Human-Centered Strength Equipment

Broader scientific context

What does designing around the athlete actually involve?

Design around the athlete’s body, exercise and training environment, then test fit, setup and the intended performance outcome.

Back to Equipment & Interface
Steel dimensions, pad thickness and load ratings describe the hardware. The athlete also needs suitable reach, clearance, support and settings that can be reproduced. Human-centered strength equipment treats the athlete, movement, environment and contact points as one system. Define that system first, then test fit, setup, error control and performance.

Key Takeaways

  1. Strength equipment is part of the exercise condition. Geometry, support surfaces, contact points and controls help define the movement the athlete can perform; they are not passive scenery around the load.
  2. Human-centered design starts upstream of features. It defines the athlete, task, environment and physical interfaces first, then develops equipment requirements from that system.
  3. Fit is multidimensional. Anthropometry matters, but so do reach, clearance, support, friction, control legibility, fatigue and the ability to reproduce a setting from session to session.
  4. Match each claim to its measure: structural safety, usability, acute mechanics, training performance or clinical outcome.
  5. Bench-press mechanics respond to the conditions of the lift. Published research shows that technique, force strategy and support-related conditions can change the mechanical task, making equipment configuration a legitimate experimental variable.
  6. Three peer-reviewed Launch Pad® studies report acute pressing changes and greater performance gains under their tested protocols in four- and eight-week training programs.

Human-Centered Design Is an Engineering Process

Ergonomics and human factors provide the larger intellectual framework. ISO 26800 applies ergonomics principles to the design and evaluation of products, tools, equipment, systems, facilities and environments so they are compatible with human characteristics and capabilities (International Organization for Standardization, 2011). Karwowski describes the discipline in similarly broad terms: the object of design is a human-compatible system, not an artifact considered in isolation (Karwowski, 2005).

ISO 9241-210 is written for interactive systems, but its process is useful beyond screens and software: understand users and context; define requirements; create design solutions; evaluate them against those requirements; and repeat the cycle as evidence accumulates (International Organization for Standardization, 2019).

Applied to strength equipment, the “interaction” is physical and consequential. The user is creating force against an external load, often at high effort, and the quality of the interaction can change as fatigue rises.

AMM working definition

Human-Centered Strength Equipment is equipment developed and evaluated around defined athletes, intended exercises, training environments, physical contact points, adjustment behavior and measurable outcomes. It asks the athlete to adapt where the task requires adaptation, not where the design failed to account for predictable human variation.

A competition bench, collegiate adjustable bench and rehabilitation press serve different users, rules and tasks. Specify those requirements explicitly.

AMM Research · Visual 46 · Concept diagram

The human–task–equipment system

A closed loop replaces feature-first design. Athlete and task requirements lead to equipment and contact decisions; measured use determines what should be retained, changed or studied next.

  1. 01

    Athlete

    Body dimensions · strength
    Mobility · training history
    Experience · fatigue · symptoms

    Next: define the task
  2. 02

    Task + environment

    Exercise · load · range · goal
    Rules · fatigue · supervision
    Floor · rack · space · throughput

    Next: specify the equipment
  3. 03

    Equipment

    Geometry · structure · support
    Adjustments · locks · controls
    Materials · service · durability

    Next: map the contacts
  4. 04

    Contact interfaces

    Hands · feet · torso · seats
    Pads · handles · foot plates
    Friction · pressure · clearance

    Next: observe the movement
  5. 05

    Movement + output

    Position · path · range · force
    Velocity · stability · activation
    Setup and rep repeatability

    Next: measure the outcome
  6. 06

    Measure + iterate

    Fit · error · usability · mechanics
    Acute performance · adaptation
    Refine requirements and retest

    Return: revise the athlete and task brief

Measured use feeds back into the brief. Retain, change or retest the design against the intended outcome.

Figure 1. AMM’s human-centered strength-equipment system. The equipment is one component inside a larger loop; its contact surfaces and controls shape the physical interaction through which movement is produced and measured.

The Athlete Is Not a Percentile

Anthropometry is the obvious starting point for physical equipment. Stature, limb length, shoulder breadth, hip breadth, reach and hand size can influence access to a control, alignment with a machine axis, foot contact, torso support and available clearance.

But designing around an “average athlete” is rarely sufficient. The person near the middle of one body dimension may be near an extreme of another, and the relevant combination changes with the task.

The problem is also dynamic. A body dimension tells a designer where the hand might reach; it does not show how the athlete reaches it while holding a dumbbell, maintaining a setup, working around a spotter or breathing hard after a set.

Strength, mobility, experience and fatigue can change how the same person uses the same hardware. Human-centered fit therefore includes physical accommodation, movement strategy and the conditions under which the equipment will be adjusted.

Adjustment range is only the first question

An adjustable product succeeds only when the intended user can find, understand and reproduce a useful setting. Garneau and Parkinson examined the role of “just noticeable difference” in physical accommodation: people can adapt to multiple configurations and may not reliably distinguish among settings that are technically different but functionally indistinguishable (Garneau & Parkinson, 2013).

Use perceptibly different settings that cover the intended athletes and tasks.

For strength equipment, a high-quality adjustment combines sufficient range with legible indexing, manageable operating force, positive lock engagement and a meaningful change between positions.

In a team weight room, transition time matters. In testing, setting recall matters. Under heavy load, ambiguity matters. A pin that is present but difficult to confirm is not the same design outcome as a pin that visibly and audibly seats.

Evaluate comfort alongside reach, clearance, support, control and repeatability.

A soft pad may feel comfortable and compress inconsistently. A broad handle may distribute pressure while forcing an awkward grip for smaller hands. A highly adjustable bench may accommodate more positions while increasing setup errors. The complete design has to be evaluated as used.

Equipment Is Part of the Exercise Prescription

Strength exercises are created by constraints. A barbell permits one set of movement solutions; independent dumbbells permit another. A Smith machine constrains the bar path. A cable establishes a line of resistance. A handle fixes grip orientation. A seat and pad establish where the body is supported.

Each equipment condition defines a particular training task.

Coaches already manipulate many of them deliberately. They change stance, grip, bar, range, tempo, resistance curve and stability demand to serve a programming objective. The equipment surface belongs among those programming decisions.

If a pad changes the athlete’s position, clearance, effective range or ability to reproduce the setup, the exercise condition has changed even when the load written on the program has not.

Pivotal study · Why external load is not the whole repetition

Mausehund and colleagues measured the forces most bench studies leave out

Within-subject design35 strength-trained adultsFour grip/elbow conditions6–8RM sets

The investigators combined three-dimensional mechanics, net joint moments and surface EMG while 16 women and 19 men performed medium-, wide- and two narrow-grip bench-press variations. Their instrumented setup included the mediolateral forces athletes applied to the bar rather than assuming the bar was loaded only vertically (Mausehund et al., 2022).

AMM Research · Visual 48 · Study result summary

Grip changes the mechanical task

Up to12%
More external load with wide and medium grips than with narrow grips.
Up to43%
Higher shoulder net joint moments as grip widened.
Up to26%
Higher mean and peak elbow moments as grip narrowed.
Maximum reported differences across distinct grip comparisons, not three raw group means or one common effect. Mausehund et al. (2022).

The conditions changed the mechanical task materially. Wide and medium grips permitted up to 12% more load than the narrow grips. Shoulder net joint moments increased by as much as 43% as grip widened, while mean and peak elbow moments increased by as much as 26% as grip narrowed. Elbow position within the narrow grip changed the result again. Muscle activity did not behave as a simple proxy for all of those loading differences.

Practical interpretation

“Bench press at 80%” is not a complete mechanical description. Grip, elbow position, lateral force strategy and bar path help determine where muscular demand appears. Human-centered equipment analysis must describe the task with the same precision used to describe the hardware.

AMM Research · Visual 49 · Study comparison

Two support conditions, three measured outcomes

  • Stable flat bench

  • Exercise ball

  • 1RM strength
  • Upper-body + trunk EMG
  • Elbow range of motion

In 13 participants, Goodman and colleagues found similar 1RM, recorded upper-body and trunk EMG, and elbow ROM on a stable flat bench and exercise ball under the tested protocol (Goodman et al., 2008).

Schematic representations of the two tested support conditions.

Bench Research Shows Why the Interface Deserves Its Own Study

The bench press is an especially revealing case because the apparatus looks passive. The bar moves; the bench appears to stay out of the story. In practice, the bench fixes the surface beneath the head, thorax and pelvis, while the rack determines where the athlete must position relative to the bar. Width, height, compressibility, friction and support geometry establish boundaries around the torso before the first repetition begins.

Technique research shows that modest changes within those boundaries can alter the measured loading environment. In a second investigation, Mausehund and Krosshaug compared 12 powerlifters with 22 recreationally trained lifters during 6–8RM bench-press sets. Powerlifters used different bar paths and shorter joint ranges of motion; women and men also differed in normalized shoulder and elbow moment distribution and in the activity of selected muscles (Mausehund & Krosshaug, 2023).

A design evaluated around one average technique and one average body can therefore miss meaningful ways that experienced athletes solve the task.

Pivotal study · Technique, scapular condition and modeled shoulder loads

Noteboom and colleagues tested 21 versions of the same named exercise

Experimental modeling study10 experienced athletes9 men · 1 woman16 kg bar

Participants completed three repetitions across combinations of grip width, shoulder-abduction target and scapular instruction. Motion capture and forces from an instrumented bar were entered into an OpenSim shoulder model to estimate glenohumeral and acromioclavicular reaction forces and rotator-cuff activity (Noteboom et al., 2024).

AMM Research · Visual 50 · Study analysis pathway

From recorded movement to estimated joint loads

  1. 01

    Record movement + force

    Motion capture and an instrumented bar record the repetition across grip widths, shoulder-abduction targets and scapular instructions.

    Input: observed motion and bar forces
  2. 02

    Apply the shoulder model

    Recorded inputs enter the OpenSim shoulder model. Model assumptions define how those inputs are translated into internal estimates.

    Analysis: musculoskeletal model
  3. 03

    Compare estimated loads

    Compare glenohumeral and acromioclavicular reaction forces and estimated rotator-cuff activity between conditions.

    Output: condition-specific estimates
10 athletes · 21 technique conditions · 16 kg bar. This pathway distinguishes measured inputs from modeled outputs. Noteboom et al. (2024).

Grip width, scapular pose and mediolateral hand force changed selected model outputs. Increasing grip width raised several glenohumeral and acromioclavicular reaction-force components through much of the repetition.

Scapular retraction reduced total glenohumeral reaction force, compression and selected shear components relative to the neutral instruction during portions of the cycle. Inter-individual lateral-force strategies varied widely and materially influenced the modeled shoulder loads.

The released scapular condition, created with a pool noodle beneath the spine, did not differ from neutral in modeled joint reaction forces.

Grip, scapular instruction and lateral force strategy all belong in the assessment of modeled shoulder loading.

Practical application

Record grip, scapular cue and lateral force alongside the support condition when comparing pressing mechanics.

Equipment comparisons should capture how different athletes use the apparatus. Measure the contact, scapular movement, force direction or loading that the design is intended to change.

Match the Claim to the Evidence

Select a test for each requirement: structural capacity, stable setup, useful fit, movement mechanics or training performance.

ISO 20957-1:2024 provides general safety requirements and test methods for stationary training equipment (International Organization for Standardization, 2024).

AMM Research · Visual 47 · Evidence framework

The strength-equipment evidence ladder

Select the evidence level that matches the outcome being evaluated.

  1. Evidence level 01

    Structure + reliability

    Load, stability, locks, wear, failure modes

    What the test can establish

    The specified requirement passed under the stated test conditions.

    Next question

    Can intended users fit and operate it correctly?

  2. Evidence level 02

    Fit + usability

    Accommodation, setup, error, indexing

    What the test can establish

    The tested population could configure, use, and reproduce the intended setup.

    Next question

    Did the movement or mechanical output change?

  3. Evidence level 03

    Acute biomechanics

    Position, force, motion, EMG, velocity, ROM

    What the test can establish

    The tested condition immediately changed the measured repetition characteristic.

    Next question

    Does repeated exposure change adaptation?

  4. Evidence level 04

    Training adaptation

    Strength, endurance, power, skill, hypertrophy

    What the test can establish

    Groups changed differently under the tested program, population, and duration.

    Next question

    Did symptoms, time loss, or injury incidence change?

  5. Evidence level 05

    Clinical outcomes

    Pain, function, injury, return to training

    What the test can establish

    The tested intervention affected the specified clinical endpoint prospectively.

    Next question

    Replicate across products, populations, and settings.

Figure 2. Match the test to the outcome: structural reliability, fit, acute mechanics, training adaptation or clinical function.

Standards establish a floor. Product claims require the rung that matches the promised outcome.

Competition standards illustrate the same distinction. The International Powerlifting Federation specifies a bench at least 1.22 m long, 29–32 cm wide and 42–45 cm high, among other requirements (International Powerlifting Federation, 2026).

These dimensions standardize competition and define the setup athletes must practice for that task.

Launch Pad Case Study: Make the Interface the Experimental Variable

The athlete-to-bench surface had long been discussed through design rationale, coaching experience and adjacent shoulder research. The published Launch Pad research moved the question into direct comparison: hold the bench-press task and training framework as constant as practical, change the support condition and measure what follows.

AMM Research · Visual 23Equipment photograph

Describe the whole interface being compared

Side view of The Launch Pad on a conventional flat bench, with the contoured upper support, central adjustment and securing straps visible.

The installed system combines geometry, support zones, attachment and positioning.

Advanced Muscle Mechanics product-image archive. Original image, unaltered.

3Peer-reviewed studies asking acute and longitudinal questions.
82Participants across three separate published samples, not one pooled cohort.
36Scheduled sessions across the two supervised training protocols: 12 plus 24.

Study 01 · Acute mechanics

Kidwell and colleagues used a randomized, single-blind crossover design in 10 resistance-trained men. Each participant performed five repetitions at 70% of the participant’s established 1-RM on a conventional flat bench and with The Launch Pad®. Bilateral pectoralis-major surface EMG and a linear position transducer captured activation, bar velocity, concentric power and vertical bar displacement (Kidwell et al., 2026).

AMM Research · Visual 43 · Study results

Six acute outcomes, shown side by side

Kidwell et al. · 10 men · five repetitions at 70% 1RM. Bars show raw condition means; error bars show ±1 standard deviation (SD). All axes start at zero; related outcomes share a scale. Study methods and source.

Right pectoralis sEMG

Right pectoralis sEMG Flat bench: 70.2 ± 24.8 % MVC; Launch Pad: 87.3 ± 20.1 % MVC. Means with standard deviation error bars. p < .001 · d = .76. Flat bench Launch Pad 0 25 50 75 100 125 Mean (% MVC) 70.2 87.3

Flat bench: 70.2 ± 24.8 % MVC · Launch Pad: 87.3 ± 20.1 % MVC

p < .001 · d = .76

Left pectoralis sEMG

Left pectoralis sEMG Flat bench: 68.3 ± 23.4 % MVC; Launch Pad: 86.8 ± 20 % MVC. Means with standard deviation error bars. p < .001 · d = .85. Flat bench Launch Pad 0 25 50 75 100 125 Mean (% MVC) 68.3 86.8

Flat bench: 68.3 ± 23.4 % MVC · Launch Pad: 86.8 ± 20 % MVC

p < .001 · d = .85

Mean bar velocity

Mean bar velocity Flat bench: 0.40 ± 0.09 m/s; Launch Pad: 0.47 ± 0.09 m/s. Means with standard deviation error bars. p < .001 · d = .74. Flat bench Launch Pad 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Mean (m/s) 0.40 0.47

Flat bench: 0.40 ± 0.09 m/s · Launch Pad: 0.47 ± 0.09 m/s

p < .001 · d = .74

Peak bar velocity

Peak bar velocity Flat bench: 0.57 ± 0.11 m/s; Launch Pad: 0.66 ± 0.09 m/s. Means with standard deviation error bars. p < .001 · d = .98. Flat bench Launch Pad 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Mean (m/s) 0.57 0.66

Flat bench: 0.57 ± 0.11 m/s · Launch Pad: 0.66 ± 0.09 m/s

p < .001 · d = .98

Vertical displacement

Vertical displacement Flat bench: 38 ± 7 cm; Launch Pad: 44 ± 4 cm. Means with standard deviation error bars. p = .005 · d = 1.02. Flat bench Launch Pad 0 15 30 45 60 Mean (cm) 38 44

Flat bench: 38 ± 7 cm · Launch Pad: 44 ± 4 cm

p = .005 · d = 1.02

Concentric power

Concentric power Flat bench: 249 ± 103 W; Launch Pad: 271 ± 93 W. Means with standard deviation error bars. p = .071 · d = .23. Not statistically significant. Flat bench Launch Pad 0 100 200 300 400 Mean (W) 249 271

Flat bench: 249 ± 103 W · Launch Pad: 271 ± 93 W

p = .071 · d = .23

Not statistically significant
Full acute results and derived differences

The raw means were higher in the Launch Pad condition for right pectoralis activation (87.3% vs 70.2% MVC), left pectoralis activation (86.8% vs 68.3% MVC), mean velocity (0.47 vs 0.40 m/s), peak velocity (0.66 vs 0.57 m/s) and vertical bar displacement (44 vs 38 cm). Those values correspond to derived relative differences of approximately 24.4%, 27.1%, 17.5%, 15.8% and 15.8%, respectively. All activation and velocity comparisons were reported at p < .001; vertical bar displacement was p = .005. Concentric power averaged 271 versus 249 W, approximately 8.8% higher, but the corrected comparison was not statistically significant (p = .071; d = 0.23).

The interface changed acute muscle activity, bar speed and vertical displacement during the submaximal five-repetition set.

Study 02 · Four-week strength trial

Goldman and colleagues randomized 42 intermediate-trained men to the Launch Pad or conventional condition while both groups completed the same one-month, thrice-weekly bench program using a connected adaptive resistance machine to deliver supramaximal eccentric overload. All 42 participants completed the 12 supervised sessions (Goldman et al., 2025).

AMM Research · Visual 44 · Study results

Four weeks: change in maximum strength

Goldman et al. · 42 men · 12 supervised sessions. Bars show mean 1RM gains with ±1 SD error bars on a zero-based axis. Study methods and source.

1RM change

1RM change Control: +11.1 ± 2.4 kg; Launch Pad: +18.4 ± 4.3 kg. Means with standard deviation error bars. 7.3 kg between-group difference · p < .001 · g = 3.85. Control Launch Pad 0 10 20 30 Change (kg) +11.1 +18.4

Control: +11.1 ± 2.4 kg · Launch Pad: +18.4 ± 4.3 kg

7.3 kg between-group difference · p < .001 · g = 3.85

+7.3 kgBetween-group difference in mean 1RM gain

Mean 1-RM rose from 98.1 to 109.2 kg in the conventional group and from 97.4 to 115.8 kg in the Launch Pad group. The average gains were 11.1 kg (24.5 lb) and 18.4 kg (40.6 lb), an absolute between-group difference of 7.3 kg (16.1 lb).

The Launch Pad group’s mean improvement was therefore approximately 66% greater; the paper reported p < .001 and Hedges’ g = 3.85.

The between-group effect size was Hedges’ g = 3.85; 0.8 is conventionally considered large.

Study 03 · Eight-week collegiate football trial

Blatney and colleagues randomized 30 male collegiate football players to the two support conditions during an eight-week, two-block off-season program. The athletes completed three supervised sessions per week, for 24 sessions, while the researchers measured 1-RM bench press, repetitions on the NFL-225 test and seated medicine-ball throw distance (Blatney et al., 2026).

AMM Research · Visual 45 · Study results

Eight weeks: three performance outcomes

Blatney et al. · 30 collegiate football players · 24 supervised sessions. Bars show mean changes on separate scales with units. 1RM error bars show ±1 SD; SDs for the other two outcomes are listed below their charts. Study methods and source.

1RM change

1RM change Control: +9.7 ± 3.4 kg; Launch Pad: +19.4 ± 4.3 kg. Means with standard deviation error bars. p < .001 · g = 3.99. Control Launch Pad 0 10 20 30 Change (kg) +9.7 +19.4

Control: +9.7 ± 3.4 kg · Launch Pad: +19.4 ± 4.3 kg

p < .001 · g = 3.99

NFL-225 repetitions

NFL-225 repetitions Control: +4 reps; Launch Pad: +7 reps. Group mean changes; error bars are not shown. Between-group p < .001. Control Launch Pad 0 2 4 6 8 10 Change (reps) +4 +7

Control: +4 ± 3 reps · Launch Pad: +7 ± 3.8 reps

Between-group p < .001

Values are mean ± SD. Bars show means only; error bars are not shown.

Seated medicine-ball throw

Seated medicine-ball throw Control: +2.0 m; Launch Pad: +2.7 m. Group mean changes; error bars are not shown. Between-group p < .001. Control Launch Pad 0 1 2 3 4 Change (m) +2.0 +2.7

Control: +2.0 ± 3.0 m · Launch Pad: +2.7 ± 2.5 m

Between-group p < .001

Values are mean ± SD. Bars show means only; error bars are not shown.

Full eight-week results and derived differences

Both groups improved on all three outcomes. The Launch Pad group improved more: 1-RM increased 19.4 kg (42.8 lb) versus 9.7 kg (21.4 lb); NFL-225 performance increased seven versus four repetitions; and seated throw distance increased 2.7 versus 2.0 m (8.9 vs 6.6 ft). These were approximately 100%, 75% and 35% greater average changes, respectively. All three between-group comparisons were reported at p < .001, with Hedges’ g values of 3.99, 3.67 and 4.10.

Compare study designs, protocols and findings

Study 01

Question
Does the interface change one submaximal set?
Design and sample
Randomized single-blind crossover; n = 10 resistance-trained men
Protocol
Five reps at 70% of the participant’s established 1-RM
Finding-first result
Higher bilateral pectoralis sEMG, mean and peak velocity, and vertical bar displacement. Power was numerically higher but nonsignificant.

Study 02

Question
Does the difference persist through a short strength block?
Design and sample
Four-week randomized parallel trial; n = 42 intermediate-trained men
Protocol
12 supervised eccentric-overload sessions
Finding-first result
+18.4 vs +11.1 kg 1-RM. Difference 7.3 kg; approximately 66% greater mean gain; p < .001.

Study 03

Question
Does the pattern extend to trained football players and multiple outcomes?
Design and sample
Eight-week randomized parallel trial; n = 30 male collegiate football players
Protocol
24 supervised sessions within an off-season program
Finding-first result
Larger changes in 1-RM, NFL-225 reps and seated throw. All between-group p < .001.
The evidence progression

Different athlete-to-bench interface → different acute repetition characteristics → repeated exposure under that condition → different longitudinal performance outcomes.

The interface affected acute pressing measures and longer-term performance across separate samples and training protocols.

A Better Equipment Brief Starts With Seven Questions

Human-centered work becomes practical when it changes the order in which decisions are made. Instead of beginning with a feature and searching for a benefit, begin with a requirement and determine what would count as success.

AMM Research · Visual 08 · Concept diagram

Turn a design brief into a test-and-revise loop

  1. 01

    Define intended users

    Bodies · tasks · setting

    Next: observe the intended use
  2. 02

    Observe actual use

    Fit · errors · repeatability

    Next: compare use with the brief
  3. 03

    Revise the requirements

    Change what failed the test

    Return: update the brief and test again

A design feature becomes useful when its intended job is tested.

Design-process illustration: observe use, revise requirements and retest.

Article synthesis; see the references below.

1 · Who is the intended user?

Define body-size range, training experience, relevant mobility or impairment, supervision and the population that should not use the product.

2 · What task must be preserved?

Name the exercise, load range, movement standard, ruleset, training goal and whether the product serves competition practice, supplemental training, testing or another use.

3 · Where does the athlete meet the equipment?

Map hands, feet, head, torso, pelvis, seats, pads, handles, controls and restraints. Contact location, pressure, friction and clearance are design variables.

4 · Which errors are predictable?

Identify incomplete locks, unstable transitions, ambiguous settings, pinch exposures, incorrect orientation and setup states that become harder to detect under fatigue.

5 · Can the condition be reproduced?

Use visible indexing, positive engagement and recordable settings so the same athlete and the next coach can rebuild the intended task.

6 · Which outcome justifies the feature?

Select fit, setup time, error rate, position drift, joint motion, force, velocity, strength, clinical status or another explicit endpoint. Do not allow one measure to stand in for all of them.

7 · What result would change the design?

Set decision criteria before testing. Evidence should be capable of removing, resizing or relocating a feature, not merely decorating the finished product.

What this changes in the weight room

  • Coaches: record bench angle, rack height, seat position, grip and support condition when they materially change the exercise. Equipment settings are part of the prescription.
  • Athletes: separate specificity from variety. The apparatus required in competition may be indispensable for practice even when another condition serves a supplemental objective.
  • Facility owners: evaluate accommodation, transition time, lock confirmation, cleanability, maintenance and serviceability alongside rated capacity and price.
  • Clinicians: evaluate equipment alongside load, range, volume, symptoms, recovery and physical capacity.
  • Designers: test usability before asking an athlete to load the system heavily. A geometry that cannot be configured reliably contaminates every later performance comparison.
  • Researchers: report the exact bench, pad, upholstery, rack position, angles, settings and setup instructions. “Flat bench” is often not enough detail for replication.

What This Means for The Launch Pad® and Joint Ops™

The acute trial found higher pectoralis activation, mean and peak bar velocity, and vertical displacement in 10 resistance-trained men. In a four-week eccentric-overload trial, 42 intermediate-trained men using The Launch Pad® gained more in 1RM than the control group. In an eight-week trial, 30 male collegiate football players using The Launch Pad® gained more than the flat-bench group in strength, NFL-225 reps and seated-throw distance.

Joint Ops™ integrates selectable torso surfaces, shoulder clearance, adjustable lumbar positioning, seat geometry, bench angles, indexing, stability and traction into a complete bench platform.

Direct research is underway on the working Joint Ops prototype, which AMM publicly debuted at the CSCCa National Conference in May 2026.

Joint Ops is the next active experimental platform

Joint Ops™ places the athlete-to-bench interface within the bench architecture. Prototype evaluation is testing that integrated approach.

Follow the Joint Ops™ project page for research updates.

The surface belongs in the record

Record the support surface with load, grip, range, tempo and fatigue. Include the body regions supported, available clearance and settings needed to reproduce the exercise.

Continue Through the Framework

Apply the framework → Human-Centered Bench DesignHeight, width, support geometry, surface behavior, adjustment and competition specificity. Follow the contact points → The Athlete-to-Bench InterfaceHow the feet, hands and torso organize the bench-press task. Broaden the discipline → Equipment ErgonomicsAnthropometry, usability, feedback, safety and human-factors evaluation across equipment. Examine the design gap → The Bench ProblemWhy the support surface beneath the athlete warrants its own engineering and research program.

Read the Evidence at Its Original Level

Explore the published Launch Pad® studies and current Joint Ops™ development in the Research Hub.

Enter the Research Hub

References

  1. Blatney, A. E., Kidwell, J. A., Yamamoto, T., Goldman, P., Hetherton, K. J., & Dolezal, B. A. (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. https://doi.org/10.55860/RNUB8627.
  2. Garneau, C. J., & Parkinson, M. B. (2013). Considering just noticeable difference in assessments of physical accommodation for product design. Ergonomics, 56(11), 1777–1788. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2013.838308.
  3. Goldman, P., Taylor, J., Yamamoto, T., Blatney, A. E., Sahni, T. K., Lechner, R. J., 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. https://doi.org/10.55860/JCDL3612.
  4. Goodman, C. A., Pearce, A. J., Nicholes, C. J., Gatt, B. M., & Fairweather, I. H. (2008). No difference in 1RM strength and muscle activation during the barbell chest press on a stable and unstable surface. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(1), 88–94. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e31815ef6b3.
  5. International Organization for Standardization. (2011). ISO 26800:2011—Ergonomics—General approach, principles and concepts. Official ISO record.
  6. International Organization for Standardization. (2019). ISO 9241-210:2019—Ergonomics of human-system interaction—Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems. Official ISO record.
  7. International Organization for Standardization. (2024). ISO 20957-1:2024—Stationary training equipment—Part 1: General safety requirements and test methods. Official ISO record.
  8. International Powerlifting Federation. (2026). Technical Rules Book, effective March 1, 2026. Official rulebook.
  9. Karwowski, W. (2005). Ergonomics and human factors: The paradigms for science, engineering, design, technology and management of human-compatible systems. Ergonomics, 48(5), 436–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130400029167.
  10. Kidwell, J. A., Yamamoto, T., Hetherton, K. J., Truneh, N., Bright, J. J., Blatney, A. E., 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. https://doi.org/10.70252/IJES2026103.
  11. Mausehund, L., & Krosshaug, T. (2023). Understanding bench press biomechanics—Training expertise and sex affect lifting technique and net joint moments. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 37(1), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000004191.
  12. Mausehund, L., Werkhausen, A., Bartsch, J., & Krosshaug, T. (2022). Understanding bench press biomechanics—The necessity of measuring lateral barbell forces. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 36(10), 2685–2695. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003948.
  13. Noteboom, L., Belli, I., Hoozemans, M. J. M., Seth, A., Veeger, H. E. J., & van der Helm, F. C. T. (2024). Effects of bench press technique variations on musculoskeletal shoulder loads and potential injury risk. Frontiers in Physiology, 15, 1393235. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2024.1393235.