Bicep Curl Max Calculator
The barbell curl is where a one rep max is least useful and most interesting — useful because it tracks arm strength over time, interesting because it is exactly the kind of lift where the classic formulas are known to be off. Enter a strict set below; 66 lb goes in as 30 kg.
Your estimated 1RM
93.3kg
Average of the Epley and Brzycki formulas.
| Formula | Estimated 1RM |
|---|
How we got this number
Epley: 80 × (1 + 5 ÷ 30) = 93.3 kg
Brzycki: 80 × 36 ÷ (37 − 5) = 90.0 kg
Worked example
66 lb (30 kg) for 10 strict reps:
- Epley: 30 × (1 + 10 ÷ 30) = 40.0 kg, about 88 lb
- Brzycki: 30 × 36 ÷ (37 − 10) = 40.0 kg, about 88 lb
They match to the decimal, and not by coincidence: 10 reps is the single point where the two equations cross. Change the reps in either direction and the answers split apart again.
Light lifts are where the formulas break down
Both equations convert repetitions into load at a fixed rate — Epley divides by 30, Brzycki effectively by 36 — regardless of what you are lifting. A 2026 preprint tested that assumption against 303,494 near-failure sets across 388 exercises and found the rate should not be fixed at all: it should fall as the load gets lighter, because on a light lift each additional rep carries more information about your true maximum.
The example the authors give is a curl. For a 29 lb (13 kg) dumbbell curl taken to 10 reps, Brzycki predicts a max near 37 lb (17 kg), while their weight-dependent version predicts about 49 lb (22 kg). On a 220 lb (100 kg) bench press for 5 reps, the same two methods land within 5 lb of each other. The disagreement is not random — it grows as the weight falls, and it is largest for light exercises taken to high rep counts, which describes most curl sets.
So read the number above as a floor rather than a point estimate, and do not compare it against a training partner’s curl calculated some other way.
Strict reps, or nothing to measure
There is no bar to be pinned under here, which is precisely why the reference set drifts. The failure mode is the cheat curl: the torso starts swinging, the hips generate the load, and the rep count climbs while biceps involvement falls. That inflates the estimate and loads the lumbar spine in a position it did not sign up for. Keep the elbows in place and the ribcage still, and end the set at the first rep that needs body English.
The same math on the big lifts
- Bench press max calculator
- Squat max calculator
- Deadlift max calculator
- Overhead press max calculator
To see how the two equations differ across the whole rep range, read Epley vs Brzycki; to average them on any lift, use the one rep max calculator.
Frequently asked questions
Is it worth calculating a max for an isolation lift?
Less than for the big three, but it has uses: tracking arm strength over months, and setting loads for a strength block on the biceps. Just do not treat the number with the confidence a bench estimate earns.
Why do 1RM formulas struggle on curls?
They convert reps to load at a fixed rate built from heavy barbell data. On light lifts each extra rep says more about your true ceiling than that rate assumes, so classic equations read low.
How strict does the set have to be?
Strict enough that the torso does not move. Once you start swinging, the hips are contributing load the biceps never handled, and both the rep count and the estimate stop describing arm strength.
Why did both formulas give me exactly the same number?
You entered 10 reps. Epley and Brzycki intersect at exactly 10, so they always agree there — for any weight, in any exercise. On either side of 10 they separate again.
Sources
- Marzagão T. A weight-dependent 1RM prediction equation optimized on 303,494 near-failure sets across 388 exercises (preprint), 2026
- NSCA Training Load Chart, adapted from Landers J. Maximum based on reps. NSCA Journal 6(6):60-61, 1984
Written by Lucas Silva · Reviewed by Lucas Silva · Updated on August 15, 2026