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
August E. Blatney; Joshua A. Kidwell; Trent Yamamoto; Phillip Goldman; Kyle J. Hetherton; Brett A. Dolezal
DOI: 10.55860/RNUB8627
What Was Tested—and What Was Held Constant.
Randomize
An independent investigator assigned participants 1:1 using an online random-number program. Allocation was concealed in consecutively numbered envelopes.
Embed the Block
Both groups entered the same broader eight-week off-season strength-and-conditioning program and were instructed to avoid additional resistance or high-intensity anaerobic training.
Periodize the Pressing
The bench-specific work used flat barbell bench press, incline barbell bench press, and flat dumbbell flys across two four-week blocks, progressing from 50% to 90% 1-RM.
Test Three Outcomes
Participants repeated the free-weight 1-RM, 225-lb reps-to-fatigue test, and 4.5 kg seated medicine-ball throw after 24 sessions.
Raw Numbers First. Interpretation Second.
Both groups improved in all three outcomes. The central finding is that the Launch Pad group demonstrated larger average gains under the matched eight-week program.
| Outcome | Flat Bench Baseline → Week 8 | Flat Bench Change | Launch Pad Baseline → Week 8 | Launch Pad Change | p-value | Hedges’ g |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-RM bench press | 98.1 ± 4.5 → 107.2 ± 6.7 kg | +9.7 ± 3.4 kg +21.4 lb |
97.4 ± 5.8 → 116.8 ± 5.7 kg | +19.4 ± 4.3 kg +42.8 lb |
< .001 | 3.99 |
| NFL-225 test | 14 ± 4.2 → 18 ± 5.0 reps | +4 ± 3.0 reps | 14 ± 3.8 → 21 ± 4.4 reps | +7 ± 3.8 reps | < .001 | 3.67 |
| Seated medicine-ball throw | 3.5 ± 4.2 → 5.5 ± 4.1 m | +2.0 ± 3.0 m ≈ +6.6 ft |
3.4 ± 3.1 → 6.1 ± 4.2 m | +2.7 ± 2.5 m ≈ +8.9 ft |
< .001 | 4.10 |
Values are group means ± standard deviation as reported in the published paper. No significant baseline differences were observed between groups. Between-group tests used Welch’s t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests as appropriate, with a Holm–Bonferroni correction. Ratios and percentages compare the reported mean changes—not individual responses. On smaller screens, swipe horizontally to view every table column.
What This Means for the Athlete.
The important result is not one isolated test. The difference appeared across three ways of assessing upper-body performance.
The Launch Pad group improved more in all three tested outcomes.
After eight weeks, the Launch Pad group added about 42.8 lb to its average bench-press 1-RM versus 21.4 lb in the Standard Flat Bench group.
It also added 7 repetitions to the NFL-225 test versus 4 and approximately 8.9 ft to the seated medicine-ball throw versus 6.6 ft.
The result extended beyond the exact 1-RM test—but not all the way to game performance.
The training difference appeared in maximal strength, repeated 225-lb pressing, and seated throw distance. That is broader than one bench-press outcome.
The study did not directly measure blocking, tackling, playing time, injury risk, or any other on-field result.
+42.8 lb with The Launch Pad versus +21.4 lb on the Standard Flat Bench.
+7 average repetitions versus +4.
Approximately +8.9 ft versus +6.6 ft.
Each between-group outcome met the study’s statistical-significance criterion after correction.
What p < .001, Hedges’ g = 3.67–4.10, and the Gain Ratios Actually Add.
The raw changes show what happened. The p-values address statistical evidence under the analysis. Hedges’ g describes standardized group separation. The 2.00×, 1.75×, and 1.35× figures are ratios of average gains—not effect sizes.
How compatible were the results with no between-group difference?
All three between-group change comparisons were reported at p < .001 after the study’s multiple-comparison procedure. That is strong statistical evidence against a no-difference explanation under the analysis.
It does not mean there is a 99.9% probability that every athlete will improve more.
How large was the group separation relative to variability?
The paper reported Hedges’ g values of 3.99, 3.67, and 4.10. Hedges’ g is a standardized mean-difference measure with a correction intended to reduce small-sample bias.
These values do not mean 3.99×, 3.67×, or 4.10× better.
How did the average improvements compare?
The Launch Pad group’s mean gain was 2.00× the flat-bench gain for 1-RM, 1.75× for NFL-225 repetitions, and 1.35× for throw distance.
Those ratios summarize group averages from this program. They are not guaranteed individual multipliers.
They are exceptionally large relative to conventional reference points and selected pooled effects in resistance-training and elite sport-performance literature. They also sit toward the upper extreme of the broad retained range reported by Swinton et al. The comparison literature uses different populations, outcomes, designs, and effect-size calculations, so it provides scale—not a universal percentile or head-to-head ranking.
The Training Effect Extended Across Three Upper-Body Outcomes.
The groups began similarly and completed the same training structure.
Participants were randomized with concealed allocation, no significant baseline differences were observed, and all 30 athletes completed all 24 sessions without a missed workout.
That design makes the between-group changes more informative than an uncontrolled before-and-after result.
The difference was not confined to one maximum-strength test.
The Launch Pad group improved more in 1-RM strength, repeated 225-lb pressing, and seated throw distance. This supports a broader upper-body performance response within the tested off-season program.
It does not establish direct transfer to football-game performance, and the proposed stability and movement explanations were not measured in this trial.
Four Questions Before Programming From It.
Does my athlete resemble the sample?
The study involved healthy male collegiate football players aged 18–25 with a history of moderate resistance training. Apply more cautiously outside that population.
Does my program resemble the protocol?
The bench block ran three times per week for eight weeks, used 10–12 pressing and fly sets, progressed from 50% to 90% 1-RM, and occurred within a broader supervised off-season program.
Am I using the outcomes actually measured?
The study measured free-weight 1-RM, NFL-225 repetitions, and seated medicine-ball throw distance. It did not measure hypertrophy, pain, joint forces, injury incidence, or game statistics.
Am I using “transfer” precisely?
The improvement extended from the training block to three tested upper-body outcomes. Do not turn that into a claim that the equipment directly improved blocking, tackling, or overall football performance.
What Still Needs to Be Tested.
- Relatively small sample limited to healthy, resistance-trained male collegiate football players.
- The bench-specific intervention occurred inside a broader off-season program, and the study did not include a third group completing that program without bench-specific work.
- Diet and macronutrient intake were not regulated beyond restrictions on new supplements or weight-management regimens.
- Eight weeks does not establish long-term retention or what happens after the program ends.
- The seated medicine-ball throw is a field test used as an upper-body power proxy; it is not direct barbell-power or game-performance measurement.
- The proposed stability, scapular-position, muscle-activation, and range-of-motion mechanisms were not directly measured.
- Can independent laboratories reproduce the three-outcome pattern?
- Does it reproduce in women, other sports, younger or older athletes, and different training levels?
- How durable are the changes after training ends?
- Which interface variables and movement mechanisms account for the observed differences?
- How does the surface perform under other periodized programs, loads, volumes, and exercise selections?
- Do future trials show changes in direct sport-performance, hypertrophy, pain, injury, or joint-loading outcomes?
Keep the Source Attached to the Claim.
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