Investing in Accessory Work

When it comes to powerlifting, I think about accessory work like investing. You could leave your savings in the bank and tick the minimum boxes, or you could gamble on high risk day trading and hope for a big win. But if you want long term stability and growth, you’re better off investing consistently in a boring, reliable index fund.

Accessories, done consistently and sensibly, are the “index funds” of powerlifting. They don’t promise quick, flashy returns, but over years they compound into the muscle mass and resilience that underpin your squat, bench, and deadlift.

The “money in the bank” trap.
Relying solely on the squat, bench press, and deadlift, trained with good intent and consistency will take you far. But at some point, most lifters will probably find that their strength could be capped by a lack of muscle mass in certain key muscle groups that are under utilised in competition style SBD patterns. You’ve been “saving” but eventually, inflation catches up.

The “day trader” trap.
On the other extreme, blasting hypertrophy work in short, dedicated phases, pushing every set to failure, or cycling aggressively between bulking and cutting looks exciting on paper but rarely pays off. Hypertrophy is a chronic, long term adaptation. Training to failure every session, or accumulating excessive fatigue through ultra high volumes, doesn’t reliably outperform moderate, sustainable approaches.

The index fund approach

Muscle growth is slow. You likely cannot add a weight class of lean tissue in under five years. Instead, progress comes from consistent, steady deposits of accessory work, repeated over months and years.

Through conversation with multiple high level athletes and coaches in Irish Powerlifting, there seems to be consensus surrounding what is considered best practice when it comes to accessory work prescription:

  • 2-3 sets of 6-15 reps

  • 2-5 accessory exercises per session

  • ~10-20 sets per muscle group per week

  • 0-2 reps in reserve on each set

What does the science say?

Big picture, muscle growth is mainly driven by training volume with more weekly sets leading to more hypertrophy up to around 10-20 sets per muscle group. Beyond that point, returns seem to get smaller and fatigue tends to climb. Training a muscle a couple of times per week works best for spreading this volume out and keeping quality high. There is also evidence that each set done in a single session tends to drive less adaptation than the previous set done, i.e. 1st set drives most adaptation, 2nd set drives less adaptation and so on. Early studies on proximity to failure suggested that stopping a rep or two short of failure was just as effective as going all the way to failure, but newer meta-analyses and regression models indicate that hypertrophy may be slightly better the closer you push to failure.

Putting it all together

Accessory work is a worthwhile long term investment for powerlifters. You don’t have to do anything flashy, consistently performing 10-20 sets per relevant muscle group, spread across the week, performed relatively close to failure and progressed patiently over years, creates a foundation of muscle that is likely to bolster your SBD progression in the later stages of your powerlifting career.


Bibliography

  • Baz-Valle, E., Schoenfeld, B. J., Torres-Unda, J., & Santos-Concejero, J. (2022). The dose–response relationship between weekly resistance training volume and muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 52(1), 185–197.

  • Grgic, J., Schoenfeld, B. J., & Latella, C. (2021). Resistance training to failure for maximizing muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 51(11), 2141–2151.

  • Larsen, M. S., et al. (2025). Resistance training beyond failure induces greater hypertrophy in untrained adults. Frontiers in Psychology.

  • Martikainen, T., et al. (2025). Altering proximity to failure across a resistance training mesocycle in trained individuals. European Journal of Applied Physiology.

  • Morton, R. W., et al. (2016). Neither load nor systemic hormones determine resistance training-mediated hypertrophy or strength gains in resistance-trained young men. Journal of Applied Physiology, 121(1), 129–138.

  • Refalo, A., et al. (2023). Effects of resistance training to failure vs. non-failure on muscular strength and hypertrophy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 53(1), 35–54.

  • Robinson, M. J., et al. (2024). Resistance training proximity to failure and adaptations: A systematic review and meta-regression. Sports Medicine, 54(4), 663–680.

  • Schoenfeld, B. J., et al. (2017). Dose-response relationship between weekly resistance training volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(11), 1073–1082.

  • Schoenfeld, B. J., et al. (2019). Effects of resistance training frequency on measures of muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 49(10), 1619–1634.

  • Steele, J., Fisher, J., Giessing, J., & Gentil, P. (2017). Clarity in reporting terminology and definitions of set endpoints in resistance training. Muscle & Nerve, 56(3), 368–374.

Adam Phillips