Three Studies. Three Questions. One Consistent Signal.
The surface mattered. Across one acute crossover and two randomized training trials, changing the athlete-to-bench interface repeatedly changed measured mechanics and performance outcomes compared with Standard Flat Bench conditions.
This center shows the raw changes, study designs, p-values, effect sizes, limitations, and the acute result that did not reach statistical significance—so coaches, athletes, researchers, media, and facilities can evaluate the evidence rather than simply accept a headline.
Mechanism. Adaptation. Transfer.
A single study can answer only one kind of question. The current portfolio progresses from what changes during a rep, to what accumulates over repeated training, to whether the difference appears across athlete-relevant performance tests.
Acute Mechanics
The interface changed measurable features of the rep immediately at the same relative load.
Open the complete study page →Four-Week Strength Trial
Under the same supervised eccentric-overload program, the group training on The Launch Pad improved more.
Open the complete study page →Eight-Week Collegiate Football Trial
All three measured performance outcomes improved more in the Launch Pad group under the tested off-season program.
Open the complete study page →The Numbers Are Stronger When the Context Stays Attached.
Every result below remains attached to its population, protocol, comparator, and limitation.
Does the Rep Change?
Five reps at 70% 1-RM in both conditions, with bilateral sEMG and barbell kinetics measured.
Does the Adaptation Change?
Forty-two trained males completed the same 12-session eccentric-overload program; the surface differed.
Does It Transfer?
Thirty collegiate football players completed 24 sessions inside an off-season program.
Raw Change, Statistical Evidence, and Magnitude.
| Study / outcome | Standard Flat Bench | Launch Pad | Difference / change | p-value | Effect size |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acute · Right pec | 70.2% MVC | 87.3% MVC | +24.4% | < .001 | d = 0.76 |
| Acute · Left pec | 68.3% MVC | 86.8% MVC | +27.1% | < .001 | d = 0.85 |
| Acute · Mean velocity | 0.40 m/s | 0.47 m/s | +17.5% | < .001 | d = 0.74 |
| Acute · Peak velocity | 0.57 m/s | 0.66 m/s | +15.8% | < .001 | d = 0.98 |
| Acute · ROM | 38 cm | 44 cm | +15.8% | = .005 | d = 1.02 |
| Acute · Power | 249 W | 271 W | +8.8% | = .071 · not significant | d = 0.23 |
| 4-week · 1-RM gain | +11.1 kg | +18.4 kg | +7.3 kg / ~66% greater | < .001 | Hedges’ g = 3.85 |
| 8-week · 1-RM gain | +9.7 kg | +19.4 kg | +9.7 kg / ~2× average gain | < .001 | Hedges’ g = 3.99 |
| 8-week · NFL-225 gain | +4 reps | +7 reps | +3 reps / 1.75× average gain | < .001 | Hedges’ g = 3.67 |
| 8-week · SMBT gain | +2.0 m | +2.7 m | +0.7 m / 1.35× average gain | < .001 | Hedges’ g = 4.10 |
Values are group means from the published papers. Acute standardized effects were reported as Cohen-type d values in the paper; the training studies reported between-group Hedges’ g. The two metrics answer related but not identical statistical questions.
“Highly Significant” Is Not the Same as “Large.”
Statistical significance asks whether the observed separation is difficult to reconcile with a no-difference model. Effect size asks how far apart the groups were. You need both—and neither guarantees an individual response.
It Is Evidence Against the No-Difference Model.
If there were truly no between-group difference under the model, a result at least this extreme would be expected less than about one time in 1,000 from random variation alone.
How compatible are these data with a model in which the groups truly do not differ?
How large was the difference, will it replicate perfectly, or will one athlete respond the same way?
A Tiny Difference Can Still Be Statistically Significant.
With enough data, a small separation can clear a statistical threshold. That is why AMM presents the raw change and effect magnitude beside the p-value.
Practical significance: “Is the separation large enough to matter?”
Hedges’ g Standardizes the Separation.
Hedges’ g expresses a difference in standardized units and includes a correction intended to reduce bias in smaller samples. Conventional teaching references often describe 0.2 as small, 0.5 as medium, and 0.8 as large, although context always matters.
Different Designs Answer Different Questions.
The acute crossover asks what changes now. The four- and eight-week trials ask what accumulates over repeated training. An acute activation result cannot be treated as proof of hypertrophy, and a training trial cannot reveal the exact moment-to-moment mechanism on its own.
Strong for within-person comparison and immediate mechanics. Limited for chronic adaptation.
Stronger for adaptation across a defined program. Still limited by sample, duration, comparator, and population.
Ten Questions Before You Apply the Finding.
Who was studied?
Training status, sex, age, sport, and sample size determine how directly the finding maps to your athletes.
What was randomized?
Random allocation reduces systematic differences, but it does not remove every source of bias.
What was the comparator?
The relevant question is what the intervention was compared against—not whether the intervention improved from baseline.
Was the program matched?
If groups performed different training, equipment effects are harder to isolate. In these trials the intended contrast was the surface within matched programs.
What was actually measured?
1-RM, repetitions, throw distance, velocity, ROM, and sEMG are not interchangeable outcomes.
What was not measured?
Pain, injury incidence, joint forces, hypertrophy, and direct game performance were not established by these papers.
What changed in raw units?
Pounds, kilograms, repetitions, meters, m/s, and %MVC make the result tangible before standardization.
How strong was the statistical evidence?
Use the p-value to evaluate compatibility with the no-difference model under the study assumptions.
How large was the separation?
Use effect size with raw change—not as a replacement for it and never as “times better.”
Does the context match the decision?
A collegiate football trial may inform a team program differently than it informs a novice, older adult, or female athlete.
The Null Result Is Part of the Story.
Power rose from 249 W to 271 W, approximately 8.8%, but did not reach statistical significance. AMM therefore makes no statistically significant acute-power claim.
All three published samples were male. The evidence does not directly establish outcomes in women, novice lifters, older adults, or clinical populations.
Pain, injury incidence, and joint forces were not measured. The papers are not evidence of diagnosis, treatment, or injury prevention.
Between-group differences describe samples under defined programs. They are not predictions for a particular athlete.
The four-week result used supramaximal eccentric overload; the eight-week result occurred within an off-season football program.
Acute sEMG and velocity help explain the rep; they do not by themselves prove chronic muscle growth or long-term strength.
The Launch Pad studies do not automatically establish Joint Ops™ outcomes. The integrated platform requires its own validation.
Read the Papers. Check the Methods.
AMM summaries are designed to help you navigate the evidence—not replace the published record.
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 (2026)
DOI: 10.70252/IJES2026103
Eccentrically Overloaded Bench Press Training: Augmenting Strength Gains via a Novel Bench Press Pad
Scientific Journal of Sport and Performance, 4(4), 480-490 (2025)
DOI: 10.55860/JCDL3612
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 (2026)
DOI: 10.55860/RNUB8627
Take the Evidence Into the Room.
How to Read Research Like a Coach
An eight-question framework for p-values, effect sizes, Hedges’ g, design, null findings, and responsible application.
Download PDF →Research Fact Sheet
Approved numbers, exact study descriptions, correct language, prohibited interpretations, and citation-ready references.
Download PDF →Citation Library
APA references plus BibTeX and RIS records for the three published papers.
APA citations →BibTeX →RIS →Research Data Summary
Machine-readable study metadata and reported outcome values used across the website.
Download CSV →Download JSON →Three-Study Evidence Brief
A concise portfolio summary with methods, raw results, p-values, effect sizes, limitations, DOI links, and approved language.
Download PDF →Coach & Media Resources
Open the full download library for PDF, DOCX, citation-manager, data, and claims-governance files.
Open resource library →Questions a Skeptical Reader Should Ask.
Are these three studies “independent”?
What does p < .001 mean?
What does Hedges’ g near 4 mean?
Did the studies prove injury prevention or pain relief?
Does greater pec activation prove more muscle growth?
Why include the non-significant power result?
Do these findings apply to women, novice lifters, or older adults?
Do the Launch Pad studies prove Joint Ops™ outcomes?
The Launch Pad Proved the Thesis. Joint Ops™ Must Prove Its Own.
The published papers evaluated The Launch Pad®. Joint Ops™ is the integrated selectable-surface platform in development. Its prototype testing, validation, and public claims remain separate.