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
What Was Tested—and What Was Held Constant.
Randomize
An independent investigator allocated participants 1:1 to Launch Pad or Standard Flat Bench conditions using concealed numbered envelopes.
Match the Program
Both groups used the same utility bench, CARE machine, warm-up, hand-width standardization, tempo, supervision, and progressive loading plan.
Train
Five sets to volitional failure began around 70% 1-RM. Eccentric load was 150% of the prescribed concentric load, with 3–5 minutes between sets.
Retest
Free-weight flat-bench 1-RM was measured before and after the four-week block in the same location, at the same time of day, by the same investigator.
Raw Numbers First. Interpretation Second.
Both groups gained strength. The central result is the difference in how much their average 1-RM improved under the matched four-week program.
| Group or comparison | Baseline 1-RM | Four-week 1-RM | Mean change | p-value | Standardized effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard Flat Bench · n = 21 | 98.1 ± 4.5 kg | 109.2 ± 6.7 kg | +11.1 ± 2.4 kg +24.5 lb |
< .001 within group | — |
| Launch Pad · n = 21 | 97.4 ± 6.1 kg | 115.8 ± 5.0 kg | +18.4 ± 4.3 kg +40.6 lb |
< .001 within group | — |
| Between-group change comparison | No significant baseline difference | Change scores compared after four weeks | +7.3 kg +16.1 lb advantage |
< .001 between groups | Hedges’ g = 3.85 |
Values are group means ± standard deviation from the published paper. The study applied a Holm–Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. Visual bars are normalized within each row and are not a shared-unit scale. On smaller screens, swipe horizontally to view every table column.
What This Means for the Athlete.
The result is easier to understand when the raw change comes before the statistical terminology.
Both groups got stronger. One group gained more.
The Standard Flat Bench group added about 24.5 lb to its average 1-RM. The Launch Pad group added about 40.6 lb under the same four-week supervised program.
The difference between those average improvements was about 16.1 lb in favor of the Launch Pad group.
The flat-bench group was an active training comparison—not a no-training group.
Both groups trained three times per week with the same eccentric-overload technology, supervision, progression, and testing procedures. The result is not “training versus no training.”
It is evidence that the bench surface was associated with a larger average strength adaptation within this specific program.
The control group’s mean 1-RM improvement.
The intervention group’s mean 1-RM improvement.
The difference between the two average gains.
A relative comparison of 18.4 kg versus 11.1 kg.
What p < .001 and Hedges’ g = 3.85 Actually Add.
The raw 7.3 kg difference answers what happened. The p-value addresses statistical evidence under the model. Hedges’ g describes how large the standardized separation was relative to the variability used in the calculation.
How compatible are the data with no between-group difference?
The paper reported p < .001 for the difference in four-week 1-RM change after correction for multiple comparisons. That is strong statistical evidence against a no-difference explanation under the analysis.
It does not mean there is a 99.9% probability the product works, and it does not describe the size of the effect.
How large was the group separation relative to variability?
Hedges’ g is a standardized mean-difference measure with a correction intended to reduce small-sample bias. A value of 3.85 is exceptionally large by conventional reference points.
It does not mean “3.85 times better,” 385% better, or that every athlete will gain the same amount.
What changed in the weight room?
The most direct practical result is the 7.3 kg—or 16.1 lb—difference between the groups’ average strength gains.
Keeping the raw change beside the standardized effect prevents an impressive statistic from becoming detached from the actual outcome.
It is exceptionally large and sits toward the upper extreme of the broad retained effect-size range reported in a 2024 resistance-training meta-analysis. The literature does not provide a directly comparable universal percentile, and these values use different populations, outcomes, designs, and effect-size calculations. They provide context—not a head-to-head ranking.
A Larger Strength Adaptation Under the Matched Program.
The groups began similarly and followed the same training structure.
Participants were randomized, allocation was concealed, and no significant baseline differences were reported. Both groups completed all 12 supervised sessions.
That design makes the difference in average change more informative than an uncontrolled before-and-after result.
The bench surface contributed to a different average adaptation within this protocol.
The Standard Flat Bench group improved by 11.1 kg and the Launch Pad group by 18.4 kg. The 7.3 kg between-group difference favored the Launch Pad condition.
The paper discusses stability, support, scapular position, and pressing range as possible explanations. Those mechanisms were proposed rather than directly measured in this trial.
Four Questions Before Programming From It.
Does my athlete resemble the sample?
The study involved apparently healthy males aged 18–27 with approximately one year of intermediate resistance-training history. Apply more cautiously outside that population.
Does my program resemble the protocol?
The block used 12 supervised sessions, five sets to volitional failure, progressive loading, and 150% eccentric loading through a CARE machine. A different program may produce a different result.
Am I using the measured outcome?
The primary outcome was free-weight flat-bench 1-RM. Hypertrophy, pain, injury incidence, joint force, bar velocity, and long-term retention were not measured.
Am I citing the comparison—not only the winning group?
The strongest summary is 18.4 kg versus 11.1 kg, producing a 7.3 kg between-group advantage. The Launch Pad group’s 18.4 kg gain should not be presented as though the comparison group gained nothing.
What Still Needs to Be Tested.
- Small, homogeneous sample of healthy, intermediate-trained young adult males.
- Four weeks is a short intervention and does not establish long-term retention or durability of the response.
- Both groups trained with a motorized CARE system providing supramaximal eccentric overload; the result cannot be assumed to reproduce identically in every free-weight program.
- Diet and macronutrient intake were not tightly controlled, apart from restrictions on supplements.
- The trial measured 1-RM strength—not hypertrophy, pain, injury incidence, joint forces, velocity, power, or clinical outcomes.
- Proposed mechanisms involving stability, support, scapular position, and range of motion were not directly measured.
- Does the strength advantage persist over longer training blocks and after training ends?
- Does it reproduce in women, older athletes, novice lifters, advanced lifters, and different sports?
- What happens in conventional free-weight programs without CARE-based eccentric overload?
- Which interface variables and movement mechanisms account for the difference?
- Do changes extend to hypertrophy, velocity, power, repetition performance, or other transfer outcomes?
- Can independent laboratories reproduce the result under comparable conditions?
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