Greater Bench-Press Strength Gains in Four Weeks with The Launch Pad®
Forty-two men completed four weeks of supervised eccentric-overload training, with 21 participants in each bench condition. Both groups improved their flat-bench one-repetition maximum (1-RM), with The Launch Pad® group achieving greater average strength gains.
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
Participants, Methods & Comparison
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.
Measured Outcomes & Exact Findings
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 the Findings Mean for Lifters
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.
Both groups followed the same eccentric-overload program.
Both groups trained three times per week with the same eccentric-overload technology, supervision, progression, and testing procedures.
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.
Statistical Results in Context
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.
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.
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.
The reported g of 3.85 is exceptionally large against the conventional 0.8 benchmark. The comparison literature shown here provides context across different populations, outcomes, study designs, and effect-size calculations.
Interpretation: Findings and Proposed Explanations
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 authors propose stability, support, scapular position and pressing range as possible explanations for the strength gains.
What Coaches Should Consider
Define the training block.
The study used 12 supervised sessions over four weeks with intermediate-trained men aged 18–27.
Account for eccentric loading.
The CARE machine supplied eccentric loads at 150% of the prescribed concentric load. Match equipment, supervision, and progression to the loading method.
Keep the comparison consistent.
Record the bench surface, load, volume, tempo, and setup through the block.
Retest the training goal.
Use a consistent free-weight flat-bench 1-RM procedure to assess maximal-strength progress.
Original Paper & Related Research
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