The Launch Pad®: Acute Effects on Muscle Activation and Barbell Mechanics
In 10 trained men performing five repetitions at 70% 1-RM, The Launch Pad® produced higher pectoralis-major activation, faster bar velocity, and greater vertical bar displacement than the flat-bench condition.
Joshua A. Kidwell; Trent Yamamoto; Kyle J. Hetherton; Nathan Truneh; Jacob J. Bright; August E. Blatney; Phillip Goldman; Eric Neufeld; Brett A. Dolezal
DOI: 10.70252/IJES2026103
Participants, Methods & Comparison
Familiarize
Participants completed familiarization, practiced both conditions, and established 1-RM bench press.
Standardize
Hand width, warm-up, setup, testing time, and the 70% 1-RM external load were standardized.
Cross Over
Each participant performed five repetitions in both Standard Flat Bench and Launch Pad conditions on separate testing days.
Measure
Bilateral sEMG and a linear position transducer captured activation, velocity, power, and vertical displacement.
Measured Outcomes & Exact Findings
Compare the six measured outcomes from the acute crossover test.
| Outcome | Standard Flat Bench | Launch Pad | Relative change | Adjusted p-value | Cohen’s d |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Right pectoralis-major activation | 70.2 ± 24.8 %MVC | 87.3 ± 20.1 %MVC | +24.4% | < .001 | 0.76 · moderate |
| Left pectoralis-major activation | 68.3 ± 23.4 %MVC | 86.8 ± 20.0 %MVC | +27.1% | < .001 | 0.85 · large |
| Mean bar velocity | 0.40 ± 0.09 m/s | 0.47 ± 0.09 m/s | +17.5% | < .001 | 0.74 · moderate |
| Peak bar velocity | 0.57 ± 0.11 m/s | 0.66 ± 0.09 m/s | +15.8% | < .001 | 0.98 · large |
| Vertical bar displacement (reported as ROM) | 38 ± 7 cm | 44 ± 4 cm | +15.8% | = .005 | 1.02 · large |
| Concentric power | 249 ± 103 W | 271 ± 93 W | +8.8% | = .071 · not significant | 0.23 · small |
%MVC is sEMG amplitude normalized to each participant’s measured maximum voluntary contraction. ROM was measured as vertical barbell displacement. Visual bars are normalized within each outcome.
What the Findings Mean for Lifters
During the same five-repetition task at the same relative load, changing the athlete-to-bench interface changed several measurable features of the rep in the same trained lifters.
Same lifter. Same relative load. A measurably different rep.
With The Launch Pad®, the tested lifters showed higher recorded pectoralis-major activation, moved the bar faster, and moved it through a greater vertical distance on average than they did on the Standard Flat Bench.
That matters because it shows the surface beneath the athlete can influence how a repetition is performed, not merely how the setup feels.
sEMG measures electrical activity during the repetition.
The electrodes recorded pectoralis-major activation during the acute five-repetition test.
Higher recorded activation amplitude on both sides.
Higher mean and peak concentric speed.
The bar traveled farther vertically on average.
Numerically higher, but not statistically significant.
Statistical Results in Context
The raw numbers tell you what physically changed. The p-values describe statistical evidence under the model. Cohen’s d describes the size of the standardized difference relative to the variability used in the calculation.
How compatible are the data with no difference?
The four activation and velocity outcomes reported p < .001, and vertical displacement reported p = .005. Those values indicate strong incompatibility with a no-difference model under the analysis.
How large was the separation relative to variability?
The paper uses conventional Cohen’s d reference points: approximately 0.2 small, 0.5 moderate, and 0.8 large.
What did the instruments actually record?
%MVC expresses the sEMG amplitude relative to each participant’s normalization value. m/s describes bar velocity, watts describe concentric power, and centimeters describe vertical bar displacement.
Those raw units keep the standardized statistics attached to an outcome an athlete can understand.
Interpretation: Findings and Proposed Explanations
Each participant served as his own comparison.
Every lifter completed both conditions. That reduces the influence of between-person differences such as baseline strength, anatomy, and training history when comparing the two setups.
The testing days were separated and the order was randomized, helping the study isolate the immediate condition effect.
The athlete-to-bench interface acted as an acute movement variable.
Under the tested 70% 1-RM condition, changing the interface altered pectoralis-major sEMG, mean and peak velocity, and vertical bar displacement.
The authors propose thoracic position, scapulothoracic alignment, length–tension relationships and neural coordination as possible explanations for the measured changes.
What Coaches Should Consider
Establish the setup.
Keep hand placement, body contact, and load consistent when comparing surfaces.
Use a controlled working range.
Assess the range the athlete can use while maintaining position and control.
Match the intent.
The study used five explosive repetitions at 70% 1-RM. Record rep speed and execution when speed is the training goal.
Track training separately.
Use session observations to guide setup, and track strength and repetition performance across the training block.
Original Paper & Related Research
Kidwell, J. A., Yamamoto, T., Hetherton, K. J., Truneh, N., Bright, J. J., Blatney, A. E., Goldman, P., Neufeld, E., & Dolezal, B. A. (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