Study 02 · Scientific Journal of Sport and Performance · 2025

Eccentrically Overloaded Bench Press Training: Augmenting Strength Gains via a Novel Bench Press Pad

Phillip Goldman; John Taylor; Trent Yamamoto; August E. Blatney; Trinabh K. Sahni; Ross J. Lechner; Dominic M. Benna; Matthew Bolton; Vishruth Shatagopam; Ethan Chen; Jacob Bright; Brett A. Dolezal
DOI: 10.55860/JCDL3612

Study at a glance

What Was Tested—and What Was Held Constant.

Sample42 intermediate-trained males (21 per group)
DesignFour-week, single-blind randomized controlled parallel trial
Exposure12 sessions over four weeks
Primary measuresChange in one-repetition-maximum bench press strength.

Randomize

Forty-two participants were allocated 1:1 to Launch Pad or Standard Flat Bench groups.

Match the Program

Both groups used the same connected adaptive resistance exercise machine and supervised protocol.

Train

Three non-consecutive sessions per week for four weeks; 12 total sessions.

Test

1-RM bench press was assessed before and after the training block.

Protocol context: Twelve supervised sessions, three times per week. Both groups used the same connected adaptive resistance exercise machine for supramaximal eccentric overload; the bench surface differed.
Reported findings

Raw Numbers First. Interpretation Second.

Average 1-RM gain+7.3 kg / +16.1 lb advantage
Flat
+11.1 kg
Launch Pad
+18.4 kg
Relative average improvement~66% greater
Flat
1.00×
Launch Pad
1.66×
Standardized separationHedges’ g = 3.85
Large ref.
0.80
Study
3.85
OutcomeStandard Flat BenchLaunch PadChangep-valueEffect
Standard Flat Bench group98.1 ± 4.5 kg baseline109.2 ± 6.7 kg post+11.1 ± 2.4 kg< .001 within-
Launch Pad group97.4 ± 6.1 kg baseline115.8 ± 5.0 kg post+18.4 ± 4.3 kg< .001 within-
Between-group advantageFlat: +11.1 kgLaunch Pad: +18.4 kg+7.3 kg / +16.1 lb< .001 betweenHedges’ g = 3.85

All values are reported group means or mean changes from the published paper. Visual bar lengths are normalized within each row and are not a shared-unit scale across different outcomes.

The responsible interpretation

What This Study Supports. What It Does Not.

The result in context

Both Groups Improved

The Standard Flat Bench group gained 11.1 kg on average. The Launch Pad group gained 18.4 kg. The relevant finding is the 7.3 kg difference in average improvement under the matched protocol.

Both groups became stronger. The important comparison is the difference in average improvement under a matched program: 18.4 kg versus 11.1 kg. That is evidence for an additive surface effect within this protocol, not a guarantee that every program or athlete will reproduce the same magnitude.

Not measured / not established

Do Not Expand the Claim Beyond the Outcome.

Hypertrophy, pain, injury incidence, joint forces, long-term retention, or outcomes outside the eccentric-overload protocol.

Group averages are not individual guarantees, and this study does not automatically establish outcomes for Joint Ops™.

Coach lens

Questions to Ask Before Programming From It.

01

Does my athlete match the sample?

42 intermediate-trained males (21 per group) were studied. Apply more cautiously outside that population.

02

Does my program match the protocol?

Twelve supervised sessions, three times per week. Both groups used the same connected adaptive resistance exercise machine for supramaximal eccentric overload; the bench surface differed.

03

Am I using the right outcome?

Change in one-repetition-maximum bench press strength was measured. Do not substitute pain, hypertrophy, or on-field outcomes that were not assessed.

04

How will I preserve specificity?

Standard Flat Bench practice still matters when competition, testing, or technical specificity is the target. The Launch Pad can be programmed as a complementary surface.

Limitations

The Finding Gets Stronger When the Boundary Stays Visible.

Study-specific limitations
  • Small, homogeneous male sample and short four-week duration.
  • The result belongs to a specific supervised eccentric-overload protocol using a connected adaptive resistance exercise machine.
  • Diet was not tightly controlled beyond supplement restrictions.
  • The study measured 1-RM strength, not hypertrophy, pain, injury incidence, joint force, or long-term durability of the response.
  • The paper proposed possible mechanisms, but those mechanisms were not directly measured in this trial.
Portfolio-wide guardrails
  • Male samples only.
  • Group averages are not individual predictions.
  • Pain, injury incidence, and joint forces were not measured.
  • Launch Pad findings do not automatically transfer to Joint Ops™.
  • Read the full paper before citing the result in academic or clinical work.
Cite the study

Keep the Source Attached to the Claim.

Goldman, P., Taylor, J., Yamamoto, T., Blatney, A. E., Sahni, T. K., Lechner, R. J., Benna, D. M., Bolton, M., Shatagopam, V., Chen, E., Bright, J., & Dolezal, B. A. (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
From evidence to equipment

Read the Paper. Then Decide Whether the Surface Belongs in Your Program.

Reference: Goldman, P., Taylor, J., Yamamoto, T., Blatney, A. E., Sahni, T. K., Lechner, R. J., Benna, D. M., Bolton, M., Shatagopam, V., Chen, E., Bright, J., & Dolezal, B. A. (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

Research notice: This page is an educational summary, not the published article. It does not provide medical advice or guarantee an individual result.