different points in the set, not an interchangeable measure of how many repetitions an individual has left.
What belongs in a log when the target feels too easy?
- Record the load and its %1RM alongside completed sets and repetitions.
- Attach estimated RIR at termination and, when equipment permits, repetition velocity and velocity loss.
- Use comparisons within the same exercise and athlete to adjust set volume, rather than copying these rowers' average failure counts.
These steps are a practical use of the study's question, not a tested logging intervention. Neither fastest-repetition velocity nor anthropometric measurements consistently predicted repetition capacity. The authors propose monitoring velocity and its loss to individualize set volume instead of assuming a fixed rep target fits everyone at a given percentage. Keep fairlift Big 3 1RMs and Muscle Index as records of maximal relative strength, separate from endurance in a supported row. The related article on bar speed and relative load addresses load estimation; predicting a failure count is a distinct task. This rower sample cannot supply a universal repetition chart for other lifts.
Frequently asked questions
Is a prone bench pull a bench press?
A prone bench pull is a chest-supported row performed face down on a bench, not a press. Findings from these 25 rowers cannot simply become a bench press repetition chart.
Did women complete more reps at every load?
The study reported more repetitions in women at 50% 1RM, with a load × sex interaction of p=0.043. The abstract does not establish a significant sex difference at every tested load.
Can the fastest repetition predict the failure count?
Fastest-repetition velocity and body measurements did not consistently predict reps to failure in the rowers. The authors suggest monitoring repetition velocity and velocity loss to individualize set volume rather than relying on fixed %1RM repetition targets.
Source: PubMed (published )