A 2 rep max (2RM) is the heaviest weight you can lift for exactly 2 reps with acceptable form. If you can do a third rep, the weight was below your 2RM. This calculator estimates it; it does not replace a real set.

How do I calculate my 2RM?

Choose "I lifted a set", enter the weight and the reps you did, and leave the effort on "To failure". The calculator turns the set into a 1RM with seven published equations, then works out the load for 2 reps from each. For 100 kg for 5 reps, the average 2RM comes out at 108.9 kg, with a range of 106.8 to 110.9 kg.

How do I calculate my 1RM from my 2RM?

Choose "I lifted a set", enter the weight, set the reps to 2 and leave the effort on "To failure". For a set of 2, the seven equations put the 1RM about 2.9% to 11.4% above the weight lifted. For 100 kg that is an average 1RM of 106.1 kg, with equations from 102.9 to 111.4 kg.

What percentage of my 1RM is my 2RM?

It depends on the equation. The seven equations in LeSuer's table give about 89.7% to 97.2% for 2 reps, with an average of 94.3%, and the Helms RPE chart gives 95% at RPE 10. The common 95% rule falls inside that spread but matches none of the equations exactly.

Why do other 2RM calculators give a different number?

Some use a single equation, some use a different set of equations, and some multiply a 1RM by a fixed percentage. The ones I checked listed 94%, 95%, 96% and 97%. At 2 reps the seven equations here span about 8 percentage points of 1RM (89.7% to 97.2%), so the choice matters. This page shows each equation separately so you can see the spread.

Which 2RM formula is the most accurate?

The studies I read do not name one, and I found none that tests any of them at exactly 2 reps. In a study of 67 untrained college students, only Mayhew and Wathan did not differ significantly from the measured bench press 1RM, and only Wathan did for the squat. All seven underestimated the deadlift. That is why the page shows the range across all seven.

Why is the calculator limited to 10 reps?

The equations were built on sets of about 10 reps or fewer. Brzycki says his is only valid below 10 reps, Reynolds and colleagues advise no more than 10 reps in linear equations, and Mayhew's study found better accuracy with fewer than 10 reps to fatigue. Beyond that I have no source that supports the numbers.

Does my set have to go to failure?

For the equations, yes. They were built from reps to fatigue, so a set that stopped early gives a low result. If you stopped short, pick an RPE from 7 to 10 and the calculator uses the Helms chart instead, which covers up to 8 reps.

Can I trust the 2RM for deadlifts?

Treat it with extra care. In LeSuer's study, all seven equations underestimated the deadlift 1RM by 9 to 14% on average. The calculator adds that warning when you pick the deadlift and does not try to correct for it.

Does the calculator work for women, older adults or teenagers?

The sources included men and women and adults aged 18 to 69. I did not verify data for teenagers or for people over 70. If you enter an age outside 18 to 69, the calculator shows a warning.

How do I test my 2RM for real?

A 2RM is the weight where the second rep is your last good rep, so a test means finding that load. I did not find a primary source for a protocol written for a 2RM, so I do not give one. The Australian Institute of Sport testing manual covers related tests, and the estimate from this page can serve as a starting load with a spotter or safety bars.

Is a 2RM test safer than a 1RM test?

I did not find evidence that settles it for 2 reps, so this page makes no safety claim either way. The sources I read tested predictions of the 1RM and did not compare injury risk between 1RM and 2RM tests.

2 Rep Max Calculator: Estimate Your 2RM and 1RM

Name: 2 Rep Max Calculator
Author: Manish Kumar

Key Takeaways

Your 2RM is the heaviest weight you can lift for 2 reps. This calculator estimates it from a hard set of 2 to 10 reps or from a 1RM, using seven published equations^[2]. If you enter a real set of 2 to failure, the 2RM is the weight you lifted and the page estimates your 1RM instead.
Two reps is not a fixed share of the 1RM. The seven equations put it at 89.7% to 97.2% (average 94.3%), and a published RPE chart gives 95%^[2]^[5]. The common 95% rule sits inside that spread but matches none of the equations exactly.
I found no study that tests these equations at exactly 2 reps, or that checks a 2RM worked out from a 1RM. Every source I read validated the 1RM that comes out of a set, mostly from sets of 10 reps or fewer^[2]^[3].
Treat the result as an estimate. The Australian Institute of Sport testing manual puts the variability of submaximal predictions at about 10%^[8], and in one study all seven equations came out low for the deadlift^[2].
I couldn't source 2RM strength standards, a 2RM periodization plan, wave or cluster loading rules or a 2RM test protocol, so they aren't here. The last section lists what else is missing.

What a 2RM Is, and What It Is Not

A 2 rep max (2RM) is the heaviest weight you can lift for 2 reps in one set, with form you would accept in training. If a third rep is possible, the weight was below your 2RM. If the second rep fails, it was above it.

It describes a single maximal set, so it isn't a working weight for several sets. It is also not a 1RM. A 2RM sits below your 1RM, and how far below depends on the equation you trust and on you.

Suchomel and colleagues give "95% of 1RM is a 2RM" as an example of estimating a 1RM from a multi-rep set^[9].

They also warn that people differ a lot. In one study they cite, 90% of the 1RM on the bench press allowed anywhere from 2 to 7 reps.

How the Estimate Works

Each of these equations was written to turn a set taken to fatigue into a 1RM. The calculator runs it forward to get a 1RM, then backward to get the load for 2 reps.

What happens when you press Calculate

Each equation turns your weight and reps into a 1RM estimate.
The same equation then divides that 1RM by its own 2-rep factor to get a 2RM.
The page shows the lowest, highest and average of the seven answers.
For comparison, it applies the Helms chart, which puts 2 reps at RPE 10 at 95% of 1RM^[5].

With a set of exactly 2 to failure, the two steps cancel and you get your own weight back as the 2RM. The page then shows the 1RM instead.

LeSuer and colleagues print the seven equations in their Table 1^[2]. Here they are, with the share of 1RM each gives for 2 reps and the 1RM that follows from a 2RM of 100:

Equation	Form	2 reps as % of 1RM	1RM from a 2RM of 100	Original publication
Epley	1RM = w × (1 + 0.0333 × r)	93.8%	106.7	Epley, Poundage Chart, 1985 (not opened)
Brzycki	1RM = 100 × w ÷ (102.78 − 2.78 × r)	97.2%	102.9	Brzycki, 1993 (opened and checked)
Lander	1RM = 100 × w ÷ (101.3 − 2.67123 × r)	96%	104.2	Lander, NSCA Journal, 1985 (not opened)
Lombardi	1RM = w × r^0.1	93.3%	107.2	Lombardi, Beginning Weight Training, 1989 (not opened)
Mayhew	1RM = 100 × w ÷ (52.2 + 41.9 × e^(−0.055 × r))	89.7%	111.4	Mayhew et al., J Appl Sport Sci Res, 1992 (not opened)
O'Conner	1RM = w × (1 + 0.025 × r)	95.2%	105	O'Conner et al., Weight Training Today, 1989 (not opened)
Wathan	1RM = 100 × w ÷ (48.8 + 53.8 × e^(−0.075 × r))	95.1%	105.1	Wathan, in Baechle (ed.), 1994 (not opened)

w is the weight lifted and r is the reps to fatigue. The last two columns are arithmetic on each equation at 2 reps.

Brzycki's paper has its own table for this equation. A 100 lb set of 3 predicts a 1RM of 106 lb, and 225 lb for 10 reps predicts about 300 lb^[1]. The calculator reproduces those values in its tests.

Brzycki didn't fit his equation to lifters he tested. He anchored it on an unpublished observation, passed on through a 1981 review, that about 10 reps can be done at roughly 75% of a max^[1].

I opened only Brzycki's paper. The other six equations come from LeSuer's table, and I didn't open their original publications, so I can't say how they were derived.

Worked example: 100 kg for 5 reps to failure

Epley 1RM = 100 × (1 + 0.0333 × 5) = 116.7 kg

Epley 2RM = 116.7 ÷ (1 + 0.0333 × 2) = 109.4 kg

Brzycki 1RM = 100 × 100 ÷ (102.78 − 2.78 × 5) = 112.5 kg

Brzycki 2RM = 112.5 ÷ (100 ÷ (102.78 − 2.78 × 2)) = 109.4 kg

Average of all seven: 2RM 108.9 kg, range 106.8 to 110.9 kg

The average is there because most people want one number. The studies I read don't name a best equation, and I found no test of the average itself, so lean on the range.

Converting a 2RM to a 1RM, and Back

Enter a set of 2 reps to failure and the page gives the 1RM. By hand, multiply the 2RM by the factor for any equation: 1.03 to 1.11, depending on which one you pick.

Mayhew's equation is the high outlier at 2 reps, and Brzycki is the low one. Without Mayhew the range narrows a lot, which is a reason to look at the table above and not only at the average.

2RM (kg)	Average 1RM (kg)	Range (kg)
40	42.4	41.1 to 44.6
60	63.6	61.7 to 66.9
80	84.9	82.3 to 89.2
100	106.1	102.9 to 111.4
120	127.3	123.4 to 133.7
140	148.5	144 to 156

1RM estimated from a 2RM to failure, in kg. Average and range of the seven equations.

For a 2RM of 100 kg, that is an average 1RM of 106.1 kg, with equations from 102.9 to 111.4 kg. The Helms chart gives 105.3 kg for the same set.

For the reverse, switch to "I know my 1RM". That direction is arithmetic on the same equations, and I found no study that tested it, so it's the less certain of the two.

How Accurate Is It?

This is what each source looked at, so you can judge how far to trust a number:

Source	What it found	Limit
LeSuer et al., 1997^[2]	67 untrained college students (40 men, 27 women; some skipped the squat and deadlift) did a 1RM and a set of 10 or fewer reps to fatigue. All seven equations correlated highly with the measured 1RM (r above 0.95). Bench press: only Mayhew and Wathan did not differ significantly from the measured 1RM, and the other five came out 0.8 to 6% low on average. Squat: only Wathan did not differ, and the others were 2 to 8% low. Deadlift: all seven were low, by 9 to 14%.	Untrained students. Predicted a 1RM, not a 2RM.
Reynolds et al., 2006^[3]	70 people aged 18 to 69 did 1, 5, 10 and 20RM tests on the barbell bench press and a plate-loaded leg press. The authors advise no more than 10 reps in linear equations.	No 2RM was tested. The 5, 10 and 20RM sets were metronome-paced, which the authors call atypical.
Mayhew et al., 2008^[4]	103 young women did bench press tests before and after 12 weeks of training. Prediction equations were more accurate when fewer than 10 reps to fatigue were used.	Young women, bench press only.
Suchomel et al., 2021^[9]	A review of how to set training intensity. It says the same percentage of 1RM allows different rep counts for different people and lifts. It cites 90% of 1RM on the bench press giving 2 to 7 reps in one study, and more back squat than bench press reps at 60, 80 and 90% in another.	A review. I read it, not the studies it cites. It gives 95% for a 2RM only as an example.
Australian Institute of Sport, 2022^[8]	Its testing manual says prediction equations are influenced by the muscle group, the exercise and training level, with large variability (about 10%) when submaximal reps predict a maximum. When recording test results, it says to log the weight and reps actually lifted and not to use predictive equations to calculate a 1RM.	A testing manual that cites earlier studies, not a new experiment. Written for formal athlete testing.

Two reps is an edge case. I found no study that checks the equations at exactly 2 reps. The sets in the sources were mostly several reps to fatigue, so a 1RM from a double is arithmetic on the equations, not a tested result.
The curve bends at the low end. LeSuer notes that the biggest drop in % of 1RM happens between 1 and 2 reps, and that from 3 to 10 reps the relationship looks roughly linear^[2]. Reynolds also found the load fell non-linearly with reps^[3]. I read that as a reason a straight-line equation is least likely to fit at 2 reps, which is my inference, not a tested result.
Use a heavy set with few reps, but not more than 10. Brzycki says his equation is only valid below 10 reps to fatigue^[1], and Mayhew found better accuracy below 10^[4]. LeSuer describes the equations as built on 10 or fewer^[2], and Reynolds advises no more than 10^[3]. So the calculator accepts 2 to 10 reps and warns at 10, where the sources disagree on whether 10 is inside the limit.
The set must go to failure. The equations assume reps to fatigue. If you stopped with reps left, the estimate reads low, which is why the page offers an RPE option.
Lifters misjudge failure. An exploratory meta-analysis of 12 studies (414 people) found lifters under-predicted their reps in reserve by about 1 rep on average, with large differences between studies^[7]. I don't know how that carries over to a set you call "failure", so the page makes no adjustment for it.
Who was studied. Mostly students and adults aged 18 to 69^[2]^[3]. Accuracy data cover the bench press, squat and deadlift, plus the leg press. I found no data for teenagers, people over 70 or other lifts, so the calculator warns outside 18 to 69.

2RM as a Percentage of 1RM

Many calculators use one flat figure for a 2RM, and the figures differ. The ones I checked listed 94%, 95%, 96% and 97%. The seven equations give 89.7% to 97.2% at 2 reps, so a single number fits some equations and misses others by several points^[2].

That is the reason a 2RM calculated on one site can differ from the same lifter's number on another. They are using different equations or a different fixed share, and none of them has been shown to be right at 2 reps.

The Helms chart gives another view. For 2 reps it lists a share of 1RM at each RPE, from RPE 10 (no reps left) down to RPE 7 (about 3 reps left)^[5]^[6]:

RPE	10	9.5	9	8.5	8	7.5	7
2 reps, % of 1RM	95%	93%	91%	89%	87%	86%	85%

Estimated % of 1RM for 2 reps by RPE (Helms et al., 2016, Table 2). Almost all of the chart is estimated, not measured.

Read it with care. It comes from experienced squatters in one study (Zourdos).^[5]^[6] Apart from single reps at 90 and 100% and 8 reps at 70%, every value is an estimate. It is also based on the back squat, so it may shift for other lifts.

That is why the calculator offers an RPE choice. If your set stopped short of failure, the seven equations would read low, so the page uses this chart instead and says so. To work out your RPE from reps in reserve, use the RIR to RPE Calculator.

Testing a 2RM for Real

I did not find a protocol written for a 2RM in a primary source. The Australian Institute of Sport testing manual covers 1RM, 3RM and 6RM, and it is the closest published guide I could open^[8].

Warm-up. For the bench press, the manual builds up through sets that get heavier while the reps drop, as a percentage of the load you expect to lift, ending around 90%. It says the test should ideally be completed within 4 trials, not counting the warm-up^[8].
Rest. For the bench press it gives 2 to 5 minutes between attempts^[8].
Safety. It recommends two experienced spotters for maximal bench press efforts, and says the test ends once a technical violation is seen^[8].
Readiness. It suggests avoiding severe fatigue in the 72 hours before a test and practising the lift for at least 6 sessions first^[8].

The manual says warm-up loads should come from recent training data or earlier RM results. The estimate from this page can stand in for that when you have neither, with the error described above.

Using the Result

If you can, use a heavy set of a few reps for the estimate. Mayhew found better accuracy below 10 reps^[4], and in Reynolds' own regression a 5RM predicted the 1RM better than a 10RM or 20RM^[3]. So a set of around 5 is a safer input than a set of 10.
Read the range, not only the average. A wide range means less reason to trust any single number.
Use the result as a starting load, not a verdict. The AIS manual says to record the weight and reps actually lifted^[8], and a rested, warmed-up set with a spotter or safety bars gives you that.
For other rep maxes, see the 3 Rep Max Calculator, the 5 Rep Max Calculator or the One Rep Max Calculator. To turn reps and effort into a load, use the RPE Calculator.

What This Page Doesn't Cover

I left these out because I couldn't trace them to a source I could open:

A fixed 95% factor. An earlier version of this page showed 2RM as a 1RM equation times 0.95. That swapped each equation's own 2-rep factor for one flat share, and its Brzycki line fed a 1RM into an equation that expects a set of reps. I removed both.
Strength standards by level. I found no sourced 2RM standards, and any fixed table would ignore bodyweight.
Periodization phases, cluster sets, wave loading and competition attempt rules. None tied to a specific study.
Claims about neural adaptation, injury risk or competition performance. I found no source for a 2RM being safer or more predictive than other rep maxes.
A 2RM test protocol or retest schedule. The AIS section above covers related tests, and I found nothing on how often to test a 2RM.

Also unverified: the original sources for the Epley, Lander, Lombardi, Mayhew, O'Conner and Wathan equations, which I read only through LeSuer. The 95% example in the Suchomel review cites a textbook I did not open, and the Julio and Shimano figures reach this page through that review.

The AIS manual I used is version 2.0, effective July 2022. It was still the version listed on the AIS page when I checked on 6 November 2026.

Frequently Asked Questions

Sources & References

Strength testing: predicting a one-rep max from reps-to-fatigue. Brzycki M. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance 64(1):88-90 (1993)
The accuracy of prediction equations for estimating 1-RM performance in the bench press, squat, and deadlift. LeSuer DA, McCormick JH, Mayhew JL, Wasserstein RL, Arnold MD. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 11(4):211-213 (1997)
Prediction of one repetition maximum strength from multiple repetition maximum testing and anthropometry. Reynolds JM, Gordon TJ, Robergs RA. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 20(3):584-592 (2006)
Accuracy of prediction equations for determining one repetition maximum bench press in women before and after resistance training. Mayhew JL, Johnson BD, LaMonte MJ, Lauber D, Kemmler W. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 22(5):1570-1577 (2008)
Application of the repetitions in reserve-based rating of perceived exertion scale for resistance training. Helms ER, Cronin J, Storey A, Zourdos MC. Strength and Conditioning Journal 38(4):42-49 (2016)
Novel resistance training-specific rating of perceived exertion scale measuring repetitions in reserve. Zourdos MC, Klemp A, Dolan C, Quiles JM, Schau KA, Jo E, Helms E, Esgro B, Duncan S, Garcia Merino S, Blanco R. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 30(1):267-275 (2016)
Accuracy in predicting repetitions to task failure in resistance exercise: a scoping review and exploratory meta-analysis. Halperin I, Malleron T, Har-Nir I, Androulakis-Korakakis P, Wolf M, Fisher J, Steele J. Sports Medicine 52(2):377-390 (2022)
National Protocols for the Assessment of Strength and Power, Version 2.0 (effective July 2022). Australian Institute of Sport and the National Institute Network. Australian Sports Commission (2022)
Training for muscular strength: methods for monitoring and adjusting training intensity. Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, Bellon CR, Hornsby WG, Stone MH. Sports Medicine 51(10):2051-2066 (2021)

Manish Kumar

Certified Personal Trainer & Sports Nutritionist

NASM-CPTCertified Sports Nutritionist10+ Years Experience500+ Clients Coached

NASM-certified fitness and nutrition coach with over 10 years of hands-on experience helping people build strength, lose fat, and live healthier lives. Specializing in gym-based workouts with a strong focus on lifting technique, biomechanics, and practical exercise science. Through FitLifeRegime, sharing the tools, tips, and insights that have worked for hundreds of clients — helping you start your own fitness journey with confidence and clarity.

Learn more about Manish

NASM Certified

Certified Personal Trainer & Sports Nutritionist from the National Academy of Sports Medicine

Disclaimer: This tool is for informational and personal journaling purposes only. Results are estimates based on published formulas and may vary based on individual factors such as genetics, training history, and measurement technique.

2 Rep Max Calculator

TOC