For generations, the bench has been treated as little more than a platform beneath the athlete. But what if the surface itself changes the movement?
Across three peer-reviewed studies, researchers have examined what happens when that interface changes—from the mechanics of a single repetition to strength and performance adaptations across weeks of supervised training.
The findings challenge the assumption that the bench is simply background equipment. They suggest that how the athlete interacts with the surface beneath them can meaningfully influence what happens above it.
This Research Hub brings together AMM’s published Launch Pad® research, complete reported outcomes, the broader scientific literature surrounding strength, movement, equipment and training adaptation, and the questions shaping the next generation of human-centered strength equipment.
Published Launch Pad® studies establish results only for the tested samples, protocols, comparators, and outcomes. They do not establish injury prevention, clinical benefit, or automatic transfer to Joint Ops™ or other products.
Choose Your Starting Point
The Question Behind the Research
Strength-training research has spent decades examining the variables that influence adaptation: load, volume, intensity, range of motion, velocity, fatigue, technique, recovery, and exercise selection.
The physical surface supporting the athlete has received far less attention.
Yet during the bench press, that surface directly interacts with the torso and influences the environment in which the athlete establishes position, moves through range of motion, and transfers force.
Three peer-reviewed studies have now examined that question under controlled conditions. The results span acute biomechanics, four-week strength development, and eight-week athletic performance— creating an emerging body of evidence around a variable that has historically been treated as fixed.
Read This First
The acute crossover study found significantly higher pectoralis activation, bar velocity, and vertical bar displacement in the tested Launch Pad condition. The power comparison favored Launch Pad numerically but did not reach statistical significance after correction.
Two separate randomized supervised training trials found larger average improvements for Launch Pad groups across four- and eight-week programs.
The studies form a progression in research questions, not one causal chain. The acute findings have not been shown to cause the later strength, repetition, or seated-throw outcomes.
All published samples were male and study-specific. Pain, injury incidence, hypertrophy, in-vivo joint loading, and Joint Ops™ outcomes were not measured.
Does the surface matter? The research progresses from what happens during a repetition, to what happens across weeks of training, to whether those differences appear across multiple measures of athletic performance.
At the same relative load, the tested interface immediately changed several measured characteristics of the repetition compared with the conventional flat-bench condition.
Forty-two intermediate-trained males completed the same supervised four-week eccentric-overload program, with the athlete-to-bench interface separating the two groups.
Thirty collegiate football players completed an eight-week supervised training program consisting of 24 sessions. Researchers measured three performance outcomes.
sEMG, velocity, power, and vertical bar displacement at 70% of the participant’s established 1-RM.
Change in bench-press 1-RM after 12 supervised eccentric-overload sessions.
Change in 1-RM, NFL-225 repetitions, and seated medicine-ball throw after 24 sessions.
These are complementary studies conducted in separate samples—not one continuous experiment. No mediation analysis tested whether acute changes caused the longitudinal outcomes.
The library is organized around the questions athletes, coaches, researchers, and equipment designers actually ask—not publication date. Start with the broader framework in each category, then move into the narrower research questions beneath it.
Showing all articles
No articles match that search. Try a broader term or clear the filters.
Explore geometry, athlete contact points, anthropometrics, stability, spinal support, traction, and the athlete-to-bench interface as design variables.
A research-led framework for designing strength equipment around athlete fit, task demands, contact interfaces, usability, biomechanics and measured outcomes.
Read the Overview → Design PrinciplesA research-led guide to bench height, width, support geometry, adjustability, traction, accommodation and validation.
Read Article → Core FrameworkThe central AMM interface framework, with the hidden posterior support boundary and the complete acute-to-longitudinal evidence progression.
Read Article → Pad GeometryHow bench pad width interacts with torso breadth, setup and shoulder clearance—and why no single width is yet proven best.
Read Article → Setup RepeatabilityLearn how stable versus unstable support, surface traction, position drift and repeatable setup affect bench-press testing and training.
Read Article → Applied ErgonomicsAudit strength-equipment claims across fit, usability, safety and measured outcomes using direct, null and product-specific evidence.
Read Article → History & InnovationTrace the bench press from varied supine lifts to standardized sport, instrumented biomechanics and directly tested support interfaces.
Read Article →Explore load, range of motion, eccentric overload, velocity loss, fatigue, potentiation, and the cumulative quality of repeated training.
Specify bench-press load, ROM, eccentric condition, velocity loss and execution as one reproducible repetition prescription.
Read the Overview → Range of MotionBench press range of motion research explained: full and partial ROM, specificity, strength, acute performance, adaptation and bar-displacement limits.
Read Article → Loading MethodA research guide to accentuated eccentric loading in the bench press: weight releasers, spotter methods, load selection, acute effects, adaptation and safety.
Read Article → Fatigue MonitoringUse velocity loss to interpret bench-press fatigue, set termination and strength/hypertrophy tradeoffs—without confusing bar speed with a diagnosis.
Read Article → Performance PrimingLearn how PAPE may affect bench-press throws and upper-body power, including conditioning activity, recovery timing and individual response.
Read Article →Explore scapular motion, shoulder loading, training exposure, postoperative return, and the boundaries between performance-equipment research and clinical evidence.
Shoulder anatomy, kinematics, kinetics, muscle activity and surface interaction interpreted through bench-specific evidence.
Read the Overview → Scapular MechanicsWhat scapular motion during bench press is measured, inferred and still unknown—plus evidence-based interpretation of retraction cues and support design.
Read Article → Positioning & SupportWhat arch, thoracic and lumbar position, leg drive and bench contact change—and what bench press force-transfer studies actually measure.
Read Article → Postoperative ReturnA criteria-led framework for rebuilding bench-press exposure after rotator cuff repair without turning performance evidence into clinical claims.
Read Article → Injury ContextUnderstand bench-press shoulder risk as a changing balance among exposure, mechanics, fatigue, capacity and recovery.
Read Article → Mechanics FrameworkUse an eight-stage, bidirectional framework to examine pressing mechanics, fatigue, motor response, symptoms, tolerance and exposure.
Read Article →Start with the raw comparison: what each condition produced in the tested sample. Then use the p-value, confidence interval, and reported effect size to evaluate the statistical evidence and magnitude. Group averages describe these studies; they are not individual guarantees.
Derived right / left pectoralis activation differences versus conventional flat bench.
Average 1-RM improvement: Launch Pad versus conventional flat bench.
Average 1-RM improvement: Launch Pad versus conventional flat bench.
Strength, repetitions, and seated-throw outcomes favored Launch Pad.
Study context: 10 resistance-trained males completed five repetitions at 70% of each participant’s established 1-RM in each condition. The randomized, single-blind crossover compared a conventional flat bench (CON) with the Launch Pad device condition.
| Outcome | Conventional Flat Bench | The Launch Pad® | Between-Condition Comparison | 95% CI | p-value | Effect Size | Practical Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Right pectoralis activation | 70.2% MVC | 87.3% MVC | +17.1 points; +24.4% derived | 11.0 to 23.3 points | < .001 | d = 0.76 | Higher normalized surface EMG in this task; not evidence of hypertrophy. |
| Left pectoralis activation | 68.3% MVC | 86.8% MVC | +18.5 points; +27.1% derived | 11.6 to 25.5 points | < .001 | d = 0.85 | Higher normalized surface EMG in this task; not a clinical or growth outcome. |
| Mean velocity | 0.40 m/s | 0.47 m/s | +0.07 m/s; +17.5% derived | 0.04 to 0.09 m/s | < .001 | d = 0.74 | Faster average concentric bar motion at the tested relative load. |
| Peak velocity | 0.57 m/s | 0.66 m/s | +0.09 m/s; +15.8% derived | 0.06 to 0.14 m/s | < .001 | d = 0.98 | Higher maximum concentric velocity during the tested set. |
| Vertical bar displacement | 38 cm | 44 cm | +6 cm; +15.8% derived | 2.3 to 9.3 cm | = .005 | d = 1.02 | Longer bar displacement in this setup; more range is not universally preferable. |
| Concentric power | 249 W | 271 W | +22 W; +8.8% derived | 2 to 47 W | = .071 · not significant after correction | d = 0.23 | The point estimate was higher, but the prespecified adjusted significance threshold was not met. |
Study context: 42 intermediate-trained males were randomized to conventional flat-bench or Launch Pad training under the same four-week, 12-session supervised eccentric-overload program.
| Outcome | Conventional Flat Bench | The Launch Pad® | Between-Condition Comparison | 95% CI | p-value | Effect Size | Practical Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-RM bench press gain | +11.1 kg (+24.5 lb) | +18.4 kg (+40.6 lb) | +7.3 kg (+16.1 lb); ~66% larger average gain | Not reported for g in source table | < .001 | Hedges’ g = 3.85 | The Launch Pad group added more 1-RM strength on average in this supervised sample and protocol. |
Study context: 30 male collegiate football players were randomized to conventional flat-bench or Launch Pad training across an eight-week, 24-session supervised program.
| Outcome | Conventional Flat Bench | The Launch Pad® | Between-Condition Comparison | 95% CI | p-value | Effect Size | Practical Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-RM bench press gain | +9.7 kg (+21.4 lb) | +19.4 kg (+42.8 lb) | +9.7 kg (+21.4 lb); 2× average gain | Not reported for g in source table | < .001 | Hedges’ g = 3.99 | The Launch Pad group’s average 1-RM gain was twice the comparator’s in this program. |
| NFL-225 repetitions gained | +4 reps | +7 reps | +3 reps; 75% larger average gain | Not reported for g in source table | < .001 | Hedges’ g = 3.67 | The Launch Pad group added more repetitions on average at the fixed 225-lb test load. |
| Seated medicine-ball throw gain | +2.0 m (+6.6 ft) | +2.7 m (+8.9 ft) | +0.7 m (+2.3 ft); 35% larger average gain | Not reported for g in source table | < .001 | Hedges’ g = 4.10 | The Launch Pad group improved more on this seated upper-body throw test. |
Calculation note: Relative percentages and imperial conversions are calculated from published group means and rounded. Acute confidence intervals are reproduced as published for the absolute paired mean differences. The longitudinal source tables report Hedges’ g but not corresponding confidence intervals.
The Launch Pad favorably affected every reported outcome. It immediately produced 24–27% greater pectoral activation, 16–18% greater bar velocity, and nearly 16% greater vertical bar displacement. Over four weeks, it produced approximately 66% greater strength improvement. Over eight weeks, athletes achieved twice the average 1-RM gain, 75% greater improvement in NFL-225 repetitions, and 35% greater improvement in seated medicine-ball throw distance. Nine of the 10 reported comparisons reached the prespecified threshold for statistical significance. The acute power comparison favored the Launch Pad numerically but did not reach statistical significance after correction. These are study-level group results, not guarantees of individual response, and the separate trials do not establish that the acute findings caused the later adaptations.
The support surface may change the repetition you can express. Treat the published averages as a reason to compare repeatable setups—not as a promise of a specific response.
Keep load, technique, range, intent, and exposure visible when evaluating equipment. Acute feedback and longitudinal progress answer different questions.
Bench geometry and interface design deserve the same procurement scrutiny as stability, adjustability, maintenance, and fit across the intended user population.
Independent replication, broader populations, mechanism studies, clinical outcomes, and direct Joint Ops testing remain open priorities.
The research is easiest to understand when each source is given one clear job. Direct product studies establish what was measured with The Launch Pad®. The broader literature supplies scientific context. Future product questions require new testing of their own.
The three peer-reviewed studies report what occurred in the tested Launch Pad conditions, samples, protocols, comparators, and outcomes.
Review the Product Studies →Biomechanics, training science, ergonomics, and clinical literature help interpret mechanisms, place findings in context, and identify unanswered questions.
Explore the Research Library →Joint Ops is informed by the same design thesis, but it is a distinct platform. Its performance or clinical claims must come from direct Joint Ops testing, not transferred Launch Pad results.
Follow Joint Ops Development →Authority is built by showing the full record. The population, protocol, comparator, measured endpoint, null findings, and product boundaries remain visible throughout the hub so readers can distinguish a reported outcome from a broader interpretation.
All three published samples were male. Outcomes in women, novice lifters, older adults, and clinical populations require direct study.
sEMG, velocity, ROM, power, 1-RM strength, repetitions, and seated-throw distance are reported by name rather than blended into one general claim.
Pain, injury incidence, postoperative recovery, and in-vivo joint forces were not measured in the published Launch Pad studies.
The publications evaluated The Launch Pad®. Joint Ops™ is a related platform in development and requires its own direct validation.
Immediate mechanics describe the tested repetition. The training trials describe change across separate samples and supervised programs.
Acute power increased from 249 W to 271 W, but p = .071 after correction. It remains visible without being presented as statistically significant.
Evidence Maturity
Bench-press performance and adaptation depend on task variables including load, range of motion, intent, fatigue, technique, exposure, and specificity. Equipment is one part of that human–task system.
Across three peer-reviewed studies within the same research program, Launch Pad conditions or groups showed favorable point estimates for all reported outcomes, with nine of 10 comparisons statistically significant.
The athlete-to-bench interface appears capable of changing acute mechanics and training outcomes in the tested male samples. Generalization to broader populations requires direct study.
Surface selection, shoulder clearance, torso and lumbar support, seat geometry, and repeatable setup may alter interaction with an integrated bench. Joint Ops outcomes require product-specific studies.
The hub helps readers navigate the evidence; it does not replace the published record. Open the original papers for complete methods and use the resource library for citations, data files, research briefs, and approved claims language.
International Journal of Exercise Science, 19(1):1003 (2026).
Open DOI ↗ Original Paper · Study 02Scientific Journal of Sport and Performance, 4(4):480–490 (2025).
Open DOI ↗ Original Paper · Study 03Published online Oct. 2, 2025; Scientific Journal of Sport and Performance, 5(1):10–21 (2026 issue).
Open DOI ↗ Download LibraryPDF, DOCX, citation-manager, data, and claims-governance files in one place.
Open Resource Library →These answers separate the measured result from its practical interpretation and keep published Launch Pad evidence distinct from future Joint Ops research.
From Product Research to Equipment Science
The Launch Pad® studies established the first stage of AMM’s research program. The larger objective is to investigate strength equipment as a human–equipment system rather than treating the athlete and the equipment as independent variables.
That means asking deeper questions about surface geometry, athlete contact points, shoulder clearance, spinal support, range of motion, stability, traction, anthropometric differences, repeatable positioning, and force expression.
These questions are also informing the development of Joint Ops™, AMM’s next-generation strength-equipment platform. Joint Ops is a distinct product and will require its own direct research. Launch Pad findings are not automatically transferable to it.
Primary References