# Progression models compared: linear, double, percentage, RPE

> Which progression model fits which lifter? Linear, double, percentage-based and RPE loading compared: what the trials show, and how Povver progresses a lift.

Published 2026-10-17 by Valter Andersson (https://povver.ai/about). Canonical: https://povver.ai/blog/progression-models

## Short answer

- No trial has ranked linear, double, percentage-based and RPE progression. In Povver's judgment, linear suits the first months, double progression most lifters after, percentages a planned peak.
- In 21 resistance-trained men over 8 weeks, loads set by RPE and by percentage of 1RM both raised squat plus bench 1RM, and the gap was not significant (Helms 2018).
- Adding reps and adding load grew muscle about equally in 43 trained lifters over 8 weeks (Plotkin 2022), and muscle and strength in 39 untrained people over 10 weeks (Chaves 2024).
- Povver, a strength training app, runs double progression with a reps-in-reserve target. It does not prescribe percentages of 1RM.

In Povver's judgment, linear progression (a little more weight every session) fits your first months of lifting, double progression (more reps, then more weight) fits most lifters after that, percentages fit a lift you are peaking for a date, and RPE or reps in reserve (RIR) can set the load inside any of them. No trial we know of has put the four against each other. In an 8-week trial of RPE against percentage loading, 21 resistance-trained men gained strength either way (Helms 2018).

## What is a progression model?

A progression model is the rule that says when a lift gets harder and by how much. Each of the four below answers differently: a fixed schedule, the top of a rep range, a percentage of your max, or how the set felt. Each is a way to get [progressive overload](/blog/progressive-overload).

| Model | The rule | What moves | Fits | Stops working when |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linear | Add the same small amount every session | Load | Novices, in the first months | Reps are missed at the new weight, so it cannot go up again next session |
| Double | Add reps to the top of a range, then add weight | Reps, then load | Most lifters after the first months | The smallest weight step is bigger than the rep range allows |
| Percentage-based | Set loads as a share of a max, move the max on a schedule | Load, on a plan | A planned peak or a test date | The max is out of date, or the share leaves a different effort each day |
| RPE or RIR | Pick the load that leaves the planned reps in reserve | Load, each session | Lifters who can rate effort | Ratings are made far from failure, where they are noisy |

*Four progression models for healthy adults lifting weights, as of October 2026. The "fits" and "stops working when" columns are Povver's judgment, not trial findings.*

## Which progression model should you use?

How long you have been lifting decides first, your goal second. That is Povver's judgment, not a study result.

| Lifter | Start with | Move on when |
|---|---|---|
| New to lifting, or back after years away | Linear progression on the main lifts | A lift stops going up every session, or the jumps are too big for the rep range |
| A few months in, or most gym-goers | Double progression | The rep range and weekly sets stop being enough |
| Preparing for a meet or a test day | Percentage-based waves, with a current max | The date has passed |
| Can rate effort within a rep or two | RIR targets on top of double progression | Only if ratings drift |

*Which model to start with, for healthy adults lifting weights, October 2026.*

Two of these need one input to be right. Percentages need a current max, so re-test or re-estimate it. RIR is only as good as your count of the last rep.

## How does linear progression work, and how long does it last?

Every session the bar gets a fixed amount heavier. A bench of 60 kg / 132 lb becomes 62.5 kg / 138 lb next time, then 65 kg / 143 lb. StrongLifts 5x5 and Starting Strength run on it. A beginner adapts faster than one session can use up, and a fixed jump is easy to follow. That is why it works.

No trial we know of has measured how long it lasts. The research only says who it suits. The American College of Sports Medicine's 2009 stand calls a novice someone untrained or away from training for several years, and recommends loads you can lift 8 to 12 times (8 to 12 repetition maximum) for that lifter. It describes an intermediate as about 6 months of consistent training (ACSM 2009).

The arithmetic ends it. Add 2.5 kg / 5.5 lb to a lift trained three times a week and that is 7.5 kg / 16.5 lb a week. That is an illustration, not data, and nobody keeps it up for a year. Competition data show the same slowdown as a share of the total: drug-tested raw powerlifters' totals rose a median 8.2% in men's first year and 10.1% in women's, and the gain fell with each later meet. Those are competitors, not people running linear progression, so they show only the shape of the slowdown ([How fast do lifters get stronger?](/blog/how-fast-lifters-get-stronger)). Programs usually say to repeat the weight after a miss and cut it only after repeated misses. That is convention, not a trial result. When the weight stops going up every session, you have outgrown the model, and the next step in the table above is double progression.

## How does double progression work?

The weight stays put until the last set reaches the top of a rep range. Then it goes up and the range starts over. Take three sets of 8 to 12 at 60 kg / 132 lb: the reps climb across sessions until every set reaches 12, and the next session is at 62.5 kg / 138 lb. [Double progression](/blog/when-to-add-weight) has the thresholds.

It handles small jumps and light lifts, where a fixed load step would be a big share of the weight. The ACSM's 2009 stand puts the load increase at 2 to 10% once the lifter can do one to two reps over the target (ACSM 2009). Two trials point to adding reps as a sound way to progress. In 43 trained lifters over 8 weeks, adding reps at a fixed load and adding load at fixed reps grew muscle about equally (Plotkin 2022). In 39 untrained people over 10 weeks, leg extension strength and muscle cross-section rose with either, with no difference between legs (Chaves 2024).

## How does percentage-based loading work?

Percentage-based loading sets each load as a share of a one-repetition max, for example 80% of 100 kg / 220 lb, which is 80 kg / 176 lb. The plan then raises the percentage, or the max it is taken from, on a schedule. Wendler's 5/3/1 is a well-known example, and it takes its percentages from a training max set below the true max.

The whole plan is written ahead of time, which suits a meet or a test day. The catch is that 80% does not feel the same for everyone. Across 952 reps-to-failure tests in 7,289 people (269 studies), the reps possible at a given percentage varied between lifters and between exercises (Nuzzo 2024). At 80% of 1RM the average was about 9.75 reps, with a between-individual standard deviation of about 2.5 reps. Plan 8 reps at 80% and the average lifter has about 9.75 in them. A lifter one standard deviation below average fails around rep 7, and one above has about four to spare. The max has to be current too. The [one-rep max calculator](/tools/one-rep-max-calculator) estimates it from a set, and [1RM formulas](/blog/1rm-formula) covers how well.

## How does RPE or RIR loading work?

Here the weight is whatever leaves a planned number of reps in reserve. At RIR 2, you pick the load that leaves two reps in the tank. As an illustration, with 8 reps planned at RIR 2, a set that finishes at RIR 4 says the weight was light, so the next session goes up. [RPE vs RIR](/blog/rpe-vs-rir) covers the scale and how to convert it.

The load follows the day, heavier on a good one and lighter on a bad one. The weak spot is the rating. Across 12 studies and 414 people, lifters had on average about one rep more left than they guessed, 0.95 reps (95% CI 0.17 to 1.73), with wide variation (Halperin 2022). A one-rep error matters little near failure and more far from it, which is why the rating works best on sets that end within a few reps of failure.

## Do the studies say which model is best?

Each works, and the ranking stays open. The studies are small and short, and each compares something different: loading methods, load against reps, or periodization plans. None compares the four models above.

| Study | Population | Length | Comparison | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Helms 2018 | 21 resistance-trained men | 8 weeks | Loads by RPE vs by percentage of 1RM | Squat plus bench 1RM rose 27.75 kg / 61.2 lb with RPE and 23.55 kg / 51.9 lb with percentages; the difference was not significant |
| Mann 2010 | 23 college football players | 6 weeks | Autoregulated progression (APRE) vs linear periodization | Bench 1RM rose about 9.5 kg / 21 lb with APRE and about zero with linear periodization |
| Plotkin 2022 | 43 trained lifters | 8 weeks | Adding load vs adding reps | Muscle growth about equal |
| Chaves 2024 | 39 untrained adults | 10 weeks | Adding load vs adding reps, one leg each | No difference in strength or muscle size |
| Larsen 2021 | 14 studies, 356 people | More than 4 weeks | Autoregulation methods | 1RM rose in every autoregulation protocol |
| Huang 2025 | Network meta-analysis | Pooled | APRE, RPE and velocity-based vs percentage | Percentage-based had the lowest ranking probability for squat and bench; for bench, percentage-based vs APRE SMD -0.83 (95% CI -1.22 to -0.44); for squat, no moderate or large differences between interventions |
| Harries 2015 | 17 studies, 510 people | Pooled | Linear vs undulating periodization | No difference in strength |
| Moesgaard 2022 | 35 studies in the review, linear vs undulating subset | Pooled | Linear vs undulating periodization, volume equated | Undulating favoured for 1RM (ES 0.31, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.61), not for muscle size, and not in untrained people |

*Studies of progression and loading methods in healthy adults. Populations and lengths as reported in each abstract; Mann's result is reported in newtons and converted here. Linear periodization is a weekly plan for intensity, not linear progression.*

In Helms and colleagues' small trial, RPE showed a possible small edge in effect size, which was not significant. The 2025 network meta-analysis concludes that APRE, velocity-based training and RPE were more effective for maximal strength than percentage-based training, with a large gap on bench press (see the table). Network rankings rest partly on indirect comparisons across different trials and populations, and APRE is itself a rep-based rule. The 2026 ACSM stand, an overview of 137 reviews, found periodization did not consistently change outcomes (ACSM 2026).

## Can you mix progression models?

Yes, and most plans do. The usual mix is double progression with a target RIR: the rep range sets how the lift moves and the RIR target sets how hard each set should be. A percentage plan can carry RIR caps so a bad day cuts the set short instead of failing it. That is how lifters write programs, not a tested protocol, and the studies above compare single methods.

## How does Povver progress a lift?

Povver, a strength training app, progresses lifts by double progression with an RIR target, and it never prescribes a percentage of 1RM. The rule is in its training engine and on [How it works](/how-it-works).

- **Rep range.** Goal and exercise type set the range for each lift. For hypertrophy that is 8 to 12 reps on compound lifts and 10 to 15 on isolation lifts, and for strength 3 to 6 on compound lifts.
- **Effort.** Every set carries a target RIR, which is 1 when the plan sets none.
- **Reps first.** Reach the rep target at the planned effort or easier and the target goes up a rep next time, or more when you had more in reserve, to a maximum of three reps.
- **Then weight.** One session is enough to add weight when every working set is finished and the last set reaches the top of the range at the planned effort, or one rep harder. If no RIR was logged, it takes two sessions in a row at the top.
- **Step size.** Normally the smallest step the lift allows. When the log predicts the lifter would still reach the bottom of the range at the planned effort, the jump can be several steps, capped at 10% of the load (5% on isolation lifts). Where even one step is too big for a light lift, the reps keep climbing past the top of the range instead.
- **When it waits.** A working set more than one rep harder than planned keeps the weight where it is. A repeat at that weight drops it a step, and so does a set two or more reps below the bottom of the range.

That is the mix from the section above, with the log deciding each step.

## What have the studies not tested yet?

As far as we know, no trial measures how long linear progression keeps working, or whether to move to double progression sooner, and none asks how often a lifter should change model. The RPE-versus-percentage trial here used 21 trained men over 8 weeks.

Last reviewed 17 October 2026. Cite as: Povver, "Progression models compared: linear, double, percentage, RPE", povver.ai/blog/progression-models, 2026.

## Progression models: common questions

### Which progression model is best?

No model has been shown best. Over 8 weeks, 21 resistance-trained men gained strength with loads set by RPE and with loads set by percentage of 1RM, and the difference was not significant (Helms 2018). In Povver's judgment, linear progression suits the first months, double progression most lifters after that, and percentages a planned peak.

### What is linear progression?

Linear progression puts the same small amount on the bar every session, for example 2.5 kg / 5.5 lb. In Povver's judgment it suits novices, defined in the American College of Sports Medicine's 2009 stand as untrained or away from training for several years. It ends when the weight can no longer go up every session.

### What is double progression?

Double progression keeps the weight fixed while reps climb, until every set reaches the top of a rep range. Then the weight goes up and the range starts again. The ACSM's 2009 stand puts the increase at 2 to 10% once you can do one to two reps over the target.

### What is the difference between linear progression and linear periodization?

Linear progression raises the load by a fixed step each session. Linear periodization is a plan that shifts intensity and volume in phases over weeks ([periodization](/blog/periodization) covers the types). Across 17 studies and 510 people, a review found no difference in strength between linear and undulating periodization (Harries 2015).

### Is RPE better than percentage-based training?

Not clearly. Both worked in one 8-week trial of 21 resistance-trained men, with a possible small edge for RPE that was not significant (Helms 2018). A 2025 network meta-analysis ranked autoregulated methods above percentage-based training for maximal strength, but partly through indirect comparisons across trials.

### Do you need to know your 1RM to progress?

Not for linear, double or RPE-based progression. Only percentage-based loading needs one, and it has to be current, because the reps possible at a given percentage vary between lifters (Nuzzo 2024).

### Does Povver use percentages of 1RM?

No. Povver, a strength training app, builds each load from your logged sets. It adds reps inside a range first, and adds weight after a session that reaches the top of the range at the planned effort.

## Sources

1. American College of Sports Medicine, "American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults", Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 2009. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181915670
2. Helms ER, Byrnes RK, Cooke DM, et al., Zourdos MC, "RPE vs. Percentage 1RM Loading in Periodized Programs Matched for Sets and Repetitions", Frontiers in Physiology 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.00247
3. Huang Z, Sun J, Li D, Chen C, Wang D, "Autoregulated resistance training for maximal strength enhancement: A systematic review and network meta-analysis", Journal of Exercise Science & Fitness 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesf.2025.07.006
4. Mann JB, Thyfault JP, Ivey PA, Sayers SP, "The effect of autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise vs. linear periodization on strength improvement in college athletes", Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 2010. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181def4a6
5. Larsen S, Kristiansen E, van den Tillaar R, "Effects of subjective and objective autoregulation methods for intensity and volume on enhancing maximal strength during resistance-training interventions: a systematic review", PeerJ 2021. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10663
6. Plotkin D, Coleman M, Van Every D, et al., Schoenfeld BJ, "Progressive overload without progressing load? The effects of load or repetition progression on muscular adaptations", PeerJ 2022. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.14142
7. Chaves TS, Scarpelli MC, Bergamasco JGA, et al., Libardi CA, "Effects of Resistance Training Overload Progression Protocols on Strength and Muscle Mass", International Journal of Sports Medicine 2024. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2256-5857
8. Nuzzo JL, Pinto MD, Nosaka K, Steele J, "Maximal Number of Repetitions at Percentages of the One Repetition Maximum: A Meta-Regression and Moderator Analysis of Sex, Age, Training Status, and Exercise", Sports Medicine 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-023-01937-7
9. Halperin I, Malleron T, Har-Nir I, et al., "Accuracy in Predicting Repetitions to Task Failure in Resistance Exercise: A Scoping Review and Exploratory Meta-analysis", Sports Medicine 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01559-x
10. Harries SK, Lubans DR, Callister R, "Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Linear and Undulating Periodized Resistance Training Programs on Muscular Strength", Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 2015. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000000712
11. Moesgaard L, Beck MM, Christiansen L, Aagaard P, Lundbye-Jensen J, "Effects of Periodization on Strength and Muscle Hypertrophy in Volume-Equated Resistance Training Programs: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis", Sports Medicine 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01636-1
12. Currier BS, D'Souza AC, Singh MAF, et al., Phillips SM, "American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand. Resistance Training Prescription for Muscle Function, Hypertrophy, and Physical Performance in Healthy Adults: An Overview of Reviews", Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 2026. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000003897