BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front)
This multi-study paper investigates the minimum effective training dose (METD) needed to produce meaningful 1-repetition maximum (1RM) strength gains in powerlifters. The authors concluded that 3–6 weekly working sets of 1–5 reps at >80% 1RM and RPE 7.5–9.5, over 6–12 weeks, are sufficient to elicit 1RM improvements.
The RPE, or Rate of Perceived Exertion, is a subjective 1–10 scale used to measure effort on a given set—where RPE 10 represents maximal effort (no reps left in the tank), and RPE 9 means one rep remains. An RPE range of 7.5 to 9.5, used throughout this study, reflects training at high intensities while leaving 1–2 reps in reserve. This approach allows for autoregulated training based on daily readiness. Two experimental studies showed that adding 2–3 back-off sets at ~80% of a heavy single (RPE 9–9.5) leads to greater and more consistent strength gains than heavy singles or moderate-load AMRAP work alone. METD is particularly useful during deloads, time constraints, tapering phases, or injury/fatigue management.
Purpose of the Study
The researchers aimed to:
- Define METD for 1RM strength in powerlifting using both expert opinion and real-world application.
- Determine what powerlifting athletes and coaches consider a “meaningful” strength gain over 6 weeks.
- Experimentally compare different METD protocols in trained lifters.
- Assess METD training habits among national-level powerlifters.
Subjects
- Study 1: 28 total participants (10 elite powerlifters, 18 national/international-level coaches).
- Study 2: 137 athletes/coaches surveyed for opinions on meaningful strength gains.
- Study 3 & 4 (Interventions): 25 male competitive powerlifters (≥4 years lifting, ≥1 year RPE training).
- Study 5: 58 national-level powerlifters surveyed (47 male, 11 female).
Research Method
The study employed a multi-method design:
- Study 1 – Interviews: Explored how elite powerlifters and coaches define and use METD.
- Study 2 – Survey + Interviews: Determined what constitutes a meaningful strength gain in 6 weeks.
- Study 3 – Training Trial: Compared “daily max” (MAX) singles vs. MAX + back-off sets (MAX+boff).
- Study 4 – Training Trial: Compared MAX+boff vs. AMRAP at 70% 1RM to RPE 9–9.5.
- Study 5 – Survey: Documented METD usage patterns among competitive powerlifters.
Training lasted 6 weeks in Studies 3 & 4. Pre- and post-1RM testing followed competition-style procedures.
Findings
1. Defining METD in Practice (Study 1)
- 80% of athletes and 61% of coaches described METD as “a few heavy sets per week.”
- Typical working sets: 1–5 reps, loads >80% 1RM, RPE 7.5–9.5.
- METD best used for 6–12 weeks, especially during time constraints, injury, tapering, or recovery phases.
- Accessory work: 1–3 lifts per main lift, 6–10 reps, RPE 7–9.
2. Meaningful Strength Gains in 6 Weeks (Study 2)
Participants considered the following strength increases meaningful:
- Squat: +7.1 ± 5.1 kg
- Bench Press: +4.4 ± 3.3 kg
- Deadlift: +8.1 ± 5.0 kg
- Total: +17.5 ± 12.1 kg
Additionally, 50% of elite athletes and coaches said any measurable increase in 6 weeks could be meaningful—especially for advanced lifters.
3. Training Interventions (Studies 3 & 4)
Study 3 – Intermediate/Advanced Lifters
| Group | Protocol | Total 1RM Gain | Chance of Meaningful Gain |
|---|---|---|---|
| MAX | 1 single at RPE 9–9.5 per session | +11.4 kg | 6.3% |
| MAX+boff | Same single + 2×3 at 80% of top set | +33.7 kg | 99.6% |
Study 4 – Beginner/Intermediate Lifters
| Group | Protocol | Total 1RM Gain | Chance of Meaningful Gain |
|---|---|---|---|
| MAX+boff | Same protocol as above | +26.8 kg | 98.1% |
| AMRAP | 70% 1RM to RPE 9–9.5 | +15.3 kg | 41.4% |
Key Takeaway: Heavy singles alone may maintain or slightly increase strength, but the addition of back-off sets is critical for producing reliable, meaningful progress. MAX+boff outperformed all other methods. AMRAP was better than singles, but less reliable than back-off sets.
4. METD Use in Competitive Lifters (Study 5)
- Only 36% of surveyed national-level lifters had tried METD.
- 92% said they would try it with more research support.
- Most used METD during:
- Busy periods (62%)
- Competition prep (62%)
- Fatigue/injury management (33–48%)
Reported Training Averages (METD users):
| Lift | Frequency | Sets/Week | Reps/Set | Load (%1RM) | RPE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SQ | 1.8 | 5.4 | 3.5 | ~80% | 7.8 |
| BP | 2.5 | 7.6 | 4.1 | ~80% | 8.1 |
| DL | 1.1 | 3.8 | 3.6 | ~78% | 7.7 |
Accessory work was consistent: 1–3 movements per lift, 6–10 reps, RPE 7–9.
Analysis of Results
- Back-off sets are essential. Daily singles can produce small gains, but meaningful progress requires volume.
- Bench Press may require higher frequency and more weekly sets than Squat or Deadlift.
- High-load, low-volume training is effective, practical, and well-tolerated (low soreness, high adherence).
- AMRAP protocols using moderate loads are less reliable for producing meaningful 1RM strength gains in trained lifters.
- METD strategies are especially valuable during time-constrained or high-fatigue periods, or as a taper tool before competition.
Conclusion
This study provides strong support for a structured METD approach to increase 1RM strength in powerlifters over short cycles. The most effective structure includes:
- 3–6 sets per lift per week
- 1–5 reps per set
- >80% 1RM
- RPE 7.5–9.5
- 2–3 back-off sets at ~80% of the top single
While daily heavy singles alone can maintain or slightly improve strength, they rarely lead to meaningful increases without additional work. Adding a small amount of volume creates a low-fatigue but high-reward protocol.
METD is best used during 6–12 week phases, such as tapering, deloads, injury recovery, or time-constrained training blocks. Although METD is not optimal for long-term development, it is an effective strategy for maintaining or improving strength with minimal training time and fatigue.
Bibliography
Androulakis-Korakakis, P., Michalopoulos, N., Fisher, J.P., et al. (2021). The Minimum Effective Training Dose Required for 1RM Strength in Powerlifters. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 3:713655. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2021.713655