“Three sets of eight at 70%” sounds precise, but it leaves most of the repetition undescribed. Was the bar paused or bounced? Did it touch a stable landmark? Was the lowering load the same as the press? Did the set end while velocity remained high, at a 25% loss, or at failure? Did grip, contact points and touch position survive the last rep? Each choice changes the force, work, fatigue and skill exposure the athlete receives.
Current evidence does not reduce those variables to one best bench program. It does reveal defensible defaults and tradeoffs. Heavier loads provide the strongest test-specific 1RM stimulus. Full range usually transfers most broadly, while planned partials can overload a segment. Accentuated eccentric loading increases the lowering stimulus but has not proved chronically superior to constant loading. Moderate velocity loss often balances strength gain and repetition cost; high loss shifts the dose toward hypertrophy and endurance. Repetition quality is the control system that keeps all four interpretable. This guide turns that evidence into a specification a coach can write, audit and revise without claiming that one study—or one product—solves the entire bench press.
The 2026 American College of Sports Medicine position stand synthesized 137 systematic reviews covering more than 30,000 participants. It found that resistance training reliably improves strength, size and performance, while only a limited set of prescription variables consistently changes the magnitude of those adaptations. For strength, heavier loading and complete range were favorable; for hypertrophy, greater weekly volume and eccentric overload were favorable; equipment type and momentary failure did not consistently change outcomes. That overview supports an outcome-led prescription, not a universal five-dial setting [1].
Define the Repetition Beyond Sets and Reps
- Load sets the force–velocity context. High-load training has the clearest advantage for maximal strength; hypertrophy can occur across a wider load range when effort and volume are sufficient.
- Range sets the task boundary. Full available ROM is the broad-transfer default, while partials should name a segment and purpose.
- Eccentric overload sets a phase-specific dose. It raises lowering exposure and perceived effort without guaranteed concentric or chronic superiority.
- Velocity loss sets the fatigue ceiling. About 25% often favors strength; about 50% permits more volume and can favor size or endurance.
- Execution makes comparisons valid. Grip, touch, pause, contact points and intent must remain stable enough that “rep five” is still the assigned exercise.
- Acute and longitudinal evidence answer different questions. Faster reps or higher EMG today do not establish greater adaptation, safety or clinical benefit.
Five Details That Define the Repetition
A prescription needs more than sets and reps
Lowering load ↓
Record the resistance during descent, the lowering tempo and the intended endpoint.
Pressing load ↑
Record the resistance during the press and the intended concentric effort.
Five controls define one bench-press task
Load
Range-specific %1RM, absolute load, or target velocity.
Force context
Range
Grip, start, touch/end point, pause and lockout.
Task boundary
Eccentric
Load down/load up, tempo and overloaded repetitions.
Phase dose
Velocity loss
Reference repetition, threshold and absolute floor.
Fatigue ceiling
Execution
Contact points, bar corridor, intent and invalid-rep rule.
Measurement contract
Read the settings together
Each control is interpretable only when the other four are recorded. A change in one control can change the dose delivered by the rest.
A control console—not a ranking. The useful setting depends on the outcome, athlete, equipment and recovery budget.
Illustrative training scenes. The pictured barbell uses the same external load in both phases; it does not depict an AEL device. For AEL, record the separate lowering and pressing loads explicitly. Execution standard: touch point, pause and tempo. Set-ending rule: velocity loss and rep quality.
Article synthesis; see the references below.
These variables interact. Increasing ROM can reduce the load or repetitions an athlete completes. Adding eccentric overload can slow the transition and raise effort. Allowing more velocity loss can shorten ROM or alter bar path unless technique is a coequal stop rule. A good program does not merely select each dial; it anticipates what moving one dial will do to the others.
1. Load: specify the strength task
Relative load is the percentage of the athlete’s current capacity under the same technique and range. A paused competition bench, touch-and-go bench and two-inch block press have different 1RMs. A percentage borrowed from another task mislabels intensity before the set begins.
Separate the strength goal from the muscle-size goal
Maximal strength
Moderate and high loads produced greater strength gains than low loads in this analysis.
Hypertrophy
Overall differences between low, moderate and high loads were not statistically significant when training to volitional failure.
Lopez and colleagues synthesized 28 studies with 747 healthy adults, all training to volitional failure. Low-, moderate- and high-load programs produced statistically similar hypertrophy overall, but moderate and high loads produced greater maximal-strength gains than low loads. High versus moderate load favored high load numerically without reaching conventional significance [2]. That distinction is both statistical and practical: a broad range of loads can grow muscle when hard sets and sufficient volume are provided, while practicing high force with heavier loads better prepares the athlete for a heavy 1RM.
Load does not fully describe effort. A light set stopped after three fast reps is a power exposure; the same load taken near failure is a high-repetition fatigue exposure. A heavy single at RPE 7 and an RPE 10 grinder share a percentage neighborhood but not a recovery cost. Record the planned end condition.
Anchor maximal-strength blocks with technically valid heavy exposure, then use moderate loads to accumulate volume. Use light loads because power, hypertrophy, speed practice or tolerance requires them—not because every percentage produces the same adaptation.
2. Range: broad transfer versus segment specificity
Train a defined range. Test where strength transfers.
Full range
Broadest improvements across all three tested ranges.
Two-thirds range
A shorter, reproducible training segment.
One-third range
A more restricted, reproducible training segment.
The columns depict the prescribed fractions of full bar travel, not the size of the training gains. The trial also included a no-training group.
The best bench-specific longitudinal comparison randomized 50 recreationally to highly trained men to full, two-thirds, one-third or no bench training for 10 weeks. Loads progressed from 60% to 80% of each group’s range-specific 1RM, and individual ranges were reproduced. Full-range training produced the broadest gains across all three test ranges, with standardized within-group effects from 0.52 to 1.96; two-thirds and one-third training produced smaller or less consistent effects [3].
Read the wider evidence alongside the bench trial
Pooled ROM evidence
A 16-study meta-analysis likewise favored full ROM for strength (effect size 0.56, p = .004). Its hypertrophy advantage (0.88, p = .027) came primarily from lower-limb data, so it cannot be presented as direct pectoralis evidence [4].
Transfer in untrained lifters
Older bench work in 56 untrained men found that full, top-partial and mixed groups all improved full-range 1RM with no between-group difference after 10 weeks, showing that partial overload can transfer under some conditions [5].
The synthesis is straightforward: choose a repeatable full available range when the goal is broad bench strength. Use a fixed partial to overload a segment, a progressive partial to expand range, or a temporary comfortable range when an athlete cannot currently tolerate the default. Name the boundary and test full-range transfer rather than assuming it.
Vertical bar displacement, elbow excursion and shoulder motion are not synonyms. Grip, arch, touch point and support geometry can change them unequally. A longer bar path may be meaningful exposure data; it is not proof of greater shoulder ROM, better hypertrophy or safer mechanics.
3. Eccentric overload: higher stimulus, higher implementation burden
Accentuated eccentric loading (AEL) uses a heavier external load during lowering than during the press. Weight releasers commonly apply overload on one selected repetition; computer-controlled and pneumatic systems can vary resistance on every rep. Tempo eccentrics with an unchanged load are not AEL. The phase pair should be written explicitly—100/70, for example—not hidden behind “eccentric bench.”
Write the phase pair into the protocol
Kristiansen et al.
Bench experiments show why the method should not be equated with immediate potentiation. In 10 trained men, Kristiansen and colleagues compared two reps at 110% down/85% up with 85/85. The second AEL repetition reached the sticking region lower and slower despite greater activation in some pectoralis and deltoid measures [6].
Taber et al.
Taber and colleagues tested 10 strong men across concentric loads from 30% to 80% with traditional, 100% eccentric and 110% eccentric conditions; response varied with load and athlete, reinforcing the need to record both phases and individual performance [7].
Percentages refer to the study’s traditional 1RM. These are tested protocols, not a universal prescription.
Acute response and long-term adaptation answer different questions
After the eccentric overload is removed
Mean concentric velocity · standardized effect and 95% confidence interval
Negative values favor traditional loading; positive values favor AEL for concentric velocity. Points are estimates; lines are 95% confidence intervals. Pooled bench press and back-squat evidence; overload was applied only to the first lowering phase. Later intervals cross zero. [8]
Yang and colleagues pooled eight acute studies with 106 participants. Mean concentric velocity was lower on the AEL repetition (effect size −0.25, 95% CI −0.33 to −0.16), then statistically similar on repetitions two and three. Evidence certainty declined for the later reps [8].
Chronic strength
SMD 0.12 · p = .41
Muscle cross-sectional area
SMD −0.06 · p = .84
Zhang and colleagues synthesized 49 acute and chronic studies. AEL increased eccentric-phase EMG, immediate metabolic responses and perceived effort, but chronic concentric strength (SMD 0.12, p = .41) and cross-sectional area (−0.06, p = .84) did not significantly differ from constant loading [9].
AEL is therefore useful when higher absolute eccentric exposure is the stated goal and the athlete, staff and equipment can control it. It is not automatically a power primer, a superior hypertrophy method or an appropriate beginner progression. Familiarization, safeties, a competent handoff and side spotters are part of the dose.
4. Velocity loss: decide how much fatigue belongs in the set
Within-set velocity loss is the percentage decline from a defined reference repetition. It provides an objective stopping rule when every rep is performed with maximal concentric intent. Sánchez-Medina and González-Badillo established velocity loss as a strong indicator of acute neuromuscular fatigue [10]. It does not directly measure muscle activation, glycogen, hypertrophy or recovery.
In a bench trial of 64 trained men assigned to 0%, 15%, 25% or 50% loss for eight weeks, all groups improved dynamic strength without a significant between-group interaction. The 50% group gained more pectoralis cross-sectional area than 0%, while lower thresholds produced distinct neuromuscular changes with much less work [11]. The key lesson was not that failure is bad or good; it was that different fatigue ceilings can produce different adaptations.
Strength gained and work performed are different outcomes
Strength gained
1RM change · kg · derived from reported means
Post minus pre group means, pooled across intensity bands. The 25% group had the largest descriptive gain; the reported post-hoc difference was versus 0%. No change-score SD is inferred. [12]
Training performed
total repetitions · mean ± SD
Mean total repetitions across the eight-week program, pooled across intensity bands. Work performed and strength gained use different units. [12]
158 trained men · 12 groups · three intensity bands · eight weeks. Bars show group means; the strength changes are calculated from the published pre/post means. Training-volume labels include SD; no error bars are drawn.
The 2026 trial made intensity part of the design. One hundred fifty-eight trained men were randomized across three intensity bands (40–55%, 55–70%, 70–85% 1RM) and four loss thresholds. They trained twice weekly for eight weeks using three sets, four-minute rests, immediate velocity feedback and standardized Smith-machine bench technique. Higher intensity produced the greatest overall strength and cross-sectional-area changes.
Across intensities, raw mean 1RM gains were 5.9, 8.2, 11.2 and 9.2 kg at 0%, 15%, 25% and 50% loss. The 25% threshold produced the largest 1RM gain; 50% produced the largest muscle-size and repetition-endurance changes [12].
Those outcomes came with roughly 48, 220, 336 and 534 training repetitions. A 50% threshold may be rational for size or endurance, but it is not “free” strength volume. For an efficient strength block, moderate loss around 15–25% is a defensible starting band. For power or skill, use lower loss. For hypertrophy, allow more loss only while weekly recovery and technical quality remain acceptable.
5. Rep Quality: Define Consistent Execution
Every study above depends on reproducing the exercise. In practice, fatigue changes bar path and joint coordination [13]. If the athlete touches progressively higher, loses the pause, shortens range, lifts the hips or receives spotter assistance, later repetitions are not exchangeable with the first. A numeric velocity threshold cannot rescue an invalid task.
Write observable standards:
- Grip index and wrist position.
- Head, shoulders, hips and feet contact rules.
- Start command, touch point and pause duration.
- Range or pin/block height.
- Maximal intended concentric effort.
- Bar-path corridor or clear technical fault list.
- Stop at velocity threshold, absolute velocity floor, pain response or first invalid rep—whichever arrives first.
Rep quality is not a claim that every repetition must look cosmetically identical. Heavy effort produces small variations. The standard defines which variations preserve the task and which turn the data into another exercise. Video and a validated velocity device can help, but neither replaces coaching judgment or athlete feedback.
Training to momentary failure is one possible end condition, not the definition of productive work. A systematic review found no general failure advantage for strength or hypertrophy when comparisons and volume were considered, with substantial variation across studies [14]. Select failure because the outcome and recovery budget justify it, not because an incomplete prescription needs a default endpoint.
A Short-Term Boost Is Different From Training Adaptation
Read the conditioning activity and the later test together
Bench-press throw
A heavy or ballistic conditioning activity can sometimes improve a later explosive press. Krzysztofik and colleagues pooled 11 bench-press-throw studies with 174 trained men and found a small effect (0.33); moderate bench loads, one set and several minutes of rest produced favorable subgroup estimates [15].
Upper-body PAPE
Finlay and colleagues found that bench conditioning at ≥80% 1RM improved a subsequent 30–40% ballistic bench throw after eight to twelve minutes (effect size 0.31, p = .03) [16].
That acute effect, PAPE, should be tested against a complete warm-up and retained only when it exceeds ordinary day-to-day noise. It does not prove that the same pairing produces superior long-term adaptation. Nor should AEL be assumed to create PAPE: the pooled first-repetition velocity effect is negative. Warm-up, today’s performance and eight-week adaptation occupy different evidence levels.
Build a program from outcomes backward
Outcome-backward repetition specifications
Competition 1RM
- Load
- Regular heavy, technically valid exposure plus moderate back-off work
- ROM
- Rule-valid full range
- Eccentric condition
- Mostly constant; AEL only as a planned advanced block
- Velocity loss / end rule
- Low–moderate loss; stop at invalid competition rep
General strength
- Load
- Moderate-to-high load
- ROM
- Full available range, with targeted partial supplement
- Eccentric condition
- Constant by default
- Velocity loss / end rule
- About 15–25% as a starting band
Hypertrophy
- Load
- Broad load range with sufficient effort
- ROM
- Large controllable range
- Eccentric condition
- Either, based on equipment and recovery
- Velocity loss / end rule
- Moderate–high loss when technique and weekly recovery permit
Power
- Load
- Load that preserves intended speed
- ROM
- Task-specific and repeatable
- Eccentric condition
- Constant unless AEL response is directly verified
- Velocity loss / end rule
- Very low loss; stop before speed or coordination degrades
Segment overload
- Load
- Range-specific load, potentially above full-ROM 1RM
- ROM
- Fixed pins/block or progressively expanded range
- Eccentric condition
- Optional and separately specified
- Velocity loss / end rule
- Technique or segment-velocity rule
Change one primary variable at a time when possible. If a new bench surface, expanded range, AEL setting and higher fatigue threshold arrive in the same week, the athlete may improve or regress without revealing why. Preserve a stable comparator, track the target outcome, and use the smallest change that answers the programming question.
A sample strength specification
Load
Four sets at 75% of paused full-ROM 1RM.
Range & setup
Competition grip and touch; full range.
Execution
One-second pause; maximal intended press.
Phase loading
Constant eccentric and concentric load.
End rule
20% mean-velocity loss or first invalid contact-point / bar-path rep.
Rest
Four minutes between sets.
Rather than “4 × 6 at 75%,” write: four sets at 75% of paused full-ROM 1RM; competition grip and touch; one-second pause; constant eccentric/concentric load; maximal intended press; stop each set at 20% mean-velocity loss or first invalid contact-point/bar-path repetition; four minutes rest. That sentence is longer because the task is more complete. It can be repeated by another coach and adjusted when the data disagree.
What the Launch Pad Studies Measured
Acute crossover: one session, five repetitions
Kidwell and colleagues tested 10 resistance-trained men in randomized crossover conditions. Each performed five bench reps at 70% 1RM on a standard bench and the Launch Pad. With the Launch Pad, right and left pectoralis surface EMG were higher by approximately 24.4% and 27.1%; mean and peak concentric velocity were higher by 17.5% and 15.8%; and vertical bar displacement was higher by 15.8%. All were statistically significant. Power was 8.8% higher descriptively but did not reach the corrected significance threshold (p = .071) [17].
Six measured outcomes, in their original units
Right pectoralis sEMG
% MVC · mean ± SD
p < .001 · d = .76 [17]
Left pectoralis sEMG
% MVC · mean ± SD
p < .001 · d = .85 [17]
Mean bar velocity
m/s · mean ± SD
p < .001 · d = .74 [17]
Peak bar velocity
m/s · mean ± SD
p < .001 · d = .98 [17]
Vertical bar displacement
cm · mean ± SD
p = .005 · d = 1.02 [17]
Concentric power
W · mean ± SD
p = .071 · d = .23 · Not statistically significant [17]
Bars show reported condition means; labels include SD. Every axis starts at zero. EMG is surface amplitude normalized to MVC; displacement is vertical bar travel. The power difference was not statistically significant. The percent differences in the article are derived from these means; none of these acute measures establishes long-term adaptation or safety. [17]
Four weeks: interface comparison under AEL
Goldman and colleagues randomized 42 intermediate-trained men to Launch Pad or conventional bench training. Both groups trained three times weekly for four weeks, completing five sets to failure on a computer-controlled system with eccentric resistance at 150% of concentric.
1RM gains after four weeks
Same AEL program, different support
42 intermediate-trained men
12 supervised sessions
Eccentric resistance at 150% of concentric in both groups
Bench interface compared within this program.
Four-week 1RM gain
kg gained · mean ± SD
7.3 kg between-group difference · p < .001 · g = 3.85 [18]
Bars encode mean changes; labels show mean ± SD. No error bars are drawn.
Conventional 1RM increased 11.1 ± 2.4 kg; Launch Pad 1RM increased 18.4 ± 4.3 kg. The 7.3 kg between-group difference was significant (p < .001; Hedges g = 3.85) [18].
Because both groups used AEL, the study tested the interface under that program—not AEL versus constant loading.
Eight weeks: collegiate football performance
Blatney and colleagues randomized 30 male collegiate football players to otherwise matched off-season programs for 24 sessions.
Eight-week performance changes
1RM gain
kg gained · mean ± SD
Between-group p < .001 · g = 3.99 [19]
NFL-225 repetitions
reps gained · mean ± SD
Between-group p < .001 [19]
Seated medicine-ball throw
m gained · mean ± SD
Between-group p < .001 [19]
30 male collegiate football players · 24 sessions. Each outcome has its own unit and a zero baseline. Bars encode reported mean changes; labels show SD. The 1RM chart uses the paper’s reported change column. No error bars are drawn.
Conventional bench 1RM rose 9.7 ± 3.4 kg in the control group and 19.4 ± 4.3 kg with the Launch Pad. NFL-225 repetitions improved by 4 ± 3 versus 7 ± 3.8, and seated medicine-ball throw by 2.0 ± 3.0 m versus 2.7 ± 2.5 m; reported group differences were significant [19].
These are direct performance outcomes under the tested program, not proof of a specific mechanism.
Keep the result attached to the tested question
Launch Pad findings
Together, the studies support an acute equipment effect and two short longitudinal product comparisons. They do not prove that higher EMG or displacement caused the training gains, that every athlete will respond similarly, or that the product prevents injury. None measured pain, injury incidence, tissue loading or rehabilitation. Launch Pad claims should remain attached to the outcomes directly tested.
Joint Ops and clinical questions
Joint Ops is an active prototype research program; no published Joint Ops outcome is available, and Launch Pad findings cannot be transferred to it. Persistent pain, instability or postoperative restrictions require individualized guidance from a qualified clinician.
Programming questions
Which variable should I change first?
Choose the variable most directly tied to the outcome and hold the others stable. For a competition-strength problem, that is usually load or task-specific range; for excessive fatigue, it is the end rule.
Is full ROM always mandatory?
No. It is the strongest default for broad transfer, while fixed or progressive partials can address overload and segment goals. The range must be explicit and the target task retested.
Should advanced lifters always use eccentric overload?
No. AEL is an optional phase-specific dose with staffing, equipment and fatigue costs. Current pooled evidence does not establish superior long-term strength or hypertrophy.
What velocity-loss threshold should strength work use?
About 15–25% is an evidence-led starting band. The best threshold depends on intensity, volume, athlete, recovery and whether the goal is pure strength, power, hypertrophy or endurance.
Do the Launch Pad studies prove safer shoulder mechanics?
No. They report acute muscle, velocity, power and displacement measures plus short-term performance adaptations. They did not measure pain, injury, joint force or clinical safety outcomes.
Evidence boundary: This article is educational, not medical advice. It does not diagnose pain or prescribe rehabilitation. Product findings apply only to the tested samples, equipment, programs and outcomes; they do not establish injury prevention, pain relief or Joint Ops clinical efficacy.
References
- Currier BS, D’Souza AC, Fiatarone Singh MA, Lowisz CV, Rawson ES, Schoenfeld BJ, et al. (2026). American College of Sports Medicine position stand: Resistance training prescription for muscle function, hypertrophy, and physical performance in healthy adults—an overview of reviews. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 58(4), 851–872. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000003897. ↩
- Lopez P, Radaelli R, Taaffe DR, Newton RU, Galvão DA, Trajano GS, et al. (2021). Resistance training load effects on muscle hypertrophy and strength gain: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 53(6), 1206–1216. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000002585. ↩
- Martínez-Cava A, Hernández-Belmonte A, Courel-Ibáñez J, Morán-Navarro R, González-Badillo JJ, Pallarés JG. (2022). Bench press at full range of motion produces greater neuromuscular adaptations than partial executions after prolonged resistance training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 36(1), 10–15. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000003391. ↩
- Pallarés JG, Hernández-Belmonte A, Martínez-Cava A, Vetrovsky T, Steffl M, Courel-Ibáñez J. (2021). Effects of range of motion on resistance training adaptations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 31(10), 1866–1881. doi:10.1111/sms.14006. ↩
- Massey CD, Vincent J, Maneval M, Moore M, Johnson JT. (2004). An analysis of full range of motion vs. partial range of motion training in the development of strength in untrained men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 18(3), 518–521. doi:10.1519/00124278-200408000-00022. ↩
- Kristiansen EL, Larsen S, van den Tillaar R. (2022). The acute effect of accentuated eccentric overloading upon the kinematics and myoelectric activity in the eccentric and concentric phase of a traditional bench press. Sports, 10(1), 6. doi:10.3390/sports10010006. ↩
- Taber CB, Morris JR, Wagle JP, Merrigan JJ. (2021). Accentuated eccentric loading in the bench press: Considerations for eccentric and concentric loading. Sports, 9(5), 54. doi:10.3390/sports9050054. ↩
- Yang J, Nagatani T, Comfort P, Kendall KL, Haff GG. (2026). Acute effects of accentuated eccentric loading on mean concentric velocity during resistance training: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine - Open, 12, 74. doi:10.1186/s40798-026-01031-y. ↩
- Zhang X, Weakley J, Li H, Marcos-Frutos D, García-Ramos A. (2026). Acute and chronic effects of accentuated eccentric loading versus constant-load resistance training: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 56, 1749–1770. doi:10.1007/s40279-026-02422-7. ↩
- Sánchez-Medina L, González-Badillo JJ. (2011). Velocity loss as an indicator of neuromuscular fatigue during resistance training. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 43(9), 1725–1734. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e318213f880. ↩
- Pareja-Blanco F, Alcazar J, Cornejo-Daza PJ, Sánchez-Valdepeñas J, Rodriguez-Lopez C, Hidalgo-de Mora J, et al. (2020). Effects of velocity loss in the bench press exercise on strength gains, neuromuscular adaptations and muscle hypertrophy. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 30, 2154–2166. doi:10.1111/sms.13775. ↩
- Pareja-Blanco F, Sánchez-Valdepeñas J, Cornejo-Daza PJ, Rodiles-Guerrero L. (2026). Optimizing strength and hypertrophy: The combined effect of intensity and velocity loss thresholds in bench press training. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 58(8), 1773–1781. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000003988. ↩
- Duffey MJ, Challis JH. (2007). Fatigue effects on bar kinematics during the bench press. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21(2), 556–560. doi:10.1519/R-19885.1. ↩
- Grgic J, Schoenfeld BJ, Orazem J, Sabol F. (2022). Effects of resistance training performed to repetition failure or non-failure on muscular strength and hypertrophy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 11(2), 202–211. doi:10.1016/j.jshs.2021.01.007. ↩
- Krzysztofik M, Wilk M, Stastny P, Golas A. (2021). Post-activation performance enhancement in the bench press throw: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Physiology, 11, 598628. doi:10.3389/fphys.2020.598628. ↩
- Finlay MJ, Bridge CA, Greig M, Page RM. (2022). Upper-body post-activation performance enhancement for athletic performance: A systematic review with meta-analysis and recommendations for future research. Sports Medicine, 52, 847–871. doi:10.1007/s40279-021-01598-4. ↩
- Kidwell JA, Yamamoto T, Hetherton KJ, Truneh N, Bright JJ, Blatney AE, et al. (2026). Acute effects of thoracic-spinal elevation via a novel bench press pad on sEMG and barbell kinetics in resistance-trained males. International Journal of Exercise Science, 19(1), 1003. doi:10.70252/IJES2026103. ↩
- Goldman P, Taylor J, Yamamoto T, Blatney AE, Sahni TK, Lechner RJ, et al. (2025). Eccentrically overloaded bench press training: Augmenting strength gains via a novel bench press pad. Scientific Journal of Sport and Performance, 4(4), 480–490. doi:10.55860/JCDL3612. ↩
- Blatney AE, Kidwell JA, Yamamoto T, Goldman P, Hetherton KJ, Dolezal BA. (2026). Effects of an eight week training regimen with a novel bench press pad compared to a traditional bench on upper body strength and performance in collegiate American football players. Scientific Journal of Sport and Performance, 5(1), 10–21. doi:10.55860/RNUB8627. ↩