Guides

Epley vs Brzycki vs Lombardi: when each estimate is useful

Most lifters do not need to memorize the equations, but they do need to know what kind of estimate they are getting. These formulas do not punish higher reps the same way, so they do not behave the same way once the set gets longer.

Updated April 7, 2026 Topic: Formula comparison Practical use over math trivia

Key Takeaways

  • Epley is simple and practical for many normal gym sets, especially in lower and moderate rep ranges.
  • Brzycki often behaves a bit more conservatively once reps start climbing.
  • Lombardi falls off less sharply at higher reps, which can make it feel more forgiving but also more likely to overshoot in some situations.
  • No current evidence base says one of the three is the universal winner for every lift and every lifter.
  • For day-to-day programming, consistency matters more than hunting the “best-looking” formula.

Start with the practical question, not the equation

Most people compare formulas backwards. They start by asking which equation is “most accurate” in the abstract. The better question is what you need the estimate to do. Are you trying to set next week’s top sets, choose a conservative training max, or get a rough picture of progress from the same repeated set?

If the estimate is only there to help you load the bar sensibly, small differences between formulas matter less than whether the underlying set was useful in the first place.

How the formulas tend to behave

Epley is popular because it is simple and easy to apply to hard sets in common rep ranges like 3 to 6. It usually feels intuitive for general strength work and does not require overthinking.

Brzycki tends to be a little stricter as the rep count rises. That can be useful if you want a less aggressive prediction from sets that were moderately high-rep or where bar speed clearly slowed early.

Lombardi changes more gradually as reps go up. That can make it appealing when the set was longer, but it also means it may give a more generous result than you want if the rep count is already well past the range where max-strength prediction is clean.

That last paragraph is partly an inference from how the equations behave mathematically, not a claim that Lombardi always wins or always overshoots in real-world testing.

When each one is usually most useful

Epley

Good default option for general gym use, especially when the set is hard, technically clean, and somewhere around 3 to 6 reps. If you want one formula that feels practical for everyday strength work, Epley is often the simplest place to start.

Brzycki

Useful when you want a slightly more conservative estimate, particularly in upper-body lifts or on days where you are less interested in squeezing out the biggest possible predicted max. It is often a solid choice if you know you tend to over-read rep-out sets.

Lombardi

Useful as a comparison formula when reps are higher than ideal and you want to see how much your estimate changes when the equation penalizes those extra reps less aggressively. That comparison can be informative, even if you ultimately do not use Lombardi as your primary number.

Why there is no universal winner

Actual studies do not hand us one perfect ranking that applies everywhere. Equation performance shifts with the exercise, the sex of the sample, training status, and whether the test was performed before or after a training period.

That is why the safest practical rule is not “always use X.” It is “pick a method that fits your use case, then apply it consistently enough that your trend line means something.”

Practical application

  1. If you are not sure where to start, use the average of Epley, Brzycki, and Lombardi for regular training decisions.
  2. If you want a more conservative number, lean more heavily on Brzycki or use a training max.
  3. If the set was higher-rep than ideal, compare all three formulas rather than trusting the highest one.
  4. Stick with the same approach for several weeks before deciding whether it tracks your training well.

Limitations and notes

  • This guide does not claim one formula is “scientifically proven” best for every situation, because the literature does not support that claim.
  • Formula comparisons get less meaningful when the set is too far from failure or too high in reps.
  • The equations are only one layer of decision-making. Session quality and bar speed still matter.

Citation placeholders to fill

  • Placeholder source 1: Ribeiro A, da Silva JA, Nascimento M, et al. Accuracy of 1RM Prediction Equations Before and After Resistance Training in Three Different Lifts. International Journal of Strength and Conditioning. 2024. DOI: 10.47206/ijsc.v4i1.327.
  • Placeholder source 2: Mayhew JL, Johnson BD, LaMonte MJ, et al. Accuracy of Prediction Equations for Determining One Repetition Maximum Bench Press in Women Before and After Resistance Training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2008. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31817b02ad.
  • Placeholder source 3: Simonsen JC, Sherman SR, Bartholomew JB. Analyzing one-repetition-max predictions: load-velocity relationship vs. repetition to failure equation in ten lower extremity exercises. International Journal of Strength and Conditioning. 2025.

These source placeholders are meant for direct verification and citation before the article is treated as finalized.

Author

1repmax.org editorial

Written for lifters who want the formula to help training decisions, not become a side hobby in spreadsheet worship.