w ÷ (1.0278 − 0.0278r) — The stricter rival to Epley - popular with lifters who would rather undercall a max than get seduced by a generous estimate.
Strength levels for a 200lb male, age 30 lifting 253lb in each lift type · enter your details.
Brzycki algorithm
| Reps | Weight (lb) |
|---|---|
| 1RM | 253lb |
| 2RM | 246lb |
| 3RM | 239lb |
| 4RM | 232lb |
| 5RM(current) | 225lb |
| 6RM | 218lb |
| 7RM | 211lb |
| 8RM | 204lb |
| 9RM | 197lb |
| 10RM | 190lb |
| 20RM | 119lb |
Based on 253lb estimated max
| Intensity | Weight (lb) |
|---|---|
| 100% | 253lb |
| 95% | 240lb |
| 90% | 228lb |
| 85% | 215lb |
| 80% | 202lb |
| 75% | 190lb |
| 70% | 177lb |
| 65% | 164lb |
| 60% | 152lb |
| 55% | 139lb |
| 50% | 127lb |
Input: Input set: 225 lb x 5 reps
Calculation: Formula: 225 / (1.0278 - 0.0278 x 5) = 252.8
Result: Estimated 1RM: 253 lb
Brzycki usually reads a little stricter than Epley, which is part of why lifters often prefer it for heavier, lower-rep sets.
This page is built for Brzycki formula queries where the lifter wants the exact equation, a cleaner lower-rep estimate, and a direct comparison with the rest of the calculator stack. That lower-rep bias also fits a 2006 strength-prediction paper showing that prediction quality held up best when rep counts stayed lower rather than drifting toward 20-rep fatigue sets.
Brzycki is popular when the set is already fairly heavy and reps stay low. That matches the practical takeaway from this 2006 1RM prediction paper: prediction quality held up better with lower-rep testing, while very high-rep sets introduced more fatigue-related noise.
Brzycki is simply less generous as reps climb, so its projected max often lands below Epley on the same set. That makes it a popular second opinion for lifters who want a stricter number before planning attempts or training percentages.
